Advice for the NYTimes's New Restaurant Critic

[robyn]

I don't think it confuses the issue to compare one kind of reviewing to another similar kind.  Both music and food (along with the graphic arts and other performing arts) are fields in which there are a relatively small number of experts and a large majority of consumers who "know what they like."  One thing that such a comparison points out is that some people don't think restaurant reviewing is as "important" as opera (etc.) reviewing.  That's neither here nor there, but the comparison does force one to come out on one side or another of that issue.

I think you've drawn an apt comparison.

I don't go to the opera - but I do go to the theater. In New York - London - Toronto (the 3 major English speaking theater cities in the world). And - I use the critics in the major papers to help me choose which productions to go to. I also use the reviews to decide which art exhibitions to attend (I will sometimes travel to a particular city just to attend a particular exhibition).

Similarly - to bring up a totally unrelated area - I will use someone like Walter Mossberg in the WSJ to help me make choices when it comes to technology.

It is obvious that in recent years - in large part due to the internet - that there are many more opinions available to consumers of all things - whether they're restaurants, opera, theater, hotels or MP3 players. Most of these are amateur opinions - the kind you find in Epinions. Sometimes the reviewers have talent - sometimes not. But the one thing the major media had over the amateur opinions was the supposed expertise of the reviewers right out of the gate. But - if the credentials of the reviewers in the major media are basically the same as those of the amateurs - well why should we give more weight to the major media?

To take it a step further - why should we pay the major media to get opinions we can get for free elsewhere? Now I know the New York Times is free on the internet (except for the crossword puzzle). But I happen to get home delivery - which happens to cost me a lot here. I do it mostly for the comprehensive news coverage - and because I like to read the paper at the dining room table - and not on the computer. But I suppose there mightl come a day when even the news coverage is just the work of a bunch of talented amateurs - and not worth paying money for. Raises interesting questions about the future of newspapers.

By the way - I haven't spent hours looking - but I really haven't been able to find too much that Bruni has written on food (he did discuss the food he got on the campaign trail in writing his book on the Bush presidential campaign - Molly Ivins mentioned it in her review of his book). Can anyone point me to any restaurant reviews he's written? Robyn

[Pan]

Looking at this a different way: Bruni is clearly an interesting and intelligent writer who has something to say. He has also just spent a while as the NY Times bureau chief in Italy, the country which just happens to be the birthplace of opera and still a central country in the operatic world. He presumably goes to the opera every now and again... may even be a subsriber at the opera in Rome.

BUT, I'd be pretty upset and disappointed if the Times brought him to NYC to be the top critic for opera. How is this different?

It probably isn't, but I'm not sure your reaction would be any more justified if he had been appointed chief opera critic. Lots of people with paper qualifications for stuff have biases that distort their viewpoints and descriptive writing in very harmful ways, and some just suck for various reasons, whereas there have been reviewers who either were famous artists in other media (e.g. George Bernard Shaw, Baudelaire [i really should read more of the latter's writings about music; what a great poet!]) or just good writers with backgrounds as music listeners (e.g. Mencken) who were sincere and more or less interesting and knowledgeable reviewers. Far be it for me to be seen as pooh-poohing "book learning" completely, but it really can never logically be seen as a be-all and end-all, or even a necessary condition for good work in a field. I really think that there's way too much complaining about the guy before he's had a chance to write even one review, let alone a season's worth. Suppose I win an audition for an open flute chair in the Baltimore Symphony this summer (I might be trying out for them). Probably no-one in Baltimore except for my cousins knows who I am. Will there be a long thread of symphony orchestra fans complaining that I haven't already had a high-profile orchestral position, or will they figure that I might have won the audition on merit and wait to hear at least one concert before deciding that the orchestra committee was crazy and I have to be a buffoon? I wonder, but the bottom line is that, for better or worse, Mr. Bruni has been picked for the job. How about if we judge him in a few months based on his upcoming work and suspend criticism of his presumed lack of qualifications, which may be in part evidence of what we simply don't know about him, rather than something he actually lacks?

Yeah, I know, that was a rant. Nothing personal, guy.

[Note: _Not_ edited. ]

[Pan]

Bruni ... presumably goes to the opera every now and again... may even be a subsriber at the opera in Rome.

BUT, I'd be pretty upset and disappointed if the Times brought him to NYC to be the top critic for opera.  How is this different?

About the only difference I can see is that Bruni has done some food writing, albeit only as a sidelight, but at least (arguably) enough to demonstrate an aptitude for the subject.

Had Bruni written some opera articles and demonstrated aptitude for that subject, his appointment as an opera critic would be acceptable to me. The situation is also very different, because the Times has several classical music critics, and a bad review can't shut an opera production down the way a bad review can kill a restaurant.

Good points, but I disagree with your conclusion. Sure, if an opera company is already committed to running a certain number of performances, they'll be run regardless of how the reviews are, but a horrible pan in the New York Times of a new opera can ruin its chances to be performed ever again.

