Fat Guy Lays it on the Table

[SobaAddict70]

I'm a bit uncertain what the point of your review is other than to convey the message that you have difficulties with the message that El Gordo attempts to communicate in his book.

That part was comprehensible.

I admire eGullet as much as the next dweeb, but I couldn't help feeling that "The Restaurant Information Age" involved special pleading. Steve Shaw likes cooks and embracing the ethics of a Times critic would cramp his style. Frank Bruni is roughed up in these pages. Shaw argues, and there is some truth in his claims, that the critic should judge the artist at his best. Should we focus on those Leonardo caricatures that he sold for two bits each at the Florence county fair? And Shaw is right that there is only so much one can do when a VIP arrives: if you don't have plump strawberries, the Fat Guy gets the dregs, like the rest of us. Of course, he should expect fawning service for a pasha, but at least we can share his posh life. This kind of critic is not everyman, but Someone.

←

Isn't a review supposed to be objective? The tone of this passage, indeed one example amongst many, is a poor attempt at such, in my humble opinion.

Soba

[hjshorter]

Isn't a review supposed to be objective?  The tone of this passage, indeed one example amongst many, is a poor attempt at such, in my humble opinion.

Wait, how could a book review be objective? It's an opinion.

[Tess]

Isn't a review supposed to be objective?  The tone of this passage, indeed one example amongst many, is a poor attempt at such, in my humble opinion.

Wait, how could a book review be objective? It's an opinion.

←

Does "opinion" necessarily = "not at all objective"? An opinion can be more or less reasoned, more or less biased. I think you can come to objective judgments with regard to lots of statements made in books. A review will normally be a mix of subjective and objective, I would think. Asking for a review to be totally objective is probably unrealistic but so is saying that all reviews are totally subjective. Maybe the best you can hope for is that a reviewer will make any strong biases clear.

[SobaAddict70]

Isn't a review supposed to be objective?  The tone of this passage, indeed one example amongst many, is a poor attempt at such, in my humble opinion.

Wait, how could a book review be objective? It's an opinion.

←

A review of anything is an opinion, but if people are going to -- supposed to, excuse me -- take such seriously, don't you think that they ought to be written in an objective a manner as possible?

The language of the review is something I have issue with. Mr. Fine might have some interesting points to discuss, but the overall tone of his "review" reads more to me as someone with an axe to grind rather than as a book review.

For what it's worth, what is the point of including the following phrase

Shaw's strategy is to present several cases within each chapter (a residue from law school).

?

If Mr. Fine's intent was to attract attention, he certainly did it in spades.

Soba

edited for clarity and partially in response to Tess' post above.

Edited September 28, 2005 by SobaAddict70 (log)

[sammy]

The language of the review is something I have issue with. Mr. Fine might have some interesting points to discuss, but the overall tone of his "review" reads more to me as someone with an axe to grind rather than as a book review.

Soba, very interesting for you to say this while best I can tell, Doug Psaltis having a possible "axe to grind" didn't concern you on the other thread.

Edited September 28, 2005 by sammy (log)

[Jason Perlow]

Shaw is right that there is only so much one can do when a VIP arrives: if you don't have plump strawberries, the Fat Guy gets the dregs, like the rest of us. Of course, he should expect fawning service for a pasha, but at least we can share his posh life.

Knowing Steven and his actual lifestyle, I thought this was fucking hilarious.

[SobaAddict70]

The language of the review is something I have issue with. Mr. Fine might have some interesting points to discuss, but the overall tone of his "review" reads more to me as someone with an axe to grind rather than as a book review.

Soba, very interesting for you to say this while best I can tell, Doug Psaltis having a possible "axe to grind" didn't concern you on the other thread.

←

I believe I said:

Certainly, questions can and should be asked.

That doesn't mean he (Mr. Psaltis) has to answer them, either at this time or ever.

