Interesting book; not great. It gives a glimpse behind the scenes of a modern (postmodern) Evangelical (broadly speaking) Bible translation. I've appreciated what I've read of the translation, which isn't much (most of 1 Samuel). Some of the influences and motivations behind it are a little worrisome; some are very commendable.
After reading this: is the Voice a translation or a paraphrase? I think it's a translation "with features", though I would encourage the reader to take note of the endorsement by one of the more noteworthy and credible collaborators, Darrell Bock, in which he labels it "an explanatory paraphrase." You've probably never seen so much italicized text (indicating added, not emphasized) in a Bible translation before.
Bock, for what it's worth served as a reviewer for Acts. That is good. However, Brian McLaren was the main translator. That tends to make the more conservative among us quite rightly squirm and twist up our face. I am glad that there are pastors and ministries and even translations targeted to make Gospel truth accessible to postmodernists. However, that often opens the door to some odd interpretations of Biblical truth (even contortion or denial of Biblical truth) in order to be more *acceptable* to postmodernity. I cannot judge yet to what extent this new-ish translation falls into that trap. However the author's criticism in this book for what is described as the "propositional" nature of other translations is a hint that such influences may not be as inert as we would like. The translation's use of "restorative justice" also shouldn't be divorced from our contemporary lexicon--perhaps a hint at an interpretive grid imported from modern "social justice" theory.
So after reading this book *about* the Voice translation, I recommend reading the Voice translation with a few provisions. Read (and recommend) it with care. Add it to a robust arsenal of other good translations. Watch for interpretive bias. Enjoy its features (See Psalm 25 and Lamentations 3 where it preserves parts of the "form" than your standard "formal equivalent" translation can't--something that can only be done here by being less "word-for-word"--usually a synonym for "formal"). But if push comes to shove, I would give greater weight to other translations.
Also, read this book if you're interested in and already reading more broadly in the area of translation philosophy and the struggles and decisions that face translators. This should not be your introduction to the topic. However, for those already in that space, this book presents another good case study.