Effective Book Review Writing Tips

Effective Book Review Writing Tips There are fundamental differences among the various kinds of scientific books. What should be covered in an effective book review. Monographs. We can define a monograph as a specialized book written for a specialized audience. Therefore, the reviewer of a monograph has one paramount obligation: to describe for potential readers exactly what is in the book. What, precisely, is the subject of the book, and what are the outside limits of the material covered? If the monograph has a number of subjects, perhaps each with a different author, each subject should be treated individually. The good book review, of course, will mirror the quality of the book; the pedestrian material will be passed over quickly, and the significant contributions will be given weightier discussion. The quality of the writing, with rare exceptions, will not need comment. It is the information in the monograph that is important to its audience. Highly technical language and even some jargon are to be expected. Reference Books. The subject of a reference book is likely to be much broader than that of a monograph. Still, it is important for the reviewer to define in appropriate detail the content of the book. Unlike the monograph, which may contain many opinions and other subjective material, the reference book contains facts. Therefore, the prime responsibility of the book reviewer is to determine, however possible, the accuracy of the material in the reference book. Any professional librarian will tell you that an inaccurate reference book is worse than none at all. Textbooks. In reviewing a textbook, the reviewer has a different set of considerations. Unlike the language in a monograph, that in a textbook must be nontechnical and jargon must be avoided. The reader will be a student, not a peer of the scientist who wrote the book. Technical terms will be used, of course, but each should be carefully defined at first use. Unlike in the reference book, accuracy is not of crucial importance. An inaccurate number or word here and there is not crucial as long as the message gets through. The function of the book reviewer, then, is to determine whether the subject of the text is treated clearly, in a way that is likely to enable students to grasp and to appreciate the knowledge presented. The textbook reviewer has one additional responsibility. If other texts on the same subject exist, which is usually the case, the reviewer should provide appropriate comparisons. A new textbook might be good based on its own evident merits; however, if it is not as g ood as existing texts, it is useless. Trade Books. Again, the reviewer has different responsibilities. The reader of a trade book may be a general reader, not a scientist or a student of the sciences. Therefore, the language must be nontechnical. Furthermore, unlike any of the other scientific books, a trade book must be interesting. Trade books are bought as much for entertainment as they are for education. Facts may be important, but a boring effusion of facts would be out of place. Scientific precepts are sometimes difficult for the layperson to comprehend. The scientist writing for this market must always keep this point in mind, and the reviewer of a trade book must do so also. If a somewhat imprecise, nontechnical term must replace a precise, technical term, so be it. The reviewer may wince from time to time, but a book that succeeds in fairly presenting scientific concepts to the general public should not be faulted because of an occasional imprecision. Finally, with trade books (as with other scientific books, for that matter), the reviewer should try to define the audience. Can any literate person read and understand the book, or is some level of scientific competency necessary? If a reviewer has done the job well, a potential reader will know whether or not to read the book under consideration, and why. Imprint Information. At the top of a book review, the reviewer should list complete imprint information. The usual order is as follows: title of the book, edition (if other than the first), name of author(s) or editor(s), publisher, place (city in which the publisher is located), year of publication, number of pages, and list price of the book. Conventionally, well-known cities are not followed by state or country names. A publisher located in New York is listed New York not New York, NY and London is listed as London not London, U.K. A company providing support in all kinds of book review writing can be a good source of help when you need a book review. Books related to any discipline and of any kind can be reviewed excellently by following the instructions. If you do not know how to do a book review writing, do not get upset as we are here to help you. So, follow the instructions given below for book review writing: Read the book for which you are going to do book review writing. While reading, summarize all the chapters in your own words. Evaluate the book. Closely look into the writing style of the author, what words he/she uses mostly, how he/she has managed to deliver his/her views regarding the main topic and what theme he/she has followed to write the book. Try to find out the center of the book, the main idea around which the whole text is revolving. Find out the strong and weak aspects of the writer which he/she has shown in his/her writing. Highlight the strong and weak points in your review writing. Try to find out how the writer has justified his/her claims that he/she made in his/her written work. Introduce the text. Conclude in the last. Remember writing book reviews is a small exercise, you should not write a number of pages for it. Try to cut it short. First of all, do the drafting for book review writing, then check it and write it with amendments. Try to keep the review as simple as you can. Moreover, it should be readily understood. If you are still in need of assistance, contact us, and we will resolve all of your problems related to book review writing.

