Bruni and Beyond: NYC Reviewing (2004)

[zeitoun]

FG pointed out that Craig Claiborne's system was surely a derivative of the Michelin system, which dates back to 1900. At it's now over a century old, we might as well accept the star system as being a part of our culinary heritage that is no more likely to be abolished than knives and forks.

←

The star/toque/macaron system in France is such an intricate part of their cultural heritage that a famous French movie was actually made using the theme. "L'aile ou la cuisse" which hit the movie screens in the mid 70's featured Louis De Funes (a great french comedian) as a lead restaurant critic and founder of the "Guide Duchemin". I would recommend all restaurant critics/goers to watch it as it draws a satirical and often accurate portrait of the Gault & Millau or Michelin rating systems. It is even more ironic that it actually comes from the French who invented this system in the first place!

[Fat Guy]

I would be happy just to have the four-star system make sense and be applied with a healthy degree of theoretical rigor, i.e., according to an explicit or even well-established implicit code that carries through from review to review and reviewer to reviewer. I think abolishing the system altogether is too much to hope for. It has so much perceived value to the Times, the restaurant community and the dining public and is I think in part responsible for the dominance of Times reviews over those in Gourmet and New York Magazine (which have, in some eras at least, been better as reviews).

[Bux]

Michelin first published a guide in 1900. It not only did not award stars to restaurants, but it did not list restaurants. It only listed hotels and places to get tires, gas and auto repairs. It was a guide for chauffeurs and vélocipédistes. Hotels had one, two or three stars, but the stars were only an indication of price and comfort. Until 1920 the guide was given away free as advertising for Michelin, although it also earned money by selling advertising in the Guide. In 1920, it was first sold. In 1923, restaurants were listed separately from hotels. Before that, it was assumed the driver would eat where he slept. Stars were assigned according to comfort and price, but without any gastronomic value. These stars evolved into the current fork and spoon symbols. It 1926 Michelin first recognized gastronomic importance by awarding certain restaurants one black star for renowned cuisine. In 1931 the two and three star levels were introduced in the provinces and then for restaurants in Paris two years later. The Michelin Guide did not publish during WWII, but in 1944, the Military Intelligence Division of the War Department in Washington, DC reprinted the 1939 edition For official use only. In '45 the Michelin Guide returned. In '46 a few restaurant received a star and it was the first use of the symbol many refer to as a macaron. The two star rating returned in '48 and it was not until '51 that we saw three star restaurants again.

[Fat Guy]

Bux, can you be more specific?

[Bux]

Bux, can you be more specific?

←

You want the names of all the six star chefs? I mean the chefs with six stars in one year?

[slkinsey]

I wonder if there is any restaurant reviewer, reviewing body or publication of reviews that is widely considered to have major influence that does not include a star rating or other numerical indication.

[DonRocks]

I wonder if there is any restaurant reviewer, reviewing body or publication of reviews that is widely considered to have major influence that does not include a star rating or other numerical indication.

←

eGullet

[Fat Guy]

I wonder if there is any restaurant reviewer, reviewing body or publication of reviews that is widely considered to have major influence that does not include a star rating or other numerical indication.

←

At various times and depending on the potency of the critic, the reviews in Gourmet, New York Magazine and the International Herald Tribune have probably come the closest. There may be others, not in English, that also qualify.

[slkinsey]

I wonder if there is any restaurant reviewer, reviewing body or publication of reviews that is widely considered to have major influence that does not include a star rating or other numerical indication.

At various times and depending on the potency of the critic, the reviews in Gourmet, New York Magazine and the International Herald Tribune have probably come the closest. There may be others, not in English, that also qualify.

Right... these were viewed as good, quality reviews. But do you think they had the influence and cachet of comparable reviews associated with numerical ratings (e.g., the NYT)?

Part of what I am getting at is that it would seem good strategy on the part of the reviewer or publication to assign star ratings or numerical values if such reviewer or publication would like to have the greatest possible influence and impact.

[Fat Guy]

I agree that rating systems such as stars and numbers have tremendous appeal to the consumer, and that there's a type of social Darwinism that occurs as between the influence of publications that have ratings and those that don't -- the numbers, being such a ready source of easily consumed nourishment, push the harder-to-digest words out of the ecosystem just as junk food dominates over good food. That, however, describes the influence of the publications themselves. I think, internally, there's another type of cannibalization that occurs because the stars and numbers virtually consume or subsume the words of the reviews: they create a situation where nobody cares or remembers what the reviewer says, if the reviewer's words are even read at all. So in that regard the joke is on the reviewers at the publications that use ratings -- they may as well just give some stars and save themselves the trouble of writing the reviews. Those who read the reviews in New York, Gourmet or the IHT, on the other hand, are really reading those reviews -- they have no other option. I don't know what the local circulation figures are for those publications, or their demographics, or how one would equate daily, weekly and monthly figures, but I imagine that if you were to adjust for all that in a reasonably scientific manner you might find that, on account of their lack of stars, those publications have less direct influence but their reviews have more relevance.

[oakapple]

I think, internally, there's another type of cannibalization that occurs because the stars and numbers virtually consume or subsume the words of the reviews: they create a situation where nobody cares or remembers what the reviewer says, if the reviewer's words are even read at all.

Clearly we're reading the reviews and remembering what the reviewer says, as evidenced by the extensive "critique the critic" threads here on eGullet. I know that we're not alone (i.e., friends of mine who discuss the NYT reviews, but who aren't on eGullet).

It is therefore surely a gross exaggeration to say that "nobody cares or remembers what the reviewer says, if the reviewer's words are even read at all." Similarly, the fact that Roger Ebert gives movies "thumbs up" or "thumbs down" doesn't mean that nobody reads his movie reviews.

It is true that there might be some people who make a dining decision based on no other fact than the number of stars awarded. This doesn't mean that everyone with access to the information uses it this way, or even that a majority use it that way.

Those who read the reviews in New York, Gourmet or the IHT, on the other hand, are really reading those reviews -- they have no other option.

Actually, if you do a restaurant search in New York (the printed magazine or the website), you'll find that the critics' favorites are labeled with a star.

Edited December 31, 2004 by oakapple (log)

[Fat Guy]

Yes, of course, plenty of people read the reviews in the New York Times. But even the most diligent readers such as the extreme food geeks here on eG are prone to remember the stars much more vividly than the actual reviews. And I don't think that's just a question of the stars being easier to remember. I think they overshadow content. I am much more likely to remember the specifics of a Gourmet review, whereas I'm much more likely to remember the stars from a review that has stars.

I don't think a single indication, like a check mark or asterisk, for a "critic's pick," is tantamount to a star rating system, especially when it is only presented in the context of aggregated archived information on a web site.

Admin: 2005 "Bruni and Beyond" discussion may be found here.