Leonard Kim

Out comes the calculator ... In the past half-year, Bruni's percentage of ** reviews has in fact gone up from 36% to 49% which which does seem like a huge leap to me in such a short period of time (though overall * is still most common). Whereas before he was relatively stingy with the ** compared with his predecessors, he is now one of the most generous. Reichl is still queen of the **. It would be interesting to see if her ** also features a mix of boosts to humbler places combined with "smackdowns" of ambitious places. Bruni's stinginess with *** has in fact mellowed somewhat in this same past 1/2 year. Both of these trends are obviously compensated for by a decrease in *. Bruni actually has more **** reviews than Grimes, in about 100 fewer reviews. But as mentioned already, a lot of that has to do with Bruni's self-confessed (in his blog) intent to re-review previous ****.

I've seen most of two episodes now in bits and pieces. Honestly, I did enjoy them and, what's more, I have to give the producers and Flay credit for trying to do it right: the situation is potentially delicate and the possibility is there of an awful experience for the participant. But it seems to me they're making a clear effort not to air anything that could make the subject look bad. They seem to have adopted the viewpoint that this is a celebration of the subject's talent and not about Flay or the competition. They actually insist on this in the aired footage to the point where it's perhaps not as good TV, but I can see the importance of doing it. Given the mean-spiritedness inherent in a lot of reality TV, I think it's a commendable effort. As mentioned, I take the "point" of the show to be celebrating people who are really good at something. Part of that is simply showing them at work on camera, i.e., the "show" they thought they were making. But part of that is having a friendly tete-a-tete with the celebrity and showing them doing a great job (even if they lose.)

Is Elvis Mitchell an argument for or against expertise? He too studied English in college. Again, his primary qualification as a film writer appears to be, in my limited knowledge, that he has written about film before (including, like Bruni, film reviews for the Detroit Free Press.) Going with the classical music analogy -- I personally can easily envision an excellent music critic with only your qualifications. I would say that you'd be a "complete waste" as a critic only if you insisted on writing about things you didn't understand -- music theory, say. But the fact is, the Times reviews don't (and shouldn't) venture into such things. Knowledge of technique? OK, maybe you ought to be able to tell when wrong notes are happening, or something is otherwise being messed up. Granted, many people can't seem to. So maybe that's a minimal "expert" requirement being able to tell good from bad from great. So what would you write about? Stuff like: the significance of the event and practitioner in the context of current climate and trends, objective reportage of the event with an eye towards the reader's vicarious participation (including the concert space, audience makeup, program, etc.) and emphasis on the striking and notable, the success of the event measured in your explicated response and those of your "listening companions." If well-written, this could form the basis of an outstandingly informative review. It requires not so much pure musical expertise as being extremely well-informed through reading, listening, and networking, being an independent, and being a good writer (not in the narrowest sense of style and correctness, but including qualities of observation and stuff like that generally associated with "good" writing). What we don't need is sad, adjective-laden, metaphorical stabs at "describing music." Maybe this has been off-topic, but I've tried to make this description as exactly analogically applicable to restaurant reviews as possible. A point: While there's a place for "education" pieces in a newspaper, and here I do feel expertise is more important, I don't think this has an important role in reviews. Maybe that's a basic distinction.

