compare and contrast book review and article critique

Critique vs. Review

What's the difference.

Critique and review are two distinct forms of evaluation, often used in the context of analyzing a piece of work or providing feedback. While both involve assessing the strengths and weaknesses of a subject, they differ in their approach and purpose. A critique typically delves deeper into the analysis, focusing on the underlying concepts, theories, and methodologies employed in the work. It aims to provide a comprehensive evaluation, highlighting both the positive aspects and areas for improvement. On the other hand, a review tends to be more concise and opinion-based, summarizing the main points and offering a subjective judgment of the work's quality. Reviews often cater to a broader audience, providing a general overview and recommendation.

Further Detail

Introduction.

When it comes to evaluating various forms of art, literature, or any creative work, two commonly used methods are critique and review. While both critique and review involve analyzing and providing feedback on a particular piece, they differ in their approach, purpose, and level of depth. In this article, we will explore the attributes of critique and review, highlighting their similarities and differences, and understanding how they contribute to the overall understanding and improvement of creative works.

Definition and Purpose

Critique and review are both forms of evaluation, but they serve different purposes. A critique is an in-depth analysis of a creative work, focusing on its strengths, weaknesses, and overall effectiveness. It aims to provide constructive feedback to the creator, helping them understand the underlying elements and potential areas for improvement. On the other hand, a review is a more general assessment of a work, often intended for a wider audience. It aims to inform and guide potential consumers or audience members, giving them an overview of the work's quality, content, and relevance.

Approach and Perspective

When it comes to the approach and perspective, critique and review also differ. A critique typically takes a more objective and analytical stance, delving into the technical aspects, thematic elements, and artistic choices of the work. It often involves a deeper understanding of the medium and its conventions, allowing the critic to provide a comprehensive analysis. On the other hand, a review tends to be more subjective, focusing on the reviewer's personal opinion and experience with the work. While it may touch upon technical aspects, it primarily aims to convey the reviewer's overall impression and whether they would recommend it to others.

Depth and Detail

One of the key distinctions between critique and review lies in the depth and detail of the analysis. A critique goes beyond surface-level observations, diving into the nuances and intricacies of the work. It explores the underlying themes, symbolism, character development, and narrative structure, among other elements. A critique often requires a deeper engagement with the work, multiple readings or viewings, and a comprehensive understanding of the creator's intentions. On the other hand, a review provides a more concise and condensed overview, focusing on the overall impression and key aspects that may interest the target audience. It may touch upon the plot, characters, writing style, or visual aesthetics, but it does not delve into the same level of detail as a critique.

Target Audience

Another aspect that sets critique and review apart is their target audience. A critique is primarily aimed at the creator or artist, providing them with valuable insights and suggestions for improvement. It assumes a certain level of knowledge and understanding of the creative process, allowing the critic to offer a more specialized analysis. On the other hand, a review is intended for a broader audience, including potential consumers, readers, or viewers. It aims to guide their decision-making process, helping them determine whether the work aligns with their preferences and interests.

Publication and Format

The publication and format of critique and review also differ. Critiques are often found in academic journals, specialized publications, or dedicated platforms that focus on critical analysis. They tend to be longer, more detailed, and written by experts or individuals with a deep understanding of the subject matter. Reviews, on the other hand, are commonly found in newspapers, magazines, online platforms, or even personal blogs. They are generally shorter, more accessible, and written by individuals who may or may not have expertise in the field but can provide an opinion that resonates with a wider audience.

Impact and Influence

Both critique and review have the potential to impact the creator and the audience, albeit in different ways. A well-executed critique can provide valuable insights and suggestions for improvement, helping the creator refine their work and grow as an artist. It can challenge their assumptions, highlight blind spots, and encourage experimentation. On the other hand, a review can influence the audience's perception and decision-making process. A positive review may attract more consumers or audience members, while a negative review can deter potential consumers or lead to a reevaluation of the work's quality.

In conclusion, while critique and review share the common goal of evaluating creative works, they differ in their approach, purpose, depth, and target audience. Critique provides an in-depth analysis, focusing on the creator's growth and improvement, while review offers a more general assessment, guiding the audience's decision-making process. Both forms of evaluation play a crucial role in the creative ecosystem, contributing to the understanding, development, and appreciation of various art forms.

Comparisons may contain inaccurate information about people, places, or facts. Please report any issues.

Book Review VS. Book Critique: Unraveling the Differences

• Brandon Kingsman
• March 28, 2024

Introduction

Readers frequently come across the two unique types of analysis—book reviews and book critiques—in the broad literary environment.

Although they might initially appear to be comparable, these two literary analyses serve distinct functions and target a variety of audiences.

Understanding the distinctions between a book review and a book critique while looking for guidance or insights on a certain book can significantly advance our comprehension of literature and help us make informed decisions.

In the following paragraphs, we will go into the specifics of book reviews and critiques, examining their distinctive traits, objectives, and literary contributions.

I. What is a Book Review?

A book review is a succinct and critical summary of a book that is published primarily to help potential readers make book choices.

Without going too further into in-depth review or spoilers, it often gives a broad outline of the book’s storyline, protagonists and antagonists, writing technique, and overall impressions.

The reviewer frequently shares their personal viewpoint on the book, describing what they liked and didn’t like about it as well as whether they would suggest it to others.

1. Key Elements of a Book Review

a. Summary: A book review typically begins with a succinct overview of the major themes and plot features to give readers a sense of the book’s overall subject matter. Although it should avoid giving away important story details or spoilers, this synopsis is not thorough.

b. Evaluation: The reviewer goes into further detail about their evaluation of the book after giving an overview. The book’s good points and bad points, writing style, character growth, and overall effect on the reader are the main topics of this evaluation. The review is significantly influenced by the reviewer’s individual viewpoint.

c. Recommendation: The evaluation of the book ends with a suggestion for the intended audience. The reviewer indicates who could appreciate the book the most and whether it is worthwhile to read based on their assessment.

II. What is a Book Critique?

A comprehensive and comprehensive analysis of a book is what is covered in a book critique, on the opposite.

The book criticism is meant for a more academic or scholarly readership than a book review.

It requires an in-depth examination of the book’s many components, frequently including artistic concepts, background information, and interwoven connections.

1. Key Elements of a Book Critique

a. Analysis: An in-depth analysis of a book’s topics, protagonists and antagonists, method of writing, and significance constitutes a book critique. It examines the interactions between these components and how they affect the overall impact and meaning of the work.

b. Theoretical Framework: Book evaluations frequently use an analytical structure or concept of literature to assess the work. Structuralism, psychoanalysis, feminism, and postcolonial thinking are a few examples of these theories that might be mentioned.

c. Contextualization: You should consider the book’s greater historical, cultural, and literary background when writing a review. With the aid of this analysis, readers will be better able to comprehend the book’s value and place within the larger body of literature.

d. Comparison and References: In a book critique, the critic can contrast the book to other writings by the author or to books in the same genre that are similar to it. To support their analysis, they could also make allusions to other works of literature or historical occasions.

III. Audience and Purpose

The primary difference between a book review and a book critique lies in their audience and purpose.

1. Book Review Audience and Purpose

Book reviews are intended for a general audience, including casual readers who are seeking recommendations before deciding on their next read. The reviewer aims to provide a brief and accessible assessment of the book’s merits and drawbacks, helping potential readers make an informed decision.

2. Book Critique Audience and Purpose

Book critiques target a more specialized audience, including scholars, students, and individuals with a deeper interest in literature. Performing critical analysis and delving deeper into the book’s topics, symbols, and stylistic decisions are the goals of a book critique. It aims to advance academic discussion and deepen knowledge of the book’s relevance in the literary canon.

IV. Style and Tone

1. book review style and tone.

Reviews of books frequently take on a more casual, conversational tone, letting the reviewer’s tastes and individuality shine through. To express their viewpoint and establish a personal connection with the reader, they might employ first-person pronouns.

2. Book Critique Style and Tone

In contrast, book critiques are characterized by a formal and objective tone. They refrain from using personal pronouns in favor of emphasizing the presentation of an organized and fact-based analysis. The book’s literary merits and position within a larger literary context are highlighted.

V. Length and Structure

1. book review length and structure.

Book reviews are typically concise, ranging from 300 to 800 words. They follow a straightforward structure, starting with a brief introduction, followed by the summary, evaluation, and concluding with a recommendation.

2. Book Critique Length and Structure

Book critiques are more extensive, usually spanning from 1000 to 3000 words or more, depending on the depth of analysis. They involve a structured approach, beginning with an introduction that outlines the book’s context and the reviewer’s approach to analysis. The main body includes the analysis, theoretical framework, comparisons, and references. The critique concludes with a thoughtful summary of the reviewer’s insights.

VI. Conclusion

In summary, book reviews and book critiques serve distinct purposes and cater to different audiences. Book reviews offer a reader-friendly evaluation, assisting potential readers in their book choices. The ideas, literary style, and contextual relevance of a book are analyzed in-depth in book criticisms, on the other hand.

Both types of literary examinations are worthwhile in and of themselves since they add to our diverse understanding of literature. Readers may now differentiate between book critiques and book reviews and utilize this knowledge to enhance their reading experiences, whether they are looking for a short recommendation or a thorough comprehension of a book’s subtleties.

Happy reading!

Leave a Reply Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Name  *

Email  *

 Yes, add me to your mailing list

Add Comment  *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Post Comment

How to Write an Article Critique Step-by-Step

Table of contents

• 1 What is an Article Critique Writing?
• 2 How to Critique an Article: The Main Steps
• 3 Article Critique Outline
• 4 Article Critique Formatting
• 5 How to Write a Journal Article Critique
• 6 How to Write a Research Article Critique
• 7 Research Methods in Article Critique Writing
• 8 Tips for writing an Article Critique

Do you know how to critique an article? If not, don’t worry – this guide will walk you through the writing process step-by-step. First, we’ll discuss what a research article critique is and its importance. Then, we’ll outline the key points to consider when critiquing a scientific article. Finally, we’ll provide a step-by-step guide on how to write an article critique including introduction, body and summary. Read more to get the main idea of crafting a critique paper.

What is an Article Critique Writing?

An article critique is a formal analysis and evaluation of a piece of writing. It is often written in response to a particular text but can also be a response to a book, a movie, or any other form of writing. There are many different types of review articles . Before writing an article critique, you should have an idea about each of them.

To start writing a good critique, you must first read the article thoroughly and examine and make sure you understand the article’s purpose. Then, you should outline the article’s key points and discuss how well they are presented. Next, you should offer your comments and opinions on the article, discussing whether you agree or disagree with the author’s points and subject. Finally, concluding your critique with a brief summary of your thoughts on the article would be best. Ensure that the general audience understands your perspective on the piece.

How to Critique an Article: The Main Steps

If you are wondering “what is included in an article critique,” the answer is:

An article critique typically includes the following:

• A brief summary of the article .
• A critical evaluation of the article’s strengths and weaknesses.
• A conclusion.

When critiquing an article, it is essential to critically read the piece and consider the author’s purpose and research strategies that the author chose. Next, provide a brief summary of the text, highlighting the author’s main points and ideas. Critique an article using formal language and relevant literature in the body paragraphs. Finally, describe the thesis statement, main idea, and author’s interpretations in your language using specific examples from the article. It is also vital to discuss the statistical methods used and whether they are appropriate for the research question. Make notes of the points you think need to be discussed, and also do a literature review from where the author ground their research. Offer your perspective on the article and whether it is well-written. Finally, provide background information on the topic if necessary.

When you are reading an article, it is vital to take notes and critique the text to understand it fully and to be able to use the information in it. Here are the main steps for critiquing an article:

• Read the piece thoroughly, taking notes as you go. Ensure you understand the main points and the author’s argument.
• Take a look at the author’s perspective. Is it powerful? Does it back up the author’s point of view?
• Carefully examine the article’s tone. Is it biased? Are you being persuaded by the author in any way?
• Look at the structure. Is it well organized? Does it make sense?
• Consider the writing style. Is it clear? Is it well-written?
• Evaluate the sources the author uses. Are they credible?
• Think about your own opinion. With what do you concur or disagree? Why?

