This is a critique of a very interesting book by David Paul Kuhn, Hardhat Riot, that analyzes different reasons why the white working class abandoned the Democratic Party in such large numbers. Before getting into the mechanics of the paper, I want to share with you some suggestions on how to read a book you’re going to critique. First, read the introduction very carefully. This is the section of the book where historians usually lay out the thesis that they intend to demonstrate. Once you’ve completed the intro and digested some of the key ideas, I urge you to jump straight to the conclusion because that’s where you often find interesting summations that tie up some of the key issues that were analyzed in the book. This is not always the case, but even if it’s not, conclusions tend to have very important information. Once you’ve read the intro and conclusion, read the chapters, having already learned what the authors are trying to accomplish, which leaves you in a better position to assess how well they succeeded.
Introduction—1/2 to 1 page: Writing a good intro is essential to a good critique. In this section, you should supply the basic historical context of the book. This basically answers the who, what, when, where questions. Then you need to identify Kuhn’s thesis. You should not limit yourself to a single-sentence thesis like this: “Kuhn argues that there were many reasons for the change in political allegiance for the white working class. ” Instead, you should devote a few sentences to the thesis and identify the specific issues that you’re going to analyze.
Body—3-4 pages: In this section, you are going to explain how the author attempts to prove his arguments. Identify some of his sources and explain several specific examples he uses. Organize your ideas into paragraphs that address specific topics. Make sure that each paragraph has a clear topic sentence that identifies the theme for the paragraph. Be certain that you explain how the information supports their arguments.
Personal reaction–1/2 page: I didn’t write the book so feel free to criticize it if you wish. In a few sentences just offer your assessment of the book. Did you like it? If so, why? If not, what should they have done? Also, it’s possible that you may not like the book and still think that they did a good job, so explain whether or not you think they succeeded.