I should tread carefully here as I have little claim to expertise here. I can't speak to the theater critics. I'm not exactly sure who you're referring to among the film critics but if you consider the top three: Scott, Holden, and Dargis -- Holden may have a claim to independent expertise as a music critic. But as far as film, he joined the Times first, was there for a bit, then "branched" into film criticism, eventually finding himself a "first-string" film critic in 2000. Before joining the Times as a film critic in 2000, Scott was a book reviewer. All of his college education was in literature. Dargis was a film critic elsewhere before joining the Times. I don't know her background or what initially "qualified" her to be a film critic. I've found virtually none of the classical music criticism in the New York Times to be of any worth. Just my opinion. What qualifies one to be "sufficiently" expert to be a critic? Having worked professionally in the field is, in my view, perhaps desirable in an ideal world, but in practice unrealistic and, in addition, absolutely no guarantee of quality. I think if the qualification is only having written on the subject before, well, that's a bit circular -- one has to start somewhere. It's that old bugaboo about finding work: you can't get a job without experience, and you can't get experience without a job. I still think the bulk of what's useful in an individual review is primarily reportage. The reviewer, like a reporter, are our eyes and ears (and tastebuds). Journalistic qualities are important here: clarity, accuracy, etc. Expertise may play a role in choosing (or even knowing) what to write about. But I still view that as a kind of "food writing" expertise that can be picked up on-the-job vs. "food expertise" proper. I think that's true for both science reporting and restaurant reviewing. Granted, a common complaint about Bruni is that he writes about the wrong things. If somebody can demonstrate that he does this routinely with no show of improvement, I can subscribe to there being a problem. If it's just individual howlers -- well, that could be done with any writer. Then there's the bit where the critic tells you whether it's good or bad and why. Regardless of expertise, that's the person's opinion. But eventually the value of this comes out of whether the critic was essentially right or wrong and therefore can be trusted. I think expertise is a factor only if it helps you be right more often and/or if it helps you in your defence of your opinions. If it doesn't, or you're able to do these things without the obvious expert qualifications, then I don't see the necessity. Same goes for the critic's larger role of arbiting, molding, leading tastes and fashion. I get the sense that some want the Times reviews to be "destination" writing (in the sense that one would pick up the paper just to read the review) Bruni's are obviously not. Very far from it. But that's not the same thing as incompetence or grounds for immediate dismissal. I'd also say that it's probably impossible for any newspaper writer to produce destination writing in their regular work. That's just the nature of the beast. Perhaps an interesting exercise would be to take Bruni's re-reviews and do a detailed comparison with his predecessors' reviews (from the standpoint of style, focus, etc.) I think that would add to the discussion.

I find it interesting that Grimes is now a book reviewer for the Times. I also find it interesting that Maslin is one. And Bruni reviewed movies in my home town (the Detroit Free Press) before joining the Times. Heck, Harold Schonberg has movie reviews to his credit in the Times. The reason I find this interesting is what it says about the Times and its philosophy about what "qualifies" one to be a reviewer. In one of the recent "Ask The Newsroom" segments in the Times, the Science Editor essentially explained that to be a science writer for the Times, it's possible to be a scientist (or at least to have been a science student) who "picks up" journalism or a journalist who "picks up" science. I think it's fairly clear this thinking isn't restricted to the science section, but in fact pervades the paper, and perhaps the industry. I think it also places clear limits on what we can fairly criticize a restaurant review for offering or not offering -- at least until we properly debate this issue of how one should vs. actually does become a restaurant reviewer. I don't feel it's a clearcut issue -- I can certainly see the arguments for the idea that a reviewer should be a journalist first -- in training and career -- and the idea that, either way, "journalistic" qualities are at least as, if not more, important compared to subject expertise. Hmmm. In these forums, I've probably been among the Bruni defenders. I think one of Marc's points is key: for perhaps the majority of Bruni's ratings, perhaps the great majority, he has been proven right in his rating, even if there's been initial controversy. There's something to be said for that. And I think he has largely taken pains to explain ratings that might be surprising. And as I think I've demonstrated in this thread, he is the first Times restaurant critic in decades not to reset or redefine the star scale and its significance. There's no question in my mind that his writing is that of a journalist and not a food writer -- whatever that means.

Going only by the book (I haven't read "the original Batali piece"), I can't say I see anything to reproach in Buford's (or his research assistant's) methodology. Even if there's an error, he's pretty transparent about how he gets there: For example, the squash bit starts on p. 107. He describes tasting a memorable dish made with pumpkin. He writes "The dish was called tortelli di zucca (zucca means "squash") and was so memorable it provoked me to find out where it came from." So far so good, nothing questionable about the translation in this modern context. On p. 108 he admits forthrightly, "At the time, my research was informal and limited because . . . I couldn't read it [italian], and most of the early Italian food books haven't been translated into English, except for one." That book is the one about (not by, apparently, as was implied above) Martino already mentioned. In the next several pages, the word "squash" only appears once. It is a direct quotation from his source, "They are revoted by chard, squash, . . ." (110). Later on the page, Buford writes, "The Maestro's torta di zucca. . . calls for grated pumpkin." Again, it's obvious there can only be one source for this information. He cites the book used in the end acknowledgements ("The following books were especially useful. . . Platina, On Right Pleasure and Good Health, edited and translated by Mary Ella Milham (1998).") What about this translation? A quick google search yields that Milham is/was a classics professor. The book is described thus, "Milham starts out with a biography of Platina. She discusses his sources and gives a history of the text and its many editions. She also discusses the identities of the friends he mentions and includes a bibliography of Platina's other books. Then comes the De Honesta itself, with the original Latin and the English translation on facing pages. . . . This is definitely a scholarly work. The text is heavily footnoted. There are three indices (the index to the introduction, the index nominum proprium and the index verborum medicorum et culinariorum), a detailed textual history with sigla, stemma and stemmatic proofs, and a list about ten pages long of works cited." (http://www.greenmanreview.com/book/book_faas_romantable.html) For what is worth, this site also links to a discussion of the available editions, and universally, Milham's translation is praised. I guess what I'm saying is that though some of the accusations above might be strictly accurate ("accepting blindly a translation" "determining the reliability of secondary sources"), come on, given the kind of book Heat is, could he or should he have done any better? For the most part, I'm impressed by what he does, and how transparent he is about it. Later, when he is reading Italian better, he does consult sources as close to primary as he can get, and asks for the best expert opinion he can get. (Without going back to the book, I'm thinking particularly of his attempt to determine the first mention of the use of egg in pasta.)

