An Inquiry into Book Review

AN ATTEMPT OF INQUIRY INTO BOOK REVIEW

According to Wikipedia, book review is an attempt to analyze “content, style and merit” of the book. Book review is subset of literary criticism, a practice dating as old as early Greek era. The practice has gained greater prominence in this information age which has seen massive explosion of information in terms of quantity and also, unprecedented access of information to the masses (made possible by internet). These two factors have made practically impossible for a person to be able to read most books on any given subject, given limited life span of human being. It is said that the last person who had known all that was available to be known during his/her age was Aristotle.

This writing doesn’t claim to tell anything new to the readers. For in fact, with a single click through Google, one can easily find superior writings on the subject matter itself. What this writing will claim to do is to be able to coordinate ideas available on the subject matter so as to enable readers to be able to benefit by not having to undertake the labor of Googling, themselves. What will this writing also claim not to do, is to provide Islamic approach towards reviewing books, for the writer doesn’t believe there is an Islamic way of reviewing book anymore than there is a Christian or Judaist way of doing so. However, the writer also believes that “principles” espoused by religions (be it Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism etc) such as justice, empathy etc will not harm shall they be applied hand-pickedly during the course of book review.

In so far, one admits that book review is an undertaking/action in itself, one can approach this in two ways.
1) Principle based approach is an approach which prescribes set of broad based principles or values that are to be upheld while reviewing book
2) Rule or formula based approach prescribes set of steps or rules or formulas that are to be followed in order to review a book.

Both of these approaches are not without advantages and disadvantages. While principles based approach acknowledges there is no one way of doing things right, rule based approach avoid ambiguities by articulating step by step approach. While rule based approach may encourage “ticking the box” attitude (which is bad thing, by the way), the principle based approach may dispense away with consistency. In short, both have merits and demerits. Our approach would be to approach book review in both of these ways.

PRINCIPLE BASED APPROACH

The writer suggests that following principles ought to be followed for an undertaking of effective book review:

a) Objectivity

A good book review ought to be objective. Objectivity (opposed to subjectivity) can be taken to mean neutral, mind-independent or truths that are discovered rather than created (Source: Wikipedia). Being objective means, to be “value” free. However, it will be wise to bear in mind what constitute objective might not be agreeable to all; hence “objectivity” can be subjective too!

b) Professionalism

A professional book reviewer is one who “utilizes his/her independent judgement and professional ethics” in the course of book review. Independent judgement, is different from being objective, as the former calls for a judgement to be made, while the latter simply calls for independence or lack of bias. A ethical book reviewer shall avoid selling his soul for purpose other than discovering of truth during the course of book review.

c) Competency

A minimum level of competency in terms of understanding of the subject matter is a pre-requisite of effective book review. However this should not be confused with mastery or specialization of the subject matter. Understanding can be developed through reading relevant writings on the subject matter.

d) Justice

While absolute justice is the reserve of God and His Judgment’s Day, this shouldn’t stop a good book reviewer from striving towards justice. Justice, here could be taken to mean all three (a to c) things above, and/or any other aspect that reader here can construe. Justice ought to be considered in the context of the actors involved, i.e. author, readers and perhaps the subject matter itself.

The above list of “principles” are not exhaustive, one may add or subtract where applicable.

RULES BASED APPROACH

Rule or formula based approach suggests step by step approach towards book review. The writer here suggests the following “best practices” to be adopted;

a) Forming Expectations

Developing expectations about what the book should be all about, helps to keep big picture in mind while reading the book, hence one’s ability to evaluate or assess the book. How is one to develop expectations? Read the title or preface of the book and then Google up the subject. After reading the book, one can decide whether it lived up to its expectations.

b) Identification of Broad Theme or Objective

Book’s theme may or may not be so apparent, but nevertheless need to be identified. Theme needs to be distinguished from arguments or premises. More of which later.
An example of a theme would be Soro’s idea of the need to fix global capitalism in this book “THE CRISIS OF GLOBAL CAPITALISM: OPEN SOCIETY ENDANGERED”.