Article Critique Outline

When assigned an article critique, your instructor asks you to read and analyze it and provide feedback. A specific format is typically followed when writing an article critique.

An article critique usually has three sections: an introduction, a body, and a conclusion.

• The introduction of your article critique should have a summary and key points.
• The critique’s main body should thoroughly evaluate the piece, highlighting its strengths and weaknesses, and state your ideas and opinions with supporting evidence.
• The conclusion should restate your research and describe your opinion.

You should provide your analysis rather than simply agreeing or disagreeing with the author. When writing an article review , it is essential to be objective and critical. Describe your perspective on the subject and create an article review summary. Be sure to use proper grammar, spelling, and punctuation, write it in the third person, and cite your sources.

Article Critique Formatting

When writing an article critique, you should follow a few formatting guidelines. The importance of using a proper format is to make your review clear and easy to read.

Make sure to use double spacing throughout your critique. It will make it easy to understand and read for your instructor.

Indent each new paragraph. It will help to separate your critique into different sections visually.

Use headings to organize your critique. Your introduction, body, and conclusion should stand out. It will make it easy for your instructor to follow your thoughts.

Use standard fonts, such as Times New Roman or Arial. It will make your critique easy to read.

Use 12-point font size. It will ensure that your critique is easy to read.

How to Write a Journal Article Critique

When critiquing a journal article, there are a few key points to keep in mind:

• Good critiques should be objective, meaning that the author’s ideas and arguments should be evaluated without personal bias.
• Critiques should be critical, meaning that all aspects of the article should be examined, including the author’s introduction, main ideas, and discussion.
• Critiques should be informative, providing the reader with a clear understanding of the article’s strengths and weaknesses.

When critiquing a research article, evaluating the author’s argument and the evidence they present is important. The author should state their thesis or the main point in the introductory paragraph. You should explain the article’s main ideas and evaluate the evidence critically. In the discussion section, the author should explain the implications of their findings and suggest future research.

It is also essential to keep a critical eye when reading scientific articles. In order to be credible, the scientific article must be based on evidence and previous literature. The author’s argument should be well-supported by data and logical reasoning.

How to Write a Research Article Critique

When you are assigned a research article, the first thing you need to do is read the piece carefully. Make sure you understand the subject matter and the author’s chosen approach. Next, you need to assess the importance of the author’s work. What are the key findings, and how do they contribute to the field of research?

Finally, you need to provide a critical point-by-point analysis of the article. This should include discussing the research questions, the main findings, and the overall impression of the scientific piece. In conclusion, you should state whether the text is good or bad. Read more to get an idea about curating a research article critique. But if you are not confident, you can ask “ write my papers ” and hire a professional to craft a critique paper for you. Explore your options online and get high-quality work quickly.

However, test yourself and use the following tips to write a research article critique that is clear, concise, and properly formatted.

• Take notes while you read the text in its entirety. Right down each point you agree and disagree with.
• Write a thesis statement that concisely and clearly outlines the main points.
• Write a paragraph that introduces the article and provides context for the critique.
• Write a paragraph for each of the following points, summarizing the main points and providing your own analysis:
• The purpose of the study
• The research question or questions
• The methods used
• The outcomes
• The conclusions were drawn by the author(s)
• Mention the strengths and weaknesses of the piece in a separate paragraph.
• Write a conclusion that summarizes your thoughts about the article.
• Free unlimited checks
• All common file formats
• Accurate results
• Intuitive interface

Research Methods in Article Critique Writing

When writing an article critique, it is important to use research methods to support your arguments. There are a variety of research methods that you can use, and each has its strengths and weaknesses. In this text, we will discuss four of the most common research methods used in article critique writing: quantitative research, qualitative research, systematic reviews, and meta-analysis.

Quantitative research is a research method that uses numbers and statistics to analyze data. This type of research is used to test hypotheses or measure a treatment’s effects. Quantitative research is normally considered more reliable than qualitative research because it considers a large amount of information. But, it might be difficult to find enough data to complete it properly.

Qualitative research is a research method that uses words and interviews to analyze data. This type of research is used to understand people’s thoughts and feelings. Qualitative research is usually more reliable than quantitative research because it is less likely to be biased. Though it is more expensive and tedious.

Systematic reviews are a type of research that uses a set of rules to search for and analyze studies on a particular topic. Some think that systematic reviews are more reliable than other research methods because they use a rigorous process to find and analyze studies. However, they can be pricy and long to carry out.

Meta-analysis is a type of research that combines several studies’ results to understand a treatment’s overall effect better. Meta-analysis is generally considered one of the most reliable type of research because it uses data from several approved studies. Conversely, it involves a long and costly process.

Are you still struggling to understand the critique of an article concept? You can contact an online review writing service to get help from skilled writers. You can get custom, and unique article reviews easily.

Tips for writing an Article Critique

It’s crucial to keep in mind that you’re not just sharing your opinion of the content when you write an article critique. Instead, you are providing a critical analysis, looking at its strengths and weaknesses. In order to write a compelling critique, you should follow these tips: Take note carefully of the essential elements as you read it.

• Make sure that you understand the thesis statement.
• Write down your thoughts, including strengths and weaknesses.
• Use evidence from to support your points.
• Create a clear and concise critique, making sure to avoid giving your opinion.

It is important to be clear and concise when creating an article critique. You should avoid giving your opinion and instead focus on providing a critical analysis. You should also use evidence from the article to support your points.

Readers also enjoyed

WHY WAIT? PLACE AN ORDER RIGHT NOW!

Just fill out the form, press the button, and have no worries!

We use cookies to give you the best experience possible. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy.

Book Reviews

What this handout is about.

This handout will help you write a book review, a report or essay that offers a critical perspective on a text. It offers a process and suggests some strategies for writing book reviews.

What is a review?

A review is a critical evaluation of a text, event, object, or phenomenon. Reviews can consider books, articles, entire genres or fields of literature, architecture, art, fashion, restaurants, policies, exhibitions, performances, and many other forms. This handout will focus on book reviews. For a similar assignment, see our handout on literature reviews .

Above all, a review makes an argument. The most important element of a review is that it is a commentary, not merely a summary. It allows you to enter into dialogue and discussion with the work’s creator and with other audiences. You can offer agreement or disagreement and identify where you find the work exemplary or deficient in its knowledge, judgments, or organization. You should clearly state your opinion of the work in question, and that statement will probably resemble other types of academic writing, with a thesis statement, supporting body paragraphs, and a conclusion.

Typically, reviews are brief. In newspapers and academic journals, they rarely exceed 1000 words, although you may encounter lengthier assignments and extended commentaries. In either case, reviews need to be succinct. While they vary in tone, subject, and style, they share some common features:

• First, a review gives the reader a concise summary of the content. This includes a relevant description of the topic as well as its overall perspective, argument, or purpose.
• Second, and more importantly, a review offers a critical assessment of the content. This involves your reactions to the work under review: what strikes you as noteworthy, whether or not it was effective or persuasive, and how it enhanced your understanding of the issues at hand.
• Finally, in addition to analyzing the work, a review often suggests whether or not the audience would appreciate it.

Becoming an expert reviewer: three short examples

Reviewing can be a daunting task. Someone has asked for your opinion about something that you may feel unqualified to evaluate. Who are you to criticize Toni Morrison’s new book if you’ve never written a novel yourself, much less won a Nobel Prize? The point is that someone—a professor, a journal editor, peers in a study group—wants to know what you think about a particular work. You may not be (or feel like) an expert, but you need to pretend to be one for your particular audience. Nobody expects you to be the intellectual equal of the work’s creator, but your careful observations can provide you with the raw material to make reasoned judgments. Tactfully voicing agreement and disagreement, praise and criticism, is a valuable, challenging skill, and like many forms of writing, reviews require you to provide concrete evidence for your assertions.

Consider the following brief book review written for a history course on medieval Europe by a student who is fascinated with beer:

Judith Bennett’s Ale, Beer, and Brewsters in England: Women’s Work in a Changing World, 1300-1600, investigates how women used to brew and sell the majority of ale drunk in England. Historically, ale and beer (not milk, wine, or water) were important elements of the English diet. Ale brewing was low-skill and low status labor that was complimentary to women’s domestic responsibilities. In the early fifteenth century, brewers began to make ale with hops, and they called this new drink “beer.” This technique allowed brewers to produce their beverages at a lower cost and to sell it more easily, although women generally stopped brewing once the business became more profitable.

The student describes the subject of the book and provides an accurate summary of its contents. But the reader does not learn some key information expected from a review: the author’s argument, the student’s appraisal of the book and its argument, and whether or not the student would recommend the book. As a critical assessment, a book review should focus on opinions, not facts and details. Summary should be kept to a minimum, and specific details should serve to illustrate arguments.

Now consider a review of the same book written by a slightly more opinionated student:

Judith Bennett’s Ale, Beer, and Brewsters in England: Women’s Work in a Changing World, 1300-1600 was a colossal disappointment. I wanted to know about the rituals surrounding drinking in medieval England: the songs, the games, the parties. Bennett provided none of that information. I liked how the book showed ale and beer brewing as an economic activity, but the reader gets lost in the details of prices and wages. I was more interested in the private lives of the women brewsters. The book was divided into eight long chapters, and I can’t imagine why anyone would ever want to read it.

There’s no shortage of judgments in this review! But the student does not display a working knowledge of the book’s argument. The reader has a sense of what the student expected of the book, but no sense of what the author herself set out to prove. Although the student gives several reasons for the negative review, those examples do not clearly relate to each other as part of an overall evaluation—in other words, in support of a specific thesis. This review is indeed an assessment, but not a critical one.

Here is one final review of the same book:

One of feminism’s paradoxes—one that challenges many of its optimistic histories—is how patriarchy remains persistent over time. While Judith Bennett’s Ale, Beer, and Brewsters in England: Women’s Work in a Changing World, 1300-1600 recognizes medieval women as historical actors through their ale brewing, it also shows that female agency had its limits with the advent of beer. I had assumed that those limits were religious and political, but Bennett shows how a “patriarchal equilibrium” shut women out of economic life as well. Her analysis of women’s wages in ale and beer production proves that a change in women’s work does not equate to a change in working women’s status. Contemporary feminists and historians alike should read Bennett’s book and think twice when they crack open their next brewsky.

This student’s review avoids the problems of the previous two examples. It combines balanced opinion and concrete example, a critical assessment based on an explicitly stated rationale, and a recommendation to a potential audience. The reader gets a sense of what the book’s author intended to demonstrate. Moreover, the student refers to an argument about feminist history in general that places the book in a specific genre and that reaches out to a general audience. The example of analyzing wages illustrates an argument, the analysis engages significant intellectual debates, and the reasons for the overall positive review are plainly visible. The review offers criteria, opinions, and support with which the reader can agree or disagree.

Developing an assessment: before you write

There is no definitive method to writing a review, although some critical thinking about the work at hand is necessary before you actually begin writing. Thus, writing a review is a two-step process: developing an argument about the work under consideration, and making that argument as you write an organized and well-supported draft. See our handout on argument .

What follows is a series of questions to focus your thinking as you dig into the work at hand. While the questions specifically consider book reviews, you can easily transpose them to an analysis of performances, exhibitions, and other review subjects. Don’t feel obligated to address each of the questions; some will be more relevant than others to the book in question.

• What is the thesis—or main argument—of the book? If the author wanted you to get one idea from the book, what would it be? How does it compare or contrast to the world you know? What has the book accomplished?
• What exactly is the subject or topic of the book? Does the author cover the subject adequately? Does the author cover all aspects of the subject in a balanced fashion? What is the approach to the subject (topical, analytical, chronological, descriptive)?
• How does the author support their argument? What evidence do they use to prove their point? Do you find that evidence convincing? Why or why not? Does any of the author’s information (or conclusions) conflict with other books you’ve read, courses you’ve taken or just previous assumptions you had of the subject?
• How does the author structure their argument? What are the parts that make up the whole? Does the argument make sense? Does it persuade you? Why or why not?
• How has this book helped you understand the subject? Would you recommend the book to your reader?

