Ritical review on the book The last lecture”

A critical review is a careful evaluation of a text, event, object, or phenomenon. Reviews can consider books, articles, entire genres, architecture, art, fashion, restaurants, policies, exhibitions, performances, and many other forms. For a book, as example, a critical review is one in which the writer describes and evaluates the book, in terms of accepted literary and historical standards, and supports this evaluation with evidence from the text.
Criticalrefers to close analysis and consideration of a subject under scrutiny; although, many people automatically associate Being criticalas a negative action, it is not. In fact, critical review is necessary for positive refinement of virtually all manner of items, from arts to personal performance.
The primary, essential element of a review is that it is a commentary, not a summary: secondarily, it is a descriptive and analytical argument. It allows entering into dialogue and discussion with the subjects owner and with other audiences (such as peers). Continuing the focus on written material, the reviewer offers agreement or disagreement with the novelas content and message(s), and identifies where the work is exemplary or deficient in contents (such as knowledge, judgments, or organization). The reviewer clearly states his opinion of the work in question, and that statement usually functions as the evaluative thesis (claim). This evaluative thesis becomes foundation for constructing an introduction, which is in turn backed by supporting body paragraphs, and a conclusion.

Basic Requirements
Simply stated, the reviewer must know two pieces of information to write a critical review:
the work under reviewed and
the requirements of the genre to which the work belongs
Knowledge of the work demands not only an attempt to understand the authors purpose and how the components of the work contribute to that purpose, but also some knowledge of the author (fundamental context, such as nationality, time period, other works etc.). Such knowledge is most efficiently achieved by completing a close reading of the text, prior to writing the review itself.
Knowledge of the genre means understanding the art form (or established writing conventions of the field) and how it functions. Without such understanding, the reviewer has no historical context nor literary standard upon which to base evaluation. Such is vital for reviews written within academic and professional fields, such as laboratory reports and critical field reports.

Essentials of a Critical Book Review
Such writing is a description, not a summary, of the book. Sufficient description should be given so that the reader has some understanding of the authors thoughts. This account of the bookas contents can often be woven into critical remarks by exploring a limited number of major threads presented throughout the novel. For fore-thought, consider the critical review should be built around...
~ an initial identification of the book (author, title, publication date and other seemingly important details, {eg. it is originally an Italian edition, etc.}) and inclusion of the bookas major aspects.
~ if appropriate or needed, a brief summary of the bookas purpose, agenda, or intent. Usually pick up main themes only. This section should take up less than a fourth of the total review.
~ a critical discussion of two to three (2 3) key issues raised in the book. Make clear the authors own argument before criticizing and evaluating it. Also, support criticisms with evidence from the text or from other writings. Possibly indicate gaps in the authors treatment of a topic; however, avoid unfounded judgments of a writer for not doing something never intended a review the piece as it is, not as it Shouldhave been done. This section is the reviewas core, and its longest portion.
~ a final evaluation of the overall contribution that the book has made to understanding of the topic (and maybe its importance to the development of a particular social, cultural, artistic, professional, or academic area or discipline, setting it in the context of other writings in the field).

The Outline
Prior to drafting, outline. Certainly most people are reluctant to outline, but planning is vital to review writing. Whether a traditional (or some brainstorming variation), mapping the reviewas contents must not be overlooked. The outline enables the writer to achieve an overall grasp of the reviewas organization, to determine what central point (argument) the review is to make, to eliminate inessentials or irrelevancies, and to fill in gaps or omissions.
By examining notes made during close reading and eliminating those which have no relationship to the reviewas planned central thesis, and by organizing remaining notes into groups (or clusters, lists, etc.), several aspects of the book will emerge: theme, character, plot, sub-plots, structure, etc.. Determine what sequence aspects will be discussed, and use this decision to fill in the outlineas major headings and subdivisions. All outline portions should support the thesis itself.

The Draft
The introduction is for emphasis and sets the paperas tone. Among various possible introduction methods are:
statement of the thesis
statement of the novels purpose
statement about the topicality of the work or its significance
comparison of the work to others by the same author or within the same genre
discourse on a major aspect of the piece (analysis of character motivation, thematic evolution, etc.)
statement about the novelas author
The reviewas main body should logically develop the thesis as organized by the outline. Changes in the outline may need to be made and transitional paragraphs introduced, but the aim should be toward logical development of the central point (thesis/claim). Quoted material should be put in quotation marks, or indented, and properly documented. Often the main body dwells on discourse of one to three (1 3) major thematic elements brought about within the novel, such as whether a character (or characters) is suitably developed, use of setting, or evolution of plot in suitable manner.
The conclusion may sum up or restate the thesis or may make final judgement regarding the book. No new information or ideas should be introduced in the conclusion.

Steps in Revising the Draft
Allow some time to elapse before starting your revision. Begin by reading the draft aloud, to Hearmistakes. Correct all detected mistakes in grammar and punctuation. Read the paper through again looking for unity, organization and logical development. When revising, incorporate these goals:
Aim for precise language to control the reviewas tone.
Never hesitate to challenge an assumption, approach, or argument. Be sure, however, to cite specific examples to back up assertions carefully.
Try to present a balanced argument about the value of the book for its audience. The critical review writer is entitled even obligated to voice strong agreement or disagreement. But keep in mind that a bad piece takes as long to create as a good one, and every artist deserves fair treatment. Harsh judgments are difficult to prove and can give readers the sense that a reviewer was merely unfair (even hostile) in assessment.
Stay focused on the subject under examination, not subjective, imagined targets: for example, review the book in front of you, not the book you wish the author had written. You can and should point out shortcomings or failures, but dont criticize the book for not being something it was never intended to be.