Fat Guy Lays it on the Table

[Fat Guy]

It's bizarre, Rich, because you work on the book for so long, and then you sit around for a year and a half while it's edited and produced, and by the time it comes out you've lived with it for so long and read so many drafts that you never want to see the damn thing again! But yes, it's very exciting. I just hope somebody buys it!

[fiftydollars]

Congratulations, Steven!

Are you going to head out to California for any book signing on the tour?

[Fat Guy]

On account of the need to travel with an entourage (wife + newborn infant + bulldog), we'll be touring by van, so we're going to focus on the easily drivable (from New York) Northeast, Middle Atlantic and Southeast states. I'll submit those tour event dates to the eG Calendar team as soon as they're available.

[MelissaH]

On account of the need to travel with an entourage (wife + newborn infant + bulldog), we'll be touring by van, so we're going to focus on the easily drivable (from New York) Northeast, Middle Atlantic and Southeast states. I'll submit those tour event dates to the eG Calendar team as soon as they're available.

←

Just a reminder: people live in parts of New York State other than the immediate NYC area.

MelissaH

[suzilightning]

WOO-HOO!!

a starred review from the August Library Journal and the review starts with the phrase:

In his penetrating first book

the review also mentions the raw-milk cheese issue, zagat and michelin

(pages 115-116 for librarians playing along at work )

and on page 116 Paula Wolfert's The Cooking of Southwest France gets a star, too

Edited August 16, 2005 by suzilightning (log)

[rich]

Hey Steve, I just received an e-mail from Amazon. The book I ordered yesterday won't be arriving until October 28th. Are you in your second printing already?

The note said that's when a new shipment is scheduled to arrive. Hope the royalities are piling up.

[slkinsey]

Rich: Did you order it together with any other books? I've found that, unless you specifically say that you want your books to be shipped dseparately, one book that is temporarily unavailable can hold up the entire shipment. Amazon currently says "usually ships within 24 hours" for TTT.

[rich]

Rich:  Did you order it together with any other books?  I've found that, unless you specifically say that you want your books to be shipped dseparately, one book that is temporarily unavailable can hold up the entire shipment.  Amazon currently says "usually ships within 24 hours" for TTT.

←

No Sam I ordered it separately - in fact I ordered a pizza cutter (which I did need anyway) just to bring the total to $25 and get the free shipping and was informed in the same email the cutter has already been shipped.

[Tess]

rich, if I were you I would try to find one in a store and cancel the Amazon order. Maybe check with them first to see about the date. There shouldn't be so much of a problem. Mine just came from Amazon.

[rich]

rich, if I were you I would try to find one in a store and cancel the Amazon order. Maybe check with them first to see about the date. There shouldn't be so much of a problem. Mine just came from Amazon.

←

You got yours - that's why there's no more left.

Maybe all the eGullet people ordered one and wiped out Amazon's stock.

[rich]

Here's the note from Amazon:

Order Date: August 16, 2005

Order #: 103-2130451-3895033

Recipient: Richard Schulhoff

Items not yet shipped:

Delivery estimate: October 28, 2005 1 of: Turning the Tables : Restaurants from the Inside Out

[jhlurie]

It's possible they might have sold out. At the moment of this posting Amazon.com Sales Rank for the book is #988 in Books--up from it being somewhere around #6500 yesterday morning.

Don't make any assumptions though. For the moment, at least, it's still labeled "Availability: Usually ships within 24 hours." You can always cancel or back out of an order if they don't really ship it.

The book is kind of a neat size and shape, by the way. It's kind of tall and skinny.

[Jason Perlow]

It's kind of tall and skinny.

Which is very much unlike the guy who wrote it!

[ScooterQ]

I got my copy from Amazon yesterday and am about halfway through. Bourdain is right - pure crack for foodies

[JPW]

Mixed review from the Washington Post

[FoodMan]

The review was pretty positive over all, the only negative part is in the very last paragraph. Even that is simply a difference in opinion between the Post's critic and the book's author. From his "bad news" commnet I expected more.

[Jennifer Iannolo]

I think this reporter's negative comment illustrates a great deal about the antagonistic relationship between critics and restaurateurs, and is a bit defensive ("any experienced journalist"). That was quite catty, actually.

