Bruni and Beyond: NYC Reviewing (2006)

[BryanZ]

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

←

First of all, I like this new blog idea. First the podcast, now this, Bruni's going high-tech. I also find that his writing in this is more intimate and accessible. No snarky humor, no strained hooks, just reasonably valuable reflections on dining trends, new locations, etc.

In that vein, I think that this medium is a good place for him to use the quotes from his friends. The reservation piece brings the perspective of the "common man" trying unsuccessfuly to get a good table at a top restaurant. I find his emphasis on quotes in his weekly reviews less convincing, as we're supposed to be getting his critical views, not those of the companions he arbitrarily chooses to bring along.

Edited February 15, 2006 by BryanZ (log)

[Sneakeater]

I apologize in advance for being argumentative about a triviality, but we're not expecting to get "his" views so much as a fair and accurate description and analysis of a restaurant.

And don't you think he selects the quotes he uses in order to advance and illuminate the views "he" intends to present? It's not like he's just presenting an unadorned transcript of the dinner table conversation.

I think that also responds to your objection about being subjected to the opinions of whoever he "happens" to bring along. It's not whoever he "happens" to bring along, but rather whoever he chooses to quote. I.e., he DECIDES which quotes to use, so they become part of HIS workproduct.

(This really is a silly thing to argue about. Sorry.)

Edited February 15, 2006 by Sneakeater (log)

[JohnL]

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?

←

With all due respect (as they say on the Sopranos).--who cares.?

I am looking for a level of comfort, of trust with Bruni. Also some consistency.

Am I getting concise accurate appraisals of restaurants?

That is all a critic need provide.

Is he providing a good description of the atmosphere, food and service?

Does he provide any additional perspective--based upon his experiences, his palate etc?

Do we trust his reviews (judgements) to establish a restaurant's place in New York's (and the world's) restaurant hierarchy?

As for the blog--is it a good idea to provide "previews" into his formal reviews?

Why is this necessary--what is the point--why not just publish a formal review?--are not observations based upon incomplete information/experience--reflective of that incompleteness?

Is the blog adding any insight into dining?

really--based on the initial blogs--what have we learned that we didn't already know?

[Sneakeater]

This is a complete side issue that has nothing to do with the more global concerns you advert to.

[Sneakeater]

As for your concerns about the blog, though:

1. The "Diner's Journal" column has long (I don't know enough to be able to say "always") been used as a forum for the critic to "pre-review" restaurants he intends fully to review later.

2. If we take Bruni at his word, the "Diner's Journal" blog will expand his ability to discuss restaurants that wouldn't fit into the review schedule. That can only be a good thing. (Indeed, it could ameliorate the problems some of us -- by which I mean "me" -- have with the Star System.)

3. To the extent the "Diner's Journal" blog will have more topical "general interest" pieces, that would also be a good thing -- to the extent they don't queer the review process the way some think the "Del Posto" piece did. FWIW, I thought the "reservations" entry was extremely useful and interesting.

4. None of the foregoing should be taken as an endorcement of Frank Bruni as critic or writer. I am not a fan.

Edited February 15, 2006 by Sneakeater (log)

[JohnL]

As for your concerns about the blog, though:

1.  The "Diner's Journal" column has long (I don't know enough to be able to say "always") provided the critic a forum for "pre-reviewing" restaurants he intends fully to review later.

2.  If we take Bruni at his word, the "Diner's Journal" blog will expand his ability to discuss restaurants that wouldn't fit into the review schedule.  That can only be a good thing.

3.  To the extent the "Diner's Journal" blog will have more topical "general interest" pieces, that would also be a good thing -- to the extent they don't queer the review process the way some think the "Del Posto" piece did.  FWIW, I thought the "reservations" entry was extremely useful and interesting.

4.  None of the foregoing should be taken as an endorcement of Frank Bruni as critic or writer.  I am not a fan.

←

Why does a critic need a forum for "pre reviewing"a restaurant?

