Bruni and Beyond: NYC Reviewing (2006)

[Sneakeater]

From 1973 on, the stars definition always specifies that the rating is based on "the reviewer's reaction."  Wouldn't you read as saying subjectivity must be understood to be implicit in the ratings, with no pretence otherwise?  In fact, when Hess was critic, the definition actually says, "based on the author's subjective judgment of quality. . ."

←

I don't think anyone argues that subjectivity isn't (and shouldn't be) implicit in the ratings.

I think the argument is that it shouldn't be primary.

Edited December 1, 2006 by Sneakeater (log)

[Fat Guy]

I think it's easier to explain the point at the micro level. I don't like the taste of mackerel. I would never voluntarily order mackerel. So, do I declare mackerel a bad fish and write negatively about every mackerel dish I taste? Of course not. As someone who writes about food, part of my job is to be able to tell whether mackerel is good or not by reference to objective standards -- and it's no great feat of genius to do that, you just have to taste a bunch of examples and learn what characteristics the sushi chefs, fishmongers and other knowledgeable people find desirable in mackerel. All this is very easy to do without actually liking mackerel. You can of course scale that example up to cover dishes, menus, restaurants and entire cuisines.

[Pan]

I think it's easier to explain the point at the micro level. I don't like the taste of mackerel. I would never voluntarily order mackerel. So, do I declare mackerel a bad fish and write negatively about every mackerel dish I taste? Of course not. As someone who writes about food, part of my job is to be able to tell whether mackerel is good or not by reference to objective standards -- and it's no great feat of genius to do that, you just have to taste a bunch of examples and learn what characteristics the sushi chefs, fishmongers and other knowledgeable people find desirable in mackerel. All this is very easy to do without actually liking mackerel. You can of course scale that example up to cover dishes, menus, restaurants and entire cuisines.

←

But then, aren't you substituting other people's opinions for your own? Is a critic supposed to present received opinion, or shape opinion?

[Fat Guy]

But then, aren't you substituting other people's opinions for your own?

No.

Is a critic supposed to present received opinion, or shape opinion?

Yes.

Would you trash mackerel, or learn what makes mackerel good? Are you contending that a food writer who's personal taste doesn't accept mackerel should go out and campaign against mackerel in order to "shape opinion"? Of course not. How about a "Chinese food sucks" campaign? It would be absurd. A food writer who engages in criticism and does a really good job of it mostly shapes opinions at the margins, not at the core. For example you might pick a restaurant that you think the consensus of knowledgeable diners has under-rated, and you might explain by reference to common standards and language why you think it deserves better. But you're not going to make your case by saying "USDA Prime beef is bad, moldy fruit is good."

[Pan]

But then, aren't you substituting other people's opinions for your own?

No.

Is a critic supposed to present received opinion, or shape opinion?

Yes.

Would you trash mackerel, or learn what makes mackerel good? Are you contending that a food writer who's personal taste doesn't accept mackerel should go out and campaign against mackerel in order to "shape opinion"? Of course not. How about a "Chinese food sucks" campaign? It would be absurd. A food writer who engages in criticism and does a really good job of it mostly shapes opinions at the margins, not at the core. For example you might pick a restaurant that you think the consensus of knowledgeable diners has under-rated, and you might explain by reference to common standards and language why you think it deserves better. But you're not going to make your case by saying "USDA Prime beef is bad, moldy fruit is good."

←

I do agree with you generally, of course. I hate verbena, so there's no way I could judge the quality of something with a strong verbena taste. I wouldn't therefore trash it -- that would be absurd! -- but I wouldn't be able to give a positive appraisal to it. A positive appraisal of it would necessarily be someone else's opinion, or an attempt to project what I imagine would be someone else's opinion. I think that what a good food critic actually needs is a very broad palate such that there are no ingredients s/he hates per se, not an effort to make allowances for ingredients s/he hates. Such allowances are at best a distant second to an actual appreciation of the ingredients.

I don't think I'd agree with an analogy with music, where it's not simply a question of physically hating the taste of something. I could affirm the technical competence of a minimalist composer on his/her own terms but still trash minimalism on aesthetic grounds as a boring type of music that I fear may be damaging to standards of what makes music (Western and Indonesian alike) worthwhile and types of active listening that I consider important. I don't think there's a direct analogy with appraisal of food, which is so immediately physical.

[Leonard Kim]

Another mistake was adding "Satisfactory" as an option in the zero-star category. In recent times, there have been very few "Poor" or "Fair" reviews, while those rated "Satisfactory" seldom convey much satisfaction.

←

Quick point regarding this. I suspect Bryan Miller meant to replace "Fair" with "Satisfactory." I say this because after he (or the paper) introduced the "Satisfactory" rating, he never again gave a "Fair" rating.

Unfortunately, his successors did use both, confusing the issue.

[Leonard Kim]

(I think part of the disagreement is that some people here do not consider prices at all.)

←

Looking back at my chronology, there have been times when price is explicitly mentioned in the ratings definition.

