JohnL

I like light reds, served on the cool side, with many egg dishes. Especially if there are earthy notes (mushrooms etc) Also most dry whites would seem to be fine. probably one with some herbal notes avoiding tropical fruit flavors etc. (especially if cheese were a key component.) My favorite white would be a fino or manzanilla sherry! The perfect pairing for the Spanish Torta's a(which are basically quiches) Rose would work fine as well. I am not sure what the big deal is-- pairing up wine with egg dishes.

Despite all the criticism leveled at Mr Bruni. I think it is important to note that he deserves a lot of respect for even attempting what he does. I certainly would not want to try putting my restaurant reviewing skills out there on the professional level. I also believe that the standards that the Times set in the past are in no small part responsible for a lot of dissatisfaction with Bruni. It may be, as noted here much earlier, that the Times is concerned less with a certain level of expertise and more in entertainment value as criteria as well as promoting the lifestyles in their reporter's backgrounds. 8 for one, am convinced that the real problem is not so much Bruni but rather the Times. I will also say that the food section has been pretty interesting recently. (same for the food pieces in the Sunday Magazine). It ain't all bad.

1. what you seem incapable of comprehending is that it is unclear to the rest of us why his credibility as a critic has anything to do with whether his sexual orientation is "an issue"....what difference does it make whether he is the best food reviewer on the planet or the worst? how do either of those statuses make his orientation an issue? assume for a moment that Sneakeater is a shitty food writer (sorry, Sneak!), does the fact that he mentions his heterosexuality on occasion make it an issue because of his (hypothetical) shitty food writing? (he writes about food quite well btw). you're still insisting on different rules if someone is gay. 2. no one here has ever said that someone's gender or sexual preference never affects their writing or criticism. no one ever said that. what I called you on in your initial post was your implicit reference to critical theory to make the absurd claim that someone's sexual orientation (well, you didn't say this applied to us breeders) inevitably affects all aspects of their writing no matter what they write about. as I said before, there are gay writers and there are writers who happen to be gay. and there's a difference (and a continuum in between). ← Now you are speaking for "the rest of us." I agree with your astute conclusion that "there are gay writers and writers who happen to be gay." also your even more astute observation that there is a "difference." You are welcome to infer whatever you want to. One final question. If in one of his reports on the political scene covering government. Bruni declared "I am gay." or a liberal or a conservative." would someone be even remotely justified in reading that piece as well as ensuing pieces by Bruni wondering what role his being gay or liberal or conservative was playing in terms of the perspective being applied to the subject at hand? Afterall what exactly would be one's point in making such an announcement in an arena where the announcement should have no bearing on anything? Kinda like when someone opens by stating that "It's not about the money but...." I'm sorry Nathan, I realize I must be driving you nuts! I'm done making points. We really should move on. you will never agree with me, though as noted above, I agree with you so I guess we are in some sort of agreement here! can we agree on that much?!

I get you...because Bruni is gay he carries a greater credibility burden than if he were straight. can we leave the 1950's? ← nathan You never cease to amaze me! For the record: That is in no way what I said or mean. If you notice my comments about Craig Claiborne whom I respect and admire greatly. Bruni's problem is he is not being taken seriously by a large chunk of his audience as a food and restaurant critic. His sexual orientation became an issue only after he introduced it. (in fact, arguable hung a review on it). My point is that if he were well respected as a critic no one (well almost no one) would be having any issue with said orientation at all. It is pretty clear that most people do not believe that gender or sexual preference has anything whatsoever to do with one's abilities as a critic or a writer. I don't! Actually, I am ready (and have been for some time) to move on. Until that is, Bruni raises the issue again. (and maybe even then....)

