Let me add to Chris's thoughts a little.
No matter what the discipline, all reviewers learn their trade on a do-it-yourself basis. There is no place you go to learn how to review books, or films, or restaurants, or philharmonic concerts.
So, rule number one: At base, reviewers are hobbiests. There are notable exceptions. And sometimes reviewers go on to obtain formal training in their discipline. But, basically, they start out by being passionate about the subject and having some ability to communicate. That last is the real key. Unfortunately, more often than not, they have no writing ability. Or there is a germ of talent, but it never gets developed properly. So the world is filled with bad reviews.
But the fact is, too, that those with the passion and basic talent, if they persevere, eventually emerge as reviewers one pays attention to.
Now then, as to formal training or not, I would say it doesn't really matter if the passion and talent are there. Let's look at the Cheftalk book review staff as an example. I don't think anyone would argue with the statement that we run some of the finest cookbook reviews available.
We've worked very hard to build that staff, and are constantly looking to add to it. But we reject a lot of applicants as well. If we look at the background of the staff, we find it just about equally divided between professionals in the food service industry and foodies with no formal training. Among the rejects, professionals outnumber nonprofessionals---which is a logical expectation. Their skill is in cooking. Why whould we expect them to be good writers as well?
When I was consulting to trade magazines I often ran into this problem on a larger scale. Publishers wanted to hire practitioners to edit the magazine. A medical book should, they felt, be edited by a doctor; an engineering book by an engineer; etc. My question always was: If he's such a good doctor, why does he want to edit your magazine, and how does he have the time? And if he's not so good a doctor, why would you want him to edit your magazine?
But I digress.
Our cookbook review staff all started out good, and got better as they went along because of good editing. I don't mean the kind of editor that merely corrects spelling errors, but the kind who trains the writers. When a correction is made, I explain the reasons behind it. And, because our staff is good to begin with, they take those lessons to heart, and their writing just gets better.
One of the overall problems with reviews is that the reviewer usuallly doesn't have that kind of help available. So even if he or she has basic talent, they don't grow and expand their abilities because there's nobody to help guide them. Again, those able to break out, to improve on their own, stand above the pack.
So, all in all, I say to jaytuk: Hey! If this is something you want to do; and if you think you've got the chops for it; then go for it. Lack of professional training is not a hinderance.  |