Professional Writers
We assemble our team by selectively choosing highly skilled writers, each boasting specialized knowledge in specific subject areas and a robust background in academic writing
You Can Order For A Similar Custom Written Paper 24/7!
For all college assessment assignments, fill the order form with the requested details and get your essays done promptly.
Posted: September 2nd, 2022
After completing Enlightenment on Trial
After completing Enlightenment on Trial, read two of the following reviews:
Norah Gharala, H-Net (Links to an external site.)
Michelle McKinley, American Historical Review (Links to an external site.)
Nancy Van Deusen, Hispanic American Historical Review (Links to an external site.)
Rufus F., Ordinary Times (Links to an external site.)
(A pdf of the McKinley review is here Download here; a pdf of the Van Deusen review is here Download here.)
Using some (but not all) of the reflection questions below, analyze the reviews and answer the question: what makes for a “good” book review? Your answer should be between 500 and 750 words. You may use footnotes or parenthetical citations.
Reflection questions:
What do the reviewers say is Premo’s argument? How do their summaries of the argument differ? Why?
What do the reviewers say about Premo’s source base? Which sources, if any, do they mention?
In which historiographies (conversations among historians about certain questions) do they place Premo’s book?
What is the authority of the reviewer to provide a review of the book? (Don’t hesitate to Google the reviewer!)
Do the reviewers raise any criticisms of Premo’s work? If so, what are they? Do you agree?
How does the reviewer tailor (or not!) their review to the audience of the journal or forum for which they wrote the review?
Which portions of Enlightenment on Trial are featured, highlighted, or emphasized in the reviews? How do these change between reviewer? Why might that be?
Do the reviewers discuss Premo’s potential biases? The book’s historiographic contributions? Its failings? Directions for further research? How does the reviewer tailor (or not!) their review to the audience of the journal or forum for which they wrote it?
Which parts of Enlightenment on Trial do the reviews focus on, highlight, or feature? How do these change between reviewer? How could that be?
Do the reviewers talk about how Premo might be biased? What does the book add to the study of history? What went wrong? Where to look for more information?
In your opinion, are any of the reviews unjustifiably harsh? Do they wander into the terrain of “this is the book Premo should have written”?
Which review, in your opinion, best captured the “essence” of Premo’s work – her argument, the subject matter, the contribution/importance, etc?
Why choose us
You Want Quality and That’s What We Deliver
Discounted Prices
Our service is committed to delivering the finest writers at the most competitive rates, ensuring that affordability is balanced with uncompromising quality. Our pricing strategy is designed to be both fair and reasonable, standing out favorably against other writing services in the market.
AI & Plagiarism-Free
Rest assured, you'll never receive a product tainted by plagiarism or AI-generated content. Each paper is research-written by human writers, followed by a rigorous scanning process of the final draft before it's delivered to you, ensuring the content is entirely original and maintaining our unwavering commitment to providing plagiarism-free work.
How it works
When you decide to place an order with Nurscola, here is what happens: