I had my 15 minutes of fame in December, when The New York Times, The Chicago Tribune and NPR included the cookbook I co-wrote with chef Craig Priebe, The United States of Pizza, in their 2015 holiday round-ups of best books or cookbooks of the year.
It was a giddy time because, as you know, a cookbook review in The New York Times is the Holy Grail. Emails flew as my agent and publisher discussed whether to put stickers on the cover, wondered if the sales reps knew, and questioned whether they published enough books for the holidays without running out.
Something about writing a “cookbook review” nagged at me, though.
Mostly, the writers did not make the recipes. I think only two writers made at least one recipe each, but I’m only certain of one. The New York Times writer said the eggplant and egg pizza was “shamelessly good,” so she must have made it. T. Susan Chang wrote on NPR that “…they work,” but I need more clues.
So if you’re writing a cookbook review for a publication or website, how many recipes does the editor expect you to make? If I ruled the universe, I’d say three at least, to get a proper sense of what the author wants to achieve. Testing three recipes means if two work or if they don’t work, you have a majority and a conclusion. But if you’re writing a round-up story listing 10 cookbooks, probably no editor will pay for testing 30 recipes, let alone for the groceries. And what writer wants to put in that much time for one piece anyway? Alas, many of our “reviews” were not part of extensive round-ups, and still, no recipe testing occurred.
In the coverage, the writers said the cookbook was a great idea, it looks gorgeous, and they listed what the content covers. Take, for an example, this bit from the Chicago Tribune:
“Dough-making techniques. Baking tools. Recipes for dozens of picture-perfect pies. Sounds like a lot of pizza cookbooks, right? What separates this one from the pack: Each pizza is plucked from a restaurant in the U.S., with a paragraph telling its story — at once satisfying our innate love for familiarity (“I’ve been to Beau Jo’s in Denver!”) and discovery (say, a renowned pizza place in the middle of a tiny ranching town in Wyoming). The authors also pull particularly interesting recipes, with chapters on sourdough pizzas, corn flour pizzas and more.”
It’s nice, right? Don’t get me wrong. I’m pleased. I content myself with the notion, a la Oscar Wilde, that “…there is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about.”A review is not the same as the annual cookbook awards of IACP and James Beard, where judges must test the recipes of the finalists. And most people who buy cookbooks don’t make more than a few of the recipes anyway. But still, no testing bugs me.
My last point: publishing rewritten press releases can backfire. Christine Gilbert wrote as much in her post, The Worst Mexican Cookbook in the World, exposing how the media extolled what she found to be an inferior cookbook. Just a few writers, it seems, are still willing to put in the time.
What do you think? Should cookbook write-ups always require testing, or is it not worthwhile because editors don’t pay for the time involved? Are little blurbs sufficient? If you review cookbooks on your blog, do you test the recipes?
* * *
A version of this post first appeared in my quarterly newsletter, which is filled with terrific links about food writing and best practices. I hope you’ll sign up!
yep totally agree. If you are reviewing a cookbook recipe I want to know you have tested recipes, which ones, and see pictures to compare the home cook version vs the professionally cooked/styled version. And when I review a cookbook I clearly specify which recipes I have cooked or if I haven’t. I want my reader to be confident with my comments.
Yay! I would trust your reviews, Mel.
As both a food blogger who reviews cookbooks occasionally and a newspaper reporter who writes articles about new cookbooks, I’m really conflicted about this.
Perhaps a solution is to stop calling them cookbook reviews unless at least one of the recipes has been tested by the blogger or journalist writing about the cookbook.
Newspaper budgets continue to shrink. The attitude at the one I work for tends to be that cookbook authors are lucky they’re getting any ink at all, never mind recipe testing. If I asked for a budget to try out a recipe my editor would laugh me out of her office, she just doesn’t have it. (Mind you this is a regional paper).
And my concern with testing just one recipe is that what if that one recipe is the only clunker in the book? Is that fair to the author? But, who has time to make more than one recipe unless it’s a food you’re really passionate about.
