Assignment: Composing a Book Review

• Step One:Compile a list of ten academic journals that publish articles in the fields of Rhetoric, Composition, and/or Speech Communications. Indicate if they are refereed journals. Ascertain as best you can what their relative importance/reputation/status is. Identify, briefly, what the audience of each is.
• Step Two: Choose one journal that you think would be open to publishing a book review of your selected text (How do you know this?). Select a sample book review from this publication. Identify the structure/key components of this review. Identify the Book Review Editor, if it is separate from the General Editor. Photocopy the submission requirements. Ascertain if there are special requirements for submitting a book review.
• Step Three: Write the Review. Keep in mind that a review typically has three parts: (a) commentary on the contents of the book, especially insofar as it contributes to the knowledge and discourse in that area; (b) commentary on weaknesses (be fair; try to read the text on its own terms--play its language game insofar as you can); (c) commentary on strengths (Moxley, Publish, Don't Perish 82). You may also find these comments helpful:
  The two components that epitomize a traditional book review are a summary of the book's contents and an evaluative commentary. Beyond this, be wary of turning a book review into a soapbox for your own favorite idea, a means of personal revenge, a forum for promoting a personal friend's publishing efforts, or other unprofessional behaviors. . . . The best reviews teach the reader something about the field in addition to announcing and describing a book. A good review places the targeted book in the context of its field, shows its importance, place, historical or social function, what it offers and does not offer, and any connection to trends in the field. It may identify the academic or philosophical lineage of the author, the identity of the school of thought represented by the book, the place of the book's ideology in the philosophical continuum of the field, or some other quality of the book placed against the texture of the field. When presented in this fashion, the reader learns not only about the book under review, but also about the field. (Robin Erwin, Jr., "Reviewing Books for Scholarly Journals," Writing and Publishing for Academic Authors 85)