Thirteen days  book review by Robert F. Kennedy5-page essay for more information look at the attached files
Thirteen days book review by Robert F. Kennedy5-page essay for more information look at the attached files
Thirteen Days book review by Robert F. Kennedy Writing Reviews Writing reviews is an important part of the historical process because it allows you to provide your opinion regarding a book.  The following are measures you need to take in order to write a compelling and complete book review. You need to establish the author’s credentials.  Tell your reader whether the author has an advanced degree and where he earned it.  Identify additional books she has written and whether or not her peers have recognized her work with awards or grants. A good review identifies the author’s theme or thesis and addresses why she wrote the book.  You will usually find the thesis in the introduction.  A poor review repeats the narrative.  Be certain that someone who has not read the book will understand its focus after reading your review.  If the book you are reviewing is a historical novel or a memoir, address the criteria identified in the list below that are applicable to the assignment.  Note whether the author has a personal tie to her subject.  Assess the book’s historical accuracy. Your review will include an assessment of the evidence the author uses to support her thesis.  In doing so, be specific–do not simply say he uses primary or secondary sources.  Identify the type of sources: oral interviews, personal papers, newspaper accounts, census data, etc., and provide specific examples.  Reading reviews already written about the book you are reviewing will provide perspective to your interpretation.  Professional journals, such as the Journal of American History, Diplomatic History, and the American Historical Review, publish reviews.  Journals such as Reviews in History and Book Review Digest focus exclusively on book reviews. Identification of and reference to the body of review literature is an important part of your review.  Consult with the reference librarians to identify book reviews available through I. D. Weeks. In some cases, there will be no reviews of a book; in other cases, there will be ten or more.  It is your job to read all the reviews and include each of them in your bibliography. If you determine a consensus exists with regard to the book’s strengths and weaknesses, you may then write something to the effect of:  “Thirteen historians reviewed The Return of Martin Guerre and the majority of them found it to be a well-researched and provocative account of a fascinating tale from sixteenth century France.”  You would then provide a few representative citations from several of the reviews to support your conclusion.  In other words, you do not need to provide a citation to each review in the body of your paper to support your assessment of the book, but you do need to include all reviews in your bibliography. It is also important to recognize critical reviews and provide your opinion as to whether the criticism is justified.  Evaluate the author’s style.  For example, is it narrative or analytical? Is it diplomatic, social, economic, military, or psychological history? A complete review will also identify the audience to which the book is directed. Your review is a formal writing assignment.  Use the past tense when discussing the book.  Do not use contractions or slang.  Use active voice.  When mentioning an individual for the first time, use his/her full name.  Do not write in the first person.  Write, “This is a good book,” not “I think this is a good book.”  Avoid hyperbole like “This is the best book ever written on the subject.” If you quote phrases or sentences from the work, cite them according to the Chicago style.  Long quotations from the book are evidence of your failure to critically analyze it.  It is usually best to paraphrase the author while attributing him for the idea. Do not repeat items or facts that the reader can be expected to know.  For example, assume that the reader knows Japanese military forces attacked Pearl Harbor on 7 December 1941. Your review should include a title page (see the Sample Title Page on the D2L site for the correct format) and should be paginated, beginning with the number “2” on the first page of your narrative.  There is no page number on the title page. Proof read your review for typographical errors, clarity of thought, complete sentences, correct grammar, correct spelling and appropriate style.  Do NOT rely solely on a spell check tool.  Improperly used words, if spelled correctly, will pass a spell check survey. Be certain to keep a copy of your paper.  Sometimes papers get lost or misplaced.  If you have a copy on disk, you can easily provide your instructor with a duplicate. Remember that a good review: ·         Includes a title page and pagination for subsequent pages. ·         Is double-spaced and written in either Cambria or Times New Roman font at 12 point. The review is also written and submitted in MS Word .doc format. ·         Establishes the author’s credentials. Tell your reader whether the author has an advanced degree and where he earned it. It is also important to identify any additional books she has written and whether she has received professional awards or other recognition. If the book you are reviewing is part of a series, identify the series. ·         Identifies the author’s theme or thesis, addresses why she wrote the book, and establishes what she is trying to prove. You must provide a citation to the page or pages where you found the thesis or theme in the book. ·         Includes an assessment of the evidence she uses to supports her thesis. Be specific–do not simply say he uses primary or secondary sources. Identify the type of sources: oral interviews, personal papers, newspaper accounts, census data, etc., and provide a specific example or two. ·         Identifies what other reviewers have said about the work and determines whether a consensus exists as to the book’s value. ·         Evaluates the author’s style. Is it narrative or analytical? Is it appealing? ·         Identifies the type of historical writing, i.e., social, economic, political, intellectual, or any other identifiable type of history. ·         Provides a conclusion as to the value of the work. ·         Includes a bibliography with full bibliographic citations for the book you are reviewing and for the reviews of the book. If you undertake to check your review against these ten steps, I assure you your grades will reflect the effort.