[herbacidal]

supposed expertise of the reviewers right out of the gate. But - if the credentials of the reviewers in the major media are basically the same as those of the amateurs - well why should we give more weight to the major media?

To take it a step further - why should we pay the major media to get opinions we can get for free elsewhere?

If you think the media source has added value over other media sources, it's worth it to you to pay some money. How much money determines how much added value.

If you think that the group of writers employed by the NYT gives you more insight into different things that you are interested in than the free media seen elsewhere, then that's why you pay to get info you may get elsewhere.

The credentials of the amateurs and the professionals aren't the same.

The professional has at least a superior writing style to anyone but the most advanced amateur. Probably a wider and deeper base of knowledge as well.

If they can add passion about the field to all that, then all the better.

The most advanced and passionate amateur (with skills in writing, extensive knowledge about food and beverage) would probably be an equally good choice.

But he/she is not in the NYT system, and there aren't enough mutual references to qualify him/her, so them's the breaks.

[kpurvis]

Kathleen, you're a great food writer. So I'm wondering, why is it you think you would suck as a critic, or should I say, reviewer?

Wow, thanks for such kind words.

I don't know how much light I can shed, because it's more of a gut thing, a question of knowing my strengths and weaknesses.

At heart, I'm a bit of a Pollyanna. Every time I sit down at a restaurant table, I'm pulling for the chef to do good, to rock my world a little, or at least show a glimmer of soul. When they don't, rather than wanting to tear into them, I'm just sad for them.

Great reviewers pick apart and instruct. My instinct, when something falls short, is to shake my head and think, "Well, bless their hearts -- at least they tried."

I lack the killer instinct, I suppose. Not that I regret it.

As a writer, I'm a storyteller. That's my strength. Sometimes I define my beat as "food and the meaning of life." (Well, after a couple of glasses of wine, anyway.) When I'm really jazzed about my job, it's when I can use food as a microcosm/macrocosm -- a way of focusing tightly on a small thing to define a larger thing. Finding the whole world in a crumb of bread. (See? You really don't want to get stuck at a table with me and an open bottle of wine!)

My favorite reviewers are the ones who do that. Jonathan Gold. Tom Sietsema. Dara Moscowitz. Amanda, bless her, at her very best.

[bourdain]

Yes, I say. Yes!

And ditto on Dara M. She's great.

[KatieLoeb]

As a writer, I'm a storyteller. That's my strength. Sometimes I define my beat as "food and the meaning of life." (Well, after a couple of glasses of wine, anyway.) When I'm really jazzed about my job, it's when I can use food as a microcosm/macrocosm -- a way of focusing tightly on a small thing to define a larger thing. Finding the whole world in a crumb of bread. (See? You really don't want to get stuck at a table with me and an open bottle of wine!)

Kathleen:

For what it's worth, I'd be delighted to be stuck at a table with you and a bottle of wine. In fact, I'd even bring the wine. I think we'd have a very interesting conversation.

[clothier]

Hey clothier, chill out. I said so much at the bottom of my post above.

Now, all that is, of course, speculation. If he comes out writing spanking reviews, I will gladly take it all back!

And no one here called him an idiot or said he sucked. Those were your words, not mine.

Finally, not to dis any of the wonderful food writers here, or demean the importance of food to cultures at many levels, but the subtlety and understanding demanded from a restaurant critic in his or her Wednesday morning thousand words is dramatically lower than that demanded of a fine arts critic writing at the level demanded by the Times.

Hmm, that's an interesting statement coming at a time when some of the best restaurants are opening in New York and the SPAC is most probably dropping the NYCBallet, a mainstay of the Saratoga Performing Arts Center since it opened in 1966, after this summer in favour of rock concerts.

And if all of us are eating and, like Bruni, with an eye to learning and understanding more about what we're eating, shouldn't a restaurant review hold even more weight than a review of an opera, a gallery or a ballet? Who do you think was a more important at The Times, Anna Kisselgoff or Ruth Reichl? Whose column do you think was more widely read?

Right those were my words, and I wasn't implying (infering?) that you said them.

Anyway, you're right. We could all use a deep breathing excercise or two.

But at least I didn't say "hey, it's just food. What are you asll getting so worked up about?"

Heh heh.

[Bux]

To the NY Times it may be just food. It's also about their audience, or at least their perception of their audience. They may feel it's far more important to have an articulate writer than one who knows all about food and restaurants. Having a food section and regular restaurant reviews will get them some advertising. That's why they have the Dining section.

A focus on Bruni's credentials is interesting, if it goes anywhere. Once it becomes circular, it becomes boring. It's certainly important to keep in mind that the last critic given the regular assignment had no credentials and displayed little interest in food and dining.

Restaurant reviews that are no more than consumer reports are rather uninteresting to me. Ditto for those who do no more than justify the star rating that accompanies the text. Obviously other readers will have very different interests.