To me blue fruit means blueberry notes. I have tasted this in many wines from many places. "Blue Zins" sounds suspiciously like another industry attempt to simplify or categorize wines. The "danger"part is maybe a giveaway!--lol By the way, I have no idea what blue fruit and concentration have to do with each other. As for the age of vines. I recently read somewhere that vines do reach an age where the there are diminishing returns in both vigor of the fruit and quality. So "old is better" needs a bit of qualifying. as for zin it seems to thrive in warmer climes--dry creek in Sonoma for example. last week at dinner, we tasted a 1996 Guigal La Mouline, a 2003 Domaine Pegau De Capo CdP and: a 1995 Ridge Lytton Springs (zin blend). I find that zins are best drunk on the early side but there are a handful that do age well. This Ridge actually held its own in this very stellar company, It was a wonderful and very complex wine.

Well, in Claiborne's days, attitudes about being openly gay were a lot different. ← Interestingly, Claiborne was openly gay at the time. He made no secret of it. It was just never an issue in his reviews because he did not interject it into them. Even if he did, his credentials as a serious food and restaurant critic were well established.

Again, It is funny that the issue never came up with say Craig Claiborne! Maybe there would be no cracks about Bruni if he were above reproach as an expert on food and restaurants.

No one does care Rich. (most people anyway) It usually only becomes an issue when they bring it up. Bruni introduced it in a review. The Times then amplified it on the web site!

Good question. Complexity in anything (films, art, wine, music) is what brings one back over and over each time experiencing and discovering something else. In wine there are so many flavors fruit and non fruit that can manifest. I had a Colgin Herb Lamb vineyard cabernet (the 91 0r 92 I think) that had lots of fruit flavors that were complex--black fruits and a subtle blue fruit--blue berries along with some spice, Everytime I went back there was another flavor note to add to the mix. I also loved a Jasnieres I had recently. There was almost no fruit flavors but is was all wet stones and wax and herbs. I think there is a tendency to categorize and dismiss wines too quickly. "Oh another fruit bomb" or over extracted wine or "just another old world wine with no fruit." Often one should relax and try to enjoy a wine for what it really is and not dismiss it for what it is not!

You know maybe what I am trying to say is if the Times wants to have it all cover all the bases then maybe they should hire Jeremiah Tower as their restaurant critic. The guy is gay writes with a gay sensibility and does it with panache--really good writing skills and his humor is superb--wit, style and just plain funny! Additionally Mr Tower certainly knows food and restaurants! I would have no complaints there--and Tower would raise circulation --I guarantee it!

Sneakeater. You got it! Really, I am not making an issue out of it (well okay maybe a little). It was Bruni and the Times that made the issue out of it (a restaurant review) and blew it up. (amplified it). In the context of the fact that I think Bruni has competency issues and credibility issues with a large chunk of the public, this was just one more thing to toss in the pot! I am not sure Bruni is reviewing restaurants with a gay sensibility or just a good restaurant critic sensibility. Actually, I tend to believe he is not personalizing his reviews too much. I would accept any perspective and sensibility from Bruni if I could figure out what that sensibility is! (gay or otherwise). I really believe that this whole gender issue is really not a problem with Bruni it is his lack of authority and his sophomoric humor. I actually like the line he uses in his craftsteak review. But often his attempts at cleverness and wit tend to muddy up his reviews. But maybe entertainment and glibness rather than gravitas is what the Time is looking for these days. Circulation you know!

I know what your points are. As I see it, you are arguing from a point of critical theory. I am arguing my point from the real world. Let me make it as simple as possible, A critic may operate from a very personal standpoint imbuing his or her criticism and critical criteria with a very personal views unrelated to his or her knowledge and experience with the subject. The reviews by these folks are usually more about them and their personal reactions than they are about the subject of their review. You can deny this exists all you want. My point re: Bruni is that is treading on thin ice with thinly veiled allusions to his sexuality (and that of his friends) especially when his credibility as a basic food and restaurant critic is so widely in question. No one really cares what a person's sexual identity is once their credentials are established in the area of their supposed expertise. No one (I know of at least) cared what Craig Claiborne's or Ruth Reichl's sexual preferences were. They didn't slip them into their reviews to make some sort of joke. To further make my point. If Bruni had made the same kind of joke in his political reporting then any subsequent reporting he did would be questioned as to whether or not his assessments were colored by the fact that he is gay. Not that there is anything wrong with that--as long as the writer/reporter/critic is clear and upfront. Otherwise, it is fair to assume that every reporter and every reviewer absent this acknowledgment is operating via basic journalistic principles. (I studied Journalism). Bruni's humor, gay and otherwise is too often forced and detracts from clarity and just plain good writing. We can certainly disagree here. (and without quoting texts on the principles of good writing). I also believe that the Times took that humor and amplified it to the point that the entire review was basically treated a a big joke. "Gay Critic and cronies visit a female strip club! (and have a steak while there)"