Sometimes there’s an unexpected hole to fill on the newspaper’s food page and we have just a couple hours to get it filled with something, anything. Right or wrong, cookbook articles can be churned out quickly.
As far as writing cookbook reviews on my website, that truly is a labor of love because those are my least-viewed posts. I can’t really justify testing three recipes for a review when it’s going to be my mom and a handful of other people “skimming” the review.
Wow, this is a depressing comment, Jennifer. Definitely we should stop calling them reviews. And I do understand that no one has the budget or time to test three recipes, apparently. I’m just wondering what we’re trying to pull over on the public by writing positively about a cookbook when no one has made anything from it. How sad that your reviews are your least-viewed posts. I did try to find them on your blog but had trouble.
I am a former staff food writer for a daily newspaper in upstate New York (I left my 15-year post about 10 months ago for the much sunnier tourism industry–no regrets btw), and Jennifer’s experience was mine as well. In-depth cookbook reviews are a luxury that most newspapers today cannot afford, even though readership shows how popular food coverage is. That being said, our online metrics showed increasingly that recipes and cookbook reviews did not garner as many readers as stories about restaurants, food trends, chefs, etc.
Of course I would feel more confident reviewing a cookbook after testing a handful of recipes, but after a while, I just found it unrewarding. Plus, over the years, I received fewer press copies of cookbooks, and most of them were B-list or below (a reflection of how hard-hit that industry is as well).
Hmm, fascinating information, Karen. Someone else commented that her cookbook reviews were among the least viewed posts on her blog. I suppose if readers are not so interested it makes no sense to put so much effort into a review by testing recipes.
I find it odd that a daily paper got B-List or below cookbooks. Maybe publishers only send out so many and your paper didn’t make the cut. The cookbook industry is thriving though. Cookbook sales are robust and publishers are making money.
I think with personal blogs, it’s up to the person running the blog. But, a national newspaper/blog that has a huge following where the review can really bump up the sales of a book, I absolutely think there should be recipe testing. Ever since I read about the situation with that Mexican cookbook where many of the recipes don’t work and are clearly not right, I have been horrified to think that books are making the New York Times (or whatever) Best Cookbooks of [Year} without any testing going on. And as a cookbook writer who spends a lot of time (and money) testing my recipes and getting outside testers to test my recipes to make sure they are good and work well, I am beyond annoyed that these kinds of books are getting good reviews (and the subsequent sales) based on–what? A pretty cover? Good photos? The reputation of the author? The press materials from the publisher? Other reviews? This is not right.
To her credit, the New York Times writer was the only one to clearly state that she had tested at least one of our recipes, which is more than what anyone else said. It seems that writers are all so busy — or getting paid so poorly? — that it’s enough just look through a cookbook and make a few comments about how it looks or how good the recipes look, yes.
Am I going to work any less hard on making sure the recipes work? Nope.
I have been wondering about this! I’ve only done one cookbook review on my blog so far and I made 3 recipes from the book, sharing one full recipe in the post itself (with permission, of course). It did take a while but it was a lot of fun to make 3 new recipes–I photographed all 3 of them, too, which was good practice for me and enjoyable. I plan to do the same thing for another cookbook I recently received.
My cookbook came out in November and there haven’t been a lot of newspaper reviews, but the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette shared a couple recipes, labeled as “PG Tested”, as part of roundups and weekly recipe features. I was happy to hear they’d actually made the food–anything said about a cookbook carries infinitely more weight when the person saying it has cooked from it! Several fellow bloggers have reviewed my book and I believe most of them made just one recipe, but that seemed pretty clear from the post, which is good. A lot of bloggers make it kind of like a story, saying something like, “I just got ___’s new cookbook. It’s gorgeous and I wanted to make the ____ right away.” They then go on to describe how that one recipe turned out, and it’s implied that they’ve only tried that one, at least so far. I think the most important part is to be honest, but I can’t imagine that a newspaper writer would ever say, “I haven’t had the time to make any of the recipes, but here’s why I still recommend this book.” Murky territory!
