Bruni and Beyond: NYC Reviewing (2006)

[BryanZ]

I prefer to think of it as historical perspective rather than statistical analysis.  Speaking of which, remember this?

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html...754C0A965958260

←

Great find. Though that review is much, much more negative than Bruni's review of Gilt. It also plays up the vaunted expectations angle more, with repeated references to Le Cirque.

[twhalliii]

I think you're reading him wrong.  I would daresay that his companions (like Grimes') are pretty serious foodies....what is clear is that their palate stems more toward the Blue Hill than the Gilt model.

←

My two cents, and I am a rare poster, but I read the dining companions as a small batch of sycophants; not because they don't know food, but because I get the feeling that they relish dining with a critic, and probably believe that to be taken seriously as dining companions, they must offer witty bon mots and critiques that comply with their host's expressed opinions.

I work in film, and I know that when I have heard people speaking to film critics about their personal taste in movies, they rarely speak their minds; instead, they try hard to impress and comply. Of course, this is just a reading of Bruni's reports, but interestingly, reports of his companions never seem to seriously undermine his own notions. Either the reports are erroneous, there is some serious brown nosing going on, or everyone agrees. Could be a combination of all three, but I have my own thoughts on the issue...

[oakapple]

I think you're reading him wrong.  I would daresay that his companions (like Grimes') are pretty serious foodies....what is clear is that their palate stems more toward the Blue Hill than the Gilt model.

←

My two cents, and I am a rare poster, but I read the dining companions as a small batch of sycophants.....

←

I think Bruni has a lot of different people who accompany him on these meals. I wouldn't lump them into one category. He's eating something like 10-12 fine dining meals a week, and it's probably not the same 3-4 people every time. By the way, in the Gilt review I noticed that they had become "companions," rather than "friends." In the early Bruni reviews, they were always "friends."

I would not assume that every companion agrees with him all the time. The quotes that make it into the review are obviously those that he finds memorable. If you eat out with enough people, there's going to be somebody at every meal who agrees with you about something. That doesn't mean that he socializes only with sycophants.

The emphasis on companions' comments is definitely a "Brunism." I don't recall other critics doing it to this extent. At one point, Ruth Reichl specifically said that she didn't want to know her companions' opinions about the food. She felt that the Times was paying for her opinions, not theirs. I wouldn't really have a problem with Bruni quoting his companions, except that the comments are sometimes not all that witty.

Edited February 12, 2006 by oakapple (log)

[Leonard Kim]

Was re-reading Bruni's revew online and found this at the bottom. Most prudent thing would've been not to bring it up here at all. I'll settle for presenting it without comment.

Readers' Reviews

Reader Rating    (3.75 stars, 12 votes)

MOST HELPFUL READER REVIEW

February 8, 2006 

I've been a restaurant reviewer at a major Canadian newspaper for 24 years. I also teach The Art of Restaurant Reviewing at a University here in Toronto. I just want to say that Frank Bruni's review of Gilt is an example that I will take to class. He has used extraordinary skill to analyze an extremely complex dining situation, utilizing humor, foodie knowledge and just plain good taste. I applaud him and I hope you will pass my remarks on to him. thanks. sara waxman

Edited February 14, 2006 by docsconz (log)

[BryanZ]

Was re-reading Bruni's revew online and found this at the bottom.  Most prudent thing would've been not to bring it up here at all.  I'll settle for presenting it without comment.

Readers' Reviews

Reader Rating     (3.75 stars, 12 votes)

MOST HELPFUL READER REVIEW

February 8, 2006 

I've been a restaurant reviewer at a major Canadian newspaper for 24 years. I also teach The Art of Restaurant Reviewing at a University here in Toronto. I just want to say that Frank Bruni's review of Gilt is an example that I will take to class. He has used extraordinary skill to analyze an extremely complex dining situation, utilizing humor, foodie knowledge and just plain good taste. I applaud him and I hope you will pass my remarks on to him. thanks. sara waxman

←

I'll take a stab.

extraordinary skill to analyze an extremely complex dining situation

I attribute neither sound writing nor astute analytical skills to Frank Bruni. If you read his other reviews, there's absolutely no way you can say he's a good writer. As I've said before, his voice in prose is that of a flowery high school girl. He takes an admitedly complex dining situation and oversimplifies it with the crutch of a "hook" he always relies on to mask his generally poor judgement.

utilizing humor, foodie knowledge and just plain good taste

Umm, no, no, and no.

sara waxman, I shame thee.