My wife and I ate at Jeremy last Friday. We go about once a year. It's still good but every year it slips a little in our hearts. If you read the reviews from years past, they'll inevitably mention the small menu (only five entrees!) and the quality such concentration allows. I didn't count, but every time we go, the menu seems to get bigger. And now there's a "casual" entrees section. (Overheard at the next table, as a couple sat down and opened their menus, "ooooh, they have spaghetti!" His companion eventually ordered a burger and fries, and scraped off everything that topped the meat before trying it.) We had the 3 course early dinner tasting menu. Served from 5:30-6:45, it's undoubtedly a good deal at $24. For salad, my wife had the caesar, which she liked very much, though it didn't seem particularly notable to me. I had their greens salad, which was, I think, unchanged from previous years, and very good though I'm still a little dissatisfied with their treatment of the red onions. I also ordered a calamari appetizer which was good at first but eventually became rather hard to eat. My fault, as I've yet to have a really good calamari experience in the area, even at fine places, but occasionally I'll forget and order it anyway. My wife had risotto with corn and peas. I thought it was tasty, though my wife thought that it was not as good as the risotto she had 2 years ago. I had chicken with summer vegetables. Quite good but not bliss-inducing. I should mention a little unhappiness with the available entree choices on the tasting menu which seemed among the less interesting things on the menu. Dessert was a lemon poundcake with fruit and ice cream. We both enjoyed this. Metro Times Review (from 2003) http://www.metrotimes.com/guide/restaurant...iew.asp?id=8541 And here is ulterior epicure's review (2005 or 2006?): http://ulteriorepicure.blogspot.com/2006/0...s-focus_10.html

Everyone who's read the book knows this, but for those who are reading this thread trying to decide whether to read the book, or for those who are "halfway through" it bears pointing out that the book is, contrary to some impressions, hardly about Batali at all. The entire last third of the book (except for the epilogue), nearly a 100 pages, is basically Mario-less, being devoted to Buford's experiences with Dario Cecchini. While a great deal of the first 2/3rds of the book is about working at Babbo, Mario himself only pops in intermittently. There are chapters devoted specifically to Mario and his career, but they are digressions similar to the other digressions about this or that that alternate with the Babbo stuff. The book is really about Buford and his explorations of working at a restaurant on one hand and Italian cuisine, its history and practitioners on the other. That doesn't make the book any less worth reading though.

Just had a business dinner at City Cellar in Birmingham. It was good. I'd go back. Here's the website: http://bigtimerestaurants.com It is part of a group (including two other City Cellars), but all of the other restaurants are in Florida. I had the goat cheese salad and yellow fin tuna. Our menus were not quite what's posted on the website, and the preparations of these two items were not the same as what's on the web menu. There's also a sushi/sashimi menu that's not on the web, and I had a couple of pieces. Here's the Metro Times review. Among other things, it explains why this restaurant is here in Michigan, what with all of its siblings from Florida. http://www.metrotimes.com/guide/restaurant...iew.asp?id=8408

Wanted to quickly mention Christine's Cuisine in Ferndale, as I had dinner there last night. It's well-known in the area for serving unusually good, inexpensive food in a casual setting. (Perhaps too casual, my wife thought -- strip mall, loud music, paper napkins -- but nice touches too -- flowers, framed photos for sale, etc.) It's on Nine Mile but on the other (east) side of Woodward from where most of the restaurants are. It received a mention in Gourmet a couple years ago, among other things. They are particularly known for Eastern European specialties, and we shared a combo platter of pierogi, kielbasa, and sauerkraut. My wife had a bacon burger with fries. I had chicken noodle soup and beef burgundy. Chocolate chip cheesecake for dessert. Everything was exemplary. Metro Times review here. We did not, in fact, have "soup out of a plastic cup" and "plastic cutlery." http://www.metrotimes.com/guide/restaurant...iew.asp?id=3945 And here's the bit from Gourmet: http://www.epicurious.com/restaurants/feat.../rest04/detroit

