David Garland, The Culture of Control (Oxford: OUP, 2001)

1. What is the book’s argument? 2. Does the book do what it says it is going to do? 3. Is the book a contribution to the field or discipline? 4. Does the book relate to a current debate or trend in
the field and if so, how? 5. What is the theoretical lineage or school of thought out of which the book rises? 6. Is the book well-written? 7. What are the books terms and are they defined? 8. How
accurate is the information (e.g., the footnotes, bibliography, dates)? 9. Are the illustrations helpful? If there are no illustrations, should there have been? 10. Who would benefit from reading
this book? 11. How does the book compare to other books in the field?
It can be worthwhile to do an on-line search to get a sense for the author’s history, other books, university appointments. This can provide you with useful context.
Making a Plan You should really try to outline the book review before you write it. This will keep you on task and stop you from straying into writing an academic essay.
Classic book review structure is as follows: ( very important), 12. Title including complete bibliographic citation for the work (i.e., title in full, author, place, publisher, date of publication,
edition statement, pages, special features [maps, color plates, etc.], price, and ISBN. 13. One to two paragraphs identifying the thesis, and whether the author achieves the stated purpose of the
book. 15. Two to four paragraphs summarizing the book. 16. One paragraph on the book’s strengths. 17. One paragraph on the book’s weaknesses. 18. One paragraph on your assessment of the book’s
strengths and weaknesses. AVOICIIng rive OOMMOrl rattans 1. Evaluate the text, don’t just summarize it. While a succinct restatement of the text’s points is important, part of writing a book review
is making a judgment. Is the book a contribution to the field? Does it add to our knowledge? Should this book be read and by whom? One needn’t be negative to evaluate; for instance, explaining how
a text relates to current debates in the field is a form of evaluation. 2. Do not cover everything in the book. In other words, don’t use the table of contents as a structuring principle for your
review. Try to organize your review around the book’s argument or your argument about the book. 3. Judge the book by its intentions not yours. Don’t criticize the author for failing to write the
book you think that he or she should have written. As John Updike puts it, “Do not imagine yourself the caretaker of any tradition, an enforcer of any party standards, a warrior in any ideological
battle, a corrections officer of any kind.” 4. Likewise, don’t spend too much time focusing on gaps. Since a book is only 200 to 500 pages, it cannot possibly address the richness of any topic. For
this reason, the most common criticism in any review is that the book doesn’t address some part of the topic. If the book purports to be about ethnicity and film and yet lacks a chapter on Latinos,
by all means, mention it. Just don’t belabour the point. Mother tic of reviewers is to focus too much on books the author did not cite. If you are using their bibliography just to display your own
knowledge it will be obvious to the reader. Keep such criticisms brief. 5. Don’t use too many quotes from the book. It is best to paraphrase or use short telling quotes within sentences.