[akwa]

wasnt that obviously a joke?

[BryanZ]

Was it? I'm not so sure.

[Nathan]

Was it?  I'm not so sure.

←

From a technical perspective, Bruni is a very good writer. Seriously.

[JohnL]

Was re-reading Bruni's revew online and found this at the bottom.  Most prudent thing would've been not to bring it up here at all.  I'll settle for presenting it without comment.

Readers' Reviews

Reader Rating     (3.75 stars, 12 votes)

MOST HELPFUL READER REVIEW

February 8, 2006 

I've been a restaurant reviewer at a major Canadian newspaper for 24 years. I also teach The Art of Restaurant Reviewing at a University here in Toronto. I just want to say that Frank Bruni's review of Gilt is an example that I will take to class. He has used extraordinary skill to analyze an extremely complex dining situation, utilizing humor, foodie knowledge and just plain good taste. I applaud him and I hope you will pass my remarks on to him. thanks. sara waxman

←

I saw this "letter to the ed" --unfortunately, this seems to reflect the state of journalism today.

Simply put--style over substance rules the day.

Allowing for a difference of opinion it would be difficult for the good Professor to make a case for "extraordinary skill."

I have to believe that this is not a "joke"--though I certainly would prefer to.

--is she that good?

I am going to google "Sara Waxman"--might be interesting to delve into the mind of a person who would use the Gilt review as a "lesson" for would be critics.

ok I googled.

sadly, Ms Waxman seems to be quite a celebrated writer/critic, restaurant reviewer.

I say sadly because she seems to be pretty good at what she does. In fact, based upon the little I saw, she is far better at restaurant reviews than Mr Bruni (and a much better writer to boot).

Our eGullet friends from the great white North would probably have more comments with more substance to offer here.

Edited February 14, 2006 by JohnL (log)

[oakapple]

From a technical perspective, Bruni is a very good writer.  Seriously.

←

I beg to differ. There is an over-use of hackneyed phrases ("xyz on steroids," "a tangle of pasta") and an inability to get to the point (3-4 paragraphs of euphemisms to explain that the seating at a restaurant is comfortable—a "massage of a restaurant").

I am going to google "Sara Waxman"--might be interesting to delve into the mind of a person who would use the Gilt review as a "lesson" for would be critics.

I wonder how much of Bruni's oeuvre Ms. Waxman has sampled, and whether she has any other knowledge of the restaurants besides what Bruni says about them.

[JohnL]

From a technical perspective, Bruni is a very good writer.  Seriously.

←

I beg to differ. There is an over-use of hackneyed phrases ("xyz on steroids," "a tangle of pasta") and an inability to get to the point (3-4 paragraphs of euphemisms to explain that the seating at a restaurant is comfortable—a "massage of a restaurant").

I am going to google "Sara Waxman"--might be interesting to delve into the mind of a person who would use the Gilt review as a "lesson" for would be critics.

I wonder how much of Bruni's oeuvre Ms. Waxman has sampled, and whether she has any other knowledge of the restaurants besides what Bruni says about them.

←

First, Ms Waxman appears to be a much better writer than Bruni, I have no idea what possessed her to write to the editor of the Times praising Bruni.

Second, I agree that Bruni is not a very good writer. His attempts at humor are strained, awkward and often out of place. (the bugs bunny references).

He also has a habit of using somewhat obscure references to make a point. (the Kubrickean decor citations). This is an all too common method of "showing off" a la Dennis Miller (Dennis is good--this is his schtick).

We do not need "schtick" in journalism--restaurant review etc. if it gets in the way of clarity.

The real problem is Bruni is too obvious--one should not "see" the technique, the method.

In the Gilt review for eg, Bruni leaves out important information to score points for his thesis.