I'm surprised nobody picked up on Canaday's remark, which seemed noteworthy to me, that if two restaurants serve food of comparable quality, but one is more expensive, the more expensive one gets the lower rating.

I can sort of understand this (and this may explain some of the "** smackdowns"). I think it is simply true that, to a point, money buys you quality. A restaurant operating on a limited budget has very real constraints on what it can offer. Though one can perform admirably under such constraints, that ceiling is there. And maybe that ceiling is **. On the flip side, if a luxurious restaurant is not "cost-effective" in terms of quality, then might not ** be also reasonable? What the reviewer is saying is, "at these prices, you damn well better expect ***, but you won't get it here. You're money is better spent elsewhere."

I believe historically there have been a number of expensive restaurants that have been given zero stars. And sure, there has been some star inflation (Miller and Reichl being the culprits). So maybe it does all make sense.

Edited December 2, 2006 by Leonard Kim (log)

[Fat Guy]

I think that what a good food critic actually needs is a very broad palate such that there are no ingredients s/he hates per se, not an effort to make allowances for ingredients s/he hates.

←

I agree with a small percentage of that: I don't think a very picky eater should be a critic, unless there's some particular beat that's tailored to that person's preferences (like you could be a vegetarian and review restaurants for a vegetarian magazine, but a vegetarian as the New York Times reviewer wouldn't fly). Beyond that, I can't buy the love-every-ingredient requirement. I mean, do you reject the whole notion of acquired tastes? A good food critic must be born into the world appreciating every food on the planet? Anything he needs to learn to appreciate represents dereliction of duty, and if there's so much as one edible substance in the world he doesn't enjoy he should slink away, humiliated, because his palate isn't sufficiently broad?

I assure you, all critics -- at least every working critic I've ever gotten to know -- have preferences, likes and dislikes. The good ones come to terms with them instead of imposing them willy-nilly. Go back to mackerel. There's no need to like it. Let's say you're going to write an article comparing six sushi restaurants. What you need to be able to tell the reader, among other things, is which place serves the best fish. So, among other samples, you get a piece of mackerel at each. You don't have to like the stuff to be able -- assuming you've bothered to educate yourself -- to tell which place serves better mackerel and why. So, you've done your job -- you haven't sacrificed your flavor-preference principles, you've just dealt with a situation.

[Pan]

I think that what a good food critic actually needs is a very broad palate such that there are no ingredients s/he hates per se, not an effort to make allowances for ingredients s/he hates.

←

I agree with a small percentage of that: I don't think a very picky eater should be a critic, unless there's some particular beat that's tailored to that person's preferences (like you could be a vegetarian and review restaurants for a vegetarian magazine, but a vegetarian as the New York Times reviewer wouldn't fly). Beyond that, I can't buy the love-every-ingredient requirement. I mean, do you reject the whole notion of acquired tastes? A good food critic must be born into the world appreciating every food on the planet? Anything he needs to learn to appreciate represents dereliction of duty, and if there's so much as one edible substance in the world he doesn't enjoy he should slink away, humiliated, because his palate isn't sufficiently broad?

I assure you, all critics -- at least every working critic I've ever gotten to know -- have preferences, likes and dislikes. The good ones come to terms with them instead of imposing them willy-nilly. Go back to mackerel. There's no need to like it. Let's say you're going to write an article comparing six sushi restaurants. What you need to be able to tell the reader, among other things, is which place serves the best fish. So, among other samples, you get a piece of mackerel at each. You don't have to like the stuff to be able -- assuming you've bothered to educate yourself -- to tell which place serves better mackerel and why. So, you've done your job -- you haven't sacrificed your flavor-preference principles, you've just dealt with a situation.

←

Acquired tastes are fine, but I can't see being able to help someone choose a good version of something you truly hate. I think that a mind open to a broad variety of tastes is a requirement for the type of criticism you're talking about (while agreeing with your caveats about vegetarians and so forth). Maybe that shows a lack of sufficient imagination on my part.

[Fat Guy]

It's easy. The best one is pretty much always either the one you hate the least or the one you hate the most -- you just have to figure out which.

[Pan]

It's easy. The best one is pretty much always either the one you hate the least or the one you hate the most -- you just have to figure out which.

←

That's funny!

[oakapple]

From 1973 on, the stars definition always specifies that the rating is based on "the reviewer's reaction."  Wouldn't you read as saying subjectivity must be understood to be implicit in the ratings, with no pretence otherwise?  In fact, when Hess was critic, the definition actually says, "based on the author's subjective judgment of quality. . ."

I think we need to be careful to separate actual changes to the star system from clarifications that don't really change anything. When "satisfactory" was added as a rating choice, that was substantive. Stating that the rating is based on "the reviewer's reaction" is non-substantive, because obviously that was always true.

Second, wouldn't you kind of think that, despite the tenor of the reviews, and despite the flaws and strengths he cites, Bruni would if given a choice rather eat at ADNY than Spicy and Tasty?

←

No, I don't. Indeed, I recall an interview with Ducasse or one of his underlings several months after Tony Esnault replaced Christian Delouvrier. They mentioned that Bruni still hadn't been back to the restaurant. I think that's very telling.

