The article is a book review. And comparisons are made with another book that also follows a historical viewpoint. The author takes the point of view of a political science student and history buff in analysing the article. The author has made some analysis of the original book and made recommendations upon it. I'm not sure about the organization, it's not chronological. I wonder if it's progressing through the chapters of the book? She mentions that the author provided a background to set the book into context for the reader because there was so much detail to cover.
I think the thesis is strong. The author understands the original book and is using her background as a political science graduate to provide interpretation of the source. As such, it's hard for the non-ps graduate to understand the terminology and expressions she uses. The argument, that the book is a good one, comes through.
No comments:
Post a Comment