Peter The Great

Work Instructions
Please read Peter The Great,William Marshall I prefer that you write a book review, at least 3 pages long (double-spaced, typed; not including title page or “sources cited” page, if you choose to use these; margins of no more than one inch all around, with a font no larger than 12pt), based on a scholarly book that is in some way connected with the course., you must review it, not just summarize it. I expect you to analyze it and criticize it to the best of your ability, in accordance with these guidelines.If you choose to review a secondary source, e.g. a book written by a historian about past events, your review should contain the following elements: (1)Brief description of book and author: In a sentence, what is the book about? When was it written? Who wrote it, and what is his/her background? If the book doesn’t contain any information about the author(s), check with a librarian. There are several standard reference books in the University Library that will give you some basic background information on individual authors. (2)Identification of thesis: Nearly all scholarly books have a thesis, or central argument. What is the author’s argument? Is the argument clearly made? Does the author appear to have a particular point-of-view, bias, or “axe to grind”? Note: the book’s “thesis” is not the same as its “purpose.” If, for example, you are reading a history of classical Sparta, please don’t tell me that the author’s thesis “is to write a history of classical Sparta.” That’s not a thesis. Failure to identify a book’s thesis correctly will result in a significant loss in points (see below). (3)Summary: This should be relatively brief. Discuss the subject matter of the book in a little more detail, showing how the author pursues his/her thesis throughout the book. Do not, however, make the summary the main point of the review. If your review consists entirely, or even mostly, of summary, then you will receive little or no credit for the review. (3)Analysis/critique: This is the most important part of the review. How consistent is the author’s thesis? How well does the author back up the book’s thesis with factual evidence? Does the book seem startlingly new, or is it merely a retelling of well-known facts and interpretations? Does the author seem to have a particular bias, and how does the author’s background influence the book? To whom would you recommend this book? Here you actually have to tell me why you think the way that you do about this book, using examples when necessary. Please do not simply state “The author was very consistent with his thesis” or that “the author uses factual evidence to back up her argument.” How does the author demonstrate this thesis throughout the book? Exactly what kind of factual evidence does the author employ? A brief or vague analysis will not earn you very many points. And if you are going to recommend this book, specify a particular type of reader (e.g. a specialist in the topic, someone who already knows a great deal about the topic, general readers, etc.), and not something like “I would recommend this book to my friend Joe, because he likes to read about stuff.” If you choose to review a primary source, i.e. a book written during the time period you are studying (e.g., Richelieu’s Political Testament), the approach described above will generally not work. Instead, you should pick out what the book tells us about life, society, politics, etc., during that time period. What, for example, does Richelieu tell us about the actual workings of absolutism in his Political Testament? A primary source may not have a thesis or use supporting evidence. If you try to review a primary source as a secondary source, you will not receive any credit on your paper. If you are not sure what a primary source is, see the instructor. Format Either on the top of the first page of text, or on a separate cover sheet, please make sure that you include the following information: name, date, course and section number; the title and the author(s) of the book you are reviewing, as well as any other bibliographic data (place of publication, publisher, date of publication, translator and/or editor, etc.); and the heading “Extra Credit.” If you fail to include this information, you will not receive a grade for your work. All reviews must be typed. In order to facilitate the grading of these papers, I also require that: (1)all papers be stapled together—I will not accept papers that are folded together or kept in a binder of any kind; (2)you use a font no larger than 12pt; (3)you use margins of no larger than one inch all around; (4)you double-space your paper—no triple-spacing, no extra spaces inserted in-between paragraphs. Grading Extra credit projects can receive a maximum of ten (10) points, which will be added to your final grade. I will, however, take off points for the following problems: Failure to identify thesis: 5 points Little analysis of book: 5-7 points No analysis of book: 10 points (i.e., no credit) Not mentioning the book’s title, your name, or your class/section number: 10 points (i.e., no credit) Paper not stapled together, or not following format (see above): 10 points (i.e., no credit) Incomprehensible spelling or grammar: 2 – 7 points Reviewing an inappropriate or unapproved book: 10 points (i.e., no credit) Academic dishonesty Whether it involves individual sentences or entire paragraphs, copying an author’s work is plagiarism. Plagiarism will be penalized.