c) Identification & Assessment of Arguments

Though not all books are argumentative in nature, most that make lively book review are. Simply put, argument is a statement that makes a claim. However, arguments are more than just a claim. An argument ought to have proper structure for it to be effective. An argument, depending on whom you ask, may consist of premise and conclusion. An example would be “Some Greeks are logicians, therefore some logicians are Greeks”. Here, “Some Greeks are logician” is a premise, whereas “therefore some logicians are Greeks” is conclusion. Arguments can assessed based on their strength. Some arguments are strong, while others are weak. To say that UIA should improve quality of its education so that it could attract rich Arabs to come and study, is weaker argument than to say that it should be done so that society/Ummah/everyone would benefit.

d) Conclusion

In the concluding part, the reviewer may want to provide opinion as to whether the author has achieved the objective he set to achieve. Here, the reviewer may bring his personal opinion of the subject matter and assess the overall book, whether it has done justice to the subject matter by e.g. covering main issues involved etc. Here, the reviewer can also provide reference or comparison to similar books that have been written on the subject matter and give recommendation as to whether the book is worth reading. A good reviewer should be able to convince readers to either pick the book up or drop it!


The writer hopes that the above shall be found useful and it will generate interests and curiosity among the readers to experiment and find out more about subject matter.


TYPES OF ARGUMENTATIVE BOOKS

In order to oppose or evaluate an argumentative book, it will be helpful that books types are identified. Argumentative books come in two types:

Principle books (“what” books)

These books debate the “objective” or “principles”. For example, whether or not right to wear hijab be deemed human right etc. The question here is “what” constitutes human rights?

Mechanism books (“how” books)

These books tend to be about mechanism i.e. how to we best achieve certain objective. For example should we jail or hang murderers. Here the objective is punishment or justice. A reviewer is not expected to question the need of punishment or the need for justice but whether either of the mechanism will best serve justice.

In the case of Soro’s book, the writer would deem it as both Principle and Mechanism book. It is Principle book to the extent that it espouse capitalism as best form of organizing economy, and it is Mechanism book to the extent that it provides mechanism e.g. through creation of World Central Bank to solve global financial instability.

Islam and Mammon

Dear all,

Can anyone tell how can we get the entire Timur Kuran book above, in cheapest possible way?

Have people grown smarter or dumber?

Hi all,

I came across of this debate in the "economist". Thought of sharing it with you all. Follow the link pls>>>> http://www.economist.com/debate/days/view/246.

FYI, there are also other debates posted by economist online which make for good leisure reading in free time. Pls enjoy. Thanks

Khalid's Special Request

Our good friend Khalid has requested that blog be made part of assessment of the course i.e. by allocating 5% to 10% marks for blog participation. But I disagreed, as it would be too burdensome as some of us are taking more than 1 subject. What do you guys think?

THE REVIEW
REVIEW OF THE CRISI OF GLOBAL CAPITALISM: OPEN SOCIETY ENDANGERED
By Muhammad Arif Zakaullah.

Dr Arif begins the review of the book by giving the author's motivation for writing the book. According to him was "... was the realization that the real threat to global capitalism was within". The idea originally conceived in the post cold war "...was being done in a leisurely manner ..." but the Asian financial crisis made him to realize the urgency of the book, hence the publication in November 1998.

According to Arif, the idea that forms the basis of Soros' argument is that we live in Global Capitalist Economy. In his word, “The development of global economy has not being matched by the development of global society". But the key player - the nation state is not well equipped to deal with the system; as a result of which global financial system are beyond the control of national or international authorities. This concerns, however faces the challenge of economic theory "...that market is self correcting and global economy can flourish without any need for global society". Soros observes that this market fundamentalism is a serious threat to global capitalism as it seek to impose "... the supremacy of market value over political and social values". The success of capitalism, to him, is in combining the two forces. Soros then proposes the establishment of international central bank to regulate the activities of borrowing nations and the use of reflexivity in economic analysis to curb the onslaught of market fundamentalism on global capitalism.