That is basically what media folks are saying without saying it, Becky.
Interesting that the review was labeled “PG Tested.” I’m wondering if they actually said in the review that they made at least 1 of the recipes.
I like that the bloggers talked about making one of your recipes. It’s better than none. And since you tested 3 recipes from a cookbook, I’m sure you were in a better position to discuss it.
As only having a personal blog and reviewed only one or two cookbooks on my blog, I vote for recipe testing.And just because it was only one book, I tried at least 5-6 recipes on different times and wrote the post later. I know there are a lot of budget issues to deal with at a newspaper so I take it with a grain of salt when I read glowing recommendation of a cookbook. And if I am going to buy a cookbook and shell out $40 just for pretty pictures, I try to find a copy at the library or from a friend, to take home for a while, try some recipes and see how I like the narrative and recipes. I have started writing one myself, so I am spending a lot of time testing my recipes and will ask friends to test as well before I hit publish button on CreateSpace to make sure someone does not label it the Worst Turkish Cookbook :))
Hah! I don’t think you’re in any danger of that, Ilke. Congrats on your cookbook.
Maybe we should all be taking these write-ups with a grain of salt. Your approach sounds very sensible, to start with a library edition.
Testing 5-6 recipes for a blog post is super diligent!
I try to test at least 3 recipes from a cookbook before I review it on my blog. Otherwise, what’s the point? Anybody can pick up a cookbook and see the contents and note the pretty pictures? It’s like writing a book report without reading the book!
Yes, that is exactly what is happening, Janice, so I love that the media got called out. Very good that you test 3 recipes.
I’ve recently reviewed Simply Nigella and Mamushka and I would say that yes, we do need to test recipes. I would have little faith in a review where they hadn’t unless they specified that the review is about the writing only.
Agreed. Let’s start calling these pieces of writing “write-ups” or “announcements” and not “reviews” then, Nicola. I think we could all benefit in thinking about them differently, as rewritten press releases.
Dianne, your blog post immediately put me in mind of one from 2013 (http://diannej.com/2013/what-makes-a-good-cookbook-review/#more-14122) where you interviewed an editor who paid $25 for cookbook reviews and didn’t expect recipe testing. At the time, I commented that even without recipe testing he was expecting a lot for little pay. But, that’s the sad state of things these days. So, it’s not surprising to me to hear that reviews are published in newspapers without recipe testing. For the reviewer who is receiving $25 for (presumably) reading/skimming the whole book and writing an article about it, whether or not to take the time to test a recipe or two may come down to a struggle between pragmatism and a sense of integrity (not to mention one’s budget).
I do occasional reviews and cookbook roundups on my blog. For reviews, I like to have tried at least a couple of the recipes and sometimes it’s many more. For the roundups, I distinguish between the books that I’ve actually cooked from and those that I’ve read and enjoyed without trying any of the recipes. For me, cookbooks can be good reading and can be reviewed or promoted as such. However, I doubt that’s what the newspapers who ‘reviewed’ your book were doing …
Yes! I thought about including that blog post, but that editor moved on and Publishers Weekly closed the cookbook newsletter. Also PW paid $25 for a review, period, and they probably couldn’t care less that cookbooks are a lot more work. But you’re right, if that’s all you’re making from a review, you have to be realistic.
I agree that cookbooks can be good reading, and often I never make anything out of them. But since they are recipe based, it seems odd to not try any as part of a write-up.
As a food blogger who occasionally makes other’s recipes (at my own cost!), before posting a review, I can understand budgetary considerations. However, I think the reviewer should disclose if they haven’t tested the recipes, and state that the review is based on the quality of the writing and/or photography alone. From a reader’s perspective, I tend to look to average reader reviews for a real analysis of the recipes anyway. Not the food “professionals.”
Sarah, great take on this topic! I completely agree.