That said, he probably will...whenever the current furor dies down.  Whilst it would be nice for an author -- any author -- to offer answers or explanations for his or her work, it is in my opinion, unreasonable to make demands of such from those you happen to disagree with.

It is what it is.

←

I'm not certain what YOUR point is if anything other than that it detracts from the discussion at hand, which principally relates to Steven's book and related reviews.

Further, I am not asking Mr. Fine to clarify his intentions. I am asserting my disagreement with his statements.

It might do one a world of good to discern the difference between demands and declarations, n'cest pas?

[Jennifer Iannolo]

The language of the review is something I have issue with. Mr. Fine might have some interesting points to discuss, but the overall tone of his "review" reads more to me as someone with an axe to grind rather than as a book review.

That's the issue I have, too. Even if biases are present (my review of the book is a roaring cheer, but I post books on my site that I *like*), there is never, ever room for snark.

This was a book for the average restaurant patron, and it delivered what was intended, as far as I see. Why Steven is being criticized for what is not in the book, rather than what is, is a bit puzzling. The review reads as a very back-handed compliment, IMO.

[tighe]

This is quite amusing. Thousands of reviews of restaurants are posted on this site that are full of bias and 'snarkiness' and often it's applauded. Why is the standard for a book review posted here so vastly different? Get over yourselves already.

[Jennifer Iannolo]

This is quite amusing.  Thousands of reviews of restaurants are posted on this site that are full of bias and 'snarkiness' and often it's applauded.  Why is the standard for a book review posted here so vastly different?  Get over yourselves already.

←

tighe,

Since your comment refers to my own, whether directly or not, my response is that if, as a professional reviewer, one wants to be taken seriously, snark diminishes one's influence. Most of the reviews on eGullet, unless I am vastly mistaken, are written by people who are not professionally employed to perform said activity. There is a difference.

[Fat Guy]

The question for me when I wrote the book was: will anybody review it? I was concerned that it wouldn't be taken seriously as a reviewable book -- that it would be seen as light summer reading (the August release was problematic from that standpoint) and sit unreviewed as most food books are. So it has been a thrill for me to see it reviewed in the New Yorker, Washington Post, Boston Globe and other serious outlets -- real book reviews, not necessarily even in the food section. Most reviewers have found things to like and thing not to like about the book, and that's fine. I'm just glad to have the book reviewed, so I thank Mr. Fine for that. I don't agree with or even comprehend everything he has written, and I've never heard of the book he's comparing mine to, but I enjoyed the review.

[Carolyn Tillie]

I loved the review for the sheer verbosity of his language. I haven't read Steven's book, so I have no opinion, but anyone who loves what magic can be created with words can't help but admiring Fine's piece. A few examples that I enjoyed:

"...life is a game with rules to be diddled."

"...what better evidence could there be that American culture is teetering on the brink then that our authorities see personal humiliation as a good career move."

"His writing is plainspeak, not frothy; a book of Joe, not cappuccino."

"...after this review I will be viewed from thorny eyes as "critic of Steven A. Shaw." How I suffer for you."

"Only time will tell if Mike Bloomberg finds bloated poultry liver as easy a target as nicotine."

"Shaw exudes a chirpy warmth that one finds neither in Winning the Restaurant Game or Kitchen Confidential (much less in George Orwell's Down and Out in Paris and London, Bourdain's ur-text). "

"One finishes infected by the virus of Shaw's enthusiasm, strategic and simultaneously the billet-doux of a fat man in love."

To me, this review was Tom Robbins meets Gunter Grass...

[Fat Guy]

I have long felt that I exhibit a certain chirpy warmth, but have never been able to put it into words.

[Jason Perlow]

Chirpy, like a large kosher turkey wearing fish pants.

[SobaAddict70]

This is quite amusing.  Thousands of reviews of restaurants are posted on this site that are full of bias and 'snarkiness' and often it's applauded.  Why is the standard for a book review posted here so vastly different?  Get over yourselves already.

