Short and to the point, Hooper's text predominantly focuses its advice toward those writing for prepublication outlets or for libraries' reader advisory type publications. That said, it still has a load of great advice for anyone who is considering taking on the title/role of book reviewer. He is repetitive in places, but his use of repetition cements the points he's making.

Here and there, he seems to fall into moments of idol-worship (referring to Edith Wharton and Mozart as deities, for example)-- I'm not sure if that adds to or detracts from the overall impact of the text, in truth. If I disagreed, I might have found it annoying.

He includes breakdowns on how to approach nonfiction, fiction, and even audiobooks. Thoughtfully, Hooper includes some notes at the end on his favorite reviewers, explaining why. This was immensely useful for me, as it helps me understand where he's coming from in constructing his advice.

If there was a lack, it is that Hooper doesn't address the idea of the independent blog-based reviewer; in our hyper-digital consumption of media there warrants at least a page or two addressing this facet of the book review world.

That said, overall, Hooper's text is a compact but dense collection of good advice and food for thought for would-be reviewers. ( )

experience in reading books, experience in reading reviews, experience in writing reviews (Preface, xii)

Marketing through reviewing: websites, handouts, blogs, book clubs (p. 1-4)

Reviews vs. criticism:
-subjective opinion and qualitative judgment vs. analysis
-broad survey/appraisal/assessment vs. specific focus
-new materials (announcements) vs. older ones
Three questions: Would you read [the criticism/review] before actually reading the novel itself? Would [it] be instructive without having read [the novel] beforehand? Would reading [it] without having read the novel compel you to read [the novel]?

Criticism makes far less sense to someone who has not read the text that is being analyzed. (p. 11)

No matter how brief a review...it is absolutely necessary for it to establish the full boundaries of a book's scope. (13)

Pre-pub reviews and post-pub reviews have different audiences/purposes: to inform booksellers & librarians so they can have the book ready when people want it; to inform potential readers about the book. (20)

Every book review...is required to tell the reader of the review two important things: What is the book about? How good is it? (23)
More review space devoted to book's content than its quality (24)

How good is the nonfiction book for the general reader (learn basic facts comfortably)? For the specialized reader (academic scholarship)? (29)

Novels...are always...about characters...who they are and what they do form the basis of most novels. (31)

Just as you cannot be a good novelist without vast experience reading novels, you also cannot be a good reviewer of novels without considerable experience in reading novels. (32)

Five elements of fiction: characters, plot, theme, setting, style (32)

The concepts of character, plot, and theme are inexorably tied to one another...What a character does is the plot; how and why the character does what she or he does, basically speaking, is the theme. (33)

Setting: Does it ring authentic? Is it sufficiently developed? (35)
Style: a "personal, subjective issue" (35)

Characteristics of a good review: be lively, be series, don't be condescending or sarcastic or take a lecturing tone, don't compare apples and oranges, try to avoid negative reviewing (review another book instead) (p. 43-52)

Having your review reflect the tone of the book under consideration - as opposed to simply stating what the tone is - is a subtle art. (44)

Many readers believe a novel can't totally succeed without a likable main character [but] it is enough to simply understand the main character, regardless of liking him or her...[liking is subjective, anyway] A character one reader likes could easily be a character another reader does not like. (49)

Ch. 6 What Makes a Good Reviewer? Experience (reading books), experience (reading reviews), experience (writing reviews). (55)

Reading critically is often accomplished at the expense of a certain degree of the sheer enjoyment of reading or listening. (55)

Short review ~175 words, full-length review ~500 words (56-57)

...even an opinion based on specific evidence and clear thinking will still be just that: an opinion. (57)

A good reviewer is generous [open-minded]. (59)

"Be accepting of what people want to write about and how they chose to write about it...You cannot fault a book for what it is about." (61)

Do not use the phrase "well-written" in a review - likewise "readable.". (63)

Review fiction in the present tense, for it never actually happened, but it does happen again and again, every time the book is opened and read. (64)

Resources:
http://rebeccaskloot.com/tips-for-successful-book-reviewing/
http://www.well.com/~ladyhawk/bookrevs.html
http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/25/seven-deadly-words-of-book-reviewin....
http://www.lavc.edu/Library/bookreview.htm

Chapter 8 - Audiobook reviews - Joyce Saricks
"the vital point to remember in reviewing audiobooks is that the focus of the review is the narrator and the narration, not the story" (reviews of the content are already out there) (71)

How does the narrator use his/her voice to bring the story to lie in our imagination? (71)

Language & style: (mis)pronunciations, accents, dialect, speech patterns, cadence.
Tone & mood: the mood of the book should be reflected in the narrator's voice.
Pacing: too fast/slow?
Characterization: Does narrator distinguish among characters consistently?
Story line: Does reader enhance or detract from the story?
Background frame and setting: appeal of voice, appropriate match

"Good narrators intensify our experience of the story, and how they do that is precisely the information we want to share in our review" (75)

Provide brief (1-2 sentence) plot summary, appeal elements, pacing and cadence, characterization, overall impression of narration and how well it reflects author's style and intent. Does author read own work (esp. memoirs)? Include series name if applicable. Include extra features (e.g. music, sound effects). Include warnings about "explicit" material (hard to skim in audio). List listen-alikes. Note quality of recording. Remain objective. (77-79)

Too long, but has useful advice. ( )