The review should include:
- The subject of analysis, then what you will analyze.
- The relevance of the topic. (Remember that the relevance of the topic does not require proof, it does not cause doubts and should be quite obvious)
- Formulation of the main thesis. (It is necessary to point out the central question of the work, the most notable idea of creativity)
- Summary of the work. (In this paragraph, you do not need to retell the storyline.) It is necessary to give an overall assessment of the work. To tell what the author showed skill and skill. What exactly is the author’s merit. What innovations did he introduce his work.
- Disadvantages, shortcomings. (It should be noted what exactly you had doubts about: what could you attribute to the shortcomings of the text: Do these errors reduce the level of the literary work. Do you need to highlight these shortcomings with wishes for further development of the author’s work, or are they so critical that the author is better drink poison)
- Conclusions. (Here you can indicate the originality or secondary nature of the idea.) To draw conclusions about new stages of the author’s work)
The popularity of the review is due to the brevity of its form. The reader can get some impression of the book, detached-subjective.
A detailed retelling reduces the value of the review: first, it is not interesting to read the work itself; secondly, one of the criteria for a weak review is rightly considered substitution of analysis and interpretation of the text by retelling it. Every book begins with a title that you interpret as you read in the process of reading, you solve it. The name of a good work is always multivalve, it is a kind of symbol, a metaphor. A lot to understand and interpret the text can give an analysis of the composition. Reflections on what compositional techniques are used in the work will help the referee to penetrate the author’s intention. On which parts can you separate the text? How are they located? It is important to assess the style, originality of the writer, to disassemble the images, the artistic techniques that he uses in his work. The reviewer examines the “how is made” text, and the review should be written as if no one in the examining committee with the reviewed work is familiar. It is necessary to assume what questions this person can ask and try to prepare answers in advance in the text.