Beyond the internal workings of the book, you may also consider some information about the author and the circumstances of the text’s production:

• Who is the author? Nationality, political persuasion, training, intellectual interests, personal history, and historical context may provide crucial details about how a work takes shape. Does it matter, for example, that the biographer was the subject’s best friend? What difference would it make if the author participated in the events they write about?
• What is the book’s genre? Out of what field does it emerge? Does it conform to or depart from the conventions of its genre? These questions can provide a historical or literary standard on which to base your evaluations. If you are reviewing the first book ever written on the subject, it will be important for your readers to know. Keep in mind, though, that naming “firsts”—alongside naming “bests” and “onlys”—can be a risky business unless you’re absolutely certain.

Writing the review

Once you have made your observations and assessments of the work under review, carefully survey your notes and attempt to unify your impressions into a statement that will describe the purpose or thesis of your review. Check out our handout on thesis statements . Then, outline the arguments that support your thesis.

Your arguments should develop the thesis in a logical manner. That logic, unlike more standard academic writing, may initially emphasize the author’s argument while you develop your own in the course of the review. The relative emphasis depends on the nature of the review: if readers may be more interested in the work itself, you may want to make the work and the author more prominent; if you want the review to be about your perspective and opinions, then you may structure the review to privilege your observations over (but never separate from) those of the work under review. What follows is just one of many ways to organize a review.

Introduction

Since most reviews are brief, many writers begin with a catchy quip or anecdote that succinctly delivers their argument. But you can introduce your review differently depending on the argument and audience. The Writing Center’s handout on introductions can help you find an approach that works. In general, you should include:

• The name of the author and the book title and the main theme.
• Relevant details about who the author is and where they stand in the genre or field of inquiry. You could also link the title to the subject to show how the title explains the subject matter.
• The context of the book and/or your review. Placing your review in a framework that makes sense to your audience alerts readers to your “take” on the book. Perhaps you want to situate a book about the Cuban revolution in the context of Cold War rivalries between the United States and the Soviet Union. Another reviewer might want to consider the book in the framework of Latin American social movements. Your choice of context informs your argument.
• The thesis of the book. If you are reviewing fiction, this may be difficult since novels, plays, and short stories rarely have explicit arguments. But identifying the book’s particular novelty, angle, or originality allows you to show what specific contribution the piece is trying to make.
• Your thesis about the book.

Summary of content

This should be brief, as analysis takes priority. In the course of making your assessment, you’ll hopefully be backing up your assertions with concrete evidence from the book, so some summary will be dispersed throughout other parts of the review.

The necessary amount of summary also depends on your audience. Graduate students, beware! If you are writing book reviews for colleagues—to prepare for comprehensive exams, for example—you may want to devote more attention to summarizing the book’s contents. If, on the other hand, your audience has already read the book—such as a class assignment on the same work—you may have more liberty to explore more subtle points and to emphasize your own argument. See our handout on summary for more tips.

Analysis and evaluation of the book

Your analysis and evaluation should be organized into paragraphs that deal with single aspects of your argument. This arrangement can be challenging when your purpose is to consider the book as a whole, but it can help you differentiate elements of your criticism and pair assertions with evidence more clearly. You do not necessarily need to work chronologically through the book as you discuss it. Given the argument you want to make, you can organize your paragraphs more usefully by themes, methods, or other elements of the book. If you find it useful to include comparisons to other books, keep them brief so that the book under review remains in the spotlight. Avoid excessive quotation and give a specific page reference in parentheses when you do quote. Remember that you can state many of the author’s points in your own words.

Sum up or restate your thesis or make the final judgment regarding the book. You should not introduce new evidence for your argument in the conclusion. You can, however, introduce new ideas that go beyond the book if they extend the logic of your own thesis. This paragraph needs to balance the book’s strengths and weaknesses in order to unify your evaluation. Did the body of your review have three negative paragraphs and one favorable one? What do they all add up to? The Writing Center’s handout on conclusions can help you make a final assessment.

Finally, a few general considerations:

• Review the book in front of you, not the book you wish the author had written. You can and should point out shortcomings or failures, but don’t criticize the book for not being something it was never intended to be.
• With any luck, the author of the book worked hard to find the right words to express her ideas. You should attempt to do the same. Precise language allows you to control the tone of your review.
• Never hesitate to challenge an assumption, approach, or argument. Be sure, however, to cite specific examples to back up your assertions carefully.
• Try to present a balanced argument about the value of the book for its audience. You’re entitled—and sometimes obligated—to voice strong agreement or disagreement. But keep in mind that a bad book takes as long to write as a good one, and every author deserves fair treatment. Harsh judgments are difficult to prove and can give readers the sense that you were unfair in your assessment.
• A great place to learn about book reviews is to look at examples. The New York Times Sunday Book Review and The New York Review of Books can show you how professional writers review books.

Works consulted

We consulted these works while writing this handout. This is not a comprehensive list of resources on the handout’s topic, and we encourage you to do your own research to find additional publications. Please do not use this list as a model for the format of your own reference list, as it may not match the citation style you are using. For guidance on formatting citations, please see the UNC Libraries citation tutorial . We revise these tips periodically and welcome feedback.

Drewry, John. 1974. Writing Book Reviews. Boston: Greenwood Press.

Hoge, James. 1987. Literary Reviewing. Charlottesville: University Virginia of Press.

Sova, Dawn, and Harry Teitelbaum. 2002. How to Write Book Reports , 4th ed. Lawrenceville, NY: Thomson/Arco.

Walford, A.J. 1986. Reviews and Reviewing: A Guide. Phoenix: Oryx Press.

You may reproduce it for non-commercial use if you use the entire handout and attribute the source: The Writing Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Make a Gift

How Scholarly Book Review Differs from an Article Review

Almost every week I read scholarly book reviews in Chemical and Engineering News. Fairly often in journals I read reviews of scientific articles previously published. Both reviews have some common element but differ considerably in their purpose and style.

Academic Book Reviews

A scholarly or academic book review has two goals: to critique the book for accuracy and style and to inform the reader as to whether he might want to read the book or not. About half the scholarly book reviews I come across are laudatory; the reviewer loved the book and has good things to say about the author. Perhaps he was a little long winded or simplistic in style but there was nothing wrong with his arguments or the completeness. In the remainder of the cases the reviewer takes exception to some parts of the author’s arguments, praising some, quibbling or dismissing others. All this is part of the critical process. But a book review goes further to advise a potential reader as to whether he should invest the time in obtaining and reading the book in question. Perhaps it is a valuable but highly technical work which will only be of interest to specialists in the field. Or it may be a simplified account of a complex problem intended for the general population and not for the researcher in the field. None of this might be apparent from the title and is valuable information.

Article Reviews

In contrast, article reviews are typically more focused. They are intended to set the record straight. The author disagrees with the conclusions of an article and presents a counterargument and a criticism of the original paper. I well remember one of these from my grad school days. One article came out claiming the first synthesis of a tetracoordinate square planar silicon compound, one of the goals of my research. However, the authors’ evidence was not a crystal structure determination but a space group determination that they argued indicated the correct symmetry for the novel structure. In the next issue of the journal a review of the article appeared arguing that a space group determination was useless for determining molecular symmetry. Published alongside the review was the authors’ response which maintained that the reviewer, instead of countering their argument, had furnished powerful support in favor of it. I forget their reasoning on this point. But this is the usual pattern of a scholarly review of an article —a critique of the original article, followed by a response from the authors. Point, counterpoint.

Laudatory article reviews are occasionally published but they are rare and in my opinion, serve little purpose. Although a review article might put in a complimentary word for an author, an article review should stick to the subject of the piece.

Rate this article Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Enago Academy's Most Popular Articles

• Old Webinars
• Webinar Mobile App

Improving Your Chances of Publication in International Peer-reviewed Journals

Types of literature reviews Tips for writing review articles Role of meta-analysis Reporting guidelines

Introduction to Review Articles: Writing Systematic and Narrative Reviews

综述文章简介：如何撰写系统综述与叙述性综述文章

学术出版中综述文章的概述和意义 不同类型文献综述的比较分析 写好系统综述与叙述性综述的技巧 整合分析（meta-analysis）的作用

了解国际SCI期刊对综述论文作者的要求

综述论文的种类-系统综述与叙述性综述 PRISMA 检核表及流程图 综述论文的组成 为您的综述选择合适的期刊以发表

How to Author a Review Article

Systematic and Non-Systematic Reviews PRISMA Flowcharts and Checklists Parts of a Review Article Drafting a…

What Is a Systematic Review in Research?

Systematic Review: Structure and Process

How to Write a Scientific Review Article

New Physics Framework by Dan S. Correnti: A Book Review

Sign-up to read more

Subscribe for free to get unrestricted access to all our resources on research writing and academic publishing including:

• 2000+ blog articles
• 50+ Webinars
• 10+ Expert podcasts
• 50+ Infographics
• 10+ Checklists
• Research Guides

We hate spam too. We promise to protect your privacy and never spam you.

I am looking for Editing/ Proofreading services for my manuscript Tentative date of next journal submission:

As a researcher, what do you consider most when choosing an image manipulation detector?

• Walden University
• Faculty Portal

Writing a Paper: Comparing & Contrasting

A compare and contrast paper discusses the similarities and differences between two or more topics. The paper should contain an introduction with a thesis statement, a body where the comparisons and contrasts are discussed, and a conclusion.

Address Both Similarities and Differences

Because this is a compare and contrast paper, both the similarities and differences should be discussed. This will require analysis on your part, as some topics will appear to be quite similar, and you will have to work to find the differing elements.

Make Sure You Have a Clear Thesis Statement

Just like any other essay, a compare and contrast essay needs a thesis statement. The thesis statement should not only tell your reader what you will do, but it should also address the purpose and importance of comparing and contrasting the material.

Use Clear Transitions

Transitions are important in compare and contrast essays, where you will be moving frequently between different topics or perspectives.

• Examples of transitions and phrases for comparisons: as well, similar to, consistent with, likewise, too
• Examples of transitions and phrases for contrasts: on the other hand, however, although, differs, conversely, rather than.

For more information, check out our transitions page.

Structure Your Paper

Consider how you will present the information. You could present all of the similarities first and then present all of the differences. Or you could go point by point and show the similarity and difference of one point, then the similarity and difference for another point, and so on.

Include Analysis

It is tempting to just provide summary for this type of paper, but analysis will show the importance of the comparisons and contrasts. For instance, if you are comparing two articles on the topic of the nursing shortage, help us understand what this will achieve. Did you find consensus between the articles that will support a certain action step for people in the field? Did you find discrepancies between the two that point to the need for further investigation?

Make Analogous Comparisons

When drawing comparisons or making contrasts, be sure you are dealing with similar aspects of each item. To use an old cliché, are you comparing apples to apples?

• Example of poor comparisons: Kubista studied the effects of a later start time on high school students, but Cook used a mixed methods approach. (This example does not compare similar items. It is not a clear contrast because the sentence does not discuss the same element of the articles. It is like comparing apples to oranges.)
• Example of analogous comparisons: Cook used a mixed methods approach, whereas Kubista used only quantitative methods. (Here, methods are clearly being compared, allowing the reader to understand the distinction.

Related Webinar

Didn't find what you need? Email us at [email protected] .

• Previous Page: Developing Arguments
• Next Page: Avoiding Logical Fallacies
• Office of Student Disability Services

Walden Resources

Departments.