I recommend Jeremiah Tower's book "California Dish" for those who do not believe there is a gay sensibility in food writing. IMOP the book is hilarious and brilliant! For highly personal writing in restaurant criticism I recommend Gael Green. For those who do not believe that a personal perspective can impact a piece of reportage the master is Hunter S Thompson. The Times itself has suffered from their putting factors like politics, race and gender ahead of Journalistic excellence--one can go back to Walter Duranty whose politics "shaped" his reporting to the degree that Josef Stalin was portrayed in the Times as a somewhat benevolent dictator. The truth is, there is reporting and then there is reporting that is highly personal. The two should be separate and clear to the reader. Bruni clouded the picture with his joke. I tend to agree that his impetus for the joke was probably a belief that he was simply being entertaining. It is not because Bruni is gay it is because he is not a very good critic or writer. that's my opinion of course. Craig Claiborne was openly gay yet this was never an issue for him or his readers. His criticism was based on his expertise and knowledge and experience with food and cooking and restaurants. I can not imagine him making a gay joke to be entertaining. I miss him in the pages of the Times. JW Apple was not gay his sensibility was based upon the same foundation Claiborne's was. Bruni would be wise to look to these writers/critics for inspiration. The Times would be wise to hire writers and critics based on their experience and abilities first and foremost. ← none of this has anything to do with what I posted. I was as clear as possible. ← Ok I give up. Your ideas are obviously well entrenched (in your own mind at least) so let's leave it for others to decide. You make statements and I provide evidence to refute those statements. You ignore my evidence so there really is nothing more to debate here. Throughout history "academics" have resisted challenges to their conventional wisdom dismissing concepts like the roundness of the earth.

I recommend Jeremiah Tower's book "California Dish" for those who do not believe there is a gay sensibility in food writing. IMOP the book is hilarious and brilliant! For highly personal writing in restaurant criticism I recommend Gael Green. For those who do not believe that a personal perspective can impact a piece of reportage the master is Hunter S Thompson. The Times itself has suffered from their putting factors like politics, race and gender ahead of Journalistic excellence--one can go back to Walter Duranty whose politics "shaped" his reporting to the degree that Josef Stalin was portrayed in the Times as a somewhat benevolent dictator. The truth is, there is reporting and then there is reporting that is highly personal. The two should be separate and clear to the reader. Bruni clouded the picture with his joke. I tend to agree that his impetus for the joke was probably a belief that he was simply being entertaining. It is not because Bruni is gay it is because he is not a very good critic or writer. that's my opinion of course. Craig Claiborne was openly gay yet this was never an issue for him or his readers. His criticism was based on his expertise and knowledge and experience with food and cooking and restaurants. I can not imagine him making a gay joke to be entertaining. I miss him in the pages of the Times. JW Apple was not gay his sensibility was based upon the same foundation Claiborne's was. Bruni would be wise to look to these writers/critics for inspiration. The Times would be wise to hire writers and critics based on their experience and abilities first and foremost.

I don't know whether she mentioned it in her reviews for the Times, but I don't think it would be unfair to say that Ruth Reichel wrote three books about her sexual preferences (for married men, mostly). Oh and they also talked about food and her mother a lot. I do not recall Bruni ever mentioning his mother. ← In her books which were about her life it is more than relevant. In a restaurant review it is not and as witnessed with Bruni often distracts from the task at hand which is reviewing a restaurant. Unless and I don't want to engage nathan again--the critic is clearly intertwining his or her reviews with their personal details. This would be valid and not distracting because it would be part and partial to the review. Again, I think the Italian and steakhouse focus may be a result of a comfort level Bruni has with these places.