Bruni expands on his article in yesterday's Diner's Journal blog. http://dinersjournal.blogs.nytimes.com/?p=55#more-55 Here he addresses some of the issues brought up here such as the rationale for his choice of restaurants. He also compares these restaurants to restaurants in Italy.

A couple of quotes of relevance to a discussion that's going on over in the Gilt thread. I tend to be in Marc's camp -- certainly he's spent more time trying to get into Bruni's skull than the rest of us here. Anyway, these are from Bruni's blog. March 6 February 16 So I think Marc's right. Bruni doesn't seem to subscribe to the theory that in an initial review a restaurant should be cut "some slack in its early days, on the assumption that minor glitches will be smoothed out over time." I think this is a reasonable stance. Most businesses with a pretence of competence should be expected to take care of minor glitches anyway, so cutting slack there seems to me a road to grade inflation. OTOH, it seems reasonable to me that a restaurant that gets it right from the start should get some credit, especially if the fundamental criterion is to make one "excited . . . to return." (That February 16 quote, to me, is the single most explanatory statement of the star-system-according-to-Bruni.)

Obviously I don't know your tastes, and maybe it's just because I live in Royal Oak, but I wonder if downtown Birmingham isn't a better choice for a walking tour + restaurant. You just drive up Woodward from the zoo for five miles, park in a structure (1st two hours are free), and take in the stores, galleries, people, parks, library, movies, cafes, whatever. You'd have your pick of places to eat: my wife likes 220, my coworker likes City Cellar, you've got your upscale fish (Mitchell's) and steak (Cameron's), your upscale restaurant-in-a-hotel (Rugby Grille at the Townsend), the nowhere-else-even-in-Ann Arbor ethnic (Pampas Brazilian Grille). and the foodies' choice (Forte). Maybe the last? I wasn't completely thrilled the only time I was there, but could see how I might be on a different day ordering something different. And more knowledgeable and more professional people than I on this forum have endorsed it. If you are in Royal Oak, I don't mean to discourage you from any of the places I've mentioned. I'm sure all will be at least decent. There's also Sangria, which is the only Spanish restaurant in the area. But I haven't been in over ten years, and since there are places in Ann Arbor which serve tapas now, the novelty factor is probably diminished. There are a pair of Japanese places, Little Tree Sushi and Katana, prominently standing next door to each other on Main, looking hip, which I know nothing about. The Thai and Middle Eastern places are all OK, but I personally find most such restaurants here and in Ann Arbor rather cookie cutter-like in their sameness. Zumba is really just a hut and a counter, but delivers a tasty burrito. Pronto! is a casual but fair place for breakfast, sandwiches, and cookies. Um, there are some restaurants there which aren't unique to Royal Oak: Andiamo, Tom's Oyster Bar, Tokyo Sushi, but that doesn't mean they're bad, and they don't have outposts in Ann Arbor. I haven't tried D'Amato's mostly because I didn't like the D'Amato's in Ann Arbor, but that's silly because the two are apparently unrelated, nor have I tried Lily's Seafood yet, just because I haven't. Um, OK, this taken with the previous posts has become something like a near-exhaustive list. Most other places probably aren't worth mentioning either because they're bad or merely plain (grilled meats and carbs, Oxford Inn is probably your best bet for this kind) or chain. This isn't really a recommendation, but I guess everybody should try Red Coat Tavern once. It's on Woodward between Royal Oak and Birmingham. The service can be poor, it's usually loud and crowded, and there's that horrible red lighting. But some guides claim they serve the best burgers in the area. I've been several times and they are quite good.