Astronomy 101 - Early History of Astronomy

Astronomy 101 - Early History of Astronomy Astronomy is humanitys oldest science. People have been looking up, trying to explain what they see in the sky probably since the first human-like cave dwellers existed. Theres a famous scene in the movie 2001: A Space Odyssey, where a hominid named Moonwatcher surveys the sky, taking in the sights and pondering what he sees. Its likely that such beings really did exist, trying to make some sense of the cosmos as they saw it. Prehistoric Astronomy Fast forward about 10,000 years to the time of the first civilizations, and the earliest astronomers who already figured out how to use the sky. In some cultures, they were priests, priestesses, and other elites who studied the movement of celestial bodies to determine rituals, celebrations, and planting cycles. With their ability to observe and even forecast celestial events, these people held great power among their societies. This is because the sky remained a mystery to most people, and in many cases, cultures put their deities in the sky. Anyone who could figure out the mysteries of the sky (and the sacred) had to be pretty important.   However, their observations were not exactly scientific. They were more practical, although somewhat used for ritual purposes. In some civilizations, people assumed that that celestial objects and their motions could foretell their own futures. That belief led to the now-discounted practice of astrology, which is more of an entertainment than anything scientific.   The Greeks Lead the Way The ancient Greeks were among the first to start developing theories about what they saw in the sky. Theres much evidence that early Asian societies also relied on the heavens as a sort of calendar. Certainly, navigators and travelers used the positions of the Sun, Moon, and stars to find their way around the planet.   Observations of the Moon suggested that Earth, too, was round. People also believed that Earth was the center of all creation. When coupled with the philosopher Plato’s assertion that the sphere was the perfect geometrical shape, the Earth-centered view of the universe seemed like a natural fit.   Many other early observers believed the heavens were really a giant crystalline bowl arching over Earth. That view gave way to another idea, expounded by astronomer Eudoxus and philosopher Aristotle in the 4th century BCE. They said the Sun, Moon, and planets hung on a set of nesting, concentric spheres surrounding Earth. Nobody could see them, but something was holding up the celestial objects, and invisible nesting balls were as good an explanation as anything else. Although helpful to ancient people trying to make sense of an unknown universe, this model did not help in properly tracking the motions planets, the Moon, or stars as seen from Earths surface. Still, with few refinements, it remained the predominant scientific view of the universe for another six hundred years. The Ptolemaic Revolution in Astronomy In the Second Century BCE, Claudius Ptolemaeus (Ptolemy), a Roman astronomer working in Egypt, added a curious invention of his own to the geocentric model of nesting crystalline balls.   He said that the planets moved in perfect circles made of something, attached to those perfect spheres. All that stuff   rotated around Earth. He called these little circles epicycles and they were an important (if erroneous) assumption. While it was wrong, his theory could, at least, predict the paths of the planets fairly well. Ptolemys view remained the preferred explanation for another fourteen centuries! The Copernican Revolution That all changed in the 16th century, when  Nicolaus Copernicus, a Polish astronomer tiring of the cumbersome and imprecise nature of the Ptolemaic model, began working on a theory of his own. He thought there had to be a better way to explain the perceived motions of planets and the Moon in the sky. He theorized that the Sun was at the center of the universe and Earth and other planets revolved around it. Seems simple enough, and very logical. However, this idea conflicted with the Holy Roman churchs idea (which was largely based on the perfection of Ptolemys theory). In fact, his idea caused him some trouble. Thats because, in the Churchs view, humanity and its planet were always and only to be considered the center of all things. The Copernican idea demoted Earth to something the Church didnt want to think about. Since it was the Church and had assumed power over all knowledge, it threw its weight around to get his idea discredited.   But, Copernicus persisted. His model of the universe, while still incorrect, did three main things. It explained the prograde and retrograde motions of the planets. It took Earth out of its spot as the center of the universe. And, it expanded the size of the universe. In a geocentric model, the size of the universe is limited so that it can revolve once every 24 hours, or else the stars would get slung off due to centrifugal force. So, maybe the Church did fear more than a demotion of our place in the universe since a deeper understanding of the universe was changing with Copernicuss ideas.   While it was a major step in the right direction, Copernicus’ theories were still quite cumbersome and imprecise. Yet, he paved the way for further scientific understanding. His book, On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Bodies, which was published as he lay on his deathbed, was a key element in the beginning of the Renaissance and the Age of Enlightenment. In those centuries, the scientific nature of astronomy became incredibly important, along with the construction of telescopes to observe the heavens. Those scientists contributed to the rise of astronomy as a specialized science that we know and rely upon today.  Edited by Carolyn Collins Petersen.