(the tea/wine thing and the two part menu).

He complains about the servers explanations about the rationale behind the dishes (actually his "companions" seem to complain more) then makes the point that the dishes do not make sense.

I waited in agony for Bruni to explain what some of the dishes were all about and then to tell us if the chef succeeded--but I guess Bruni didn't listen!

from the very start of the review of Gilt--Bruni shows his hand--his hook is established.

any information that deviates from that hook is ignored or short changed--one can not trust Bruni.

In short--we have to go elsewhere to get a better sense of what is happening at Gilt--New York, The Post, on line--I have read some reviews on line that talk about the wine list in minimal detail--far more than Bruni offers--that indicate it is at least interesting. His take on the wine at Gilt is "too expensive" so "why talk about it"--that's it.

A restaurant review is about communication--describing the experience one can expect in terms of food and beverages, and service and atmosphere and providing some context--writing is about communicating clearly.

Bruni fails on both points with the Gilt review--IMOP (of course)

[Sneakeater]

FWIW, Bruni lost it for me with the Wolfgang's review. He had this really interesting set-up (if you ignored all the stupid gratuitous heart desease jokes) for a Wolfgang's/Luger's smackdown (cuz really, the only thing you want to know about Wolfgang's is, how does it compare to Luger's), but then, when you finally got to the meat of the review (he's not the only one who can make stupid jokes), there was nothing there. He did not have the vocabulary -- the technical chops -- to write a comparison of a Luger's steak with a Wolfgang's. All you could tell is that he liked Luger's better -- but there was not enough back-up description for you to be able to tell why (or even how much). This is a major failing, since what's important in reviews isn't so much the bottom-line conclusion but the analysis that supports it (since the bottom-line conclusion is just one person's subjective opinion, whereas the description and analysis allows you to "test" the conclusion and match it against your own preferences) (this is really the fundamental reason some of us object to the "star" system, BTW).

And that's the problem with Bruni's reviews in general. He's like me: some guy who likes food and eats out a lot, but lacks technical knowledge and a deep familiarity with the literature.

It's really a pity that the Times appoints people like that as principle restaurant reviewers.

[rich]

First, Ms Waxman appears to be a much better writer than Bruni, I have no idea what possessed her to write to the editor of the Times praising Bruni.

←

She's looking for his job when he "retires."

[twhalliii]

First, Ms Waxman appears to be a much better writer than Bruni, I have no idea what possessed her to write to the editor of the Times praising Bruni.

←

She's looking for his job when he "retires."

←

If she's related to Sharon Waxman (the Hollywood reporter for the NYT), or if she writes like Sharon, we're all in trouble... worst columnist in the paper.

[ulterior epicure]

Frank's blog!

[oakapple]

Frank's blog! 

←

For the first time in a long time Frank has done something to cheer about. Obviously we're going to have to see what he writes about, but this gives him the opportunity to comment much more in "real time." It's a welcome change. And the first few blog entries are better written than his articles for print..

[TAPrice]

Frank's blog!  

←

For the first time in a long time Frank has done something to cheer about. Obviously we're going to have to see what he writes about, but this gives him the opportunity to comment much more in "real time." It's a welcome change. And the first few blog entries are better written than his articles for print..

←

Will this replace the Friday Dining Journal? That's the way I read the first entry.

[ulterior epicure]

Frank's blog!  

←

For the first time in a long time Frank has done something to cheer about. Obviously we're going to have to see what he writes about, but this gives him the opportunity to comment much more in "real time." It's a welcome change. And the first few blog entries are better written than his articles for print..

←

I agree, it's much more intuitive and intimate - I like the style here much more. But, we shall see how it develops.

Ulterior Epicure.

[oakapple]

Will this replace the Friday Dining Journal? That's the way I read the first entry.

←

It seems so, since the entry refers to the Diner's Journal in the past tense.