• Academic Residencies
• Academic Skills
• Career Planning and Development
• Customer Care Team
• Field Experience
• Military Services
• Student Success Advising
• Writing Skills

Centers and Offices

• Center for Social Change
• Office of Academic Support and Instructional Services
• Office of Degree Acceleration
• Office of Research and Doctoral Services
• Office of Student Affairs

Student Resources

• Doctoral Writing Assessment
• Form & Style Review
• Quick Answers
• ScholarWorks
• SKIL Courses and Workshops
• Walden Bookstore
• Walden Catalog & Student Handbook
• Student Safety/Title IX
• Legal & Consumer Information
• Website Terms and Conditions
• Cookie Policy
• Accessibility
• Accreditation
• State Authorization
• Net Price Calculator
• Contact Walden

Walden University is a member of Adtalem Global Education, Inc. www.adtalem.com Walden University is certified to operate by SCHEV © 2024 Walden University LLC. All rights reserved.

Home » Language » English Language » Literature » Difference Between Critique and Review

Difference Between Critique and Review

Main difference – critique vs review.

Although the two terms critique and review are often used interchangeably, there is a subtle difference between critique and review. The main difference between critique and review is the writer; critiques are written by experts in the relevant field whereas reviews are written by people who are interested in that particular field. Therefore, critiques are considered to be more reliable than reviews.

What is a Critique

A critique is a detailed analysis and assessment of something, especially a literary, philosophical, or political theory or work. A critique is usually written by a critic. A critic is an expert in a particular field, so he can comment on a particular theory or work in depth. Therefore, a critique is more reliable than a review.

A critique can look at separate components of a work as well as the overall impression of the work. A critique can be very technical since the critic has expert knowledge in the field.  It can contain information like techniques, trends in the field, etc. Sometimes, a person who doesn’t have any knowledge in that particular field may find it difficult to understand the critique properly.

What is  a Review

A review describes, analyses and evaluates a work. A review may give you the main information about a piece of work. For example, if the review is about a play, it’ll describe who created the play, who were the actors, where was the play performed, what genre is it, what is the theme of the play, etc. The reviewer will also comment on the quality of the work, overall impression, and his personal opinions. But he will not go into a deep, technical analysis.

This is mainly because a reviewer is a person who has an interest in the certain topic and had the freedom of voicing out his or her thoughts. He is not usually an expert in that particular field. For example, a book review or a film review can be written by anyone. But the review will help others to determine the quality of the said work. So, a review is mainly consumer-oriented.

Critique is written by a critic.

Review is written by a reviewer.

Knowledge of the Field

Critic is an expert in a particular field.

Reviewer is a person who has an interest in a particular topic.

Critique may contain in-depth analysis of the separate components of the work or theory.

Review may contain general information, overall impression, and personal opinion.

Reliability

Critiques can be more reliable than reviews.

Reviews may not be reliable as critiques.

Critique may analyze a work technically, scientifically or academically.

Review is more consumer-oriented.

Ease of Access

Critique may not be read and understood by everyone.

About the Author: Hasa

Hasanthi is a seasoned content writer and editor with over 8 years of experience. Armed with a BA degree in English and a knack for digital marketing, she explores her passions for literature, history, culture, and food through her engaging and informative writing.

​You May Also Like These

Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Assignments

• Annotated Bibliography
• Analyzing a Scholarly Journal Article
• Group Presentations
• Dealing with Nervousness
• Using Visual Aids
• Grading Someone Else's Paper
• Types of Structured Group Activities
• Group Project Survival Skills
• Leading a Class Discussion
• Multiple Book Review Essay
• Reviewing Collected Works
• Writing a Case Analysis Paper
• Writing a Case Study
• About Informed Consent
• Writing Field Notes
• Writing a Policy Memo
• Writing a Reflective Paper
• Writing a Research Proposal
• Generative AI and Writing
• Acknowledgments

A multiple book review essay involves assessing the quality of two or more books that cover the same overall subject area [e.g., analysis of the European debt crisis] or that are related to each other in a particular way [e.g., applying grounded theory methods to study student access to education]. The review is written in the form of a short scholarly paper [essay] rather than as a descriptive book review. The purpose is to compare and contrast the works under review, to identify key themes and critical issues, and to evaluate each writer's contributions to understanding the overarching topics common to each book. Professors assign reviews of multiple books to help students gain experience critically evaluating the ways in which different researchers examine and interpret issues related to a specific research problem.

Erwin, R. W. “Reviewing Books for Scholarly Journals.” In Writing and Publishing for Academic Authors . Joseph M. Moxley and Todd Taylor. 2 nd edition. (Lanham, MD: Roman and Littlefield, 1997), pp. 83-90.

How to Approach Writing Your Review

Developing an Assessment Strategy

An important first step in approaching how to write a review of two or more books is to identify and think critically about the research problem that ties each of the books together. This information is usually summarized in the preface or introductory chapter of each book. The challenge is to develop an argument about each book you are reviewing and then clearly compare, contrast, and ultimately synthesize your analysis into an well organized and well supported essay.

Think of a multiple book review essay as a type of compare and contrast paper similar to what you may have written for a general issue-oriented composition class . As you read through each book, write down questions concerning what you want to know about each book and answer them as you read [remember to note the page numbers from the book you got the information from so you can refer back it later!]. Which questions to ask yourself will depend upon the type of books you are reviewing and how the books are related to each other.

Here are a series of questions to focus your thinking:

• What is the thesis—or main argument—of each book? If the author wanted you to get one idea from the book, what would it be? How does it compare or contrast to the world you know? What has the book accomplished?
• What exactly is the subject or topic of each book? Does the author cover the subject adequately? Does the author cover all aspects of the subject in a balanced fashion? Can you detect any biases? What is the approach to the subject [topical, historical, analytical, chronological, descriptive]?
• How does the author of each book support his or her argument? What evidence [i.e., sources cited and data collection] does each author use to prove their point? Do you find that evidence convincing? Why or why not? Does any of the author's information [or conclusions] conflict with other books you've read, courses you've taken, or just previous assumptions you had about the research problem under study?
• How does the author structure their argument? What are the parts that make up the whole? Does the argument make sense to you? Does it persuade you? Why or why not? Were there any questions left unanswered? Were limitations to the study effectively addressed?
• How has each book helped you understand the subject? Would you recommend the books to others? Why or why not? In what ways have the books collectively expanded your understanding of the research problem?

Beyond the content of the book, you may also consider some information about each author and the circumstances of the text's production:

• Who is the author? Nationality, political persuasion, education, intellectual interests, personal history, and historical context may provide crucial details about how a work takes shape. Does it matter, for example, that the author is affiliated with a particular organization? What difference would it make if the author participated in the events he or she writes about? What other topics has the author written about? Does this work build on prior research or does it seem to represent a new area of research?
• What is each book's genre? Out of what discipline do they emerge? Do they conform to or depart from the conventions of its genre? These questions can provide a historical or other contextual standard upon which to base your evaluations. If you are reviewing a book described as the first book ever written on the subject, it will be important for your readers to know this. Keep in mind, though, that declarative statements about being the “first,” the "best," or the "only" book of its kind can be a risky unless you're absolutely certain because your professor [presumably] has a much better understanding of the overall research literature.

Bazerman, Charles. Comparing and Synthesizing Sources. The Informed Writer: Using Sources in the Disciplines. Writing@CSU. Colorado State University; Comparing and Contrasting. The Writing Center. University of North Carolina; Comparison and Contrast Essays. Writing Support Centre. University of Western Ontario; Hartley, James. “Reading and Writing Book Reviews Across the Disciplines.” Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 57 (July 2006): 1194-1207; Walk, Kerry. How to Write a Compare-and-Contrast Paper. Writing Center. Princeton Writing Program; Rhetorical Strategies: Comparison and Contrast. The Reading/Writing Center. Hunter College; Visvis, Vikki and Jerry Plotnick; Writing a Compare/Contrast Essay. The Comparative Essay. The Lab Report. University College Writing Centre. University of Toronto; Writing a Compare/Contrast Essay. CLRC Writing Center. Santa Barbara City College.

Structure and Writing Style

I.  Bibliographic Information

Provide the essential information about each book using the writing style asked for by your professor [e.g., APA, MLA, Chicago, etc.]. Depending on how your professor wants you to organize your review, the bibliographic information represents the heading of your review. In general, they would be arranged alphabetically by title and look like this:

Racing the Storm: Racial Implications and Lessons Learned from Hurricane Katrina . Hillary Potter, ed. (Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2007. 320 pp) The Sociology of Katrina: Perspectives on a Modern Catastrophe . David L. Brunsma, David Overfelt, and J. Steven Picou, eds. (Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 2007. 288 pp.) Through the Eye of Katrina: Social Justice in the United States . Kristin A. Bates and Richelle S. Swan, eds. (Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press, 2007. 440 pp.) Reviewed by [your full name]

II.  Thesis Statement

The thesis statement of an essay that compares and contrasts multiple works should contain an idea or claim that unites the discussion of each text under review . It should include the argument that will be advanced in support of the claims being made. To begin, ask yourself: What is the overarching subject or issue that ties together all of the books? Why is it important? In most scholarly works, the author(s) will state the purpose of their book in the preface or in an introductory chapter. Look for common themes or points of divergence among the books.

If you cannot find an adequate statement in the author's own words or if you find that the thesis statement is not well-developed, then you will have to compose your own introductory thesis statement that does cover all the material. The comparative thesis statement will vary in length depending on the number and complexity of the books under review. Regardless of length, it must be succinct, accurate, unbiased, and clear.

If you find it difficult to discern the overall aims and objectives of each book [and, be sure to point this out in your review if you believe it to be a deficiency], you may arrive at an understanding of the purpose by asking yourself a the following questions:

• Scan the table of contents because it can help you understand how the book is organized and will aid in determining the author's main ideas and how they are developed [e.g., chronologically, topically, historically, etc.].
• Why did the authors write on this subject rather than on some other subject?
• From what point of view is each work written?
• Were the authors trying to provide information, to explain something technical, or to convince the reader of a belief’s validity by dramatizing it in action?
• What is the general field or genre, and how does each book fit into it? If necessary, review related literature from other books and journal articles to familiarize yourself with the field.
• Who is the intended audience for each book? Is it the same or are the books intended for difference sets of readers?
• What is each author's style? Is it formal or informal? You can evaluate the quality of the writing style by noting some of the following standards: coherence, clarity, originality, forcefulness, accurate use of technical words, conciseness, fullness of development, and fluidity.
• How did the books affect you? Were any prior assumptions you had on the subject that were changed, abandoned, or reinforced after reading the books? How are the books related to your own personal beliefs or assumptions? What personal experiences have you had that relate to the subject?
• How well has each book achieved the goal(s) set forth in the preface, introduction, and/or foreword?
• Would you recommend this book to others? Why or why not?

A useful strategy to help organize your thoughts is to create a table with a column for each book and rows for each question. Enter your answer to each book in the chart. When completed, you'll have an easy guide to how each author has addressed the questions.

NOTE:   Your thesis statement underpins the purpose of your review and helps the reader understand how the books are related. However, while a book review essay should evaluate books about the same topic [e.g., hurricane Katrina recovery], there may not be an overarching issue that ties the books together. If this is the case, then the thesis could, for example, center around the diversity of issues scholars have chosen to examine a topic or the fractured nature of scholarship on the subject.

ANOTHER NOTE :   Your thesis statement should include the rationale for why the key points you highlight or compare and contrast among the books being reviewed were deliberate and meaningful and not random. Explain their significance.

III.  Methods of Organizing the Essay

Organization is critical to writing an essay that compares and contrasts multiple works because you will most likely be discussing a variety of evidence and you must be certain that the logic and narrative flow of your paper can be understood by the reader. Here are some general guidelines to consider:

• If your professor asks you to choose the books to review, identify works that are closely related in some way so they can be easily compared or contrasted.
• Compare according to a single organizing idea [e.g., analysis of how each author assessed the effectiveness of post-Katrina recovery efforts].
• Choose a method of development [see below] that works well with your organizing idea.
• Use specific and relevant examples to support your analysis.
• Use transitional words or phrases to help the reader understand the similarities and differences in your subject.
• Conclude your paper by restating your thesis, summarizing the main points, and giving the reader a final "so what" answer to the major similarities and/or differences that you discussed [i.e., why are they important?

