What goes into a good book review?

I have this notional project to get 'serious' about reviewing books here on permies. I talked in another thread about how to rate books and assign acorns and I think I've come up with a sytem that lets me do that in a way that I'm thus far happy with. But then I want to accompany that with a review that's actually useful.

To some extent I'll look to the rating rubric I use and write a little something about, at least, anywhere that the under-consideration book deviates from the norm. And anything that particularly spoke to me or put me off. That's easy enough. But what kind of thing should I look to put in every review so that it's more useful to someone who comes along later and is considering whether to invest time and money into the book?

Do you like pithy reviews or in-depth analysis?

What else should I be considering?

Oh, and if you're an author, what can make my review more useful to you? (Other than just glowing praise, of course...)

Great question!

I too would like to hear what people like out of a book review. I have been slowly revising the ones I have posted on Permies to try and give a deeper look through my eyes on various subjects. I however been feeling like I have been shooting from the hip and not sure if I'm even improving them.

Honestly, I don't think there's "one right answer" on this one, but the permies classic, "it depends"!

1. If you are the first to review a book, as the reader, I love to read good detail about what the book covers, preferably with examples from the book, or examples where you've done or seen this in your own life.

2. If I'm reviewing a book that already has permies reviews, it is important that I read and understand the existing reviews, and then try to craft something that fills in gaps, or expands on what's been said. (The more reviews, the less this one may be possible. If I feel the earlier reviews really have said it all, I would just rate the book, and say something nice and move on. )

3. For many Permaculture books, I like to know if it seems focused on a narrow ecosystem, (example, "greening the desert") or if there are examples from a wider variety of ecosystems. Yes, I know that Permaculture is a set of "design rules and principles" and that they can relate to *any* ecosystem, but for anyone just getting started, reading examples that come "close" may be easier to understand and imitate, than examples that are totally foreign to their own ecosystem.

4. If I'm writing the 4th or 5th review, I would absolutely consider focusing on how I can use the book in my own lifestyle. How the book suggested ideas or changes that I can see myself doing successfully.

Does this help?

Have you seen this one:

https://permies.com/wiki/87130/Summary-Review-Thread-Gear-Plants

I think what you’ve already mentioned about stuff that spoke to you or put you off is always good to read. If there are a lot of books on the subject, I like to hear about what makes that particular book different.

When I’m writing reviews I often look at it chapter by chapter and say something about each chapter. I’m not sure if others find this helpful, but I think it is nice to have lots of detail if other reviews of the book haven’t covered it.

For books with recipes or projects, I like to hear some of the project or recipe titles. For garden and permaculture books it’s good to read about what kind of climate or conditions they are best suited for.

I really like to read why a book did or did not "resonate" with a reviewer. I'm nosy. Stories of what you tried because of what you read, and the results, would be really fun too.

To help people decide if a book is worth their money/time, descriptions of the target audience might be helpful. Following up on that, whether you think the author successfully addressed that audience. Books have disappointed me because I assumed I was a reader the book was aimed at, and I found out I wasn't.

I assume this thread is about non-fiction books?

The path for assessing serious fiction is a bit more complex. Not bodice-rippers, but stuff that may continue to be relevant a century from now. The reader is not coddled, but required to make a serious effort. And the reader must read it twice to understand.

Lots of good responses to the question.

I tend to write reviews based on the kinds of information I look for when I read reviews. I'm basically wanting to know if the book is worth my time and effort to read. I like reviews that offer a somewhat objective summary of the author's basic premise and goal for writing the book. Does the author define their terms? Is the book based on theory or practical experience? Do they differentiate between fact and personal opinion?

I like to read a chapter or section breakdown, so I have an idea of what kind of information I'll find. Do their ideas make sense? Other things I find useful is how well the author stays on track. Do they stick to the topic or throw things in that are completely off topic?  How well do they resolve or conclude their goal?

Lastly, I'm really interested in the reviewer's personal opinion. What did they get out of it? Did they find the information personally useful?  Did they agree with the author or disagree?  I also appreciate it when the reviewer can frame their criticisms in an objective way and back up what they disliked with examples. Either way, would the reviewer recommend the book?

I think it takes a bit of work to write a good review, but I also think it's worth the effort.

I always think that "Is it worth a re-read?" is a pretty useful metric. Both for fiction and non-fiction.