I don't know that there are any restaurants in downtown Royal Oak that merit a drive from Ann Arbor unless you had other reasons to be in the area (like the zoo.) That's not to knock Royal Oak as there probably aren't more than a handful of places in metro Detroit worth driving far for, solely for that purpose. Ferndale is also an option -- it's restaurants are just a mile south of the zoo, not that much further than downtown Royal Oak. There are places in Royal Oak I haven't been to that I intend to try at some point. If I had to pick a place for a nice dinner that I hadn't tried before, it'd probably be Lepanto. For novelty (as well as hopes of good food), I'd like to try Bastone, a Belgian brewpub on Main (it actually shares space with Cafe Habana mentioned above), and Inn Season, which is vegetarian -- though Ann Arbor has Seva, so I guess that wouldn't be so novel for you. If I had to pick a place for dinner in Royal Oak that I'd already tried, it'd probably be Fiddleheads, which I mentioned far upthread. But it's not in the downtown, and if you're going to drive there, then you might as well start considering options in Birmingham, Troy, Clawson, Madison Heights, Ferndale, etc.

If you're going to the zoo, I briefly mentioned lunch at Cafe Muse upthread. It's on Washington, S of 11 mile, in Royal Oak. It's small, has some charm, friendly service, and good food. Besides, it's fairly new (5-6 weeks old), and everybody should support new places, right? As far as ethnic goes in Royal Oak, Kathmandu Chullo on Washington, again between 10 and 11, offers Nepali. I wasn't rapturous about the food, but it was fine and a kind of cuisine you can't get in Ann Arbor, I think, though perhaps it's not all that different from the Northern Indian or Indian/Chinese places there. Also, the tables are really low, so you sit (or more accurately, lounge) on these big floor cushions. It's kind of fun. My 3 yr old liked the cushions. (These two places are within spitting distance of each other, along with a lot of other options, so you could just peer in and decide whether there're for you.) There's Cafe Habana on Fifth just E of Main in Royal Oak. There are a couple Caribbean places in Ann Arbor, I know, but I don't think one with a Cuban emphasis. Kind of hole-in-the-wall, but the food was fine. None of these are must go recommendations -- just if you'll be eating near the zoo ...

Wanted to post a quick mention of Cafe Muse in downtown Royal Oak (Washington, S of 11 Mile). It has been open for 5 weeks. Breakfast and lunch. Nice setting, nice people, good food. Today for brunch I had a portobello, ammoglio, and gruyere sandwich with a couscous salad with pecan and dried cherries. Here's Molly Abrahams Detroit News writeup. http://detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?A...0324/1010/BIZ01

Here're what I consider the two interesting quotes to juxtapose from this article: Batali's **** definition won't jibe with most people's, I'd guess, which is perhaps why Del Posto is seemingly so far from it, no matter what his group is claiming.

From Bruni's blog. Maybe he just couldn't get a reservation (or enough of them to do a review) at the omakase table. As for anonymity, I agree in general. But in a case where the chef/partner is preparing your meal from across the table, there's an argument that being recognized could have a greater-than-usual impact on the experience.

I think the chain disclaimer came up because part of the original query was whether there was a mall that one'd make a special trip to specifically for the food.

You're right. Looking at your link, Bon Vie is also part of this group. So I misspoke. *All* of these places exist elsewhere. Another megamall in the area is Great Lakes Crossing in Auburn Hills. There, the chain restaurants are Rainforest Cafe and Miyako Japanese Steakhouse. Also there's Thunder Bay Brewing Company, a casual Michigan-themed restaurant/brewery-type place which is one of Matt Prentice's (i.e., Coach Insignia, Morels, Shiraz, No. VI steakhouse, Northern Lakes Seafood Company.) Still not worth a trip just for the food.

Somerset is metro Detroit's high end mall, located in Troy on Big Beaver between Coolidge and Crooks. As mentioned there's a Capital Grille there. Bon Vie is French-American bistro. Also there is Brio Tuscan Grille, which I've heard some decent things about, a California Pizza Kitchen, a P.F. Chang's, a McCormick and Schmick's, and J. Alexander's (standard American). Not worth a trip just for the food since most of these places exist elsewhere.

