Place your order

Fill in the order form and provide all details of your assignment.

Proceed with the payment

Choose the payment system that suits you most.

Receive the final file

Once your paper is ready, we will email it to you

I’m working on a History exercise and need support.The book that you will be rev

Our academic experts are ready and waiting to assist with any writing project you may have. From simple essay plans, through to full dissertations, you can guarantee we have a service perfectly matched to your needs.



I’m working on a History exercise and need support.The book that you will be reviewing: Never Caught: The Washingtons’ Relentless Pursuit of Their Runaway Slave Ona Judge (2017) In order to write a good review, think carefully about the book. Since reviews are to be no more than 1600 words long, take pains to organize and present thoughts with precision, clarity, and conciseness. Instead of starting off the paper with a title, begin with the author, title, and facts of publication for the book under review using standard bibliographical form, for example:J. Benjamin. A Student’s Guide to History. New York: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2013. Answers to the following seven sections must form the substance of the review. Answer each of them in the order given, each with a separate paragraph or series of paragraphs.1. What is the author’s purpose in writing the book? (Use verbs such as “seeks,” “wishes,” “desires,” “wants”) 2. What is the book’s thesis? (Use verbs such as “argues,” “contends,” “asserts”) 3. How does the author organize material? What is the logic behind the topics of the chapters, and how do the chapters go together to form the book? There is almost always a fit between the thesis of a book and the logic of the book’s organization. Each points to the other. Thus, if in doubt about the thesis, pay attention to the organizational logic. In the review, include an explicit statement about the fit between the book’s organization and its thesis. This section can also include a brief summary of the book, but make sure that the summary is tied to the issue of organization. 4. To what subfield of history (such as social, political, economic, foreign relations, or cultural and intellectual history) does the book belong? How so? Does the book fit into a particular school of history? How so? Does the author discuss employing or being guided by any notable methodologies (particular ways of studying history, such as quantitative history) or academic theories (particular ways of thinking, such as feminist or postmodern theories), and, if so, which ones? If the author does not discuss methodology or theory, note their absence. 5. What primary sources (sources created during the time of the book’s subject) does the author use to develop the thesis of the book, and why does the author use these particular sources? Do not give just a list of sources; discuss types of sources used and the reasons for relying on certain kinds of sources. Include an explicit statement about the book’s most significant primary sources in light of the author’s thesis. What are the most important secondary sources (sources created after the time of the book’s subject) for the author? Why? 6. Does the author discuss the historiography (the past writing and arguments by historians) of his or her book’s subject matter? If yes, how so? If no, note its absence. How is the book similar to or different from the textbook? Beyond adding more detail, how does the book fit in with the issues raised and discussed in the course reading? In particular, does the book add a different perspective? How so? Does anything discussed in the book connect to an issue in present-day America? 7. How well does the author accomplish the purpose? This section provides an opportunity to make an original, critical evaluation of the book. Address the issues of what is well done, poorly done, and originally done. What are the book’s overall strengths and weaknesses? Are the author’s arguments and uses of evidence, in particular, clear or unclear, strong or weak, convincing or unconvincing? Should a reader agree or disagree with the author’s thesis and conclusions? If a reader is curious about the book’s subject, should he or she choose this particular book?Writing Guide For the basic formatting of the paper, look at the sample review in J. Benjamin’s A Student’s Guide to History.Do not print the numbers and questions from the instructions in the paper itself; have the final draft’s format look like an essay.Number the pages of your paper and use parenthetical citations to make reference to the book’s page numbers, such as (Benjamin, 23-24).Turn in a printed copy of the paper (no electronic versions accepted).Print the paper on single-sided pages with black ink. Double-space the text.Do not skip a line between paragraphs. No title page or report cover is necessary for a short paper.Write in complete sentences; avoid sentence fragments. Avoid the first- or second-person point of view; write instead in the third person. Write in the present tense when referring to a book’s author (“Benjamin describes the various forms of evidence”) and write in the past tense when referring to past events (“The candidate traveled thousands of miles during the campaign”).Write in the active voice rather than the passive