What purpose does this serve--either him or her (the critic) and us--the public?

For that matter--what is the purpose of pre reviewing a restaurant?

Should the restaurant critic of a major (or minor for that matter) newspaper indulge in incomplete opinion or gossip regarding a restaurant for which he or she is preparing a formal review?

Also-I have no problem with a "blog" or Diner's journal column--I do have a problem with a lack of discipline in the important formal restaurant reviews.

[Sneakeater]

I do have a problem with a lack of discipline in the important formal restaurant reviews.

←

We certainly agree about that. Which obviously is the important issue.

Edited February 15, 2006 by Sneakeater (log)

[ulterior epicure]

I am looking for a level of comfort, of trust with Bruni. Also some consistency.

so am i, and i find this "comfort/trust" in his blog format (based on his first two posts - so that's a rather weak claim, i'll admit.). regardless, my hope, pleasure and loyalty in following/trusting a restaurant critic (or any critic, for that matter) is really based on the level of intimacy and rapport that the critic is able to build with me - as a diner, but more importanly as a person... up until now, imo, bruni's reviews and write-ups have felt detached - as if he's holding himself at arm's length from me (i can only speak for myself). i feel like i'm reading "book reports" rather than vignettes rather than anecdotes. there may be a vast readership out there who are of the "bookish" type. i'm not.

really--based on the initial blogs--what have we learned that we didn't already know?

i'm not so sure that it's a matter of "learning" something new. rather, i think bruni's blog has (again, admittedly in its infancy), made a step towards building that rapport with the critic that i am looking for. if i've learned one thing from his blog - it's that he can be intimate - offer me a anectdotal aside, book reports notwithstanding. of course, this is not to say that his blog is day to his reviews' night, but there is something different to the approach he takes in his informal blog.

i believe it and feel it (an most decidedly appreciates it), when he writes in yesterday's post that his blog intends to:

"To provide, in something closer to real time, a sense of what’s being served in the city’s newest, oldest, most delightful and most frustrating restaurants and of how those restaurants are serving it. To flag trends and, less often and more selectively, flog underachievers. To report moments of real significance and incidents that just happened to be interesting. To keep a journal, and to keep the tone of that journal light, casual, accessible."

This "invitation to the table" is much more along the lines of what I enjoyed about the more intuitive and familial writing style projected by his predecessors Reichl, and to some degree, Sheraton.

Am I getting concise accurate appraisals of restaurants?

That is all a critic need provide.

personally, i disagree. but to a large extent, i've already said so up-post. i'm not a book report reader (not to diminish or disparage your own tastes and wants with that characterization). facts are great. but, personally, it's not necessarily the color of the curtains, the feel of the pillows, nor the presentation or even the taste of the food alone that makes or breaks a dining experience. rather, a large majority of my dining memories, in fact, the most impressionable ones, are about how these factors in concert contributed to that euphoria, or lack of, upon departure or that lingers in the morning, week or even year, after... no, bruni doesn't quite accomplish this in his blog... yet... but he certainly has come nowhere close in his regular reviews. sheraton, and certainly reichl have demonstrated their ability to do this in a paragraph, or even in a mere sentence.

Do we trust his reviews (judgements) to establish a restaurant's place in New York's (and the world's) restaurant hierarchy?

not i - yet. but i'm willing to give him a chance... regardless, he (anybody) can gain my trust given the write level of intimacy and intuitive connection. even though i don't know her, i feel like i grew up with reichl. it didn't matter whether she was in a hole in the wall, or at a worthy four-star, she justified her response and judgments through gathered life-experiences that she was able to convey. a reader, like me, may not agree or have like tastes, but always leave her readings nodding and thinking to myself - yeah, i get it - i understand why this restaurant is a one/four star for ruth reichl. with bruni - he often alienates me from the first sentence and after being lost through a

As for the blog--is it a good idea to provide "previews" into his formal reviews?