Thirteen days book review by Robert F. Kennedy5-page essay for more information look at the attached files
William March’s Company K ( Tuscaloosa, Alabama: The University of Alabama press,1989)                 A review by Merga Gemeda                       History 152 American History Survey II Professor Steven J. Bucklin         Department of History The University of South Dakota 26 February 2019 Jane Doe is a respected historian of American Foreign Relations. She earned a Bachelor’s degree in History at Loras College, a master’s degree at the University of South Dakota, and a doctorate in International Relations at Harvard in 1970. Currently, she is a full professor at Yale where she teaches courses on international relations, American foreign policy, and genocide studies.1 In addition to company k, william has written a text book titled The Drama Unfolds: U.S. Foreign Policy and the Twentieth Century (New York, NY: Norton, 1999), as well as numerous articles published in such prestigious journals as Foreign Affairs, Diplomatic History, The Journal of American History, and The American Historical Review. Doe received the Bancroft Prize from the American Historical Association for Stranger than Fiction. She has also received numerous grants, including a Fellowship at Princeton’s Center for International Studies and a National Endowment for the Humanities.2 The subject of Stranger than Fiction is the claim that Franklin Roosevelt had knowledge prior to 7 December 1941 that the Japanese government planned to attack Pearl Harbor. Examining the claims of scholars D. F. Duck and Michael Mouse, Doe’s thesis is that Roosevelt did not have specific knowledge of an impending attack on Pearl Harbor and critics who claim otherwise base their interpretation on faulty evidence.3 Their claims, she declares, are “ahistoric and more suitable to cartoon history than legitimate revisionism.”4 Doe’s purpose in writing the book is to set the record straight and demonstrate that President Roosevelt was not, at least in this instance, a scheming character from Machiavelli’s The Prince. After examining Duck’s and Mouse’s evidence, Doe provides extensive evidence of her own. She has visited the Roosevelt Presidential Library in Hyde Park, New York, the Imperial War Museum in Tokyo, the Imperial War Museum in London, and has mined the National Archives in Washington, D.C. and College Park, Maryland. Doe has also combed the records and correspondence of Roosevelt’s key advisors, including Harry Hopkins, George C. Marshall, and a host of others. Her primary sources are impeccable. Doe also provides a lesson from the exemplary secondary literature that has been written about this subject. She cites, among other works, He Was Not A Liar by Richard Nixon; FDR Was Not Asleep, by Ronald Reagan, and “Read My Lips”: FDR and the Attack on Pearl Harbor by George H. W. Bush.  From this exhaustive evidence, Doe concludes that at the most, FDR and the Joint Chiefs of Staff knew that a Japanese attack might come somewhere in the Pacific. Given that the closest American outposts to Japan were the Philippines and Midway Island, it seemed most logical that if an attack came, it would concentrate on those two island groups. Hawaii was thought to be too far away from Japan for an invasion or attack force to be successfully launched. American detection and subsequent destruction of such a force was virtually assured.5 Doe also confronts the issue of the Magic Intercepts. Indeed, the United States intelligence services had decoded Japan’s diplomatic code, but not its military code. U.S. leaders knew something was up, but they did not know exactly what was going to happen because the diplomatic messages were incomplete and non-specific. Doe includes translations of the specific messages that were intercepted so that the reader can make his own conclusions as to what the principle architects of American policy knew in late November, early December 1941.6 The majority of reviewers have reacted favorably to Doe’s book. Charles Chaplin observed in Foreign Affairs that “I can think of no other treatment of this subject in modern