Greetings,
Could you please read my book review and give me some feedback?
The prompt is:
A book review is a critical review of a book-it is not a book report like you might have written in high school. After reading a historical work, you should review the major thesis (position, point of view) of the author and make a judgment on how well the author addresses his/her topic, supports the thesis, and argues his/her point of view. A book report is a narrative description of the book. A book review is a critical analysis.
You can use the following outline in writing the book review but DO NOT divide the body of the review into separate sections. Your review is a flowing narrative that considers these major points:
Bibliographic information: Author's name (last name first, first name next, middle initial). Title of the book. Place of publication: Publishing company, Date of publication.
I. Introduction: use an interesting incident in the book, something unusual, or etc., to lead into the book. The first paragraph should lead a reader to want to read the rest of the review. One paragraph.
II. General Information: What is the book generally about? Who is the author (background, education, special qualifications to write on this topic? Etc. (one to two paragraphs)
III. Body of the Review (around 1˝ to 2 pages)
Author's position: is it controversial? If so, why?
Analysis of sources: generally primary or secondary sources?
How does the book fit into the overall body of works on the topic?
Your views of the book, the author's position
IV. Summary (one paragraph)
Was the book worth reading? Why or why not?
Would you recommend it for others to read? Why r why not?
Who would find the book useful?
Thank you in advance
Frederic
-----------------------------------------------------------
Louis, Michel. La Bęte du Gévaudan. Paris: Editions Perrin, 2003.
Although France has always spearheaded rationalism to the greater extent, two hundred and fifty years after the facts, the atrocious carnages perpetrated by a phantasmagorical beast in the Gévaudan, a central and mountainous area of France, still inflame the readers' imagination. Based on official documents, oral traditions, the most up-to-date findings of zoology, and the author's practical knowledge of relationships with big cats, Louis Michel's work is the most complete available reference on the topic. The author of this breathtaking book raises emotions and kindles fear in the reader on his way to resolve the most exciting enigma of the devil's agent on the old continent. His forensic quest even leads him to consider influences from the Americas...
As a wild nature enthusiast, and especially an aficionado of the beast of the Gévaudan, Michel Louis is the founder and the current director of a zoo at Amneville. Despite a lack of formal training in zoology, the author displays an amazing knowledge due to his familiarity with wild beasts such as tigers, bears, and wolves and his readings about animal behaviour. Moreover, thanks to the assistance of historians, journalists, and other wild beast specialists, Louis Michel tackles the mystery in the light of the social, zoological, political, economic, religious contexts in those days, and the subsequent consequences over the European society.
Throughout the book, Michel Louis's findings emphasize the hypothesis of a machination hatched by local instigators: a vicious noble, Jean-François-Charles de Morangiès, who delighted the misfortune, chaos, and terror that he created in the French kingdom assisted by the head of a peasant family, Antoine Chastel, who enjoyed the bloody activities of the animal he personally trained. Thanks to an attentive reading of primary sources such as official or religious records written as early as the first corpses were discovered, Michel Louis elaborates the theory of an animal that had been trained to spread a feeling of terror in the Gévaudan. Moreover, his use of secondary sources dating as far back as a few weeks after the first occurrences of assassinations allows him to demonstrate that the macabre arrangements of the corpses in addition to their nudity and decapitation were the morbid work of a human being. Furthermore, the author also buttresses his vision of a human manipulation thanks to primary and secondary describing the beast with an armour-plate. On the other hand, the author gives evidence against any vengeance orchestrated by rancorous Calvinists or English attempts to destabilize the French royalty that are rather cogent.
However, Michel Louis's position remains debatable because he does not take into account a significant psychological aspect of the French nobility in this end of the eighteenth century: Jean-François-Charles de Morangiès could have defended its ideal of a proper society. Indeed, one should keep in mind that the seventeenth century and its Scientific Revolution had trampled on the revered Ptolemy's geocentric theory of the universe that was the bedrock of Catholicism and Descartes's rationalism had jeopardized the foundations of the Catholic Church. Besides, eighteenth-century Philosophes such as Montesquieu and Diderot rejected the supremacy of the European oligarchy, in addition to Adam Smith who promoted personal enrichment outside the ranks of the aristocracy. Michel Louis could ameliorate his investigative work by shedding light on the possibility of an attempt from Jean-François-Charles de Morangiès to counter the destabilization of the old order. Actually, this aristocrat's intentions could have been to demonstrate the incapacity of the new world order to understand everything and control the French kingdom. Moreover, this noble could have intended to highlight the fact that the French populace was neither ready nor sufficiently intelligent to assume the responsibility of self-governance. Finally, he could have simply been determined to maintain the traditional pattern of Europe's social organization and reassert the dominating role of the French patrician oligarchs.
Despite some lacunas, Michel Louis's "La Bęte du Gévaudan" will delight the readers for several reasons. First, the outstanding work of investigation buttressing the book brings to light a somewhat unknown side of the French rural society in the pre-Revolutionary period. Second, the author admirably conveys the sadism of scenes that largely equal present-day true-crime stories. Last and not the least, I would strongly recommend this book to learners of the French language who would ameliorate their command of this language because Michel Louis is an actual lover of the words. Who could resist to the appeal of an eeriest depiction of humans' bestiality in the utmost delicate language of the Marquis of Sade?