←

Jennifer has answered one aspect of this. I'll add another.

Many reviews -- I wouldn't go so far as to say thousands -- posted on the forums are full of bias and "snarkiness". Yes, you are correct.

However, people have and do frequently challenge such reviews. Perhaps not as much as you or I would like, but it does happen.

This is no different.

[kitchenmage]

Chirpy, like a large kosher turkey wearing fish pants.

←

FG, you really do need to adopt that as a motto. Perhaps use it to advertise the book tour.

[tighe]

This is quite amusing.  Thousands of reviews of restaurants are posted on this site that are full of bias and 'snarkiness' and often it's applauded.  Why is the standard for a book review posted here so vastly different?  Get over yourselves already.

←

tighe,

Since your comment refers to my own, whether directly or not, my response is that if, as a professional reviewer, one wants to be taken seriously, snark diminishes one's influence. Most of the reviews on eGullet, unless I am vastly mistaken, are written by people who are not professionally employed to perform said activity. There is a difference.

←

What makes you believe that GAF is a professional reviewer? He "teaches sociology at Northwestern", so I imagine that's his full-time job. Having spent some time in academia myself, I know that self-published reviews of non-academic books don't count towards one's publication record, so I'm really not getting how you feel he's subject to the standards of a "professional reviewer."

Soba, tell me the last time you, or anyone else here, objected to a restaurant review on the grounds that it wasn't objective? Rarely if ever I would imagine. Objections to restaurant reviews here are nearly always challenged with other opinions, you offered no opinion on the book, just an objection to the tone and approach of the review. That is very different than the typical back and forth here...

[gaf]

My theory of reviewing is the following: every serious review should be a mixed review. It should not take either writer (reviewer or reviewed) too seriously, but it should engage the reader and engage the issues of the book. Perhaps my essay has done so, perhaps not. I hope that I placed Mr. Shaw's book into a context, and raised those issues that I thought that he did well and those issues that I thought that he did not do as well. And I hope that this review goads many others to weigh in with their thoughts. As I was composing some of my dining reviews, I came to feel that if I could critique (and, in some instances, be praised for critiquing) Chefs Hamilton, Samuelsson, Vongerichten, Batali and others, we who write about food should not be immune. We should never be gratuitiously nasty or hostile, but we should be critcal in an amusing way. Do I have an axe to grind?: no personal animosity, but a set of beliefs for which I carry a large whetstone and strop. And we should not hide behind anonymity, which is why I signed my review and mentioned my writing, which is every bit as fair game as is Mr. Shaw's.

I confess - and not only with this essay - that I have a weakness; it is what I label the "Anthony Lane effect" (Lane is a film reviewers for The New Yorker). And that is I find it hard to let a witticism pass by (good, bad, or indifferent). If only we on the web had tough-minded editors.

I appreciate the good humor - and proper sensibility - that "The Fat Guy" showed in his responses.

On to Pearl Oyster Bar!

[JPW]

For what it's worth, what is the point of including the following phrase

Shaw's strategy is to present several cases within each chapter (a residue from law school).

?

If Mr. Fine's intent was to attract attention, he certainly did it in spades.

Soba

edited for clarity and partially in response to Tess' post above.

←

Well, for one thing it tells you where the author (FG) is coming from. He's originally a lawyer and the case study is a very "lawyerly" thing. It's an investigatory device used elsewhere (think business schools), but this is where FG was exposed to it. You understand the book better by understanding the author.

Of all the quibbles one could have with gaf's review, I think that this is a very minor one.

[Tess]

I just remembered this piece in favor of biased book reviews.

I like an honestly biased review, myself-- whether it's of a book or a meal. There shouldn't be anything that's actually false or misleading, but everyone has a perspective, at least in the sense that every review treats the book (or meal) at hand through the filter of all previous meals the reviewer has eaten or books he/she has read. Why not be open about that?