times that has done so much to repudiate the poor scholarship of the revisionists.”7 Mel Brooks wrote in Diplomatic History that the book “blazes a new path of scholarship, although the author must be dead in the saddle after her intensive review of the evidence.”8 In an interesting twist, Alfred Hitchcock asserted that Doe has added a new dimension to the profile of revisionists: “Those small minded scholars are better suited to running a motel,” declared the English reviewer, “than to writing history!”9 There were some reviews whose authors clung to the notion of a vast FDR-led conspiracy to bring the United States into the war. One reviewer even claimed that FDR was the dupe of Winston Churchill. These reviews appeared in Conspiracy Journal, the Journal of Modern Conspiracies, and Marxism Lives! It may be that the nature of these journals alone speaks to the quality of the reviews they publish. The consensus of credible reviewers is that Stranger than Fiction is the standard by which future books on this subject will be judged. Stranger than Fiction is a compellingly written narrative political history. Her style is engaging despite the fact that she must deal with occasionally dry material. Nonetheless, the intrigue of the last half of 1941 rivets the reader. Doe brings the issues and the actors alive. Rather than write “Roosevelt was worried about developments in Japan,” Doe reaches into the memoirs of the people around FDR so that she can tell the reader: “Roosevelt was smoking more. Pack after crumpled pack of Chesterfields littered the office. His trumpeting smile was nowhere to be seen. Instead, he wore the burden of office like so many creases on an aging leather satchel.”10 Jane Doe demonstrates that history does not have to be just names, dates, and places. It can be engaging and compelling as well as informative. BIBLIOGRAPHY   Books Doe, Jane. Stranger than Fiction. New York, NY: Harper Collins, 1999.   Reviews Brooks, Mel. “Review of Stranger than Fiction,” by Jane Doe. Diplomatic History vol. 2, #2, (Spring 2000): 14-15. Chaplin, Charles. “Review of Stranger than Fiction,” by Jane Doe. Foreign Affairs vol. 1, #4 (Winter 2000): 2-3. Hitchcock, Alfred. “Review of Stranger than Fiction,” by Jane Doe. American Historical Review vol. 3, #3 (Summer 2000): 10-11. Marx, Karl Jr. “Review of Stranger than Fiction,” by Jane Doe. Marxism Lives! vol. 4, #1 (Fall 2000): 12-13. Stone, Oliver. “Review of Stranger than Fiction,” by Jane Doe. Conspiracy Journal vol. 4, #1 (Fall 2000): 15-16. Ziphead, Mark. “Review of Stranger than Fiction,” by Jane Doe. Journal of Modern Conspiracies vol. 3, #3 (Summer 2000): 21-22.   1“Jane Doe,” Yale University “About our Faculty,” As accessed 31 October 2000. 2Ibid. 3Jane Doe, Stranger than Fiction (New York, NY: Harper Collins, 1999), 5. 4Ibid., 8. 5Ibid., 312-314. 6Ibid. 7Charles Chaplin, “Review of Stranger than Fiction,” Foreign Affairs, vol. 1, #3 (Summer 2001), 14. 8Mel Brooks, “Review of Stranger than Fiction,” Diplomatic History, vol. 2, #2, (Spring 2000), 15. 9Alfred Hitchcock, “Review of Stranger than Fiction,” American Historical Review, vol. 3, #3 (Summer 2000), 10. 10Doe, 52.

Why Choose Us

  • 100% non-plagiarized Papers
  • 24/7 /365 Service Available
  • Affordable Prices
  • Any Paper, Urgency, and Subject
  • Will complete your papers in 6 hours
  • On-time Delivery
  • Money-back and Privacy guarantees
  • Unlimited Amendments upon request
  • Satisfaction guarantee

How it Works

  • Click on the “Place Order” tab at the top menu or “Order Now” icon at the bottom and a new page will appear with an order form to be filled.
  • Fill in your paper’s requirements in the "PAPER DETAILS" section.
  • Fill in your paper’s academic level, deadline, and the required number of pages from the drop-down menus.
  • Click “CREATE ACCOUNT & SIGN IN” to enter your registration details and get an account with us for record-keeping and then, click on “PROCEED TO CHECKOUT” at the bottom of the page.
  • From there, the payment sections will show, follow the guided payment process and your order will be available for our writing team to work on it.