Book Review Usefullness

We're always striving to make our cookbook reviews more meaningful. So I've been curious, especially since changing platforms, how useful you find them.

Given their constrictions, it's difficult to construct a poll, so let's handle this as a regular thread and discussion. What I'm interested in knowing is:

1. Do you regularly read the Cheftalk book reviews?
2. Do you find them useful, informative, and entertaining?
3. Have you bought, or considered buying, a book based on seeing a review here at Cheftalk?
4. When buying books do you use the direct links to Amazon.com?
5. Do you think the frequency new reviews are posted is too often, not often enough, or just right?
6. Any other comments, suggestions, criticisms?

 

Thanks for the input, KCZ.

It's not that we preselect books. Generally speaking, however, we'd rather talk about books you should own than ones you shouldn't. Occasionally a book is so bad, but likely to be bought by unsuspecting readers, and it gets a fully negative review.

We do, however, try and make a point of mentioning downsides in an otherwise good book. See, for instance, my review of Moto Gusto.

Keep in mind, too, that with the new platform, you can comment on a review, post your own, etc. So if you disagree with a reviewer, we urge you to say so (but be sure and give your reasons). Frankly, I had hoped for greater use of this feature.

 

I don't read most of them as they are about books I have little interest in.

What sort of books would you prefer seeing reviewed?

 

Well, let's try and focus in:

Would you prefer more reviews of books for the home cook or the pro?
Are you more interested in recipe books, or in books that discuss food and techniques?
Would you spend time with a book that was purely about food history?
Are photos and other graphics more or less important to you?
Chef-written books do or no not turn you on?
Memoirs and biographies of food personalities and/or restaurants do or do not interest you?

Other than the cajun one, what were the last two or three cookbooks you found of interest?

 

Schmoozer, that's how the set-up works. But you don't have to write anything extensive. Filling out the score card is necessary, as is listing pros and cons. After that, if you even wrote one sentence, it would post as a review.

Of course, I'd rather see something more extensive that that; something that really expresses your feelings about the book---what you liked, what you didn't like about the book or about already posted reviews.

BTW, you don't have to express yourself just by reacting to somebody else's review. With the new platform, any member of the community can post a review of any cookbook.

 

Phil, would it be a fair sumation to say that your preference runs to books that contain recipes from the author's experience, and that cultural and historical info be included as well? That you want insights into what forms the cuisine, not just recipe per se?

 

Thanks for offering your point of view, Free Rider. I appreciate the input.
 
Just so you know, let me address your last point first. The Review Staff is required to prepare at least two dishes from every book being reviewed, following the recipe exactly. Most make three or more to assure that they understand the author's style and method of handling ingredients. Or, sometimes, because there's such a diversity of techniques involved. When I was testing Molto Gusto, for instance, I prepared six recipes to assure I was assessing the range of dishes provided.

If a recipe doesn't work out, for one reason or another, most of the review staff automatically prepare an additional one to determine if the "bad" recipe was an aberation, or represented the author's work as a whole.

I would hope that community members who are not official reviewers would follow the same rule when posting a review. But, of course, I have no control over that.

Tell me more about your relationship to photos. This is something I have an on-going discussion about with a chef friend, and I'm always interested in insights from others. From your viewpoint, are photos of each dish a necessity? Something nice to have? Or are they even a tie breaker as to whether or not you buy the book?

Whether or not there's a cultural or historical context really depends more on the book than the review, wouldn't you say? Or are you saying that if the book lacks such you want the reviewer to specifically mention it?

Finally, virtually every baking book, certainly all the bread books, reviewed since I took over as Reviews Editor makes a point about volume v. weight measurements in one way or another. Are you saying you'd want non-baking books to be treated the same? Personally, I don't see the point of that. Most American cookbooks are given in volume rather than weight measurements, so it would have to be offered as a criticism of almost all cookbooks.

 

I don't know about that critter in the middle, Jellly, but them is some good looking striped bass. /img/vbsmilies/smilies/thumb.gif

 

The usefullness of photos is such a matter of personal taste that it's difficult to generalize. Nor is it just a matter of beginners vs experiences cooks.

I've a friend, for instance, who's worked in the industry all his life, in positions ranging from cooking at remote work camps in Alaska, to being the chef and upscale resorts. He insists that a good cookbook must have photos illustrating the recipes. That would be the food porn angle. But I also know at-home cooks who could care less whether or not there are any photos.

Most of our reviewers do talk about the presence or absence of photos, and their quality. Are y'all saying you'd like to see that emphasized more?