Why is this necessary--what is the point--why not just publish a formal review?--are not observations based upon incomplete information/experience--reflective of that incompleteness?

i don't know that the blog necessarily serves as a "preview" to "formal review." maybe we should take him at face value and just simply read these as he purportedly intends - as extra notes that he's not able to give adequate editorial consideration in the publication proper. do we really expect one person, one mouth and one stomach to eat and write up more than one review a week? moreover, would we want him/her to? for me, that would detract from the perceived trustworthiness of their reviews/opinions. given that he eats and thinks about food almost 24/7, i consider (and expect) his blog to be, literally, a spill-over of his "stream of dining conscience."

Is the blog adding any insight into dining?

does it necessarily have to? like i said, it may, it may not. but what it does do, at least for me, is afford insight into frank bruni... and uncracking that code will hopefully lead to a better understanding of his approach on a broader level.

look, in the end, i'm not trying to elevate the ny times restaurant editorial to a philosophic level, or scrutinize bruni (or any other writer) with an abstract "touchy-feely" analysis.

i'll get off from my soap-box now. i'm tired. in the end, i'll know when frank bruni, or any other restaurant critic has gained my trust and loyalty. i think bruni's blog is his first step toward meaningfully contacting me.

Edited February 15, 2006 by ulterior epicure (log)

[oakapple]

Why does a critic need a forum for "pre reviewing"a restaurant?

What purpose does this serve--either him or her (the critic) and us--the public?

For that matter--what is the purpose of pre reviewing a restaurant?

←

Perhaps one of the historians here can provide some further color, but the weekly "Diner's Journal" column has long been used for—among other things—previewing restaurants that will later receive rated reviews. It is part of the system that Frank Bruni inherited, and I don't recall anyone else having such a big problem with it.

What purpose does it serve? Well, it simply increases the amount of coverage provided to those restaurants. Whether he chooses the right restaurants at the right time is a matter of critical judgment, but I fail to see how additional information could be viewed as a liability.

Historically, previews of restaurants that would receive full reviews shortly thereafter have been a minority of the Diner's Journal columns. I suspect his blog will continue this practice. His lead-off post suggested that he will mostly be blogging about restaurants he has no immediate plans to formally review.

Should the restaurant critic of a major (or minor for that matter) newspaper indulge in incomplete opinion or gossip regarding a restaurant for which he or she is preparing a formal review?

This presupposes that the formal reviews are a "complete" opinion. Although they occupy more space than a Diner's Journal column, a formal review is still only a snapshot—a momentary utterance in the ongoing public conversation about these restaurants. I don't understand the "gossip" comment at all. Whatever flaws Frank Bruni's writing may have, his reviews are not gossip. Edited February 16, 2006 by oakapple (log)

[JohnL]

Why does a critic need a forum for "pre reviewing"a restaurant?

What purpose does this serve--either him or her (the critic) and us--the public?

For that matter--what is the purpose of pre reviewing a restaurant?

←

Perhaps one of the historians here can provide some further color, but the weekly "Diner's Journal" column has long been used for—among other things—previewing restaurants that will later receive rated reviews. It is part of the system that Frank Bruni inherited, and I don't recall anyone else having such a big problem with it.

What purpose does it serve? Well, it simply increases the amount of coverage provided to those restaurants. Whether he chooses the right restaurants at the right time is a matter of critical judgment, but I fail to see how additional information could be viewed as a liability.

Historically, previews of restaurants that would receive full reviews shortly thereafter have been a minority of the Diner's Journal columns. I suspect his blog will continue this practice. His lead-off post suggested that he will mostly be blogging about restaurants he has no immediate plans to formally review.

Should the restaurant critic of a major (or minor for that matter) newspaper indulge in incomplete opinion or gossip regarding a restaurant for which he or she is preparing a formal review?

