Writing a Critique

A critique is a formalized, critical reading of a passage.  It is also a personal response, but writing a critique is considerably more rigorous than saying that a movie is "great," or a book is "fascinating," or "I didn't like it."  These are all responses, and, as such, they're a valid, even essential, part of your understanding of what you see and read.  But such responses don't help illuminate the subject for anyone--even you--if you haven't explained how you arrived at your conclusions.

Your task in writing a critique is to turn your critical reading of a passage into a systematic evaluation in order to deepen your reader's (and your own) understanding of that passage.  Among other things, you're interested in determining what an author says, how well the points are made, what assumptions underlie the argument, what issues are overlooked, and what implications can be drawn from such an analysis.  Critiques, positive or negative, should include a fair and accurate summary of the passage; they should also include a statement of your own assumptions.  It is important to remember that you bring to bear an entire set of assumptions about the world.  Stated or not, these assumptions underlie every evaluative comment you make; therefore, you have an obligation, both to the reader and to yourself, to clarify your standards.  Not only do your readers stand to gain by your forthrightness, but you do as well: In the process of writing a critical assessment, you are forced to examine your own knowledge, beliefs, and assumptions.  Ultimately, the critique is a way of learning about yourself.

You may find it useful to organize your critiques in five sections: introduction, summary, analysis of the presentation, your response to the presentation, and conclusion.

I.) Introduction: (1) Introduce both the passage under analysis and the author.  (2) State the author's main argument and the point(s) you intend to make about it.  (3) Provide background material to help your readers understand the relevance or appeal of the passage. This background material might include one or more of the following: (a) an explanation of why the subject is of current interest; (b) a reference to a possible controversy surrounding the subject of the passage or the passage itself; (c) biographical information about the author; (d) an account of the circumstances under which the passage was written; or (e) a reference to the intended audience of the passage.

II.) Summary: Summarize the author's main points, making sure to state the author's purpose for writing.

III.) Analysis of the presentation: Evaluate the validity of the author's presentation, as distinct from your points of agreement or disagreement.  Comment on the author's success in achieving his or her purpose by reviewing three or four specific points.  You might base your review on one (or more) of the following criteria:

• Is the information accurate?
• Is the information significant?
• Has the author defined terms clearly?
• Has the author used and interpreted information fairly?
• Has the author argued logically?
• Has the author presented himself/herself credibly?
• Has the author used emotional appeals effectively yet fairly?

IV.) Your response to the presentation: Now it is your turn to respond to the author's views.  With which views do you agree?  With which do you disagree?  Discuss your reasons for agreement and disagreement, when possible tying these reactions to assumptions--both the author's and your own.

V.) Conclusion: State your conclusion about the overall validity of the piece--your assessment of the author's success at achieving his or her aims and your reactions to the author's views.  Remind the reader of the weaknesses and strengths of the passage.

Source: Writing and Reading Across the Curriculum, 5th ed.  Laurence Behrens and Leonard J. Rosen.  New York: HarperCollins, 1994.  pp. 73-74.