Gee Nathan! " freshman level relativism!" All I am saying is you should stop reading so much theory and get out once in a while! The culture is alive with gay perspective! Just because an esteemed (by you) critic hasn't formulated a theory (formally) doesn't meant is does not exist. All I am saying is if Bruni were a good critic and writer, his attempt at humor (you liked it, I didn't) would not be relevant to anything. It wouldn't have prompted the discussion. The humor played off the fact that Bruni and his pals are gay. I do not recall any other Times critic ever mentioning his or her sexual preferences (or alluding to them) in their writings. We can disagree. No big deal. By the way we do agree on Richman. (bet he isn't familiar with Butler or Eagleton but we won't hold that against him). If you promise to refrain from flaunting your academic credentials I promise to stop badgering you with my freshman relativism. (say is there a formal treatise or theory on that?). And I say this in good humor. I suggest it is time to get back to bashing Bruni for his imcompetence. not that there's anything wrong with......

The question is: why is any of this an issue to begin with? Why is it even raised? Nathan: google gay perspective and criticism. I would also suggest you read Brendan Beehan Oscar Wilde or any of the myriad great gay critics/writers. The gay perspective is an important and legitimate approach to music, film, art and yes even restaurants and food. For popular culture I suggest you try to view some TV episodes of the late lamented "Queer Eye..." or if that's too low brow how about Amistead Maupin's "Tales" or maybe "The L Word." Bruni brought it up coyly in a review as an attempt at humor. The point is it was not relevant to the task at hand and in and of itself launched a discussion of how his sexual orientation may impact his reviews. I would posit that were Bruni possessing of stronger credentials and knowledge this would probably, for most, not be an issue at all. it was obviously distracting. As a point of fact, many restaurant reviewers never mention the gender of their so called dining companions in the context of their reviews. Why? it just doesn't matter, does it? You may think Bruni was being funny, I think he was being sophomoric and snarky. We can disagree here (I like Benny Hill) but the end result was an awful lot of buzz or needless discussion about something that you yourself seem to believe is not very relevant.

Very true, but comparing the wisdom of McGee to that guy from the NY Times is like comparing Frank Sinatra's voice to Burl Ives'. ← I didn't know Burl Ives was gay! You can say that again! My point exactly. Bruni lacks authority regardless of his sexuality etc. I often disagreed with Ruth Reichl but I never had any questions about her authority. Her opinions and assessments were almost always imbued with a well informed perspective that was always pretty clear to her readers. Often it is in disagreement that we often learn the most. When I disagree with Bruni I learn nothing. (even worse--when I agree with him I also learn nothing).

funny but the sear on meat has nothing to do with its juciness! (according to someone named Harold McGee) maybe Bruni is simply more comfortable reviewing Italian restaurants and steak houses. the fact that he has been to Italy may be a factor as well as the relative ease in assessing Italian cooking vs cooking that is more challenging to the diner. There is a basic simplicity in what good Italian cooking is all about as opposed to more cerebral or intellectual cuisine and cooking-- if I were to write about food I certainly would be more at ease with Italian and steakhouse fare in terms of understanding it.

Bruni has brought a lot of this on himself. A good critic should be able to take an objective look at a restaurant and convey key information about the place. He or she should be able to add their subjective perspective to this resulting in a total review. In good criticism, One should always be able to agree or disagree with a critic's assessments but one should always be able to understand the reasons or supporting case behind those judgments. Criticism can come from differing perspectives. The gay perspective, a female perspective a WASP perspective a political perspective etc etc In this case the critic is announcing his or her biases and the fact that these biases (or perspectives) will color and shape their judgments. However, a critic can't have it both ways. A critic like Bruni can't toy with his readership coyly hinting at the fact that he may be viewing restaurants from a certain perspective at the same time he is presenting his opinions as based upon his experience and talent and understanding of food and cooking (and restaurants). The fact that there is any debate or discussion about how his being gay impacts his reviews is a distraction as his readers attempt to infer what the impetus for Bruni's assessments is. For most mainstream outlets, critic's perspectives should be based upon knowledge and expertise and thus reliable to everyone in their authority and gravitas. At the very least, a critic should be clear enough as to leave no question as to their perspective and/or their authority. Gender or sexuality as it impacts a review should never be in question one way or the other.