In his review, Arif the morality approach to capitalism by someone who, himself, was a key player and stresses how an individual may thorn between social value and individual interest. This, in Arif’s word “... uncovers the deep and wide crack in the philosophical foundation of capitalism which, everybody believed to have been firmly and permanently patched by Adam Smith". The idea of international central bank by Soros did not go without receiving a knock from the reviewer when he says that apart from the fact that the author himself acknowledges the political infeasibility of the idea, the proposed supervisory body , IMF, is seen my many nation as an agent of financial oppression of few from the north. Finally the reviewer noted that despite the fact that the book focused on supervisory role of national banking and financial system of borrowing nation, it provides little insight to the strategies and speculative activities to know what will be the consequences on their financial system.

The reviewer is not however, just to criticize the book as seen in his agreement with the author on the issue of democracy "...that government lacks the political will to change the rule of the game due to influence of the pressure group". He then notes that the book should be seen as a reinforcement to "The future of capitalism: how Today's Economics Forces Shape Tomorrow" by Lester Throw. Arif then concludes his review by suggesting area of further discourse.


METHODOLOGY OF THE REVIEWER
The reviewer commenced the review of the book by showing he has really read the book by bringing out the authors goal of writing the book and the points he brought to justify his claims, making reference to deferent pages as situation demands. After establishing his understanding of the book in author's perspective, he then raises some areas he does not agree with, sighting other authorities to buttress his position. He also shows that he is not out just to criticize the book by pointing out areas he agree with the author and even shows the readers another book that will enhance better understanding of the book. He round-off his work by suggesting area of further intellectual research.
The reviewer, however, failed to show whether the writer has really achieved his targeted goal at the end of his review. This not withstanding, Arif has really done a great job on the book.

Will be joining soon

I've yet to read the article and do the review. Try my best, will come back asap.

The crisis of global capitalism: open society endangerde is a 245 page book writen by George Soros in response to asian financial crisis to show that market fundamentalism is a threat to global capitalism. He argues that market fundamentalism ignores collective decision making and social values thus promote worship of individualism which is only concerned about individual success not minding its effect on the society at large. To curb this, Soros sugests the introduction of International central bank that will monitor the banking system of borrowing countries and the use of reflexivity analysis by economics.

The reviewer,Dr Arif, commenced the review of the book by bringing author's aim of writing the book '...in the realisation that market fundametalism is a threat to global capitalism". After bringing the point on which the author premises his arguement as enumerated above, he then raises a number of issues about the book as follows:
(1) Self contradiction: The reviewer noted that the author contradicts self in a number of ways to the extent of personality contradiction which the author himself realised but resulted to self justification where he noted ....
(2) Challange of the rationality axiom on which the morden economics rest
(3) Challenge of the virality of libral democracy as practise by the west to be able to the proposed reform
(4) Feasibility of the proposed international central bank as to its acceptability in the south.
The reviewer is not however, just to criticise the book as seen in his agreement with the author on the issue of democracy "...that goverment lacks the political will to change the rule of the game due to influence of the pressure group". He then notes that the book should be seen as a reinforcement to "The feture of capitalism: how Today's Economics Forces Shape Tomorrow" by Lester Throw. Arif then concludes his review by suggesting area of further discourse.
METHODOLOGY OF THE REVIEWER
The reviewer commenced the review of the book by showing he has really read the book by bringing out the authors goal of writing the book and points he brought to justify his claims, making reference to deferent pages as situation demands. After establishing his understanding of the book in author's perspective, he then raises some areas he does not agree with, sighting other authorities to butress his position. He also shows that he is not out just to criticise the book by pointing out areas he agree with the author and even pointed out to the readers another book that will better understanding of the book under review. He round off his work by suggesting area of further interlectual research.
The reviewer, however, fail to show wether the writer has really achieved his targeted goal at the end of his review. This not withstanding, arif has really done a great job on the book.