Bruni and Beyond: NYC Reviewing (2006)

[stetson99]

Any rumors that suggest what Bruni will be reviewing tomorrow?

[oakapple]

It's A Voce. Eater has established the betting line at even money for two stars.

[oakapple]

A few months ago — I forget the source — there was an article where someone suggested that Bruni was being extra-tough on Italian restaurants. With two Italian restaurants achieving that status within a matter of weeks (Del Posto and, yesterday, A Voce), along with a very generous two stars for Al Di La in Brooklyn, I think we can put that argument to bed.

[oakapple]

This thread has been quiet lately. It could be because Bruni has become unobjectionable. Or it could be that all of the objections have been stated, and people have gotten tired of repeating them.

Over on the Craftsteak thread, there have been a few comments that are really meta-reviewing observations, and not specific to that restaurant. A sample of the comments:

They really need to get rid of this guy.  Aside from his near total ineptitude as a food critic, his self-indulgent, overwrought writing style has just become unreadable.

←

Well...no one has criticized a Bruni review in about 3 months.  There was a sea change several months ago where all of a sudden he started making cogent, informed and accurate judgments (see the JG review)....

←

I don't really dispute many of his ratings (well, I do think he's much too generous in the two-star category).  But don't forget, I'm one of the people who think star ratings are bullshit.  I think the texts of his reviews -- the only thing I really care about -- are substandard.  I just don't think he has enough knowledge about food and cooking to adequately analyze restaurants.  I don't think he has the technical ability to describe food well.

←

My own views are pretty close to Sneakeater's — although I do think the star ratings mean something. Like many people, I think that Bruni has been totally unprincipled in his two-star ratings. (This has been a particular pet peeve over at Eater.) Bruni has been unduly punitive against restaurants like The Modern and Gilt, while giving out two stars like candy to some highly unremarkable low-end places. His zero, one, three, and four-star awards, in contrast, all make sense.

As a food writer, I think that Bruni has improved considerably. His reviews generally are are about what they should be — the food, and other factors that affect the dining experience, like service. Reviews with long diversions into irrelevant factors are fairly uncommon now. But I agree with Sneakeater that he doesn't write with the technical skill that the better food critics have.

Edited July 13, 2006 by oakapple (log)

[ulterior epicure]

Aside from the gratuitous reference to gay cattle, I thought the review was right on the money.

←

Well, I agree with much of what he said. Having said that, I still don't think he is a good reviewer or writer...

←

While I respect your opinion, and I would agree that Bruni isn't exactly the savviest food critic the NY Times has seen, but your statement is unqualified. Can you articulate what your "beef" with Bruni is?

u.e.

Edited July 13, 2006 by ulterior epicure (log)

[Nathan]

compared to Grimes, I agree.

compared to Hesser....well.....

[Sneakeater]

I know this is a minority opinion, but I think Amanda Hesser was a much better restaurant critic than Frank Bruni is. I often learned things from her reviews about the way restaurants operate. And clearly she knew all about cooking technique.

Sure she got Asiate and Spice Market wrong. But I still found her more worthwhile to read than Bruni.

[Sneakeater]

Also, Grimes got better as he went along, but I think he suffered from the same deficiency as Bruni: insufficient specialized knowledge to support his criticism.

Edited July 13, 2006 by Sneakeater (log)

[ulterior epicure]

Bruni's "pedigree" I know. Fill me in on the Grimes, please? What was he in previous professional/career lives?

[rich]

Bruni's "pedigree" I know.  Fill me in on the Grimes, please?  What was he in previous professional/career lives?

←

I think he was a professor at Philadephia Textile teaching cross stitching.

Edited July 14, 2006 by rich (log)

[Sneakeater]

He was a reporter at the Times.

[Leonard Kim]

I find it interesting that Grimes is now a book reviewer for the Times. I also find it interesting that Maslin is one. And Bruni reviewed movies in my home town (the Detroit Free Press) before joining the Times. Heck, Harold Schonberg has movie reviews to his credit in the Times.

The reason I find this interesting is what it says about the Times and its philosophy about what "qualifies" one to be a reviewer.

In one of the recent "Ask The Newsroom" segments in the Times, the Science Editor essentially explained that to be a science writer for the Times, it's possible to be a scientist (or at least to have been a science student) who "picks up" journalism or a journalist who "picks up" science. I think it's fairly clear this thinking isn't restricted to the science section, but in fact pervades the paper, and perhaps the industry. I think it also places clear limits on what we can fairly criticize a restaurant review for offering or not offering -- at least until we properly debate this issue of how one should vs. actually does become a restaurant reviewer.

I don't feel it's a clearcut issue -- I can certainly see the arguments for the idea that a reviewer should be a journalist first -- in training and career -- and the idea that, either way, "journalistic" qualities are at least as, if not more, important compared to subject expertise. Hmmm.