Great idea but I don’t think anyone would be willing to say that, Sarah, because it would make them look foolish!
But yes, maybe the people on Amazon would give you a better indication of they leave reviews about making the recipes. On the other hand, you don’t know who they are or their motivations.
Sarah, above, read my mind: Cookbook reviews should include recipe testing or clearly state otherwise. How then, as readers, can we ever trust reviews? I don’t need to read a review to judge the cover, photography and general content—I can go to Amazon for that. What I want to know is, are the recipes sound? I’ve written many cookbook reviews and I’ve always tested a minimum of 3 recipes for exactly the reasons that you outline above, Dianne—it provides you with a clear majority of good to bad. If I don’t have the time or resources to recipe test, I don’t review the book. I’m appalled to hear that major publications are not recipe testing. As a reader, this feels like a breach of trust. I understand that budgets are dire these days but, honestly, what’s the point? I’ll never look at a cookbook review the same again.
Hah! I’m so sorry about that Marika. But I feel the same way. We can’t really confine ourselves to Amazon reviews from now on, because we never really know who’s writing them and their motivation.
What a state of affairs, that you do not look to professional food writers for their assessment of a cookbook! But these days there are other places to go for good information — the reviews on Amazon or Goodreads, for example. Our first Amazon reviews were pathetic, because no one made the recipes either! It’s nice that they gave the book 5 stars, but it’s not enough for me to say “Wow, great cookbook.”
I learn more about cookbooks from discussions on Chowhound’s home cooking board. You get great reviews that way with multiple people chiming in about what they’ve cooked, how clear things were, how they liked/disliked, etc. However, I’ll warn you that it’s dangerous to your book budget. 😉
Hello! I’m the Cookbook Critic at Epicurious so I figured I’d chime in. I firmly believe you should test recipes for reviews. I write two kinds of reviews: Once a month, I do a new book round up of three-four books. We call these digest reviews, and they’re more short blurbs than a full review. I test at least one recipe from each of those. For a full review, I test at least five recipes, often more. I think it’s incredibly important. And, for what it’s worth, I expense the ingredients for the recipes I test. Just like a restaurant critic would expense a meal.
Yay! What a tremendous service you’re doing in the face of all these rewritten press releases, Paula. Thank you so much for letting us know how you work. I’ll definitely keep an eye out for your reviews from now on. And kudos to Epicurious to support you in doing the testing and paying for your groceries.
Goodness no! It takes so much time to test recipes and then even photograph them. As a reviewer, if I had to do that with every cookbook a publisher sent to me (many per week and unsolicited mostly!) I’d never get my own work done. As a book writer, I’d get so few posts on my book if they had to trial it before sharing! I think the main thing is, you’re calling them reviews. I do book “highlights” where I share information and maybe a pre-approved recipe for promotion to tell people about new books. I don’t think every post about a book needs to be a “review”. And honestly, as a reader, I just want to hear about new books! I don’t really care if that specific person trialed the recipes. Just my view though 🙂
Okay, I can see it if you’re writing little announcements or “highlights.” A 1-paragraph announcement about a new book is not going to have tested recipes in it.
A big part of my beef was in having the book be included in the “best of 2015” cookbook selection (although I’m also not complaining!) without anyone testing the recipes, or making 1 thing. That’s a little much.
Wow, what a great topic! I’m on both sides of the coin; a blogger and an author. As a blogger, if someone sends me a book, I will test at least 1 recipe and up to about 3 (with a few exceptions). If someone sends me a free book I feel obligated to let others know about it via a blog post or social media. That’s usually what I do.
As an author, I hope others will make a recipe or two as validation that it actually works and that it’s as good as I wanted it to be. Their pictures are great as well. There are reviews that have just taken the words from the press release and not much more. It’s disappointing that people didn’t take more time but I understand it’s better than nothing.
So, at the end of the day, maybe there should be two categories: cookbook review and cookbook overview.
Yes, let’s agree to stop calling them reviews. That’s a big part of the problem. And I do agree that a little blurb is better than nothing.