voice.Avoid using contractions in a formal paper.With abbreviations, use the full name for the first reference (such as, Federal Bureau of Investigation) and abbreviations for subsequent references (FBI).But use “US” (meaning United States) only as an adjective and not as a noun.When referring to a person’s name, use the first and last name for the first reference and the surname for subsequent references.Use two hyphens–with no spaces before or after–to form a dash.The past tense of “to lead” is “led.”Put a space between the two words in “a lot.”The book under review is nonfiction; therefore, it is not a novel.Avoid dropped quotations: quotations without reference to a speaker or a writer.Avoid block quotations in short papers. Block quotations are long quotations separated out from the main text of the paper.In general, try to limit the use of quotations, but be sure to cite any information taken from the book. The following are guides that can be useful for further reference: Diana Hacker, The Bedford Handbook; Kate L. Turabian, A Manual for Writers of Term Papers, Theses, and Dissertations; William Strunk, Jr., and E. B. White, The Elements of Style. All three are available in the campus library. “The Fumblerules of Grammar”by William Safire, 1978 Avoid run-on sentences they are hard to read. Don’t use no double negatives.Use the semicolon properly, always use it where it is appropriate; and never where it isn’t.Reserve the apostrophe for it’s proper use and omit it when its not needed.Do not put statements in the negative form.Verbs has to agree with their subjects.No sentence fragments.Proofread carefully to see if you any words out.Avoid commas, that are not necessary.If you reread your work, you will find on rereading that a great deal of repetition can be avoided by rereading and editing.A writer must not shift your point of view.Eschew dialect, irregardless.And don’t start a sentence with a conjunction.Don’t overuse exclamation marks!!!Place pronouns as close as possible, especially in long sentences, as of 10 or more words, to their antecedents.Hyphenate between sy-llables and avoid un-necessary hyphens.Write all adverbial forms correct.Don’t use contractions in formal writing.Writing carefully, dangling participles must be avoided.It is incumbent on us to avoid archaisms.If any word is improper at the end of a sentence, a linking verb is.Steer clear of incorrect forms of verbs that have snuck in the language.Take the bull by the hand and avoid mixed metaphors.Avoid trendy locutions that sound flaky.Never, ever use repetitive redundancies.Everyone should be careful to use a singular pronoun with singular nouns in their writing.If I’ve told you once, I’ve told you a thousand times, resist hyperbole.Also, avoid awkward or affected alliteration.Don’t string too many prepositional phrases together unless you are walking through the valley of the shadow of death.Always pick on the correct idiom.”Avoid overuse of ‘quotation “marks.”‘”The adverb always follows the verb.Last but not least, avoid clichés like the plague; seek viable alternatives.The review itself should be no longer than a total of 1600 words and, instead of a title for the paper, I want you to start with the bibliographic information for the book you are reviewing:Author. Title. City: Publisher, Year.(On the Canvas page, I use a reference book as an example.) The body of the review should reflect the seven numbered questions on the instructions. I want you to write a paragraph for each number, so the finished paper should have at least seven paragraphs. The paragraph do not have to be all the same size, and if you need more than one paragraph to answer a particular section, that is fine. Start the review by answering the first question: What is the author’s purpose in writing the book? This question asks you to describe the motivation the author has for writing the book, so your answer should use tentative verbs (the author seeks, desires, wishes, and so on). Oftentimes, authors explain their purposes in an introduction or preface to a book. Perhaps the author felt unsatisfied with books written by other authors or felt that historians had neglected a particular subject. The second question asks: What is the book’s thesis? A thesis is the main idea or argument of a book, so in describing the thesis, you are describing what the author wants readers to take away from reading the book. This question is related to the author’s purpose. (Sometimes I describe the first two questions as two sides of the same coin.) But the thesis is more solid and emphatic compared to the purpose. Use more assertive verbs (the author argues, contends, asserts). Answers to the first two questions can each be brief as they are closely connected. A great way to get started is to sit down, give yourself ten or fifteen minutes, and see what you come up with. Getting effective answers down for the first two questions will make the rest of the review easier, because much of the rest of the paper is dedicated to aspects of the book that aid the author in making the book’s thesis convincing to the reader. Question three relates to this goal by asking you to describe how the author has organized the book. Does the author use chapters or parts or sections or some other way? History books often have a chronological order, but not always: some books have a more