I agree with Steven that there is an "investigative" aspect to restaurant criticism -- one perpetuated by the media itself -- that seems to present a good (consumer) vs. evil (restaurateur) scenario.

To contradict Mr. Yardley, any worthy journalist is able to retain objectivity while still getting to know his subject matter.

[Bombdog]

FG, I got my copy at Books a Million yesterday and it is GREAT....congratulations....very WELL DONE

[Bux]

The review was pretty positive over all, the only negative part is in the very last paragraph. Even that is simply a difference in opinion between the Post's critic and the book's author.  From his "bad news" commnet I expected more.

←

I had a little trouble not with the fact that the reviewer had a different opinion, but that he seemed to present that opinion as the correct opinion, not just his opinion. My mind is not yet made up on the issue of how much it helps or hurts a reviewer to be known. At this time, I think it can do either or both depending on the critic, the restaurant and the target audience. I think Jennifer is correct on the antagonism that exists in general and on the defensiveness in this review. Is Yardley a restaurant reviewer and why wasn't that something made known to us.

My opinion on this issue has prbably been colored by the fact that I sensed William Grimes, a recent NY Times reviewer, made a great point of not knowing chefs and restaurateurs. Unfortunately I sensed this was less out of professionalism than out of disinterest. My assumption is that anyone with a passion for restaurants would not be able to repress a curiosity of what goes on behind the scenes and that such knowledge would make for better reviews. Journalists I respect have different opinions and I understand the dangers involved in writing critically about the people you know. Being a restaurant reviewer is not something I'd really care to do for that reason.

[Jinmyo]

This is where the bad news comes in. Shaw has some very odd and, to my mind, totally wrongheaded notions of what a restaurant critic should do. He complains that "the emphasis on anonymity and distance in restaurant reviewing . . . sends a signal to the public that restaurants are out to deceive us" when, in his view, reviewers should be "champions of excellence who promote the best within the industry while exposing the worst." But the job of reviewers and critics is not to "promote" anything; it is to give readers the fairest and most honest judgment of whatever it is they're reviewing. He believes that a restaurant reviewer should develop "a personal relationship with a chef or restaurateur" to gain "better information and insight," when any experienced journalist can testify that such a relationship serves only to compromise the reviewer's objectivity and integrity. Shaw may think he can go hand in glove with the industry and retain his independence, but it's not an example I'd recommend to anyone else.

This is a theme that has run throughout FG's work for many years and is in fundamental contradiction to the attitude of most reviewers and critics. So it's not a surprise it would appear in this book or that it might be commented on or even objected to.

I personally am more interested in the restaurant's point of view about what they are doing than in the "average diner's experience" because I read about restaurants I will never dine in to see if there is something that can inform my own cooking. So FG's perspective on this is suits me.

[slkinsey]

The only critic I've seen ever make a reasonable and believable defense of "quasi-anonymous" dining is Eric Asimov (here). I say "quasi-anonymous" because I think most well known reviewers are fools if they think they're dining unrecognized at top restaurants. What Eric defended is the shared pretense that the reviewer is anonymous, because it prevents awkward situations where the chef is sending out a zillion extra courses and the "maitre d's, owners, chefs, sommeliers and everybody else feels compelled to come over to greet you and chat and schmooze with you. Along with all the free and extra food comes free drinks, a tour of the kitchen, and god knows what else."

But as anyone who has been in show business can tell you, there is no way you can make the show "just a little bit better than the other nights" when you know the critic is in the audience. It just doesn't work that way. And, frankly, given that 90% of what makes a meal top notch happens before the diner even sets foot in the restaurant, I am skeptical that much can be done to create a food experience that is substantially better than what the other diners are getting -- especially over 4 or 5 meals. I suppose service can be improved, but even then the evidence is that places with service issues aren't able to correct them even when they know the critic is in the house.

[Jinmyo]

Sam, I agree with those points in general.

Which is why I think non-pro reports by diners on the web are probably more relevant to consumers looking for what to "watch out for" (both negative and positive) than most reviewers. For example, Frank Bruni's reviews are worth reading just because they're hilariously inane. Others might be worth reading because their prose is sometimes admirable. Usually, it's a matter of calibrating one's own palate relative to the reviewer's to discern any significance. (Which one also has to do with diners' reports.)