There are two general methods of organizing your multiple book review essay. If you believe one work extends another, you'll probably use the block method; if you find that two or more works are essentially engaged in a debate or examine a topic from different perspectives, the point-by-point method will help draw attention to the conflict. However, the point-by-point method can come off as a rhetorical ping-pong match. You can avoid this effect by grouping more than one point together, thereby cutting down on the number of times you alternate from one work to another. No matter which method you choose, you do not need to give equal time to similarities and differences. In fact, your paper will be more interesting if you state your main argument(s) as quickly as possible. For example, a book review essay evaluating three research studies that examine different interpretations of conflict resolution among nations in the Middle East might have as few as two or three sentences in the introduction regarding similarities and only a paragraph or two to set up the contrast between the author’s positions. The rest of the essay, whether organized by block method or point-by-point, will be your analysis of the key differences among the books.

The Block Method Present all the information about A, and then present parallel information about B. This pattern tends to work better for shorter book review essays, and those with few sub-topics. The method looks like this:

I. Introduction     A. Briefly introduce the significance of the overall subject matter     B. Thesis Statement         --First supporting point         --Second supporting point         --Third supporting point II. First book     A. Summary of book         --Relationship of work to first point         --Relationship of work to second point         --Relationship of work to third point III. Second book     A. Summary of book         --Relationship of work to first point         --Relationship of work to second point         --Relationship of work to third point IV. Third book     A. Summary of book         --Relationship of work to first point         --Relationship of work to second point         --Relationship of work to third point V. Conclusion     A. Restate thesis     B. Briefly summarize how you proved your argument The Point-by-Point Method Present one point about A, and then go to the parallel point about B. Move to the next point, and do the same thing. This pattern tends to work better for long book review essays and those with many sub-topics. The method looks like this:

I. Introduction     A. Briefly introduce significance of overall subject matter     B. Thesis statement II. Brief explanation of first book III. Brief explanation of second book IV. First comparative point     A. Relation of point to first book     B. Relation of point to second book V. Second comparative point     A. Relation of point to first book     B. Relation of point to second book VI. Third comparative point     A. Relation of point to first book     B. Relation of point to second book VII. Conclusion     A. Restate thesis     B. Briefly summarize how your proved your argument

IV.  Critically Evaluate the Contents

Regardless of whether you choose the block method or the point-by-point method, critical comments should form the bulk of your book review essay . State whether or not you feel the author's treatment of the subject matter is appropriate for the intended audience. Ask yourself:

• Has the objectives of each author(s) been achieved?
• What contribution do the books make to the field of study or discipline?
• Is the treatment of the subject matter objective?
• Are there facts and evidence that have been omitted, either in one of the books or collectively?
• What kinds of data, if any, are used to support each author's thesis statement?
• Can the same data be interpreted to alternate ends?
• Is the writing style clear and effective?
• Do the books raise important or provocative issues or topics for discussion and further research?
• What has been left out?

Support your evaluation with evidence from the text of each book and, when possible, in relation to other sources. If relevant, make note of each book's format, such as, layout, binding, typography, etc. Are there maps, illustrations? Do they aid in understanding the research problem? This is particular important in books that contain a lot of non-textual elements, such as tables, charts, pictures, and illustrations.

NOTE:   It is important to carefully distinguish your views from those of the authors, so that you don’t confuse your reader.

V.  Examine the Front Matter and Back Matter

Front matter refers to anything before the first chapter of the book. Back matter refers to any information included after the final chapter of the book . Front matter is most often numbered separately from the rest of the text in lower case Roman numerals [i.e. i-xi ]. Critical commentary about front or back matter is generally only necessary if you believe there is something that diminishes the overall quality of the work [e.g., the indexing is poor] or there is something that is particularly helpful in understanding the book's contents [e.g., foreword places the book in an important context].

The following front matter may be included in a book and may be considered for evaluation when reviewing its overall quality:

• Table of contents -- is it clear? Is it detailed or general? Does it reflect the true contents of the book?
• Author biography -- also found as back matter, the biography of author(s) can be useful in determining the authority of the writer and whether the book builds on prior research or represents new research. In scholarly reviews, noting the author's affiliation can be a factor in helping the reader determine the overall validity of the work [i.e., are they associated with a research center devoted to studying the research problem under investigation].
• Foreword -- the purpose of a foreword is to introduce the reader to the author as well as the book itself, and to help establish credibility for both. A foreword may not contribute any additional information about the book's subject matter, but it serves as a means of validating the book's existence. Later editions of a book sometimes have a new foreword prepended [appearing before an older foreword, if there was one], which may be included to explain in how the latest edition differs from previous ones.
• Acknowledgements -- scholarly studies in the social sciences often take many years to write, so authors frequently acknowledge the help and support of others in getting their research published. This can be as innocuous as acknowledging the author's family or the publisher. However, an author may acknowledge prominent scholars or subject experts, staff at key research centers, or people who curate important archival collections. In these particular cases, it may be worth noting these sources of support in your review.
• Preface -- generally describes the genesis, purpose, limitations, and scope of the book and may include acknowledgments of indebtedness to people who have helped the author complete the study. Is the preface helpful in understanding the study? Does it provide an effective framework for understanding what's to follow?
• Chronology -- also may be found as back matter, a chronology is generally included to highlight key events related to the subject of the book. Do the entries contribute to the overall work? Is it detailed or very general?
• List of non-textual elements -- a book that contains a lot of charts, photographs, maps, etc. will often list these items after the table of contents in order that they appear in the text. Is it useful?

The following back matter may be included in a book and may be considered for evaluation when reviewing the overall quality of the book:

• Afterword -- this is a short, reflective piece written by the author that takes the form of a concluding section, final commentary, or closing statement. It is worth mentioning in a review if it contributes information about the purpose of the book, gives a call to action, or asks the reader to consider key points made in the book.
• Appendix -- is the supplementary material in the appendix or appendices well organized? Do they relate to the contents or appear superfluous? Does it contain any essential information that would have been more appropriately integrated into the text?
• Index -- is the index thorough and accurate? Are elements used, such as, bold or italic fonts to help identify specific places in the book?
• Glossary of Terms -- are the definitions clearly written? Is the glossary comprehensive or are key terms missing? Are any terms or concepts mentioned in the text not included?
• Footnotes/Endnotes -- examine any footnotes or endnotes as you read from chapter to chapter. Do they provide important additional information? Do they clarify or extend points made in the body of the text?
• Bibliography/References/Further Readings -- review any bibliography, list of references to sources, and/or further readings the author may have included. What kinds of sources appear [e.g., primary or secondary, recent or old, scholarly or popular, etc.]? How does the author make use of them? Be sure to note important omissions of sources that you believe should have been utilized.

NOTE:   Typically, multiple book review essays do not compare and contrast the quality of the back and front matter unless the books share a common deficiency [e.g., poor indexing], the front or back matter is particularly important in supplementing the primary content of the books, or one book stands out in regards to the quality of information presented in the front or back matter.

VI.  Summarize and Comment

Your conclusion should synthesize the key similarities and differences among the books and their collective contributions to understanding of the research problem. Avoid re-stating your assessment word for word; your goal is to provide a sense of closure and to leave the reader with a final perspective about the overall topic under review and whether you believe each book has effectively contributed to the overall research literature on the subject. Do not introduce new information in the conclusion. If you've compared the books to any other studies or used other sources in writing the review, be sure to cite them at the end of your book review essay.

Bazerman, Charles. Comparing and Synthesizing Sources. The Informed Writer: Using Sources in the Disciplines. Writing@CSU. Colorado State University; Comparing and Contrasting. The Writing Center. University of North Carolina; Comparison and Contrast Essays. Writing Support Centre. University of Western Ontario; Rhetorical Strategies: Comparison and Contrast. The Reading/Writing Center. Hunter College; Hartley, James. “Reading and Writing Book Reviews Across the Disciplines.” Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 57 (July 2006): 1194-1207; Hooker, Fran and Kate James. Apples to Oranges: Writing a Compare and Contrast Paper. The Writing Center. Webster University; Oinas, Päivi and Samuli Leppälä. “Views on Book Reviews.” Regional Studies 47 (2013): 1785-1789; Visvis, Vikki and Jerry Plotnick. The Comparative Essay. The Lab Report. University College Writing Centre. University of Toronto; Writing a Compare/Contrast Essay. CLRC Writing Center. Santa Barbara City College.

• << Previous: Writing a Book Review
• Next: Reviewing Collected Works >>
• Last Updated: May 7, 2024 9:45 AM
• URL: https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide/assignments

We use cookies on this site to enhance your experience

By clicking any link on this page you are giving your consent for us to set cookies.

A link to reset your password has been sent to your email.

Back to login

We need additional information from you. Please complete your profile first before placing your order.

Thank you. payment completed., you will receive an email from us to confirm your registration, please click the link in the email to activate your account., there was error during payment, orcid profile found in public registry, download history, difference between a literature review and a critical review.

• Charlesworth Author Services
• 08 October, 2021

As you read research papers, you may notice that there are two very different kinds of review of prior studies. Sometimes, this section of a paper is called a literature review, and at other times, it is referred to as a critical review or a critical context . These differences may be more commonly seen across different fields. Although both these sections are about reviewing prior and existing studies, this article aims to clarify the differences between the two.

Literature review

A literature review is a summary of prior or existing studies that are related to your own research paper . A literature review can be a part of a research paper or can form a paper in itself . For the former, the literature review is designed as a basis upon which your own current study is designed and built. The latter forms a synthesis of prior studies and is a way to highlight future research agendas or a framework.

Writing a literature review

In a literature review, you should attempt to discuss the arguments and findings in prior studies and then work to build on these studies as you develop your own research. You can also highlight the connection between existing and prior literature to demonstrate how the current study you are presenting can advance your knowledge in the field .

When performing a literature review, you should aim to summarise your discussions using a specific aspect of the literature, such as by topic, time, methodology/ design and findings . By doing so, you should be able to establish an effective way to present the relevant literature and demonstrate the connection between prior studies and your research.

Do note that a literature review does not include a presentation or discussion of any results or findings – this should come at a later point in the paper or study. You should also not impose your subjective viewpoints or opinions on the literature you discuss. 

Critical review

A critical review is also a popular way of reviewing prior and existing studies. It can cover and discuss the main ideas or arguments in a book or an article, or it can review a specific concept, theme, theoretical perspective or key construct found in the existing literature .

However, the key feature that distinguishes a critical review from a literature review is that the former is more than just a summary of different topics or methodologies. It offers more of a reflection and critique of the concept in question, and is engaged by authors to more clearly contextualise their own research within the existing literature and to present their opinions, perspectives and approaches .

Given that a critical review is not just a summary of prior literature, it is generally not considered acceptable to follow the same strategy as for a literature review. Instead, aim to organise and structure your critical review in a way that would enable you to discuss the key concepts, assert your perspectives and locate your arguments and research within the existing body of work. 

Structuring a critical review

A critical review would generally begin with an introduction to the concepts you would like to discuss. Depending on how broad the topics are, this can simply be a brief overview or it could set up a more complex framework. The discussion that follows through the rest of the review will then address and discuss your chosen themes or topics in more depth. 

Writing a critical review

The discussion within a critical review will not only present and summarise themes but also critically engage with the varying arguments, writings and perspectives within those themes. One important thing to note is that, similar to a literature review , you should keep your personal opinions, likes and dislikes out of a review. Whether you personally agree with a study or argument – and whether you like it or not – is immaterial. Instead, you should focus upon the effectiveness and relevance of the arguments , considering such elements as the evidence provided, the interpretations and analysis of the data, whether or not a study may be biased in any way, what further questions or problems it raises or what outstanding gaps and issues need to be addressed.

In conclusion

Although a review of previous and existing literature can be performed and presented in different ways, in essence, any literature or critical review requires a solid understanding of the most prominent work in the field as it relates to your own study. Such an understanding is crucial and significant for you to build upon and synthesise the existing knowledge, and to create and contribute new knowledge to advance the field .