[rhubarbd]

In light of all the interesting back-and-forth on the value and legitimacy of so-called anonymous restaurant reviewing ... did anyone see yesterday's column by Steve Cuozzo, restaurant critic of The NY Post? Basically, he said he's putting an end to his reviews; that anonymous reviews are an absolute joke and that while the public may not realize it, critics and restaurateurs do. So in the future his column will be a relfection of other issues related to the industry - but he will do no more reviewing.

Of course, say what you will about the Post ... (and it's all true!) ... but their food section is lively and sharp and has a definite point of view ...

[Jinmyo]

rhubarbd, as I understand it that has also been Steve Shaw's position for a long time.

[rhubarbd]

rhubarbd, as I understand it that has also been Steve Shaw's position for a long time.

LOL! Ya think?!

(One day i'll get this quote thing down!)

I have to say, I'm with him on this one. As a longtime restaurant marketing consultant, I have witnessed firsthand innumerable situations where the client has known that a critic's in the house ... yet been unable to correct problems already set in motion. Yeah, they can always send over a larger portion of whatever, or switch servers in the middle of the meal, but critics are wise enuff to look around the room and see what other diners are getting on their plates, etc. etc.

Others have posted to this far more eloquently than i ... but the issue of anonymity has always seemed - to me at least - a lot of hubbub about not too much. It's hard to turn a ship around once it's in the middle of its voyage ...

[SobaAddict70]

Soba, tell me the last time you, or anyone else here, objected to a restaurant review on the grounds that it wasn't objective?  Rarely if ever I would imagine.  Objections to restaurant reviews here are nearly always challenged with other opinions, you offered no opinion on the book, just an objection to the tone and approach of the review.  That is very different than the typical back and forth here...

←

We must not inhabit the same forums....

Here's one such example.

Asimov's column was similar to the kiddie's table at Thanksgiving, where I was incidentally forced to sit well into college, so it was never accorded the same status or respect the starred-dining received.  I always preferred Asimov as a writer to the big guys, and even though he never received comparable column-inches, I understood his biases (as I do with any good food writer).  With Bruni and his predecessors, I never felt I could get a handle on where they're coming from, writing as they were from a quasi-objective viewpoint -- surely required given the nature of the post.  Even if Asimov was a moving target, I could judge how I might potentially feel about a restaurant he reviewed by relative comparison, and knowing what motivates him in a particular direction.  Three stars from Bruni for AD/NY?  Three stars for Bouley?  One of the biggest factors for the "$25 and Under" is surely the lack of an "objective" measuring tape, which gave him room to slip his personality into a review, and it almost seemed expected by the editors.  Bruni is no more objective than Asimov, or any of us, but he has to pretend to appeal to the objective measures established by the Times.  He may even believe in his impartiality.  There's no way to know for sure.

The writers replacing Asimov are rather bland, as cookie-cutter as Bruni.  The only reasons to even read the Dining In/Out section now are the non-review articles. 

IML

←

All right, you might be correct about the rarity of objectivity vis-a-vis reviews. I suppose it might be more appropriate to say that a reviewer should give the lie to the appearance of objectivity. Mr. Fine's review fails on this note in my opinion.

There are a million ways to say "it was mediocre" or "this failed to live up to a set of expectations." Whereas some might see a scintillating piece of prose, this reader sees a piece of work that leaves no doubt as to where the reviewer's biases lie. We know he doesn't care for some of the book's conclusions, and we know he's not a fan of the current mayor of New York.

It is what it is.

I've just started the book, so I can't give you an opinion on something that I don't know.

Soba

[Jennifer Iannolo]

What makes you believe that GAF is a professional reviewer?  He "teaches sociology at Northwestern", so I imagine that's his full-time job.  Having spent some time in academia myself, I know that self-published reviews of non-academic books don't count towards one's publication record, so I'm really not getting how you feel he's subject to the standards of a "professional reviewer."

←

Apologies -- I made an incorrect assumption there, and stand corrected.