Before making comparisons with European countries or anywhere else. Before buying into ill conceived conventional wisdom. Before disparaging comments about "industrial" foods. Before stereotyping palates (American or others). Consider this: The US is a very large country geographically and population wise. France would fit comfortably within the borders of Texas. No European country has the diversity in population that America does (not even close). The United States encompasses a wide range of climates and growing seasons. A large portion of our country is under a few feet of snow much of the year. We tend to overlook the really good things about our own country and play up the negatives. We also tend to look at only the best of the rest of the world. The industrial cities and towns of italy and France are usually not one's list of sights to see and places to visit. neither are the slums and poor areas. We overlook the tremendous variety of cuisines available around this country--great Vietnamese cooking in Minneapolis (of all places to Mex and Tex Mex and South Western cuisine and Pacific rim cooking to Southern cooking if Barbeque is not the first bastion of slow food I don't know what is. Creole and Cajun cooking and local cuisine of New Orleans. How about the Low Country cooking of the Carolinas or the latin cuisines of the Caribbean? How about New England? How about the game and fresh water fish available in Idaho and Wyoming. Let's not even bother mentioning the diversity and excellence of local products in major cities. we now make wine and cheese in just about every state! Tell me about this monolithic American palate? and Remember--a lot of areas here have a short or restricted growing season so thank God for Green Giant and trucks and trains. Now fed ex and others so a restaurant in California can serve blue crabs and on the east coast we can find a dungenous variety. Wanna play up the negatives regarding ADM and Monsanto fine. But let's remember these corporations are doing more to help starving nations than any French butcher or Italian wine maker or small artisinal farmer in the US or anywhere. American palate? What exactly is that? Who are these monolithic "Americans" we all possess a "sweet tooth"? Really! Last time I looked most of the rest of the world has embraced Coke. The British practically invented Port and ever had a sticky--toffee or desert wine? Spaniards seem to love oaked wines (I thought it was just us New Worlders). and french seem to enjoy their pastry. How about the industrial foods of Europe? There's a documentary decrying just that:"Our Daily Bread." We got pollution--the good news is that industry is helping clean it up--witness the many rivers and lakes slowly coming back! They got pollution too! My European friends are decrying the state of the Mediterranean. so food here is evolving. things are better now than ever before and will continue to get better. Local farms and fresh product is great--farmer's markets are growing in number. But a local farmer's market doesn't seem to work November to June in most of America. Improved transportation and preservation techniques--freezing canning etc also play a role. There is no paradise on Earth. Everyplace has good and bad. We owe a lot to the folks in Europe and they owe us a lot. food, wine and otherwise. But these discussions need some perspective and reality. stereotyping always has some grounding in truth but it always is doomed to result in oversimplification of complex subjects. I would rather celebrate the best of every place--here, there, and everywhere and recognize the bad (and try where possible to fix and improve things). again as for that "American palate"--I am not sure it so easily defined.

Brunello's are relatively expensive wines. Banfi is attempting to create/establish a brand, They make some high end Tuscan IGT wines like Summus etc. These are fashionable lush oaky wines, a style that has broad appeal in the worldwide market. The wines are IMOP (and the opinion of many others) very well made examples of this type of wine. they would have to be to compete in a very competitive market. Brunello has always had its fans here (and around the world) it was probably put on the map in no small part by Biondi Santi which I believe was the first or one of the first wines to carry the $100 a bottle price tag in this country. I think Banfi is atempting to create Banfi as a luxury brand rather than promote Brunello wines (or Italian wines). Interestingly, Riunite has been wildly successful yet it has not seemed to translate into sales of Lambrusco wines in general. Most people have no idea that there are many fine Lambruscos available here now and few are really aware that Riunite is a Lambrusco. My point being, the marketing of Banfi Brunello and their other wines is all about them (Banfi). They are certainly not trying to create or ride a brunello wave.