Something I thought I should have added after that last post was that food writing is so much more useful and interesting when it is informed rather than just a set of judgements. For example, Frankypants' byzantine likes and dislikes are the basis of his "fairest and most honest judgement" and are often bereft of the slightest sign of understanding of what is in fact quite typical of a cuisine or a restaurant's milieu and redolent of sheer Frankiness. I think it is easier to trust in a writer's ability to put aside their own likes and dislikes if they acknowledge whatever their personal associations with a restaurant might be than if they pretend to an objectivty which is unlikely at best.

Anywho, I hope people enjoy FG's book and buy lots of copies (though much of it was available in more elaborated form here on eG as various posts for free and without the danger of paper cuts).

[ghostrider]

The review was pretty positive over all, the only negative part is in the very last paragraph. Even that is simply a difference in opinion between the Post's critic and the book's author.  From his "bad news" commnet I expected more.

←

Me too. But over the years I've found that many critics feel obligated to say something negative, even if they have to grope for it, in order to preserve the appearance of being objective, or balanced, or however it is they perceive themselves. The near-afterthought quality of the comment here made me think that this is what Mr. Yardley was doing.

[Bux]

. . . .

I personally am more interested in the restaurant's point of view about what they are doing than in the "average diner's experience" because I read about restaurants I will never dine in to see if there is something that can inform my own cooking. So FG's perspective on this is suits me.

←

Unfortuantely, the average restaurant reviewer rarely rises above the level of a consumer researcher, and more often than not, is writing with so much baggage that a little inside knowledge could hardly make him less neutral. Few restaurant reviewers are also good culinary journalists nor do they often seem to aspire to being that. I'm afraid the response to your attitude from most restaurant reviewers, and I'll avoid using the term "critic," would be to ask "Why the hell are you reading my review if you're not interesting in eating in the restaurant?"

Knowing the chef, and being known by the chef are simply a few of the many things that can color your opinion. The can also afford more insight to that opinion and to what you write in general. Is there a balance? Probably and it will vary with each writer. Ultimately, we'll all have to judge our restaurant reviewers, our food critics and our journalists in their own time. The words of an unknown journalist, like the food of an unknown chef, need to be tasted before one can know if they need a grain of salt. For all that, I disagree that the a restaurant can't make a difference in the way two different people or table experience the food and service. Once he's been recognized and his food undergoes a particular inspection before it leaves the kitchen, it may be harder for him to know if the food at other tables is over salted, or underseasoned simply to offer one example. At the same time, access to the kitchen can often give him a better idea of the likely consistency than eating half a dozen meals incognito. There are tradeoffs all along the way and ultimately some critics may be better off masked while others operate best in the open. In this regard, Fat Guy seems to have a vision about improving reviewing, while Yardly blindly adheres to a dogmatic conviction. I think Fat Guy would be wrong if he assumed all restaurant reviewers should introduce themselves before dining in a restaurant, but I don't think he's suggesting that approach. It might also be pointed out that Shaw doesn't regard restaurant reviewing as it's currently practiced as the epitome of food criticism. It's something he did without renumeration on his own site to gain a reputation so he could establish himself as a culinary journalist. That may be good evidence for Jinmyo's point about the relevance of non-pro reviewing. I'd also add that although I don't share Fat Guy's tastes that often, I've come to respect his opinion and I've rarely seen a professional restaurant reviewer gather fans as quickly as he did on his web site. I understand why this opinion of Shaw's is controversial and I understand the many good arguments against this position, but I think it's wrongheaded to dimsiss his notions as "totally wrongheaded."

[Tess]

I thought this article in Slate was interesting and somewhat analogous, although it's about book reviewing. I was particularly struck by the point that the review is *for the reader.* A lot of journalistic reviewing seems to be less interested in informing the readers and more in dispensing some kind of justice. As a reader (and potential consumer) I don't care so much about the justice issue. I don't like the idea of reviews being unfair, but I also don't care too much if the reviewer thinks Chef X or Author Y is too big for his britches or something similar. If the reviewer knows the chef or the author, on the other hand, the review can still be quite informative, especially if there is disclosure.

Having read (and enjoyed) FG's book now, I'm a little undecided on the issue, mainly on service grounds. When I dine out, it's on a level where service lapses are at least as apt as food ones to compromise the experience. I think that's an area where it is indeed possible for a restaurant to make itself look better than it normally does.