In these forums, I've probably been among the Bruni defenders. I think one of Marc's points is key: for perhaps the majority of Bruni's ratings, perhaps the great majority, he has been proven right in his rating, even if there's been initial controversy. There's something to be said for that. And I think he has largely taken pains to explain ratings that might be surprising. And as I think I've demonstrated in this thread, he is the first Times restaurant critic in decades not to reset or redefine the star scale and its significance.

There's no question in my mind that his writing is that of a journalist and not a food writer -- whatever that means.

[Sneakeater]

Note, though, that the Times now only hires reputable cineastes to be movie critics (it didn't used to be that way, but it is now). And their theater critics are also specialists; they don't just appoint reporters from other beats. Their classical music critics are trained musicians.

I don't think you can equate reporting (and its qualifications) with criticism (and its qualifications). So science (or any other type of) reporting is different from restaurant (or any other kind of) criticism. I could imagine a competent reporter immmersing him or herself in the science field and being able to report on developments. To me, professional criticism of any kind requires expertise and preferably training. Otherwise, it's just someone writing about their opinions.

That's also, BTW, why I don't think it matters much how "correct" Bruni's star ratings tend to be. To me, the conclusion is just about the least important part of any piece of criticism. What's important is how the critic got there. Competent reviews have value even if you disagree with them.

I have friends whose taste in restaurants I trust implicitly. I don't think any of them are qualified to be professional restaurant critics.

Edited July 14, 2006 by Sneakeater (log)

[Sneakeater]

I guess what I'm trying to say is that, to me, competent criticism is informed judgment. (And that the most important part is the evaluation supporting the judgment, which is only of use if it's done by someone with expertise.)

[Lesley C]

I miss Amanda Hesser on the food pages. I don't think the magazine does her justice.

[Leonard Kim]

I should tread carefully here as I have little claim to expertise here. I can't speak to the theater critics. I'm not exactly sure who you're referring to among the film critics but if you consider the top three: Scott, Holden, and Dargis --

Holden may have a claim to independent expertise as a music critic. But as far as film, he joined the Times first, was there for a bit, then "branched" into film criticism, eventually finding himself a "first-string" film critic in 2000.

Before joining the Times as a film critic in 2000, Scott was a book reviewer. All of his college education was in literature.

Dargis was a film critic elsewhere before joining the Times. I don't know her background or what initially "qualified" her to be a film critic.

I've found virtually none of the classical music criticism in the New York Times to be of any worth. Just my opinion.

What qualifies one to be "sufficiently" expert to be a critic? Having worked professionally in the field is, in my view, perhaps desirable in an ideal world, but in practice unrealistic and, in addition, absolutely no guarantee of quality. I think if the qualification is only having written on the subject before, well, that's a bit circular -- one has to start somewhere. It's that old bugaboo about finding work: you can't get a job without experience, and you can't get experience without a job.

I still think the bulk of what's useful in an individual review is primarily reportage. The reviewer, like a reporter, are our eyes and ears (and tastebuds). Journalistic qualities are important here: clarity, accuracy, etc. Expertise may play a role in choosing (or even knowing) what to write about. But I still view that as a kind of "food writing" expertise that can be picked up on-the-job vs. "food expertise" proper. I think that's true for both science reporting and restaurant reviewing.

Granted, a common complaint about Bruni is that he writes about the wrong things. If somebody can demonstrate that he does this routinely with no show of improvement, I can subscribe to there being a problem. If it's just individual howlers -- well, that could be done with any writer.

Then there's the bit where the critic tells you whether it's good or bad and why. Regardless of expertise, that's the person's opinion. But eventually the value of this comes out of whether the critic was essentially right or wrong and therefore can be trusted. I think expertise is a factor only if it helps you be right more often and/or if it helps you in your defence of your opinions. If it doesn't, or you're able to do these things without the obvious expert qualifications, then I don't see the necessity. Same goes for the critic's larger role of arbiting, molding, leading tastes and fashion.

I get the sense that some want the Times reviews to be "destination" writing (in the sense that one would pick up the paper just to read the review) Bruni's are obviously not. Very far from it. But that's not the same thing as incompetence or grounds for immediate dismissal. I'd also say that it's probably impossible for any newspaper writer to produce destination writing in their regular work. That's just the nature of the beast.

Perhaps an interesting exercise would be to take Bruni's re-reviews and do a detailed comparison with his predecessors' reviews (from the standpoint of style, focus, etc.) I think that would add to the discussion.

Edited July 14, 2006 by Leonard Kim (log)

[Sneakeater]

Well, they hired Elvis Mitchell the same time they hired Tony Scott. Although Mitchell didn't last (whose decision was it for him to leave?).

[Sneakeater]

Not that it matters, but I think I have basic disagreements with you about the nature and function of criticism.

Let me put it this way. I go to a lot of concerts (I'm talking about classical music here). I own and listen to a lot of records. I (personally) think I have excellent taste in music, and can tell a good performance from a bad one. (Of course, others can disagree.)