Read previous (fourth) in series: How to refer to other studies or literature in the different sections of a research paper

Maximise your publication success with Charlesworth Author Services .

Charlesworth Author Services, a trusted brand supporting the world’s leading academic publishers, institutions and authors since 1928. 

To know more about our services, visit:  Our Services

Share with your colleagues

Related articles.

Conducting a Literature Review

Charlesworth Author Services 10/03/2021 00:00:00

Important factors to consider as you Start to Plan your Literature Review

Charlesworth Author Services 06/10/2021 00:00:00

How to Structure and Write your Literature Review

Charlesworth Author Services 07/10/2021 00:00:00

Related webinars

Bitesize Webinar: How to write and structure your academic article for publication- Module 3: Understand the structure of an academic paper

Charlesworth Author Services 04/03/2021 00:00:00

Bitesize Webinar: How to write and structure your academic article for publication: Module 5: Conduct a Literature Review

Bitesize Webinar: How to write and structure your academic article for publication: Module 7: Write a strong theoretical framework section

Charlesworth Author Services 05/03/2021 00:00:00

Bitesize Webinar: How to write and structure your academic article for publication: Module 11: Know when your article is ready for submission

Literature search.

Why and How to do a literature search

Charlesworth Author Services 17/08/2020 00:00:00

Best tips to do a PubMed search

Charlesworth Author Services 26/08/2021 00:00:00

Best tips to do a Scopus search

• Customer Reviews
• Extended Essays
• IB Internal Assessment
• Theory of Knowledge
• Literature Review
• Dissertations
• Essay Writing
• Research Writing
• Assignment Help
• Capstone Projects
• College Application
• Online Class

Reaction Paper vs Article Critique vs Paper Review

by  Antony W

December 20, 2022

Are you looking to learn more about reaction paper vs article critique vs paper review? You’ve come to the right place.

For many students, these types of papers may be some of the most confusing types of assignments to work on, but often, they’re easier to handle when you understand the structure and have the right approach to follow.

An important thing to keep in mind about reaction paper, art icicle critique, and paper review is that that they all involve evaluating other people’s written work, which can include literature, research studies, or published articles.

In this article, we share the differences between reaction paper, article critique, and paper review. We guide you through their varying writing styles (outlines), types, lengths, and tones.

1. Differences in Definition

Reaction paper.

In academic writing, a reaction paper is an assignment that involves providing your opinion on another person’s article or an abstract. It contains your thoughts and conclusions on a piece of written content by another author.

The purpose of a reaction paper is to gauge a student’s understanding and analytical skills in written journals.

Article Critique

An article critique evaluates an existing research article, scientific content, or literature. Then, it points out the main ideas of the written content and proves whether they’re factual or not. In class, your tutor uses this assignment to test your opinion formative skills on existing journals and research projects.

Review Paper

A review paper is a type of assignment that involves summarizing the existing published writings of a topic. It attempts to highlight the strides made in understanding that topic and its current standing. Its purpose is to synthesize the results observed from numerous literature papers and by that produce clear and concise arguments on a topic.

2. Differences in Length

A reaction paper is rarely as long as the paper review and article critique. The bulk of the task involves the identification of central aspects of study material and relating them with your thoughts, beliefs, or perspective.

Content can be anywhere from 1 to 5 pages depending on what exactly your instructor is testing in a topic.

An article critique engages your analytical, processing, and interpretive skills. Therefore, the content tends to be comprehensive and extensive as the writer presents the critical evaluation of the subject of discussion.

There’s no precise length but there are papers that have hundreds of pages of critical content.

Paper Review

Paper reviews tend to be shorter than the projects they’re assessing. The part that is central, and which mostly determines the length, is where the reviewer analyzes, synthesizes, and interprets existing data.

3. Differences in Writing Styles

Your instructor provides a book, video, or an article (material) that you’ll need to read and give you reaction or opinion. Therefore, the writing style involves summing up the material whilst providing your reactions or thoughts on sections that are relevant.

Here’s how to handle your reaction report:

Point out the author, the title of the book or article, and publication dates for magazines. Summarize the material by writing down the points that you wish to react to. While writing your main reaction points, use direct quotations from the material as a way of illustrating the key ideas.

Make sure anyone reading your work at this point can understand the core aspects of the original material. Avoid over-focusing on just a single aspect but rather draw out several for a conclusive work. Ensure your summary remains factual and objective.

If your instructor issued the specific points to react to, be sure to have them reflected in your summary. If not, assess whether there’s a relationship between the ideas of the material you’re reacting to and the class discussions.

Furthermore, identify the relationship between the key points and real-world problems.

Ask yourself how the article is changing your perspective about the issues discussed by the book or article. It helps you form strong reaction thoughts and opinions. Assess the merit of the material. Check the accuracy of its key points, relevance, organization, completeness, and all that.

Lastly, share your opinion on recommending the book or article to other readers.

The key takeaway point here is that the writing style of the reaction paper is mostly subjective since you share your thoughts on another person’s work.

Get position paper writing service for cheap from Help for Assessment. Our service takes away the need for extensive research on your end, so you can spend more of your time focusing on other pending assignments.

The writing style of the article critique generally involves evaluating, summarizing, and commenting on the gaps of an existing research article.

Below is how to go about it:

First, evaluate the specific topic(s) that you wish to review. Find out the significance, nature, scope, and any quality that defines its purpose. Read the index, preface, acknowledgments, and bibliography, which explain the author’s background and circumstances.

Then, identify the author’s thesis to ascertain whether there’s a strong personal opinion that he/she wants the audience to accept. Look for the theoretical assumptions discussed in the article to discover this.

Additionally, find out the relationship between the ideas of the research article and the topics in your course. Which specific concepts does the article have in common with your class topics?

Also, summarize all the materials that the research article uses in the presentation of its findings, arguments, and conclusions. Review its primary documents, quantitative data, historical accounts, literary analysis, and ideas formed from the author’s personal observation.

While at it, gage how exactly the backing materials relate to the research article. Ask yourself: what’s the correlation between the argument of the thesis and the reference materials?

Moreover, point out the alternate ways that exist in the presentation of content in the reference materials. Did the article’s author indicate awareness of them? If yes, point out the particular respects in either disagreeing or agreeing with them.

Comment on the theoretical topics or issues that the article raises. Conclude by sharing your personal opinion on the main ideas of the article.

What to remember here is that you have to be objective throughout your critique report. There’s very little room for expressing your opinion subjectively as is the case with the other two assignments.

Do you understand how to write an article critique but don’t have the time to write the assignment yourself? Take advantage of our article critique writing service and let us help complete the work on time.

The writing style of the paper review involves majorly discussing the findings that a research paper has on a particular topic. Therefore, here you’re simply processing , summarizing , and then presenting your conclusions of an existing scientific paper .

Nearly all scientific journals have paper reviews written by professional peers and proponents in that field.

Below are ideas to help you write the assignment in an acceptable style :

Begin by developing the title page, which contains the reviewer’s background info. You’re the reviewer so write your name, course name, or number if applicable, date, or other guidelines that your instructor may provide. Professional review papers may require more details on the title page that are beyond the scope of this post.

Then create an abstract that briefly summarizes your review topic or subject. Commonly, it includes the key points of the research paper that you’re planning to discuss. As such, it’s a preview of your paper review.

Next, come up with an introduction to your paper review. Introduce the topic that you’re reviewing formally explaining any relevant background information. Define unfamiliar terms that might confuse your readers and the purpose of your review.

Still on introduction, state why your review is relevant to the research community. View your paper review as a formal way of entering into a conversation discussing a scientific topic. Also, disclose your thesis or the main idea that you want other people to get from your assessment.

Heading to the main body where information developing and supporting your thesis exists. Avoid just summarizing the literature that you are reviewing and instead analyze, synthesize, and interpret it.

Form the analysis by studying and presenting the connections that make the research paper valid for review. Then synthesize by explaining the significance and relevance of your review ideas to the topic. Lastly, interpret the literature by examining its meaning to the primary concepts of your thesis.

While developing your main body content, organize your points to help the readers make sense of your review. For example, begin each new section with a topic sentence that relates or points back to your thesis. Also, you can use meaningful subheadings that ensure your review is accomplishing its objective.

Importantly, revise your thesis often making sure it remains relevant to every discussion that you put in your paper.

Conclude by illustrating the connection between your thesis, main points, and broader discussion. In other words, tell readers the conclusions that you drew after writing your review paper. Just avoid presenting new facts at this point.

Are you finding your paper difficult to review on your own? You can get in touch with Help for Assessment for custom writing service and have the work done on time.

4. Difference in Types

Only the reaction paper and the paper review feature numerous categories, although sometimes inexplicit.

Types of Reaction Papers

• Descriptive reaction papers : These describe your impression on a book, article, or event that your instructor asks you to react to. You simply state what you feel or think after your interaction with the study material.
• Critical reaction papers : This type of reaction paper evaluates your critical skills in analyzing a study material. Such an assignment will involve stating whether you agree or disagree with the creator.
• Quantitative reaction papers : Where the study material or event is measurable, quantitative reaction papers are your probable assignment. You have to find a way to measure the content you read or watch in quantitative terms.

Types of Paper Reviews

• Narrative review : This type of paper review involves studying the experience of the creator of a research paper. Therefore, you analyze and compare the theories and methods that are present in the content. In writing a narrative review, actively provide logical and qualitative arguments to be relevant to other reviewers.
• Evidence review : A professional evidence paper review is the type that involves extensive study and interpretation of existing scientific journals. You need accurate information and materials to compose it. Mostly, you discuss other people’s ideas, their impact on the subject of study, and your findings or conclusions.
• Systematic review : The systematic paper review involves the study and analysis of several data sources of a particular topic. You must use a structured methodology to answer the questions arising from a study as part of handling the review. Moreover, you might need to point out the disparities or contradictions existing in the original work.

5. Difference in Tone

Reaction paper.

A reaction paper takes an informal approach as the writer expresses a personal opinion. You use the first language to explain your thoughts and opinions on study material.

Article critique

The tone of expressing critical comments on an article is formal. Your content remains largely objective with little room to express personal feelings or interpretations.

Paper review

A paper review is professional, which makes the acceptable tone to be formal. Although you express your conclusions on a topic at the end, you have to be objective. Also, you have to provide evidence of the material that you use to refer to form review opinions.

Final Thoughts

To this end, you can see how closely related reaction papers, article critiques, and paper reviews are to each other. Although they involve reviewing other people’s work, there are subtle differences in approach, length, content, and more.

Share your thoughts and comments below and let us know your experience with these projects. Even better, hire us to help you develop quality reaction papers, paper reviews, and article critiques.

About the author 

Antony W is a professional writer and coach at Help for Assessment. He spends countless hours every day researching and writing great content filled with expert advice on how to write engaging essays, research papers, and assignments.

How to Write a Comparative Critique

How to Write a Review of a Poetry Book

Writing a comparative critique is an essential part of a person's college education. Critical writing and analysis is even more important for someone interested in pursuing further degrees in graduate school. The process compels the student to sharpen and fine-tune her critical and analytical skills and avoid the pitfalls of simply digesting information passively from a textbook. Comparing two topics allows the student to approach the topic from more than one perspective.

Select a topic, issue or problem to address. If the comparative critique is a college assignment, the professor may assign a topic or may suggest the student select a topic that relates to the course. The goal of a comparative critique is to focus on two things that are related, such as two characters in a novel, two authors, two political or literary theories and so forth.

Pick a frame of reference for the critique. The frame of reference may be a particular philosophical framework, such as Marxism, phenomenology, feminism or analytic philosophy, a literary criticism framework, such as hermeneutics or post-structuralism, or a psychological framework, such as psychoanalysis. The framework provides a context and tools for the critique. For example, a feminist critique may compare and contrast the way women are portrayed in two historical novels.

Present the rationale and grounds for selecting the two topics or issues. In other words, consider why the particular comparison is important. The goal is to convince the reader that a critical comparison has something important to contribute to the discussion.