thematic organization. Eric Foner organizes Give Me Liberty! mostly along a chronology but some of the time periods of the different chapters overlap as a chapter may focus on a particular topic, like the economy or foreign relations. This part of the review also can include a summary of the book’s chapters, but don’t go into great detail. Use this more as illustration by describing the topics of the chapters. The fourth question can be a bit tricky as some students may not have had to answer this type of question before. Start with a description of what subfield of American history the book fits into; think of the subfields as shelves in a library: here is the shelf for books on the history of politics, and here is the shelf for books on the history of the economy. Other subfields are social history (history of society including demographic groups in society); history of culture and ideas (this would be especially for the history of books, art, movies, music, and so on); and the history of foreign relations (meaning connections the United States has with other nations in the world. The topics of some books can fit into more than one subfield, the history of immigration, for example. That is ok, just describe why the book you are reviewing fits into a particular shelf or shelves. The other part of the fourth question asks about schools of history, methodology, and academic theory. These are all somewhat similar. An author might identify with a certain cohort or tradition of other historians, might use a particular approach in studying a topic, or may be inspired by particular ideas of how to interpret the world. What I want you to do for this part of question four is to look in your book to see if the author brings up a school of history, a methodology, or an academic theory, and then I want you to describe what the author says. If the author of your book does not mention these topics at all (and some authors won’t), that’s ok. Just write that the author does not write about these topics. Question five is about sources, the types of evidence for a historian. Primary sources are those from the time period of the book’s subject. So if the subject of the book is the era of Reconstruction, primary sources would be those created in the 1860s and 1870s. Just about anything can be a source, but typically, primary sources are newspaper articles, government documents, letters and diaries, and so on. Secondary sources are those created after the time period of the book’s subject. These are usually books and articles written by historians years, decades, or even centuries later. To answer question five, I want you to describe what the most important, the most critical, primary and secondary sources are for your book’s author. Your book may have page after page of sources listed, so you don’t have space to discuss them all. Focus on sources that the author especially relies upon (perhaps again and again) or sources that the author uses for the most critical parts of the book insofar as the part helps advance the book’s thesis. Question six starts off with historiography. To use the Reconstruction example again, if we somehow brought together in one library all of the books and articles historians have written about Reconstruction since it ended, that would collectively be the historiography of Reconstruction. And if we organized those books and article based on when they were published, we might see that historians in different eras had different ideas about how to understand Reconstruction. A book published in 1900 might interpret Reconstruction differently than a book published in 1950 or 2000 would. So in answering this question, I want you to describe what your book’s author says about the subject matter’s historiography, the arguments and opinions of earlier historians. If your book’s author does not bring up earlier historians, then write that the author doesn’t discuss historiography. Next is to compare your book with the textbooks. Your book will most likely have more detail and more information about the subject matter than the textbooks do, because the textbooks cover a long period of time. So focus on the big picture: is the discussion of your book’s subject matter in the textbooks similar to how your book’s author discusses the subject matter or is it different, and how so? Finally, you can include discussion as to how, if at all, the book’s subject matter fits into the discussion of any present-day issues. The last part of the book review is question seven, and it differs from the earlier questions. In answering the earlier questions, you were describing what the author did. You were almost like an interviewer asking the author: why did you write this book?; what is the book’s main argument?; how did you organize the book?; and so on. Question seven is when you finally bring out your own opinion as to how well, or not so well, the author did in writing the book. Give yourself plenty of room to answer question seven, because it is what the whole paper has been building up to: when you present your evaluation of the book. If your paper is running long, cut back an earlier section (question three is usually the easiest to cut), but never cut your answer to question seven. Instead explain everything you think is effective in the book and everything you think is not effective.
Requirements: 1600 words