Side question: Is this the sort of thing people want to see in main?
Mybookreviews have done well in Main, but I try to discuss the book in much more depth; this post feels right for Discussion for me. (You’ll also notice from my reviews that the closer the book is to the main LW focus, the more upvotes it gets.)
I’ve found forcing myself to write something about every chapter to be rather useful in both making sure I’ve captured all that the book discusses and making it easy to recommend which sections of the book someone should read. That level of depth is also way better at convincing people that they should read the book, because they can visualize it as lots of small pieces each worth reading, and because it makes it easier for people to pick and choose which pieces to read. You have the start of this here, talking about Chapters 5-8 in a bit more depth, but more would be helpful.
Did you personally witness that this style is better at convincing people to read the book, or is it something you surmised? I’m asking because I’ve been thinking about the same style for my reviews, but found myself wondering whether a detailed summary wouldn’t make people feel they’ve already got the gist of the book and it’s therefore less important to actually read it.
Did you personally witness that this style is better at convincing people to read the book, or is it something you surmised?
I’m generalizing from a few examples. Matt_Simpson and beoShaffer both commented that the review convinced them to read the book, and in both of the comments I got the impression that the level of detail was what made the book interesting enough to read. I also had someone contact me privately to talk about the book, which I believe was because of the level of detail. I haven’t gotten any feedback that said “now I don’t have to read the book!” but I also would expect someone who felt that way to be less likely to give that feedback than someone who now wanted to read the book.
It also seems likely to me (this part I’m surmising) that most people will have had many of these books recommended to them before, and a detailed exploration is more likely to tip them from “I’ve heard it’s good” to “I actually want to read it” than another recommendation.
I do think that there are summaries- like badger’s summary of Epistemology and the Psychology of Human Judgment- that on net do substitute (partially) for reading the book, rather than complementing reading the book. (EPHJ is particularly easy to summarize for LW, because it’s basically a philosopher and a philosopher/psychologist arguing “the point of philosophy should be to teach people how to live effectively given the minds they have,” which is one of the foundational beliefs of LW.) I think whether or not this is possible is basically determined by the length/complexity of the book, and when it’s possible it’s generally desirable.
My book reviews have done well in Main, but I try to discuss the book in much more depth; this post feels right for Discussion for me. (You’ll also notice from my reviews that the closer the book is to the main LW focus, the more upvotes it gets.)
I’ve found forcing myself to write something about every chapter to be rather useful in both making sure I’ve captured all that the book discusses and making it easy to recommend which sections of the book someone should read. That level of depth is also way better at convincing people that they should read the book, because they can visualize it as lots of small pieces each worth reading, and because it makes it easier for people to pick and choose which pieces to read. You have the start of this here, talking about Chapters 5-8 in a bit more depth, but more would be helpful.
Did you personally witness that this style is better at convincing people to read the book, or is it something you surmised? I’m asking because I’ve been thinking about the same style for my reviews, but found myself wondering whether a detailed summary wouldn’t make people feel they’ve already got the gist of the book and it’s therefore less important to actually read it.
I’m generalizing from a few examples. Matt_Simpson and beoShaffer both commented that the review convinced them to read the book, and in both of the comments I got the impression that the level of detail was what made the book interesting enough to read. I also had someone contact me privately to talk about the book, which I believe was because of the level of detail. I haven’t gotten any feedback that said “now I don’t have to read the book!” but I also would expect someone who felt that way to be less likely to give that feedback than someone who now wanted to read the book.
It also seems likely to me (this part I’m surmising) that most people will have had many of these books recommended to them before, and a detailed exploration is more likely to tip them from “I’ve heard it’s good” to “I actually want to read it” than another recommendation.
I do think that there are summaries- like badger’s summary of Epistemology and the Psychology of Human Judgment- that on net do substitute (partially) for reading the book, rather than complementing reading the book. (EPHJ is particularly easy to summarize for LW, because it’s basically a philosopher and a philosopher/psychologist arguing “the point of philosophy should be to teach people how to live effectively given the minds they have,” which is one of the foundational beliefs of LW.) I think whether or not this is possible is basically determined by the length/complexity of the book, and when it’s possible it’s generally desirable.