Make a list of similarities and differences shared by the two objects of the study. For example, the Republican and Democratic parties share a number of things in common, such as belief in representative and democratic forms of government, a belief in the separation of powers, a commitment to the principles of the Constitution and a belief in the capitalist economic system. However, there are a number of disagreements, as well, over the role of state intervention in the economy, the government's role and responsibility in regards to the economically disadvantaged and so forth.

Develop a strong thesis statement. The thesis should one or two sentences of the introduction. One way to do this is to state or pose a problem with the first sentence and then answer the problem with the second sentence. State your position in clear, strong and unambiguous language. The thesis tells the reader why the comparison is important, the essential steps and arguments used in the comparison and the conclusion reached by the comparison.

Write a rough draft of the critique. Avoid the trap of thinking everything has to be clearly worked out in your mind before writing. The writing process helps to think through and clarify the ideas of the critique. Allow the rough draft to sit for a day or two. Approach it with a fresh mind. Carefully proofread it and make improvements to the form and content.

Write the final version of the critique based on the revisions of the original draft. Conclude the critique with a summary that touches on all the essential points of the critique.

Related Articles

How to Do a Summary for a Research Paper

What Is the Difference Between an Abstract and a Thesis Statement?

How to write a rebuttal speech.

Activities for Writing Introductions & Conclusions

How to Outline a Case for Legal Studies

How to Set Up a Rhetorical Analysis

How to Write an Introduction to an Analytical Essay

How to write a definition essay.

• Writing Center at Harvid University; "How to Write a Comparative Analysis;" Kelly Walk; 1998

Robert Russell began writing online professionally in 2010. He holds a Ph.D. in philosophy and is currently working on a book project exploring the relationship between art, entertainment and culture. He is the guitar player for the nationally touring cajun/zydeco band Creole Stomp. Russell travels with his laptop and writes many of his articles on the road between gigs.

Reviews and Critiques-Differences and Similarities

• Post author: admin
• Post published: August 12, 2019
• Post category: Blog

Reviews and Critiques. Different or the Same?

I joined an online critique group about a month ago. I won’t lie, sometimes it’s been brutal, but it got me thinking about the differences and similarities between reviews and critiques, as well as what makes a good review or critique.

I’d thought I’d explore it a little through this blog.

Let’s start with reviews. Just as you would suspect, a review is something that is designed to provide information to another potential customer. Just like reviews for any other product, a book review will tell a potential reader if the reviewer liked or disliked the book. Amazon and other online book sellers utilize a star system for rating. I think most people understand the concept of a scale of one to five (one indicating the lowest rating and five indicating the highest).

Book Reviews are not for the author. That doesn’t mean the author doesn’t read them, often we do. We don’t write in a vacuum or just for ourselves. If we did, we would never publish. It gives us joy to see others enjoying what we’ve written. But the essence of the book review is for potential readers, to help them decide whether or not to purchase a book.

So, what makes a good book review? Well, think about what you look for when you’re browsing for your next read. Do you simply buy something because someone has rated it five stars without any comments, or has said simply “I loved it”? Probably not. You want to know why. Did they love the characters, the story, the author’s style? Did they find the story so engaging they couldn’t put it down? We can go even deeper, why did they love the characters? Did they find them funny, could they relate to them?  Did they root for them to overcome whatever obstacle was blocking them from their goal?

I’ve focused on the aspects of a positive review, but the same is true for a negative review. A potential reader wants to know why someone didn’t like a book. Did they find it boring, with slow pacing or a dragging plot? Was there too much description, or too little description? Did they find the characters bland with no depth? You get the picture. This type of information allows potential readers to decide if a particular book is for them. 

Here’s an example based on my own personal preference. I’ve read four out of five of the Song of Fire and Ice series by George R.R. Martin (Game of Thrones if you’re not familiar). I just couldn’t plow through the last book Dance With Dragons . I probably will someday, but every time I picked it up, I put it back down. Why? I loved the story, but Martin’s style is way too wordy for me. Again, my personal preference. Others may love his pages and pages of descriptions that immerse them in his world. Me, I want action. I didn’t care about all the details of someone’s doublet or every item of food that was on a table. (I think he wrote those pages when he was hungry). So, if I was writing a review, I would mention this, but I would clearly state it was my preference. Not simply, it dragged, but “I struggled to stay focused reading the detailed descriptions.” This does two things. It keeps the review focused on my perceptions as a reader, not attacking Martin’s writing style, and it provides information to someone who may share my opinion.

As a reviewer, you don’t need to provide a Martin sized commentary. A short paragraph with a few well-chosen words is sufficient. Keep it focused on what you liked or didn’t like and provide the “why.”

I will admit there are times you may read something and not care for it, but can’t put your finger on the why. It’s okay to say that, too. I read a best-seller recently that just wasn’t for me. At the time, I couldn’t put into words why, but the more I thought about it, I realized it was because it depressed me. The book was well-written, but I didn’t like the way it made me feel. 

We’ve talked about why reviews are important to other readers, but why are they important to authors? Well, it’s simple. Would you be willing to try a new “untested” product? Perhaps, but more than likely, you’ll want to know what others thought. New authors especially rely on reviews to help spread the word and build their audience. If my name were Nora Roberts, I probably wouldn’t care a fig about reviews, good, bad, or indifferent. Her name alone sells books. But I’m sure it wasn’t always like that for her. She had to start somewhere. So, even though the review is not for the author, if you’ve finished reading a book by a newer author, consider leaving a review and help them out.

So, what is a critique and how is it different or the same as a review? Good questions. This is the definition from the Merriam-Webster dictionary: Noun: careful judgment in which you give your opinion about the good and bad parts of something (such as a piece of writing or work of art).

Sounds a lot like a review, right? Well, kind of. A review could certainly contain a critique of the book and/or writer’s style, but critiques in writing are used to guide a writer to improve his or her work. So typically, critiques usually occur prior to publication and reviews occur after. In short, critiques are for the author, not the reader.

What makes a good critique? This blog is already lengthy, so I won’t go into too much detail. Suffice it to say, it’s similar to a review in that it points out spots where the plot may slow, where characters aren’t believable, where sentences don’t make sense or read awkwardly. Some critiques also include correction to spelling, grammar, and punctuation. Regardless of what is included, the goal, or purpose should be to encourage the author to examine the feedback to determine if the work can be improved. 

Like reviews, critiques can be (and often are) subjective. In my online critique group, there are authors of many different genres. Each genre can have its own unique style and expectations. The person providing the critique should keep this in mind. If I’m critiquing a piece from a genre I’m not particularly familiar with, I may provide some feedback with the caveat that I may be out in left field with my comment. What applies to my particular genre may be irrelevant in theirs. I don’t expect a happily ever after ending in a Horror story, nor should I.

Critiques should be constructive, not destructive.

Having a background in psychology and working with people diagnosed with severe mental illness, I’ve learned there are ways to phrase things that make my words more palatable. It’s a bit like Mary Poppins, but a spoonful of sugar really does make the medicine go down easier. Using words like “suggest” or “consider” allows the author to look at the feedback as less of a demand to change something and more of a gentle nudge. Sometimes it’s not so much what you say but how you say it. Like a review, I’ll also keep the focus on my perception. Using words or phrases like I instead of you, or “to me” keeps the focus on the perception of the person providing the critique rather than as an attack on the author.

There is a certain critter (that’s what they are called in my group), who is very blunt. Perhaps that’s their personality, I don’t know. I’ve found them very off-putting. The very nature of how they say things makes me throw up a wall and shut them out. It’s a shame, as I want to believe they’re trying to help, but the message isn’t getting through because of how it’s being delivered. I’ve walked away and come back and re-read it. Sometimes it helps and sometimes it doesn’t.

Another thing that helps authors be more open to criticism is providing positive feedback or comments. I’ve had a few critiques (several from the above critter), that don’t have anything good to say about what I’ve written. This makes me think they hated the whole thing. That may not be true, but if they’re not letting me know what they did like, I don’t know. I almost want to reply and tell them if they hate it that much, why don’t they stop reading my submissions. Again, this throws those walls up and prevents, what might be helpful, useful feedback, from being accepted by the author.

I’m sure there are some authors who would “suggest” I’m being too soft. Well, actually those authors would say, “you need to have a thick skin.” One person on Twitter told me that if I couldn’t take criticism I wasn’t cut out to be a writer. I cried for a day. That person didn’t know what kind of a day I had or what my emotional state was. I found their comment cruel and insulting when he knew nothing about me. We should never stifle someone simply because they are a sensitive human being. Thick skin isn’t something we’re all born with, but we can develop it. Like a callus, building it through a steady, slow exposure to constructive criticism is the best way. Much better than developing a blister that pops and deters us from trying again.

As stated before, authors don’t live in a vacuum. We’re real people, with real feelings. Our books are like our children. They come from deep within us, and we’ve poured ourselves into those pages. I can accept that what I write isn’t for everyone. That’s okay. I love that our world is filled with a large variety of people who have different personalities and interests. If you don’t like what I write, cool. I hope you find another author you love. 

There’s an old saying, “If you don’t have anything good to say, don’t say anything at all.” I’m not suggesting you should always follow that, but what I am suggesting is whatever you have to say, say it with kindness. 

You Might Also Like

Planning a vacation, why do you read.

'ZDNET Recommends': What exactly does it mean?

ZDNET's recommendations are based on many hours of testing, research, and comparison shopping. We gather data from the best available sources, including vendor and retailer listings as well as other relevant and independent reviews sites. And we pore over customer reviews to find out what matters to real people who already own and use the products and services we’re assessing.

When you click through from our site to a retailer and buy a product or service, we may earn affiliate commissions. This helps support our work, but does not affect what we cover or how, and it does not affect the price you pay. Neither ZDNET nor the author are compensated for these independent reviews. Indeed, we follow strict guidelines that ensure our editorial content is never influenced by advertisers.

ZDNET's editorial team writes on behalf of you, our reader. Our goal is to deliver the most accurate information and the most knowledgeable advice possible in order to help you make smarter buying decisions on tech gear and a wide array of products and services. Our editors thoroughly review and fact-check every article to ensure that our content meets the highest standards. If we have made an error or published misleading information, we will correct or clarify the article. If you see inaccuracies in our content, please report the mistake via this form .

This is my favorite laptop so far in 2024, and it's not a MacBook or Dell XPS

ZDNET's key takeaways

• The HP Envy x360 2-in-1 (2024) is available from HP for $1,299.
• It has one of the most gorgeous displays I've seen on a 2-in-1, with a suite of solid hardware.  
• Configuration swapping can be buggy, and it's on the heavier side. 

A host of new 2-in-1 laptops have already launched in 2024, as the form factor's popularity continues to grow. More and more laptop diehards (myself included) who have previously been unwilling to commit to a tablet are getting on board with convertibles, which give you the best of both worlds.

Also: This affordable Lenovo laptop made me a believer in the 2-in-1 form factor The HP Envy x360 16" 2-in-1 shows up to the party with all the features that consumers actually want in a convertible: a gorgeous display, beefy speakers, and a suite of hardware to back it up, resulting in solid performance and a satisfying media experience at a mid-range price point.

Yes, a 16-inch screen is large when used as a tablet. A little unwieldy, even. The OLED display on this laptop is so good that it doesn't matter to me. In fact, it could be bigger, and I would still happily tote it around.

The Envy x360 features a 2.8K (2880 x 1800) resolution OLED touchscreen with a variable 120Hz refresh rate and edge-to-edge glass that results in a smooth-as-silk visual experience. The 500-nit brightness is more than enough for normal use, and the glossy finish looks gorgeous (but may not be for everyone, because fingerprints are a thing).

Also:  This Acer laptop has a game-changing feature for media, and its price is just as nice

Video playback is vibrant, smooth, and sharp, with a realistic depth of color and contrast. HP also advertises the Envy x360 as an "IMAX certified" laptop, one of the first of its kind. It earned this certification for its ability to display IMAX-formatted content in its original 1.43:1 or 1.90:1 aspect ratio. While a flashy designation, this is a laptop we're talking about here; it's still a 16-inch screen. It does look good, though -- I'll give it that. 