Could you please read my book review and give me some feedback?
The prompt is:
A book review is a critical review of a book-it is not a book report like you might have written in high school. After reading a historical work, you should review the major thesis (position, point of view) of the author and make a judgment on how well the author addresses his/her topic, supports the thesis, and argues his/her point of view. A book report is a narrative description of the book. A book review is a critical analysis.
You can use the following outline in writing the book review but DO NOT divide the body of the review into separate sections. Your review is a flowing narrative that considers these major points:
Bibliographic information: Author's name (last name first, first name next, middle initial). Title of the book. Place of publication: Publishing company, Date of publication.
I. Introduction: use an interesting incident in the book, something unusual, or etc., to lead into the book. The first paragraph should lead a reader to want to read the rest of the review. One paragraph.
II. General Information: What is the book generally about? Who is the author (background, education, special qualifications to write on this topic? Etc. (one to two paragraphs)
III. Body of the Review (around 1˝ to 2 pages)
Author's position: is it controversial? If so, why?
Analysis of sources: generally primary or secondary sources?
How does the book fit into the overall body of works on the topic?
Your views of the book, the author's position
IV. Summary (one paragraph)
Was the book worth reading? Why or why not?
Would you recommend it for others to read? Why r why not?
Who would find the book useful?
Thank you in advance
Frederic
-----------------------------------------------------------
Louis, Michel. La Bęte du Gévaudan. Paris: Editions Perrin, 2003.
Although France has always spearheaded rationalism to the greater extent, two hundred and fifty years after the facts, the atrocious carnages perpetrated by a phantasmagorical beast in the Gévaudan, a central and mountainous area of France, still inflame the readers' imagination. Based on official documents, oral traditions, the most up-to-date findings of zoology, and the author's practical knowledge of relationships with big cats, Louis Michel's work is the most complete available reference on the topic. The author of this breathtaking book raises emotions and kindles fear in the reader on his way to resolve the most exciting enigma of the devil's agent on the old continent. His forensic quest even leads him to consider influences from the Americas...
As a wild nature enthusiast, and especially an aficionado of the beast of the Gévaudan, Michel Louis is the founder and the current director of a zoo at Amneville. Despite a lack of formal training in zoology, the author displays an amazing knowledge due to his familiarity with wild beasts such as tigers, bears, and wolves and his readings about animal behaviour. Moreover, thanks to the assistance of historians, journalists, and other wild beast specialists, Louis Michel tackles the mystery in the light of the social, zoological, political, economic, religious contexts in those days, and the subsequent consequences over the European society.
Throughout the book, Michel Louis's findings emphasize the hypothesis of a machination hatched by local instigators: a vicious noble, Jean-François-Charles de Morangiès, who delighted the misfortune, chaos, and terror that he created in the French kingdom assisted by the head of a peasant family, Antoine Chastel, who enjoyed the bloody activities of the animal he personally trained. Thanks to an attentive reading of primary sources such as official or religious records written as early as the first corpses were discovered, Michel Louis elaborates the theory of an animal that had been trained to spread a feeling of terror in the Gévaudan. Moreover, his use of secondary sources dating as far back as a few weeks after the first occurrences of assassinations allows him to demonstrate that the macabre arrangements of the corpses in addition to their nudity and decapitation were the morbid work of a human being. Furthermore, the author also buttresses his vision of a human manipulation thanks to primary and secondary describing the beast with an armour-plate. On the other hand, the author gives evidence against any vengeance orchestrated by rancorous Calvinists or English attempts to destabilize the French royalty that are rather cogent.
However, Michel Louis's position remains debatable because he does not take into account a significant psychological aspect of the French nobility in this end of the eighteenth century: Jean-François-Charles de Morangiès could have defended its ideal of a proper society. Indeed, one should keep in mind that the seventeenth century and its Scientific Revolution had trampled on the revered Ptolemy's geocentric theory of the universe that was the bedrock of Catholicism and Descartes's rationalism had jeopardized the foundations of the Catholic Church. Besides, eighteenth-century Philosophes such as Montesquieu and Diderot rejected the supremacy of the European oligarchy, in addition to Adam Smith who promoted personal enrichment outside the ranks of the aristocracy. Michel Louis could ameliorate his investigative work by shedding light on the possibility of an attempt from Jean-François-Charles de Morangiès to counter the destabilization of the old order. Actually, this aristocrat's intentions could have been to demonstrate the incapacity of the new world order to understand everything and control the French kingdom. Moreover, this noble could have intended to highlight the fact that the French populace was neither ready nor sufficiently intelligent to assume the responsibility of self-governance. Finally, he could have simply been determined to maintain the traditional pattern of Europe's social organization and reassert the dominating role of the French patrician oligarchs.
Despite some lacunas, Michel Louis's "La Bęte du Gévaudan" will delight the readers for several reasons. First, the outstanding work of investigation buttressing the book brings to light a somewhat unknown side of the French rural society in the pre-Revolutionary period. Second, the author admirably conveys the sadism of scenes that largely equal present-day true-crime stories. Last and not the least, I would strongly recommend this book to learners of the French language who would ameliorate their command of this language because Michel Louis is an actual lover of the words. Who could resist to the appeal of an eeriest depiction of humans' bestiality in the utmost delicate language of the Marquis of Sade?