How true, Amy, that it’s disappointing to go to such effort in making a recipe work and taste fantastic, only to have no one notice.
I think that cookbook reviews should review the writing and also include tests of the recipes, even if only a couple of them. When I’m considering a cookbook purchase I want to know that the recipes will work well, and hear about how those test recipes tasted. And if that cookbook were my own I would certainly want the feedback to know & improve for future writing.
One to this exception would possibly be a book intended to more of a memoir than a cookbook, where recipes just supplement other writing.
Thanks for chiming in. We are all cookbook purchasers and users here, not just writers.
Yes, definitely, memoirs could be exempt if they only included a few recipes. I’d be for that.
When I review cookbooks for my blog I try three recipes and then serve them to the family to hear their feedback – not always the same opinion as my own.
When I review cookbooks for the newspaper these are usually written by better known chefs/ cooks and I do test recipes too. I find though that the recipe testing bit sometimes gets edited out. The editor seems more interested in the story behind the cookbook, the details about the writer’s career/ influences etc. Presumably the readers find that more interesting too. I suspect that more people buy cookbooks because of who wrote them, the gorgeous photos, Xmas and birthday gifts and so on than those who actually cook from them.
OH gosh, you’re probably right, Madeleine, that people buy cookbooks for lots of other reasons besides wanting to actually cook from them. But I think you’d be hard-pressed to find a cookbook author who could now say, “hey if no one’s making the recipes, why should I work so hard on them?” It’s been true for decades that people only make a few anyway, if at all. But still, we go to a lot of effort.
I’ve collected many cookbooks over the decades and some I’ve never really made a recipe from, yet would not part with them for anything. I use them to for things like, what is the correct ratio of egg to dairy in a quiche? or what else would be good in this flank steak marinade? or which spice would give this a more Mediterranean flavor? I look to them for inspiration, to get my creative juices flowing in the kitchen.
I am the author of a cookbook that focuses on one ingredient and how to work it into virtually any dish you make. I try to make the point that my recipes do not have to be followed exactly, rather, let my recipes be mere examples of the diversity of this ingredient. I encourage the reader to strike out on their own and be creative, to take pride in their dishes, and ownership of their health.
So, do I feel a cookbook reviewer should have to test 3 or more recipes to give a true review? No way. If a cookbook is merely a list of recipes, then maybe the recipes should be tested, but to me a cookbook is and should be much more than that and should be reviewed on that basis.
Good points. I have many cookbooks like that too and I look at them for the same reasons.
I’m not suggesting that a review should comprise only a discussion of tested recipes. Not at all. The main reasons to write a review are to entertain and inform, and there’s lots of other information to include, as others have pointed out in comments. The write-ups of mine said the photos were gorgeous, it was a great idea, had lots of “interesting” recipes (world’s vaguest adjective), etc.
What an interesting question, it made me think. When I review a book, I’ll have made at least three recipes from it – even if just writing a review on Amazon. I don’t feel qualified to write a review without having done recipe testing.
But when I’m actually looking for cookbooks,
= I look for star-ratings while reading the comments to see if star-ratings are justified.
= I look at how people have got on with making the recipes but try and see if there is a consistent pattern to feedback
= I ‘Look Inside’ to answer more questions.
Examples.. Is it well-written and laid out? Are there photos and how many? How many of the recipes are vegan or can be made vegan? Are the ingredients easy to get hold off? How many recipes have nuts? What is the ratio of quick and easy to complicated? Savoury to dessert?
= I ask friends.
And then maybe purchase.
Believe it or not I have bought a lot of cookery books!
Certainly, as Marie pointed out as well, many other factors exist in determine whether the cookbook is worthwhile. Thanks for making a good list of them! Re the star factor, only some publications and websites use them, but Amazon has been very successful with this technique.