re: Morimoto In Garlic and Sapphires, Reichl writes that the powers-that-be not only demanded that her Le Cirque double review be combined into a single review, but her double rating (* and **** depending on "which" Le Cirque one experienced) had to be combined into a single rating (***). Morimoto was also recently reviewed in New York Magazine. http://nymag.com/restaurants/reviews/16435/ Platt writes, "Morimoto . . . seems to have been conceived as several restaurants in one." After describing several dishes from the main menu, he goes on to note, "none of this food finds its way onto Morimoto’s omakase menu. . ." For the rating, we get, "The main dining room gets two and a half stars, the sushi gets three, and the omakase gets four." Bruni's * rating seems consistent with his own practice and the tone of the review. It is probably also a fairly accurate rating for the a la carte menu. But I wonder about the omission of any mention of the omakase (except in "price range"). Would it have compromised his anonymity too much to have had the required number of reviewer's meals with Morimoto hovering on the other side of the table? Or did the Times frown on the necessity of making double the usual amount of visits to adequately sample "both restaurants" under the Morimoto roof? (N.B. Platt implies he only had the omakase once.) It seems a pretty big thing to omit, but then again, Bruni has done comparable things before, if I remember correctly. The general question is how to review or rate a restaurant which offers several distinct, non-overlapping experiences, even if it's just tasting menu vs. a la carte. Bruni's review is not ideal in this respect, though I'm not necessarily faulting him for it since I don't know what the solution is. Platt might have the right idea, but as mentioned, it would involve double or triple the # of visits to do it right, and there's the question of the rating, which is probably a Times thing as much as the specific reviewer. Hesser managed to get away with not officially rating Masa, while mentioning in the text of her review that she'd give it different ratings (*** or ****) depending on "which Masa" was under discussion. I guess it being her last review played a part in allowing her to do this.

If you're getting conflicting information, I don't know how helpful we can be. Anyway, September 2002 based on the New York Times article "Lower East Side Journal; After Almost a Century, a Final Blintz" of 9/30/02.

Delmonico's got * from Reichl on 10/14/98. Reichl reviewed Bayard's before Grimes on 3/10/99 and also gave it **. I wonder what the proportion of the choice to review a given restaurant is the reviewer's vs. the reviewer's superiors. I think Reichl (in Garlic and Sapphires) sometimes alludes to the latter's suggestions and assignments. I'll try to dig up a quote or two.

I don't want to overburden this post with details, so I'm just going to offer my opinions without supporting everything. My reading is that Bruni does not consider Del Posto an almost **** restaurant but for a few flaws. I think that impression is simply wishful thinking by Batali and the Bastianichs and a mis-inference based on the hype surrounding the restaurant coupled with the precedent of the Babbo review. I would guess in Bruni's mind Del Posto actually stands closer to the **/*** line than the ***/**** divide. It seems to me that Bruni reserves a special kind of hyperbole for **** food that's simply not found in the Del Posto review: words like "transcendent", "magic," "insane" "soaring," etc., words that, to a good approximation, appear only in his three **** reviews and those actually on the ***/**** divide like ADNY. Del Posto is merely "terrific," a word that finds its way into many, perhaps most, of his positive reviews. I'd even argue that in Bruni's mind, Del Posto's rating is closer to Alto than it is to ADNY, even though the latter has ***. It's certainly possible given the system, and it's consistent with his recent blog entry about the meaning of the stars. I don't think the reviews of Alto and Del Posto are inconsistent with each other. He characterizes L'Impero as an attempt to "elevate this city's ideas about Italian cooking" and considers its success "richly earned." So I assume he doesn't disagree with Asimov's *** rating. I think he simply found Alto less successful, for reasons laid out in his review, and preferred Del Posto's approach. A telling re-use of words demonstrating his bias: Some of his writing is unfortunate, but I feel he's consistent in his belief in the legitimacy and possibility of ultra-fine Italian dining. But paradoxically, I have little doubt that he feels L'Impero rates better than Alto and Babbo rates higher than Del Posto. For **** Bruni seems to be after a much more nebulous, subjective "total experience" that is not to be be strictly equated with "great food" + "luxury" (or ambience, or setting, or formality, or whatever) a formula which is, I feel, a mis-reading of the Babbo review. The specific trappings matter less than an overall sense of pleasure and pampering. I guess what I'm saying is that Bruni's (and others') **** reviews: Masa, Per Se, Le Bernardin a little less so, are first and foremost vivid expressions of peace and happiness and unique pleasure: "a wholly transcendent dining experience." This is somewhat independent of "fine" dining, which in some presentations, he's suggested can actually work against the diner's pleasure. Certainly I agree with everybody who has remarked he has donned a populist mantle. Parting quote: That was Ruth Reichl in her farewell column of 3/31/99. I find it interesting that two of the Times' critics have made almost the same point about Babbo. When they were writing, it was probably closer to **** than Del Posto. I don't think a re-review is inevitable. I'd think that restaurants just slightly on the wrong side of a fence ("** smackdowns" to use oakapple's(?) memorable phrase, also ADNY) would get first second chances.