1 reply to this topic

[Pan]

Eric, I'm so happy you're doing a Q&A, because I get a chance to thank you personally for having reviewed Tanoreen. A friend and I had an awesome meal there last year that stands out as one of my dining highlights of 2004, but I never would have gone to Bay Ridge to check it out if I hadn't read your rave review.

Lately, we've been having a discussion (click here to have a look) about, among other things, whether we would "rather that one writer take over the ["$25 and Under"] column as opposed to sharing it with another critic, as is now the case." I enjoyed reading the column when you were on that beat, because I knew you would always have something interesting to say, and that you are a person of catholic and interesting taste who obviously loves dining and has a commitment to understanding each cuisine you encounter. More importantly, I got to know what your taste was like and, therefore, had some idea of where our tastes were most likely to coincide. I find that very hard to do with the round-robin system currently in place for that beat. I'd like your comments on the advantages and disadvantages of the one-critic-per-beat vs. several-critics-per-beat system.

[Eric Asimov]

Pan,

Thanks for the kind words.

I guess the obvious advantage of having a chorus of voices is that people have several different tastes and tones to follow. One voice won't tire you out.

But to me putting one person in the seat has a more significant advantage: That person will get fully immersed in the beat, eating it and sleeping it, and pretty much knowing the city inside and out, in a way that part-timers cannot. It quickens the learning curve and, from the point of view of an editor, I guess, makes clear who is responsible for that beat. It allows for deeper knowledge and for more interesting stories to be spun out of the beat.