I also think I can write (I certainly get paid a decent amount to do it).

But I have no musical training, can't read music, and have no idea whatsoever about technique beyond what I have gleaned from going to concerts these many decades.

I think I would be a complete waste of time as a music critic. Even though you might well agree with my conclusions a lot of the time.

Edited July 14, 2006 by Sneakeater (log)

[rich]

No one takes him seriously anymore (or his paper). Why we waste our time discussing the NY Times food critic is beyond me. Why we waste out time discussing anything in the NY Times (at this stage of their existence) is beyond me. It's not even the best paper in the city anymore, let alone the country.

PS - The only two people in NYC that REALLY care what he says/said are Batali and Bastianich. I'm very annoyed at myself for wasting 1 minute 37 seconds to respond. It's part of my life I will never get back. The best form of protest is silence and that's what I intend to do.

Edited July 14, 2006 by rich (log)

[Sneakeater]

Actually, I have recently been told that any time you spend talking about Frank Bruni doesn't count toward your allotment. The same goes for time spent tying neckties.

[rich]

Actually, I have recently been told that any time you spend talking about Frank Bruni doesn't count toward your allotment.  The same goes for time spent tying neckties.

←

I agree with both.

[Nathan]

Rich, I'm going to disagree in the strongest possible terms.

I can assure you that the vast majority of the moneyed, dining population of NY cares a great deal what the NY Times food critic says (whoever it may be...its not like they notice when it changes). Ask any restauranteur about the effect that Times ratings have on business.

Remember that most people give credence to Zagat as well.

Don't forget that Egullet is an insular, cocooned, tiny and self-selected community.

[Leonard Kim]

Is Elvis Mitchell an argument for or against expertise? He too studied English in college. Again, his primary qualification as a film writer appears to be, in my limited knowledge, that he has written about film before (including, like Bruni, film reviews for the Detroit Free Press.)

Going with the classical music analogy -- I personally can easily envision an excellent music critic with only your qualifications. I would say that you'd be a "complete waste" as a critic only if you insisted on writing about things you didn't understand -- music theory, say. But the fact is, the Times reviews don't (and shouldn't) venture into such things.

Knowledge of technique? OK, maybe you ought to be able to tell when wrong notes are happening, or something is otherwise being messed up. Granted, many people can't seem to. So maybe that's a minimal "expert" requirement being able to tell good from bad from great.

So what would you write about? Stuff like: the significance of the event and practitioner in the context of current climate and trends, objective reportage of the event with an eye towards the reader's vicarious participation (including the concert space, audience makeup, program, etc.) and emphasis on the striking and notable, the success of the event measured in your explicated response and those of your "listening companions." If well-written, this could form the basis of an outstandingly informative review. It requires not so much pure musical expertise as being extremely well-informed through reading, listening, and networking, being an independent, and being a good writer (not in the narrowest sense of style and correctness, but including qualities of observation and stuff like that generally associated with "good" writing). What we don't need is sad, adjective-laden, metaphorical stabs at "describing music."

Maybe this has been off-topic, but I've tried to make this description as exactly analogically applicable to restaurant reviews as possible.

A point: While there's a place for "education" pieces in a newspaper, and here I do feel expertise is more important, I don't think this has an important role in reviews. Maybe that's a basic distinction.

[H. du Bois]

The ability to be a good critic isn’t always tied to expertise in a particular field. The novelists James Agee and Graham Greene were both excellent film critics, neither of whom had a background in the cinema, though perhaps their ability to work with narrative forms and to express themselves articulately were the basis of their success.

When I judge a critic, I look to see if they can articulate and illuminate an experience. What do they bring to the table? Will their opinion color my own experience? Is what they say of any practical use to me?

The older I grow, the less useful I find critics in general. Perhaps I’ve come to know my own tastes far better; perhaps critics are less skilled at their jobs. Or perhaps there are just too many critics out there now – so much talk, so little to say.

I’m educated in one of the arts, and though I do still read reviews, it tends to be after the fact, to see if they’ve confirmed or disagreed with my own opinion. Or to see if they’ve brought up a perspective I hadn’t considered before (they rarely do).

As far as Bruni and the NYT reviews go, I don’t give him a great deal of weight. Between the NYT, New York Magazine, Time Out, various websites and all the die-hard restaurant-goers in this town, there are many variables one can use to weigh a restaurant’s merit. Personally, I’d take the opinion of a passionate amateur whose taste I trust over most critics any day.

[rich]

Rich, I'm going to disagree in the strongest possible terms.

I can assure you that the vast majority of the moneyed, dining population of NY cares a great deal what the NY Times food critic says (whoever it may be...its not like they notice when it changes).  Ask any restauranteur about the effect that Times ratings have on business.

Remember that most people give credence to Zagat as well.

Don't forget that Egullet is an insular, cocooned, tiny and self-selected community.

←

Oh, I agree Nathan. I was referring to eGullet (and I guess other similar sites). My fault for not making that clear.