A. Purpose and background:

1. Why are you reading this text? What is your purpose?

2. What type of text is it: research report, essay, textbook, book review?

3. What do you know about the subject of the text?

4. What else has been written on the subject of the text?

5. What controversies exist in this area? How does this text fit in?

B. The author and the text:

1. Who is the author? What do you know about the author? What authority does the author have?

2. Who is the intended audience?

3. What is the author's purpose? Why has the text been written?

4. What is the source of the text? Is it reputable? Who is the publisher? What reputation to they have?

5. What is the date of publication? Is it appropriate to the argument?

6. What is the writer's attitude towards the topic?

7. What conclusions are drawn?

C. Evidence used:

1. Is there a clear distinction between fact and opinion?

2. Is evidence used to support arguments? How good is the evidence? Are all the points supported?

3. In an experimental study, was the sample size adequate and are the statistics reliable?

4. Are there any unsupported points? Are they well-known facts or generally accepted opinions?

5. How does the writer use other texts and other people's ideas?

6. Are the writer's conclusions reasonable in the light of the evidence presented?

7. How do the conclusions relate to other similar research?

D. Assumptions made:

1. What assumptions has the writer made? Are they valid?

2. What beliefs or values does the writer hold? Are they explicit?

3. Look at the language that is used, e.g. active/passive verbs, nominalisations, pronouns, ergative verbs, articles, etc. Is it always possible to identify particpants and processes? e.g. compare: the government increased taxes; they increased the taxes, taxes were increased; taxes increased; the taxes increased, there was an increase in taxes

4. Look for emphatic words such as it is obvious, definitely and of course.

5. Look for hedges: possible, might, perhaps.

6. Look for emotional arguments, use of maximizes: completely, absolutely, entirely, or minimizes: only, just, hardly, simply, merely.

7. How else could the text have been written?

As always, all your points of view must be supported.

Language: Commenting on another point of view

Negatively

They X This		is/are may be seem(s) to be would seem to be	somewhat rather	mistaken. wrong. rigid. inadequate.
X's	approach position methods beliefs

Positively

I agree with X when he

writersays

that …

X is certainly correct X may be correct	when he	says	that …
	in saying

Plus positive words: correct, right, accurate.

Ex. 4. Read the following book review by Olga Semnova:

In sadness

Leonard Schapiro was exceptionally well-qualified to write a book on 1917. A leading academic authority on the Bolsheviks (Professor at the LSE, author of The Communist Party of the Soviet Union etc.), he witnessed the Russian revolution as well. Schapiro completed 1917 in 1983, just before he died. His book is the distillation of a lifetime's teaching and reflection on the Russian revolution. It is both a concise and lucid narrative and a highly-charged piece of political analysis.

As narrative, 1917 fills a surprising gap in the literature on the subject. There are a large number of detailed studies of different aspects of the revolution, some of them brilliant works of scholarship. But no simple, comprehensive account of the two revolutions and the civil war exists. Schapiro's book is brief, but covers all the main points with absolute clarity. It also incorporates the conclusions of the most important recent research on the subject. The reader gets both an excellent introduction to the Russian revolution and an idea of how new material is causing thinking about it to change.

The value of Schapiro's analysis is more questionable. Schapiro was old and rigid, an adherent of the cold war/totalitarianism school. His interpretation of the Russian revolution is crude and unashamedly biased. He hates the Bolsheviks. He looks at the Russian revolution purely from the point of view of political power.

Schapiro's thesis goes roughly as follows. After the disintegration of the monarchy in February 1917, there was general support in the country for a broad-based socialist coalition. This quickly came to mean support for the Soviets, rather than for the Provisional Government. However, support for the Soviets did not mean support for the Bolsheviks, but for the 'traditional ideals of Russian socialism', represented by the SRs and, especially, the Mensheviks. The Bolsheviks were a small band of disciplined fanatics. They were able to seize power in October because no one organized to stop them. They held on to it by annihilating their opponents, ruthlessly manipulating public opinion and militarizing the economy. Right up to 1924, they were 'a largely unpopular party'. The first choice of a majority of the population would have been 'some form of moderate socialism'.

While it is undoubtedly true that the Bolsheviks were unscrupulous in their choice of methods and that they were not supported by a majority of the population when they seized power. Schapiro's thesis is prejudiced, one-sided and out-dated.

Schapiro's hostility to Leninism (which he sees as the precursor of Stalinism) leads him to maintain a position on the Bolsheviks which has been shown to be wrong. He presents them as an autocratically run and conspiratorial organization, staffed by a group of men whose opinions were (with rare exceptions) uniform. Recent research, however, including that of Rabinowitch (whom Schapiro himself quotes), has shown that the Bolshevik party was not a homogeneous body, but a collection of committees. Each of these tended to run its own affairs independently and take initiatives of its own, regardless of the opinions and instruction of the Central Committee.

Other problems with Schapiro's work stem from the fact that he was an old-fashioned political historian. 1917 is based on the premise that it is possible to understand the Russian revolution purely in terms of political power, without reference to social or economic questions.

This, firstly, leads Schapiro into errors of interpretation. He concentrates exclusively on the mechanics of the Bolshevik seizure of power. This approach allows him to avoid discussing the appeal which the Bolsheviks' programme held for industrial workers and peasants. He seriously underestimates the degree of popular support which the Bolsheviks enjoyed: the strong power base which, by October, they had in the cities; and the enthusiasm generated by their land policy in the countryside, which was probably the crucial factor in their victory in the civil war.

Secondly, Schapiro's purely political orientation affects his choice of period. He picks the dates 1917–1924 because they delimit the transfer of political power. But, for any real understanding of the Russian revolution, one needs to go both further back and further forward. 1917 is not the right point at which to start. The events of that year make sense only if viewed in the context of the rapid industrialization of Russia in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. 1924 is not a good place at which to stop, because the most dramatic changes resulting from the Bolshevik takeover – the social and economic transformation of Russia undertaken by Stalin didn't happen until 1928–1933. Schapiro doesn't consider these events part of the Russian revolution. Younger historians, however, would argue that they were and that a revolution should he defined as the period of upheaval, social and economic as well as political, which intervenes between the fall of an old regime and the firm consolidation of a new one. This is the approach taken by Sheila Fitzpatrick, in her recent appraisal of the Russian revolution, a work which forms an interesting contrast to Schapiro's.

Schapiro's enduring advantage over more modern historians, however, is that he lived in Petrograd as a boy (from 19l7–920). This has helped him to bring what is essentially just a well written text book to life. He has managed to breathe into it something of the feel of the time – the euphoria, excitement and suffering of revolutionary Russia.

(New Statesman, 20 April 1984)

The review contains both positive and negative comments on the book. Look at the 10 paragraphs and decide whether or not they are positive or negative. Mark the parts of the text which give you this information.

Paragraph	Evaluation (+ or –)	Examples of language which give you this information
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

Ex. 5. Watch video aided instructions «Expressing yourself creatively», fulfill the given tasks.

Out-of-Class Writing Activity

How can you be creative?

Write a short organized response to the following statement: How can you be creative? Being creative means expressing your personality. Good creative writing opens the window to who you are. Support the discussion fully with specific examples, details and personal experience (200–250 words every other line). Use video «Expressing Yourself Creatively».