[Lesley C]

At heart, I'm a bit of a Pollyanna. Every time I sit down at a restaurant table, I'm pulling for the chef to do good, to rock my world a little, or at least show a glimmer of soul. When they don't, rather than wanting to tear into them, I'm just sad for them.

Great reviewers pick apart and instruct. My instinct, when something falls short, is to shake my head and think, "Well, bless their hearts -- at least they tried."

I lack the killer instinct, I suppose. Not that I regret it.

Thanks Kathleen.

I understand what you mean. But I think it's important to realize a good restaurant critic is more a friend to the restaurant scene than a foe. If a critic is seen as a villain, he or she is failing. A critic is also there to introduce a restaurant to the public, and point out the brilliant qualities of its chef. Praise is as much a part of a review as constructive (and not mean-spirited) criticism.

At least, that's the way I see it.

[marcus]

But I think it's important to realize a good restaurant critic is more a friend to the restaurant scene than a foe. If a critic is seen as a villain, he or she is failing. A critic is also there to introduce a restaurant to the public, and point out the brilliant qualities of its chef. Praise is as much a part of a review as constructive (and not mean-spirited) criticism.

I really disagree with the emphasis here, and I would have no interest in a restaurant critic that assumed this point of view, which I would characterize as being from the point of view of the restaurant. In my view, the critic represents the public and not the restaurant, and whatever one thinks of William Grimes, and he does not have a great palate, he stated that this was his position on more than one occasion, and I believe that he demonstrated it as well.

A good critic is neither a friend nor a foe of the restaurant scene, but calls it as she sees it, and lets the chips fall where they may. Although acceptable in small doses, constructive criticism is also not important, because it is directed at the restaurant, and once again the restaurant is not the primary audience for the review, the public is. The single most important objective of a review is to provide the reader with sufficient critical information to enable them to make a decision as to whether they wish to visit that restaurant or not, and under what circumstances.

[Pan]

I agree with you, Marcus.

[Lesley C]

Yes you call it as you see it, but in that realm there is as much -- if not more -- room for positive language than negative.

I've been a restaurant reviewer for five years now, and if I maintained your attitude I would have stopped after year one. That kind of writing gets boring real fast. I admire chefs and prefer to point out their strenghts than their weaknesses.

That's the way I handle the job.

I'm sick to death of reading about critics being the enemy. We are also there to do good. I may have put a few restaurants out of business in my time, but I have filled up a heck of a lot more.

[rich]

Cliches become cliches because they are cliches.

Saying that, I have read this entire thread with great interest and must compliment all of you for making fascinating and provocative points. But I have a sense it comes down to this cliche: "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder."

Every critic is an individual with likes and dislikes that can never be totally erased from their mind when reviewing a restaurant. No review can ever be written without some degree of subjectivity - food is just too personal.

Therefore, find a critic who shares your concepts; read, enjoy and visit the recommended places.

Advice to the new NY Times critic - ignore all the advice and just be yourself.

Edited April 16, 2004 by rich (log)

[Pan]

If Marcus had said that reviews should be mostly negative, I would have disagreed with him. But I didn't read him to be saying that. Is that how you read his post, Lesley?

[Lesley C]

I just think it's important to remember the restaurateurs and chefs are your readers as well. And even in a negative review there should always be a sense of hope that things could improve.

I hate snide reviews and I hate gushing reviews. There is a balance in between all the critics with good instincts have achieved.

The bad critics pontificate and offend us with their self-importance.

Total sick making.

[marcus]

If Marcus had said that reviews should be mostly negative, I would have disagreed with him. But I didn't read him to be saying that. Is that how you read his post, Lesley?

Exactly, I was not recommending or implying any negative bias. I was advocating consumer focus and objectivity. That Lesley interpreted this as negative bias, probably says something about her real feelings regarding the restaurants that she has been reviewing. But I don't want to psychoanalyze too much here .

[Lesley C]

Yeah, I went to a pretty bad restaurant last night, and I'm trying to put a positive spin on the review to avoid getting my knee caps broken.

[Pan]

Lesley, I don't have a problem with slamming or gushing reviews if they seem justified.

[Lesley C]

I always felt that the slamming reviews read like the critic had a personal vendetta against the chef, and that the gushing reviews read like the critic was friends with the chef.

Look, when Hesser gushed about Spice Market, the gossip went so far as to insinuate she was sleeping with the chef (I didn't make that up; Vongerichten was quoted saying that).

I have been to hundreds of restaurants, and I have never had a meal that was 100% good or 100% awful. There always seems to be a grey area in there somewhere.

[Pan]

I always felt that the slamming reviews read like the critic had a personal vendetta against the chef, and that the gushing reviews read like the critic was friends with the chef.

Look, when Hesser gushed about Spice Market, the gossip went so far as to insinuate she was sleeping with the chef (I didn't make that up; Vongerichten was quoted saying that).

There's gushing and then there's gushing! Yes, of course you have to be careful how you phrase things, etc.