Editor’s Note: This post originally appeared on Thomas Kidd’s substack.
The ‘critical book review’ is a staple of course assignments in colleges and seminaries. But I find that some students simply do not know what it means to write a ‘critical’ book review.
Some students seem to think that ‘critical’ just means summarizing the book for 95% of the essay and then finding one or two negative things to say about it. This model does, in an elementary way, gesture at the meaning of “critical.” A “non-critical” review is one that simply summarizes the book’s content, and it may unequivocally praise whatever the book does.
Some interpret “critical” mainly as black-and-white criticisms of issues such as factual errors. I recently wrote a review of Brenda Wineapple’s new history of the Scopes Trial, in which I unfortunately had to point out that the book misunderstood issues at the trial such as William Jennings Bryan’s view on the age of the earth. Hopefully, most books you review will not contain errors like these, which are directly pertinent to the book’s arguments.
I would encourage you to be judicious in pointing out errors, however. It is boring and picky to say things like (for example) “the author failed to delete an extra space between sentences on p. 287.” If you mention errors, however, you have to be specific. It is entirely unacceptable to say “the book is marred by factual errors” but not identify what those errors are.
Speaking of boring and picky, it is not helpful to criticize a book by saying “they could have covered topic X,” unless topic X is essential information that would have changed their argument.
Most of all, students should NEVER generically criticize a book for being “boring.” As a professor, I take such criticism as a likely sign that the student is a dullard.
Finally, remember “Kidd’s rule of negative book reviews” – if you write a negative review, you are fated to meet the author in an elevator at the next conference you attend. In other words, keep in mind that there is a real person who wrote the book you’re reviewing, and in most cases, they poured their heart and soul into publishing the book.
But a “critical” book review does not necessarily mean negative. It certainly does not mean that a student or writer who has never published a book presumes to lecture an author about how he or she could write a better book. Some humility is in order.
So what does “critical” mean in this context? “Critical” in an academic sense means a review that draws out issues or problems raised by the book, or perhaps ones unaddressed by the author. Critical book reviews, as it were, extend the discussion started by the book’s author. Critical reviews often conclude that the book under review is fabulous, AND that it provokes further thoughts and questions by the reviewer.
A representative example of this approach is Chris Watkin’s recent review at The Gospel Coalition of Carl Trueman’s To Change All Worlds: Critical Theory from Marx to Marcuse. [affiliate link] I provided an endorsement for Trueman’s book, and I think it is terrific. Watkin thinks so, too, but he also seeks to extend the discussion by considering some roots of critical theory that Trueman may have neglected. (Watkin is well positioned to do this, as an expert on critical theory himself.)
Watkin’s review offers a useful template for a good book review. The first thing it does is briefly review Trueman’s description of the tenets of critical theory. He does not merely summarize but helps a reader understand the essence of Trueman’s book. A brief distillation of a book’s main points is a great service. And, while a lengthy summary is easier to do, it is not as helpful to readers.
The second thing that Watkin does is to explain how Trueman critiques critical theory from a Christian perspective. This extends the distillation, not just of the story Trueman is telling, but of his argument about critical theory.
Finally, and most importantly, Watkin raises an extremely important and timely question. What should Christians think about critical theory? He explains Trueman’s answer to that question, but then offers a “caveat” or a somewhat different answer than Trueman’s. Following his own work, Watkin argues that critical theory draws on ancient Judeo-Christian patterns of thought (concern for social justice, etc.), but has become so secularized that it has lost connection to redemptive aims.
Watkin concludes that Trueman’s book offers a “profound and valuable critique” of critical theory, but that he thinks Trueman’s analysis would profit from considering critical theory’s biblical roots.
The components of this book review, then, are 1) distillation of content, 2) explanation of the argument, and 3) commentary on what the argument might miss or neglect. This is not the only way to write a critical review, but it is a classic model and a good one to emulate.
Thank you for this! I plan to ask my students to read it before they write their book reviews. Very helpful!