The audio is also decent. While it may seem that the two vents on either side of the keyboard are speakers, audio actually originates from the dual DTS:X ultra  bar-shaped speakers on the back of the device. There isn't a lot of bass, but mid-frequency audio and dialogue sound crisp and clear and held their own when I played Netflix in a noisy kitchen.

The previously mentioned vents on either side of the keyboard are actually for expelling heat, something my colleague Cesar Cadenas will appreciate, as this is a laptop you can actually work with in your lap without getting first-degree burns on your legs.

Regarding the hardware, the Envy x360 is positioned just below HP's Spectre line of laptops to provide great performance that serves most users' needs. We reviewed the 2024 Spectre x360 earlier this year and found it has truly next-gen hardware with the cutting-edge "Meteor Lake" AI processor, but it will run you hundreds of dollars more.

The Envy x360, however, comes with an integrated AMD Radeon GPU that, coupled with the AMD Ryzen 7 8840HS processor, can run both CPU-intensive and graphics tasks well. This aligns with its targeted creator/freelancer consumer demographic, allowing visual apps like DaVinci Resolve and Adobe Photoshop to run smoothly, with an eye toward generative AI capabilities. 

I found that the battery life was better than average -- especially for an OLED-equipped laptop -- thanks to the efficiency gains of the Ryzen 7 8840HS processor. With only intermittent use, the laptop lasted me several days, while sustained activity resulted in over 10 hours of battery life, more or less equivalent to what is advertised. Even better is the fast charging feature, which I found even faster than HP's 50% in 45-minute claims.

Also:  I tested Lenovo's dual-screen laptop and it improved my productivity in profound ways

The 2-in-1 form factor requires a certain degree of physical fortitude, and its hinge-style design (which is almost identical to the Lenovo 7i 2-in-1 ) supports a sturdy build that's up to the task. It has minimal screen wobble, yet enough resistance to stay in place as a touchscreen. 

That said, this is not a particularly light laptop, weighing in at around four pounds, with most of that weight coming from the 16-inch OLED. Despite the weight, it's very thin -- only 0.72 inches -- which results in a laptop that still feels sufficiently portable. 

Port selection on the 2024 Envy x360 will also be sufficient for most users, with two USB-A ports, two USB-C ports, a 3.5mm headphone jack, and an HDMI port. The keyboard is particularly unique: the keys are big and chunky, in a matte gray color, with oversized letters in a distinct sans serif font. It looks good but lacks a right-side number pad, which I prefer to have on a laptop -- especially one of this size.

Also:  HP's new Spectre x360 is already one of my favorite laptops of the year. Here's why

If you can't tell already, I'm a big fan of the Envy x360, and out of all the 2-in-1 laptops I've tested, I prefer this one. My main critique of this laptop is the bugginess that can occur when swapping between the different orientations. Going from tablet to laptop can result in delayed or buggy keyboard response, and the screen orientation can stick in one position or another, requiring a deliberate re-positioning of the laptop to reset the internal gyroscope. 

These issues are prevalent across all 2-in-1 laptops I've tested and are (usually) intermittent enough to not be problems -- but in certain moments, facing non-functioning hardware can be frustrating, and you should keep that in mind.

ZDNET's buying advice

The HP Envy x360 16 (2024) is priced well for an upper-mid-tier device with a gorgeous display and solid performance. Creators will love this laptop's flexible form factor and impressive battery life. After using it for a few weeks, I can say that it's hands-down my favorite big-screen 2-in-1, despite its quirks. This is a laptop for work as much as it is for entertainment, and if you're looking for a 2-in-1 laptop, you have to consider the Envy x360.

If you're looking for a smaller option, consider  HP's 2024 Spectre x360 , which has a 14-inch display. For something more adventurous, check out the Lenovo Yoga Book 9i , which has two displays.

Featured reviews

I've used every ipad since the original. here's my buying advice for the new 2024 models, 5 ways to make your echo show less annoying, four reasons to buy apple's 2024 ipad pro (especially if you own an older model).

Advertisement

Supported by

Uncovering What Audubon Missed, and What He Made Up

In “The Birds That Audubon Missed,” Kenn Kaufman delves into the fierce, at times unethical, competition among early American ornithologists.

• Share full article

By Benjamin P. Russell

By the time Kenn Kaufman finished the research for his upcoming book on early North American ornithology, his view of John James Audubon, history’s most famous birder and the central figure in his new work, had changed entirely — starting with whether Audubon was a fraud.

“I began the process assuming that everything he’d written in ‘Ornithological Biography’ must be true and accurate, aside from a few honest mistakes and a few puzzling lapses,” Kaufman said, referring to Audubon’s landmark 1831 study of bird behavior.

But as Kaufman read on, he noticed Audubon’s penchant not just to embellish, but to make up tales from whole cloth. More than once Audubon described birds that almost certainly never existed. He even made the dubious claim of having gone hunting with the famed frontiersman Daniel Boone in Kentucky around 1810, even though Boone was in his 70s at the time and living in Missouri.

“When you look at his work, you start with the assumption that he may have just invented this out of nothing,” Kaufman said. “It makes him a really fascinating character.”

The miscues, contributions and shortcomings, at times severe, of Audubon and the other figures who helped define the study of birds in the United States in the early 1800s animate Kaufman’s book, “The Birds That Audubon Missed,” out Tuesday from Avid Reader Press.

In it, Kaufman, one of the country’s pre-eminent naturalists, delves into the motivations, achievements and rivalries of early American ornithologists and explores the challenges they faced in identifying and describing North American bird life. Interwoven with Kaufman’s musings on conservation, technology and the meaning of discovery, it is at heart a reflection of the author’s deep sense of connection to the natural world, especially to birds, and of his enthusiasm for helping others find that connection for themselves.

“Birds appeal to all of our senses, including our sense of wonder and imagination and endless possibilities,” Kaufman said.

Kaufman’s love for birds started early. As a nature-obsessed boy in suburban Indiana flipping through picture books of bears, elephants and dinosaurs, he was drawn to birds at first because none of those giants were present near his home. The more he watched birds, the more he was taken by them. He started reading Audubon Magazine articles written by Roger Tory Peterson, a prominent ornithologist , and became transfixed with what he described as the “intensity” and “hyperawareness” that he saw when he looked at birds close up.

By age 11, Kaufman knew he wanted to grow up to write books about birds — and his interest never wavered. As an early teen confronting the prospect of being drafted into the Vietnam War, one of his concerns was where to find a field guide to birds in the country. At 16, he left school to hitchhike across the United States and see bird species that weren’t on hand in Indiana, the subject of his 1997 memoir, “Kingbird Highway.” Even after a lifetime of study, Kaufman continues to search for and track birds on a daily basis.

“As a kid, you could always just discover something different in the backyard,” Kaufman said. “And I’ve been hooked by that ever since. They’re still surprising.”

Kaufman is careful to note that “discovery” is a loaded word: Not only were many North American birds first described for Western science by men who had never seen them alive (and in many cases never visited the continent), but, as Kaufman writes in the new book, Indigenous cultures “had robust knowledge of birdlife, genuinely scientific in its own way, long before any Europeans set foot on their lands.”

But “The Birds That Audubon Missed” is ultimately a celebration of a more personal sense of discovery, less tied to who saw what first and more to do with what new experiences do for our sense of wonder at the world around us.

“We could say that discovery, for an individual, is an elusive myth,” he writes. “But I prefer to see it in the opposite way. I think we can all make discoveries, every day.”

To that effect, Kaufman has spent much of his career trying to make it easier for people to get started in birding.

His “Field Guide to Birds of North America” — which was first published in 2000 and preceded a series of guides on birds and other animals — broke with tradition by being geared toward beginners. It even rankled some aficionados for being too user-friendly; they thought birding should be reserved for those willing to dedicate themselves to it fully. In 2005, Kaufman financed part of the publication of the guide in Spanish, which he says he made him “prouder than anything else I’ve done.”

“The world doesn’t really need a lot more people who can describe the tertials on a third-winter Thayer’s gull,” Kaufman said. “But we need a lot more people who maybe have seen a yellow warbler and have some sense that it needs habitat.”

Kaufman says that those who want to gate-keep birding are missing the point, an outlook that may be partly why he has become one of the most recognizable faces in modern American ornithology. He is a two-time recipient of the American Birding Association’s lifetime achievement award. A longtime field editor for Audubon Magazine, he also writes a column called “Ask Kenn” that answered reader questions like “Are American Robins really a sign of spring?” and “Do birds get bored?” His 2019 book on spring migration, “A Season on the Wind,” has even been adapted to music by the Bowerbird Collective, an Australian art and conservation organization, with a concert set to debut this month.

“Kenn’s work has helped spark the joy of birds for generations of birders,” said Elizabeth Gray, the chief executive of the National Audubon Society, a conservation group that works to protect birds and their habitats and publishes Audubon Magazine.

“The Birds That Audubon Missed” sprang originally from Kaufman’s curiosity about why so many common bird species went unacknowledged by Audubon — and his contemporaries — despite his setting out to identify and paint as many North American species as possible. Throughout the book, Kaufman wonders how Audubon would have painted birds such as the Swainson’s thrush if he had been able to identify them — and presents his own watercolor attempts at capturing Audubon’s style.

Kaufman has serious artistic chops; his paintings have been on display in the “Birds in Art” exhibition at the Leigh Yawkey Woodson Art Museum in Wisconsin. But in trying to emulate Audubon’s style — bold, life-size watercolors that seem ready to fly off the page — he had “failed utterly,” he said with a laugh.

“It’s the liveliness of the images,” said Lars Jonsson, a Swedish illustrator and ornithologist who is widely considered one of the world’s great painters of birds, of the enduring appeal of Audubon’s work. “The amount of work and the passion in his paintings is just amazing.”

From a study of Audubon’s missed birding opportunities, Kaufman’s project grew to take on a more critical look at the relationships that defined his career. Alexander Wilson, the Scottish-born ornithologist whose writing and scientific rigor surpassed Audubon’s, but whose paintings were drab by comparison, comes alive as a firebrand and rebel in Kaufman’s telling. George Ord, a contemporary who was ridiculed for questioning Audubon’s scientific claims, is shown in many cases to have been right all along.

It is Audubon, though, who “sucks the oxygen out of the room,” Kaufman says, and here his flaws are on full display. (Birding aside, he was an enslaver who Kaufman says “can’t hide behind the excuse that he was a man of his time.”)Still, Kaufman said he resists the urge to hold a “high-contrast view of history” that characterizes everyone as either an absolute villain or an absolute hero.

Audubon may have turned out to be something of a scientific fraud, upon Kaufman’s examination, but his influence on North American birding is undeniable, and he did make many important contributions to the science of studying birds.

As Gray notes, the name Audubon has come to represent not just the man but also “a community driven by a broader love and appreciation for birds and the actions needed to protect them.”

For someone as bird-obsessed as Kaufman, that is surely to the good.

“Once you start tuning into these other living things, I think it really makes the world more three-dimensional,” Kaufman said. “It makes life more interesting if we step outside of the confines of human culture and look at what else is out there.”

Explore More in Books

Want to know about the best books to read and the latest news start here..

The complicated, generous life  of Paul Auster, who died on April 30 , yielded a body of work of staggering scope and variety .

“Real Americans,” a new novel by Rachel Khong , follows three generations of Chinese Americans as they all fight for self-determination in their own way .

“The Chocolate War,” published 50 years ago, became one of the most challenged books in the United States. Its author, Robert Cormier, spent years fighting attempts to ban it .

Joan Didion’s distinctive prose and sharp eye were tuned to an outsider’s frequency, telling us about ourselves in essays that are almost reflexively skeptical. Here are her essential works .

Each week, top authors and critics join the Book Review’s podcast to talk about the latest news in the literary world. Listen here .