Dianne, I feel sad after reading this article, but at the same time I feel jaded. Why am I not surprised? This is clearly a state-of-the-food-writing-world matter. Nobody will pay for recipe testing, so cookbooks are getting reviewed without being tested. Good for you that your book was positively reviewed, and be comforted by the fact that you go out of your way to create and write recipes that work, which is more than can be said of other cookbooks, apparently.
Thank you Marie. Well, we don’t know if the recipes work in other cookbooks, unless we can find bloggers who were willing to test them. Lots of the readers of this blog are committed to testing and having testers for their recipes, so I have confidence. And as we know, people buy cookbooks for other reasons than to make the recipes, us included. So, like everything else, it’s complicated.
Dianne, I recently wrote a post titled, My 10 Favorite Southern Cookbooks” that got a higher than average readership. I’ve had these books for years and cooked out of them, so it was easy to honestly endorse them. Having said that, as a cooking teacher, I can tell a lot about how good I think a cookbook is just by reading the recipes: are the instructions clear? Are the ingredients listed in order of use? Do baking recipes have accurate ratios? Does the author offer additional, tips, insights into the recipes? So many things can tell a potential buyer a lot about the cookbook. And, of course, photography and illustrations enhance the experience. As was mentioned above, the public buys a lot of cookbooks and then never uses them. However, I would always expect a review in a newspaper or on a blog to have made a few of the recipes. It would be like reviewing a book or movie without having read or seen it.
I’ve run cookbook review sessions for our local indie bookstore – where we insist on making multiple recipes and even have out samples. I learned the hard way after endorsing a book with recipes that *read* as really interesting, clear, etc. – but in fact I discovered they tasted terrible to me. At the very least, I should have tasted them to know what sort of flavor preferences they fit to appropriately guide customers. That being said, some cookbooks can absolutely be purchased with no intention of cooking from them but instead for the prose, pictures, evocation of a place, informational text on history, science or culture, etc. and we make clear when we’re reviewing primarily that element of the book.
How terrible that these cookbooks read well but the recipes were awful. There was only 1 way to know, right? Since not everyone who reads them makes anything, you could argue that no harm was done. I would not be in that camp.
I write The Book Cook column for Hello Giggles for more than two years and while my column was not precisely a review column I tried to make at least a couple things from each book, if anything to find the recipe I most wants to share with readers! Also to make sure it was a quality book.
Very good that you were so conscientious, Ellen. I hope your readers appreciated such thorough reviews.
I’m wading in on this thread even though I don’t have a food blog, but I do include reviews of cookbooks on goodreads. I really try to avoid reviews that just say “all these recipes look yummy!” Instead, I only give a starred review if I’ve tried 3 or more recipes from a particular book. I read other cookbook reviews with a grain of salt if they do not include references to which recipes they tested.
I realize my goodreads reviews probably reach an infinitesimal number of cookbook buyers and therefore do not influence sales in any significant way, but I’d thought I’d share my personal experience.
Jessica, you are a cookbook reviewer, so your feedback is important. It’s a lot of work to try the recipes, so more power to you for taking the time to do so. It makes your review more believable.
What an interesting discussion! As a reader, I’m not particularly interested in posts about new cookbooks that are basically PR releases. Since I spend a lot of my time on food blogs, I tend to know about new cookbooks that are coming out in my niche. So it doesn’t add value to me to simply hear that a book exists. I much prefer reviews, in which the person has made at least one recipe or more.
As a blogger, I tend to make at least 3 recipes from the books that I agree to review. However, I have to be very picky about what I say yes to because those cookbook reviews take a lot of time, and it can be expensive, depending on the ingredients. I don’t get paid for the review, and they tend to not have as long or strong of a burn on Pinterest, where a lot of my traffic comes from. So I agree with others in the thread who said that reviews aren’t wildly popular on their blogs. I do reviews because I like writing them, reading them, and because I want to help promote vegan cookbooks/authors.
I like that you are going to do the reviews anyway, even if they aren’t top reading. I agree that just reading a paragraph about a new book is not terribly exciting. Thanks Cadry.