This presupposes that the formal reviews are a "complete" opinion. Although they occupy more space than a Diner's Journal column, a formal review is still only a snapshot—a momentary utterance in the ongoing public conversation about these restaurants. I don't understand the "gossip" comment at all. Whatever flaws Frank Bruni's writing may have, his reviews are not gossip.

←

I don't think we would be discussing or debating the "role" of the Blog or the Diner's Journal were there not problems with Mr Bruni's work.

IMOP you are giving the formal reviews import short shrift. A formal review should carry some considerable weight with the readership. It should be the assessment of a restaurant based upon many visits and a sampling of a wide range of the food offered.

The critical assessments should be supported in the review--it should all come together and make sense for the reader.

The Diner's Journal column is seemingly whatever the paper or Bruni wants it to be. Fair enough.

I have no problem in Bruni alerting us to restaurants that he will not be reviewing formally or possibly will be reviewing fully in the distant future.

However, major restaurants that warrant a full review are IMOP short changed (as are we the readers) because of the limitations of the column size especially if the critic is going to make some negative criticisms. Thus without proper context and support we get a "mini" pre review that if, in and of itself, is not gossip--will certainly promote gossip.

IMOP much of this comes down to how the paper envisions its critics' roles. The fact is--whatever the paper is doing recently, they are in trouble--we can debate this certainly--I strongly believe that whatever the paper does tactically--they must provide good accurate information from people who are authoritative and whose opinions count, in an entertaining manner.

A critic should be an important person with important views. When the Paper devalues their critics and their criticism, they will lose impact and importance and ultimately their audience.

When there was a "buzz" building about Gilt (I think we would agree this is an important restaurant opening) we should have been "waiting to see what the Times critic says" that critic being the authoritative voice. Instead Bruni couldn't seem to wait--he had to get that Diner's Journal piece on restaurant pricing practices out post haste and in the process contributed to the "buzz." IMOP-this devalued his review somewhat--there is no reason IMOP that bruni could have reviewed Gilt--mentioned the pricing and then used the restaurant to make a case about pricing practices in the Diner's Journal piece--it is all in the timing.

[Sneakeater]

Hey wait. The Gilt thing wasn't in a "Diner's Journal" piece. It was in a "Critic's Notebook" piece.

(I don't use smileys. But if I did, there'd be one here.)

[JohnL]

Hey wait.  The Gilt thing wasn't in a "Diner's Journal" piece.  It was in a "Critic's Notebook" piece.

(I don't use smileys.  But if I did, there'd be one here.)

←

Ok I did it for you!

Now I am totally confused!

I suppose we could now debate the meaning of "Critic's Notebook" and "Diner's Journal"

it's just that I am really hesitant to engage in (or worse--- possibly invent) "Culinary Semiotics"

I am too busy worrying about my teflon intake! (can't wait for the warning label on the menus: caution some of the items on this menu have been cooked in teflon pans. Teflon has been.....)

Life is getting just too complicated!

anyway--

I just don't want to take this Bruni thing too seriously. There are lots of places to find out about restaurants these days.

(by the way I wonder if Bruni and or all those dining pals of his participate in the Zagat's surveys?)

Just a thought!

[akwa]

it is important to focus the attention in the restaurant and hospitality industry where it rightly belongs

on the critic

this new series should help remind us of the need to celebrate the critic

perhaps then we can have an actual dialogue between the chef/critic and better understanding

[TAPrice]

Is Bruni's blog going to make me love the man? I wasn't too jazzed with his writing initially. Recently, I think it's been cleaner and stronger.

But have you read his review of Hooter's?

It reads like an Onion parody of Bruni, but of course he's totally in on the joke. It's damn funny. And because bathrooms are Burni's signature, he even gives us a description of the WC.

Edited February 17, 2006 by TAPrice (log)

[Pan]

I have to agree. This is the first time I've read a Bruni column in some time, and it was lots of fun! I also like the fact that because of the blog format, responses by readers are posted right under the column.