Well said Jim. My point, I guess, is that most wine makers are often not the best sources of information about their own wines or even wine making in general beyond some technical background type info. I believe that their work speaks much more eloquently than they do. Same for most "rock stars" (well ok some rock stars).

Easy mistake--oddly the pieces in the special section of the Times do not carry by lines. You need access to the table of contents page. I agree. very well done. I also loved the piece (I believe you linked it upthread) by Asimov. Terroir is more about how the grapes ripen as a result of the position of the vineyard to the sun etc. The soil is about drainage (more than flavors). Fermentation is an incredibly complex chemical process. Interestingly, if one looks at specific vineyards in Burgundy certain parcels within the same vineyard are considered better than other parcels nearby that have the same soil composition. The key difference being the elevation and or angle of the vines to the sun. For all those folks who swear they "taste" the actual limestone (that minerality) in wines--- I simply want to know where those bell pepper notes are coming from???????? Or the strawberries or blueberries and why with so many mustard plants growing among the vines in california vineyards are we not getting more spicy brown (or mild yellow) mustard notes in our wines??? where are those Burgundies getting the wet leaves and mushroom notes--I didn't notice any wet leaves or mushrooms near the vines! How can california not have terroir? That sure looks like dirt to me out there! And isn't there volcanic soil and limestone and.... in California or is that just a French thing--geologically speaking you know. I saw lots of rocks there. How come people talk about Old World and New World wines? Seems to me Spain and Southern Italy wines are more akin style wise to California wines than they are like Bordeaux and Burgundy. So are there New World wines being made in the old world? Isn't Amarone often a high alcohol wine? So how come people aren't complaining about the alcohol levels in Amarone? (or Primitivo or....). If truly great wine is made with man not interfering with nature how come its ok to add sugar but not okay to acidify? If terroir is all that is important then why did so much "Burgundy" often contain wine from places like Algeria or Italy? I could go on but the dead horse is really dead. Let's try to put terroir into perspective. Let's also try to appreciate wines for what they are rather than some vague notion of what they "should" be. There's too much fun to be had!

I read the linked piece. Greg La Follette is quoted pretty extensively. (possibly misquoted). For someone who was born in Europe and professes to practice wine making with a European approach, this guy is a jumble of contradictions. neither he nor the writer of this fluff seems to have much of grasp of the current situation in Europe which has plenty of these wine maker consultants (so called rock stars). In fact the wine maker as celebrity started in Europe! Then there is this quote from Gregg La Follette: "If you want to get a ninety five from Parker, you definitely don't hire me, I'm very terroir driven." This peaked my curiosity because I am familiar with La Follette's recent wines (Flowers) and while there are differences vineyard to vineyard the wines are often imbued with a sweetness that can often border on cloying and I certainly would not term a lot of these wines as "Burgundian" in style. they often are IMOP very good california Pinot Noirs. I am also familiar with Parker's notes and scores and recalled him being quite pleased with Flowers offerings. So I did a bit of research. Sure enough on La Follette's own web site for Tandem (his latest venture) Parker ratings (many ninety to ninety three) and notes are proudly listed along with this: "Under Greg's leadership, Flowers was called one of the five finest producers of pinot noir in America by Robert Parker's Wine Advocate." ??????????????????? Little of the quotes by La Follette seem to make much sense but I believe that most wine makers are better off just making their wine rather than talking about it. The piece does do a decent job in noting the fact that many wineries hire consultants and that wine makers are notoriously flighty. The whole wine maker as rock star is IMOP really overplayed. Just another "angle" for a "sizzle" starved wine press. By the way: That $150 a bottle cabernet and $70 Syrah better have more going for them than just Mr Bevan's background and track record! The really good wine comes first --then the "rockstar status!"