One of my hobbies is writing book reviews of just about everything I read. I make a distinction between books that were badly written and books that were not at all to my taste. Often I end with a paragraph like "read this if ...".
There are a few patterns that I never like, and I mostly avoid reading them entirely. One of them results in a prejudice against "science writers" and "science journalists" - works by such an author need a really strong recommendation from someone else before I touch them, or prior good experience with the author.
That bête noire is science books that are really about people. First we read about what the first interviewee is wearing, then a bit about his background, then what his office is like. This is followed by a couple of snippets of the science the book is ostensibly about, followed by a comment about the weather. Then the author expresses her emotional reaction to the information received, personifying lab equipment or non-animate research subjects in the process. (Volcanoes have feelings?! Who knew?) Then on to the next interview, with a couple of comments about the trip to reach it.
I presume there's a market for these books, because they seem to be more common than real science books for non-specialist readers. So my audience - fellow avid readers who use these reviews as a source of reading suggestions - might include someone who'd utterly love a book like this. I make sure that they - and those who agree with me - both know what kind of book I'm describing. And I include relevant details like whether the science appears inaccurate (even to an intelligent, well-read non-specialist) whether the book has footnotes, and whether any of the scientific information was actually new to me. But I rarely get any kind of reaction to these reviews.
I do get reactions to my other reviews. I have fun skewering books and authors for inaccuracy, tendentiousness, polemic intent, and/or incoherence. And I positively love writing reviews for books that are especially good. Best of all are those that are mostly good, but with issues I want to point out.
But I'm a completionist. I even write mini-reviews when I abandon a book, explaining why I decided the book wasn't worth the effort. I imagine that in some cases someone else might take my objections as a recommendation.
And I write on a site specifically devoted to books.
I don't expect others to follow my example. But maybe some of my babbling above might help with books that weren't bad, just not to your taste, if you actually want to review them.
I'll just be positive when I say I find your science oriented stuff the most valuable. For example I'd have liked the Oppenheimer review to be less review (that could just be a hook) than your take on the history of the science of the Bomb!. (What WERE those confects that Oppenheimer could manage because he was Oppenheimer?) So maybe that would be not treading the needed perfectly, but so what?
One of my hobbies is writing book reviews of just about everything I read. I make a distinction between books that were badly written and books that were not at all to my taste. Often I end with a paragraph like "read this if ...".
There are a few patterns that I never like, and I mostly avoid reading them entirely. One of them results in a prejudice against "science writers" and "science journalists" - works by such an author need a really strong recommendation from someone else before I touch them, or prior good experience with the author.
That bête noire is science books that are really about people. First we read about what the first interviewee is wearing, then a bit about his background, then what his office is like. This is followed by a couple of snippets of the science the book is ostensibly about, followed by a comment about the weather. Then the author expresses her emotional reaction to the information received, personifying lab equipment or non-animate research subjects in the process. (Volcanoes have feelings?! Who knew?) Then on to the next interview, with a couple of comments about the trip to reach it.
I presume there's a market for these books, because they seem to be more common than real science books for non-specialist readers. So my audience - fellow avid readers who use these reviews as a source of reading suggestions - might include someone who'd utterly love a book like this. I make sure that they - and those who agree with me - both know what kind of book I'm describing. And I include relevant details like whether the science appears inaccurate (even to an intelligent, well-read non-specialist) whether the book has footnotes, and whether any of the scientific information was actually new to me. But I rarely get any kind of reaction to these reviews.
I do get reactions to my other reviews. I have fun skewering books and authors for inaccuracy, tendentiousness, polemic intent, and/or incoherence. And I positively love writing reviews for books that are especially good. Best of all are those that are mostly good, but with issues I want to point out.
But I'm a completionist. I even write mini-reviews when I abandon a book, explaining why I decided the book wasn't worth the effort. I imagine that in some cases someone else might take my objections as a recommendation.
And I write on a site specifically devoted to books.
I don't expect others to follow my example. But maybe some of my babbling above might help with books that weren't bad, just not to your taste, if you actually want to review them.
I'll just be positive when I say I find your science oriented stuff the most valuable. For example I'd have liked the Oppenheimer review to be less review (that could just be a hook) than your take on the history of the science of the Bomb!. (What WERE those confects that Oppenheimer could manage because he was Oppenheimer?) So maybe that would be not treading the needed perfectly, but so what?