[Pan]

I just noticed that no-one has commented on Bruni's remark about the star system yesterday:

[...]Of course there’s a description in the paper (good, very good, excellent) and of course that’s a shorthand that doesn’t explain the situation fully. Over time I’ll try to provide a more detailed portrait of my thoughts on ratings and my approach to them.[...]

That would be great, and I look forward to it.

[tan319]

When there was a "buzz" building about Gilt (I think we would agree this is an important restaurant opening) we should have been "waiting to see what the Times critic says" that critic being the authoritative voice. Instead Bruni couldn't seem to wait--he had to get that Diner's Journal piece on restaurant pricing practices out post haste and in the process contributed to the "buzz." IMOP-this devalued his review somewhat--there is no reason IMOP that bruni could have reviewed Gilt--mentioned the pricing and then used the restaurant to make a case about pricing practices in the Diner's Journal piece--it is all in the timing.

←

IMOP, Bruni couldn't wait because there was already around 6 or so pages of commentary and reviews on eG alone, let alone other sites, more then likely.

Traditional formats are too slow in reacting/reporting, therefore, "the blog".

Are the bathrooms a big influence in his star doling ?

As long as they're working?

[Sneakeater]

As long as they're working?

←

Not nearly: some would even say a non-functional bathroom cost ADNY a fourth star.

Edited February 17, 2006 by Sneakeater (log)

[tan319]

As long as they're working?

←

Not nearly: some would even say a non-functional bathroom cost ADNY a fourth star.

←

I was alluding to that.

He's going to have to do some work on his blogging, there's many out there that are way more talented.

[Eatmywords]

Admin: Posts on Andrea Strong merged in from the thread on Morimoto's in Manhattan.

I don't recall Andrea Strong's reviews other than the posts on her site but I would find some credibility (whether she hands out few negative reviews or not) based on her credentials w/include (from her site): "The New York Times, New York Magazine, Time Out New York, The New York Post, Real Simple, Conde Nast Traveler, Crave, Paper, Food & Wine, Gourmet, Drinks, Organic Style, and a slew of other local and national magazines and newspapers."

Does anyone on this thread or this site for that matter (bar Reichel and a couple others) rival her published experience?

That said, of course, I agree we should all get down there and see for ourselves.

[Sneakeater]

I think she's completely undiscerning. I doubt she's hired for her criticism (as opposed to her writing and reporting.)

Anyway, so what if she has a lot of jobs? A major media outlet used to employ Gene Shalit to be a film critic. Does that mean I had to respect him even though he was hopelessly middle-brow and apparently incapable of sophisticated informed judgment?

Edited February 22, 2006 by Sneakeater (log)

[oakapple]

Frank Bruni's blog is now a week old. It already has 10 posts, including four mini-reviews: Morimoto, David Burke @ Bloomingdale's, Hooters, and Il Mulino. That's quite a motley assortment of restaurants! I find the quality of the writing on the blog superior to the quality of the writing in his print reviews.

We shall have to see if he keeps it up. There is a well known phenomenon that the initial excitement of blogging often cools off. On the other hand, he persuaded management to drop the Friday Diner's Journal column in lieu of a blog, so he obviously has a professional duty to keep it going at some level.

Still, it's an impressive start. Historically, the nature of the NYT restaurant critic's job is that he has many more meals out than there is room to write about in the daily paper. Under the previous system, one of the four "mini-reviews" that have appeared in the blog this week would have been the Friday Diner's Journal column, and the other three simply wouldn't have been written about.

[Vadouvan]

Ok, I have to break my rule for this one....

But seriously..

who goes out to order shrimp tempura with blue cheese sauce ?

[Sneakeater]

The average middle America tourists who stream into NYC 24/7?

[docsconz]

Ok, I have to break my rule for this one....

But seriously..

who goes out to order shrimp tempura with blue cheese sauce ?

←

Where did the bleu cheese sauce come from?