[alanamoana]

Remember a few months back when the New York Post (is that Steve Cuozzo?) decided that they weren't going to "review" restaurants anymore because it just doesn't work when chef turnover or management turnover happens so quickly in the biz (there were other considerations, but that is a simplification...I think it was in response to some of the Bruni critics)? He (Cuozzo) stated it almost the same way Bruni has introduced his "blog"...a forum where he can discuss current events, trends, trendsetters, etc. in the restaurant world.

Seems to me that Bruni is just jumping on the bandwagon. What the heck...get insight into the "life" of a food critic?! Didn't we get all of that with Ruth Reichl's books?! I guess the only thing lacking for Bruni is a purse in which he can hide uneaten food...

[TAPrice]

Seems to me that Bruni is just jumping on the bandwagon.  What the heck...get insight into the "life" of a food critic?!  Didn't we get all of that with Ruth Reichl's books?!  I guess the only thing lacking for Bruni is a purse in which he can hide uneaten food...

←

I would say yes and no about the bandwagon. He maybe shares Cuozzo's frustration, but Bruni (or someone at the Times) recognized that this new medium offers a better solution.

As far as the "life" of the critic, as someone who's done the job in the past I can tell you that people find it endlessly fascinating. EGullets folks might not, but many readers still do. It's really not that fascinating (you eat, then you write), but people like the details.

[oakapple]

Remember a few months back when the New York Post (is that Steve Cuozzo?) decided that they weren't going to "review" restaurants anymore because it just doesn't work when chef turnover or management turnover happens so quickly in the biz (there were other considerations, but that is a simplification...I think it was in response to some of the Bruni critics)?  He (Cuozzo) stated it almost the same way Bruni has introduced his "blog"...a forum where he can discuss current events, trends, trendsetters, etc. in the restaurant world.

There are a few significant differences. Cuozzo stopped writing reviews, full stop. His one weekly restaurant column has turned into "what's going on in the local food biz that I can bitch about this week." Bruni is still going to write the Wednesday reviews. In addition, he's going to post to this blog—several times a week, he says.

Cuozzo's view was, "The restaurant review is dead." Bruni's view is, "In addition to my reviews, this blog will allow me to communicate more often and more flexibly." I would guess that up to half of Bruni's meals out don't actually get reported on—at least, not directly. If he follows through, the blog will allow him to put a lot more information out there, without the space limitations of the printed newspaper.

Seems to me that Bruni is just jumping on the bandwagon.  What the heck...get insight into the "life" of a food critic?!  Didn't we get all of that with Ruth Reichl's books?!  I guess the only thing lacking for Bruni is a purse in which he can hide uneaten food...

←

If you read the innaugural post, he's not saying that this is his "life of a critic" blog. He's going to use the space to do what he usually does—restaurant criticism—but in chunks that are more frequent, closer to real time, and not hindered by what the paper has space to print. Edited February 15, 2006 by oakapple (log)

[Sneakeater]

I'd like to say something about the entry concerning reservations. It sheds light on a topic I've been somewhat annoyed about.

People constantly castigate Bruni for including sometimes extensive quotes from his dining companions. People say this shows insecurity, or a lack of original thought.

I think that's nonsense.

Isn't it clear that Bruni quotes selectively, to bolster points he wants to make or to present counterarguments he can disagree with? It's not a sign of insecurity or lack of original thought; it's another resource to use.

I mean, I refer to what dining companions say all the time when I describe restaurants. Not because I can't think for myself, but because if someone I'm eating with says something I think made a point, why not quote it?

(I say this as someone who is by no means a fan of Bruni's writing.)

Does anyone think there's anything wrong with the quotations from Bruni's friend in the "reservations" entry?

Edited February 15, 2006 by Sneakeater (log)

[Dryden]

It also seems like Bruni is fond of using quotes in a "I'd never say this, because I already know the answer, but some of you may be thinking..." kind of way.

It's always fun to make up a question that, just possibly, no one was asking and then go on and on answering it because you like to hear yourself talk.

[oakapple]

It also seems like Bruni is fond of using quotes in a "I'd never say this, because I already know the answer, but some of you may be thinking..." kind of way.

←

While I think he over-relies on quotes from his friends, I've never doubted that some friend or other actually said what is attributed to them. What makes you believe otherwise?