Jonathan Gold Wins A Pulitzer for Criticism

[fyfas]

Jonathan Gold, the restaurant reviewer/critic for The L A Weekly has won a Pulitzer Prize for criticism.

Much deserved in my opinion.

L A Weekly Announcement

[Fat Guy]

This is a watershed event in the history of food writing: the first-ever Pulitzer for food criticism.

[heidih]

Wow, amazing, cool, well deserved! There was a time in my life when I was kinda trapped in a bad place and reading his Counter Intelligence section on the second part of the LA Times Food Section (yes the good old food section days) was a window into tastes, flavors and experiences I could strive and reach for. He paints them in wonderful food words and makes me want to give it a shot. I ended up at Gaja in Lomita California by coincidence on Saturday with a son's friend doing a highschool Japanese project to taste an authentic dish. Afterwards as I googled around I printed Mr. Gold's recent review and told him a respected and famous reviewer had written it- little did I know! Sending out a congrats.

[andiesenji]

It is entirely deserved and long overdue. His writing pulls one in and places one right next to where he is sitting.

You can sense his enthusiasm for his subject in every sentence. You just know that this is a person who loves food, loves entertaining and loves the way foods are presented when they are done right.

Far too often, food critics seem to have the idea that they should project a cynical attitude and exhibit just too, too much boredom and ennui, so as to appear more sophisticated.

To me it just seems that they have contempt for their jobs.

We here in the greater Los Angeles area, are lucky to have him writing for us.

[Fat Guy]

A few random thoughts:

The LA Weekly announcement contains several photos of Gold. I personally have not problem with critics being photographed, however the general mythology in the newspaper business is that, in the interests of anonymity, they wear funny hats and Groucho glasses when photographed.

Gold's work for LA weekly has been terrific, and the Pulitzer people are correct when they describe his reviews as "wide ranging," however the clear strength of that wide range is in the cheap eats area. It's interesting and laudable that the Pulitzer people had the wherewithal to acknowledge Gold, rather than a more traditional fine-dining critic.

Related to that, I though Gold's work at Gourmet was weak, and I can't imagine why he was considered for National Magazine Awards while there. His work for LA Weekly (as well as his pre-Gourmet work) is orders of magnitude better.

[John Talbott]

As an indicator of how important this is I just got an email from someone asking how, why, what etc and eGullet had the poop.

[savvysearch]

Good for him. There is no arguably no food writer in LA with greater influence over the LA foodie masses.

Edited April 20, 2007 by savvysearch (log)

[TAPrice]

The LA Weekly announcement contains several photos of Gold. I personally have not problem with critics being photographed, however the general mythology in the newspaper business is that, in the interests of anonymity, they wear funny hats and Groucho glasses when photographed.

←

Apparently he does (or did) want to be anonymous, according to this NYT article.

SORE losers, take heart. There can be a downside to winning the Pulitzer Prize. “I pulled off being anonymous for 25 years,” said the restaurant critic Jonathan Gold, a spoonful of English pea soup at his pursed lips. But his cover has been blown. “Now, there’s one picture of me out there and I’m drenched in Champagne,” he said.

Since 1986, Mr. Gold has written LA Weekly’s “Counter Intelligence,” a cult-favorite column in which he primarily reviews this city’s ethnic restaurants. On April 16, he became the first food writer to win the award for criticism, and his newsroom colleagues (including his wife, Laurie Ochoa, the newspaper’s editor in chief) doused him with geysers of Moët, then posted the incriminating photo.

Or maybe he didn't care. I can't tell from this somewhat careless article. Sitting for a photo in the New York Times certainly won't help him remain undercover.

[Lesley C]

And, boy, that's a face you won't forget!