Serious Eats - seriouseats.com

There are an awful lot of folks out there who don't know how to cook. I've had 50-year-old women come up to me, shamefacedly asking for advice on learning how. (It's a lot easier to get by without knowing how these days, of course.) I find I always - well, nearly always - can learn something new from those pages.

As to recipes, I'll settle for fewer if they're TESTED. I get so tired of the flubs that no one seems to care about at the publishers. You're always left with the dilemma of "Gosh, this sounds really odd. So do I follow the directions or do what I normally would? Is it really some new technique [or whatever] or a mistake?"

If you go look at cookbooks from, oh, the first half of the 20th Century or even later, many of them are nothing but recipes and pretty brief directions in those recipes, because they assume prior knowledge. (Editors these days often emphasize that such an assumption is not wise nowadays.) I know there are folks who love them, but the contemporary story-telling trend in cookbooks is a great pleasure to me. That said, I admit that if the first half of a book is nothing but prose with no recipes, the recipes have to be pretty darn fine for me to shell out my bucks for it.

I love comments about the origins of recipes. If it's what momma made every Sunday, that makes it a bit more interesting than a recipe that the writer made up for the book. Which is fine, too, if it's been tested.

With ethnic books, a little more history of the dish might be appropriate, particularly if the country is large enough to have different regional dishes, and/or if there's some history about when the ingredients first arrived in the country, or if it was traditional for a particular holiday or celebration.

Techniques are good, if it's that type of cookbook. For example, I've got some baking books with diagrams of how to fold and/or cut different loaves to get different results. Same sort of thing is good if someone is trying to describe how to make something like a gnocchi, which would be difficult to explain, but a lot easier with drawings or photos.

If a cookbook gives too basic info, then it's probably not what I'm looking for. Someone may be looking for it, but I don't need to details about folding, mixing, sauteeing, etc.

Lately, I've been more interested in cookbooks with photos. I don't really need photos of mashed potatoes, or a fancy plating, but if it's something that I'm not familiar with, it's nice to see what it's supposed to look like when it's done. Another good use of photos is in a cookie book that I have. Each recipe has a photo of a single cookie. When there are a half-dozen variations of a cookie, it's nice to see the photos and know which one is closest to what I'm looking for.

What I dislike are cookbooks that get too cute with typefaces and colors and design. I'm at the point where reading glasses are often required, and it irks me when part of the problem is that the type is dark brown and the pages are light brown. Black text on white paper, and a clear, readable font makes me much happier.

I think cookbooks are trended. One year its Pie, then cake, then cookies. I remember the big hor douvres trend and small plates, this comes and goes like it was just invented yesterday.
I been actively reading cookbooks since I could read. Everything old is new again. In the 60's was Amy Vanderbilt in the 80's Martha Stewart. The low fat lo carb thing a trend. The I can't cook but show me how to throw some stuff together like I can trend the last couple of years.
Food is trendy. I know most of you don't want to imagine that but its true.
Food has trends. Magazines and Foodtv spend a insane amount of money selling you these trends.
The key to a good cookbook is its not trendy, it transcends the trend and is a good comprehensive guideline for making whatever it sets out to cover.
Those are the cookbooks that never go out of use. The reference books you go to again and again. Those are the only books I buy. I don't waste money on trendy cookbooks. They soon just take up space.

One thing I find is a must in a cookbook is artfully-styled and attractive photography. As stated very well up-thread, I really like to know how the author intended the recipe to turn out. Food, to me, is joy and beauty. If the book doesn't appear to celebrate the food its recipes are intended to make, I usually do not enjoy it as much as one that does.

A case in point: I was gifted with a copy of the Bon Appetit cookbook last Christmas. I was so excited when I unwrapped it. I expected a comprehensive and beautifully photographed book. It was, indeed, comprehensive. (The thing weighs a ton!) I expected it to be more like the magazine or the website, but it was nothing but print -- page after black-and-white page of print. It is a joyless book. Do I use this book? I do use it now and again, but in between uses, I use it to keep my bedroom door open on breezy days.

This probably makes me seem shallow, but if you're honest, don't you think something as wondrous as food deserves a beautiful presentation? I am an experienced enough cook to know a good recipe when I see one, but a picture of the recipe goes a long way to making a cookbook worthwhile for me.

I'm so glad I asked! Thanks folks. I look forward to what other SE'ers have to say as well.

I completely agree with you on the photos. My ideal cookbooks show one photo per recipe. Also, like Robyn, I enjoy seeing the "innards" of a finished edible.

Another irksome feature of some cookbooks, even those I adore (think Veganomicon), is a recipe that is more than a 2-page spread. When I'm cooking, I shouldn't have to flip between the ingredients and directions pages. That really bugs me.

What else would you want/need from a cookbook? And, what else annoys you?

I've always though it was quite silly of me that I wouldn't buy a cookbook, no matter how good, if I feel there are not enough pictures (I'm also a very visual person -- in fact, I have a photographic memory, which always came in handy before/during exams:-) -- and shallow as it might seem, lack of pictures in a cookbook would usually translate into lack of interest on my part). I'm really pleased to know that I'm not all alone in that. Also, since I usually don't follow recipes (other than when baking), but rather look for new and different concepts/ideas in cookbooks, it is really important for me to be able to see what the author had in mind. For the most part, the two things I look at in a (cookbook) recipe are a picture and a list of ingredients.

I think the minority are those who DON'T need the pictures! I love the photos and the inspiration of how to 'serve' the delicious treats we spend so much time perfecting. I think that is why I always gravitate back to the Barefoot Contessa's books. Recently I picked up Ellie Krieger's "The Foods You Crave". Lots of photos. I have several sets of dishes to enhance my personal, mini-bistro that is my home. I prefer to serve my guests fun with the food. So, bring on the photography! I think it helps SELL the cookbook and get us to return to it daily/weekly.