This is just the template for the paper this is not how it should be written. This is like an outline and then a full book review is required. What does the writer of the New York Times book review you have chosen do in the first paragraph? (In my case, the writer is Michiko Kakutani. (Links to an external site.)) · She talks about the year the book came on the scene and how it made its author famous, that the novella won a prize, and that its author is surprisingly young.
Second paragraph? · She says that even though the book is translated it reads like an American book, so she is describing the tone and personality of it. · She gives lots of adjectives that describe the book. · She compares the author’s style of writing to another’s. Third? · She describes the narrator and begins to summarize the novella pretty carefully. Fourth? · She continues to summarize the key points of the novella. Fifth? · After the summary, she begins to tell us that even though we may have thought the novel would tell us about X, the take away really is Y. Sixth? · She continues with the summary but this time brings in some key themes of the novel: death, loss, and pain. Seventh? · She transitions from the previous paragraph and gives the reader three quotations from the novel to make her point. Eighth? · She describes the strengths of the author’s writing – the mood of it, its sentiment, and the impact it has on the reader of the novel. Ninth? And Tenth? · The last two paragraphs are about the other story that appears after Kitchen in the book, and the reviewer gives a mini-review of it.
· Note: You would not need to ‘imitate’ these last two paragraphs since they are about another book and you should only focus on one book, Purple Hibiscus. Grading Criteria: How effectively does your peer elucidate their opinion of Purple Hibiscus (directly or indirectly)? How clearly does your peer communicate their ideas in general? How polished and professional is their book review so far? Remember to use MLA format, Times New Roman.
