Philosophy 330                              Libertarianism as a Political Philosophy                              Dr. Arnold
 

Book Review or Paper

You may choose to write either a paper or a book review. The purpose of this project is to give you the opportunity to learn more about one thinker or one aspect of libertarianism that interests you and to do some independent work, something college students need to do more of.

If you do a book review, you should pick a book on the bibliography I pass out in class. If you find something not on that list that you really want to do, it must be pre-approved by me. You are limited to works of philosophical interest and substance. (So, for example, Murray’s book would not be suitable.) It is best to avoid anything that looks like a textbook and be wary of collections of essays. It is often difficult to review a collection of essays. If you choose to do a paper, you must produce a bibliography with at least 5 substantial items on it (e.g., books, journal articles) and a brief description of what you intend to do. See me if you plan to do a paper; I will show you how to use The Philosopher’s Index, an indispensable reference tool.

The review (or paper, if you do a paper) should be in the six to eight page range, with 1800 words as a minimum. It should not be merely a chapter-by-chapter summary. Instead, you should seek to identify and explain some important argument (perhaps the main argument, if there is one) in the book. Emphasize what is important. This means you have to figure out what is important; it also means there are parts of the book you can completely ignore. You should assume that the reader of your review has some philosophical sophistication and some familiarity with libertarianism, but that he or she is totally unfamiliar with the book you are reviewing. You want to give a clear enough picture of what is in the book so the reader could make a well-informed judgment about whether or not it is worth reading, so there will be some summary in it. In fact, I advise that you give an overview of the entire book in a page or two at the beginning, and then go on to focus on one argument or discussion.

Criticism: At the end, you should also have at least one page, and probably more, of critical assessment where you make some effort to evaluate what the author has done (Is the argument you have chosen to discuss any good? Why or why not?). Or you could evaluate the significance of what the author is trying to do. ("The author tries to do X, but X isn't worth doing because . . .") Generally speaking, critical assessment should be negative. One thing to avoid: Personal reaction to the book. ("In my opinion . . . . ," "I liked this part but not that part . . ," or "I found this book boring or hard to read . . ." I have even had some students tell me the book they have reviewed used too many big words!). The reader (i.e., the instructor!) is more interested in the book itself than in your feelings or your reactions to it, so frame your criticisms as objective findings of its shortcomings or defects, and those findings should pertain to the substance of the discussion and not the manner or style of presentation. If you do a paper, it should be an exposition and critical evaluation of the argument(s) of one of the authors in your bibliography. It is much easier to criticize a work that you find yourself in disagreement with than one you are sympathetic to. If you want to work on a book or on articles you are in sympathy with, you might seek out ones that have been criticized in print and try to address those criticisms in the critical section of your review or paper. Whether you do a paper or a book review, you may bring to bear the ideas of others in making your critical evaluation or in answering the criticisms that others have raised against your main author, but your paper should not be entirely a "retail" operation; in other words, I want some of your own ideas.

Citations: Be sure to cite properly all sources. If you get an idea from someone, tell me who it is and where that idea first appeared. References should be in accordance with commonly accepted standards and practices (e.g., MLA Style Sheet, Chicago Manual of Style). You will be downgraded for improper citations, and of course you should avoid plagiarism at all costs. Contact the instructor if you are unsure about what to cite, but use the MLA Style Sheet or the Chicago Manual of Style to find out how to cite sources properly.

Exemplars and Suggestions: I have put three book reviews that I have written on the Web. They are reasonably good exemplars but the review of Ian Shapiro’s book is a little too light on criticism. Professional journals such as Ethics, Political Theory, and Canadian Philosophical Reviews are good places to look for exemplars of book reviews and review essays, though the book reviews in Ethics and CPR tend to be shorter than what I am looking for. You might also look at The Canadian Journal of Philosophy. Although this is not a specialty journal (i.e., it covers all areas of philosophy), it has book reviews or review essays that are of the appropriate length, especially back in the 1980s. (In recent years, their review essays have gotten much longer.) A good rule of thumb in estimating the length of something in a professional journal is that one journal page is equivalent to two typescript pages. A really terrific book review that is longer than I expect you to do is Frederick Schauer’s review of Cass Sunstein’s The Partial Constitution, which appeared in the July 1995 issue of Ethics (vol. 105, pp. 916-26). It gives you a model of fair exposition and good criticism. I have posted a review that I wrote of a collection of essays by Sunstein. It is about 10 pages (3300 words). Also, I have available a short book that provides guidance on how to write a philosophy paper, which you may consult.

You must submit your book title, if you are doing a review, or a bibliography and a brief description of what you intend to do if you are doing a paper, for approval no later than Thursday, September 24th. The idea is to prevent students from doing last-minute "rush job" papers, which do not enhance learning. Once you have selected your readings, you may not change them except by adding material. This means you should take some time to read most or all of the book you intend to review or the items on your bibliography BEFORE submitting it to me. Feel free to come and discuss with me what book you might want to review or the paper you might want to write.  I will be glad to help you with that, but I will not do your research for you!  In other words, don't ask me to suggest a book for you to review.  The review or paper itself is due on Tuesday, November 17th. I will return your papers with comments and criticisms by Tuesday, November 24th, along with an expected grade. The expected grade is the grade you will receive if you make a serious effort to address my comments on your paper. If these comments are not seriously addressed, the grade will be correspondingly lower. You will have until Tuesday, December 9th to rewrite your paper to take account of these comments.

Return to Course Materials Page