One problem many of us have had with Bruni is that, too often, he seems to go off solely on his own subjective response to places and doesn't try to objectively think how they stack up in the general world of restaurants, according to generally-applicable criteria that go beyond how much he personally liked (or was "excited" by) the meal.

I mean, The Modern.  He apparently just didn't like it that much.  But looking at it objectively, applying general criteria of what makes a restaurant good as opposed to simply noting your own personal responses, how is it not a three-star restaurant?  Really, how is ADNY not a four-star?

←

Fat Guy has made a similar point on numerous occasions. Even in subjective criticism, there are norms that must be observed, or you fail to communicate. A restaurant critic that can't appreciate Alain Ducasse is like a music critic who can't appreciate Beethoven. I make that analogy to point out that it's not about the stars. Bruni's reviews of Alain Ducasse and The Modern would be wrong-headed even if the Times didn't award stars. The fact that they do just makes it more apparent.

[Leonard Kim]

Stating that the rating is based on "the reviewer's reaction" is non-substantive, because obviously that was always true.

Let me put it this way. If the online archive is to be trusted, the first ratings carried no author's byline (because stars apparently were introduced not in the review articles, but in the dining directory listings.) The stars were in existence for three years before Claiborne's name appears on them. In the stars explanation, the reviewer is not mentioned in the formula for the first 10 years of the stars existence. Only then, coincident with a new critic, is the formula change to mention "subjective judgement" (a stronger statement than "reviewer's reaction" which it was later toned down to, but I'll accept that as a non-substantive change.)

To me there is something substantive there. I'm not sure what, but it has something to do with this discussion on "objectivity."

Edited December 2, 2006 by Leonard Kim (log)

[Leonard Kim]

As for ADNY vs. Spicy and Tasty, maybe I'm the one who can't read now

In principle, Bruni could have, without changing his feelings or ratings written a substantially positive review about ADNY and a substantially negative review of Spicy and Tasty.

I had a few enchanting evenings (how, in a certain sense, could I not?) and a few insanely indulgent dishes of the sort that I would like to be fed just before my death

He could have described those evenings and dishes at length reserving negatives at the end ("I have had an occasional disappointment. . . ." as Ruth Reichl wrote at the end of her **** Daniel review). That is the format of the Spicy and Tasty review. But then people would have been really confused by the *** rating. Demoting the restaurant forces him to emphasize and elaborate on the negatives.

Similarly, people would be confused with the ** of Spicy and Tasty if he had written it in the format of the ADNY review -- if he had devoted a short paragraph stating the restaurant was "modestly priced", "hugely enjoyable", and "eye-opening", and then devoted more than a small, closing paragraph to the rather substantial charges that the menu has

many pitfalls. Apart from those shrimp, seafood was disappointing. And neither ma nor la could redeem the dryness of nuggets of chicken festooned with sesame seeds. That chicken wasn’t the only meat less tender than it could — and should — have been.

All those negatives in the ADNY review amount to is the contention that he thought it did not consistently deliver on the promise of its reputation and prices. That is very different from saying that the negatives mean that he wouldn't want to eat there again (because he didn't like it or thought it was bad or something). And all the positives in the S&T review amount to saying that people who don't know it should take a chance on it -- they'll probably enjoy it.

You have to be willing to take chances, and you have to trust that most of them will pay off. At Spicy & Tasty, you can.

Edited December 2, 2006 by Leonard Kim (log)

[oakapple]

Let me put it this way.  If the online archive is to be trusted, the first ratings carried no author's byline (because stars apparently were introduced not in the review articles, but in the dining directory listings.)

←

I certainly trust what you say about the archive, but even if the ratings were unattributed, the clearly had to be the result of some "reviewer's reaction," even if the reviewer wasn't named.

As for ADNY vs. Spicy and Tasty, maybe I'm the one who can't read now

In principle, Bruni could have, without changing his feelings or ratings written a substantially positive review about ADNY and a substantially negative review of Spicy and Tasty.

Of course...I am reacting to what he actually did, not what he could have done.

l those negatives in the ADNY review amount to is the contention that he thought it did not consistently deliver on the promise of its reputation and prices.  That is very different from saying that the negatives mean that he wouldn't want to eat there again....

←

But apparently he did not, at least not within several months of an event (a new chef) that clearly should have provided the impetus for it.

[Nathan]

fwiw, I completely agree with Leonard Kim.

I just reread the ADNY review....I read it as saying this is one of the three most expensive restaurants in the city and it's too inconsistent and is thereby serving three star food. three star food at four star prices equals two stars. you can disagree with that but I don't think this is a case of Bruni simply not getting a restaurant. he's saying that they're not operating at a high enough level to justify the prices.

I would hazard a guess that Bruni is more value-conscious than perhaps any prior Times critic. I'm not sure that's a bad thing.

btw, are they certain he hasn't been back?

[Sneakeater]

One problem many of us have had with Bruni is that, too often, he seems to go off solely on his own subjective response to places and doesn't try to objectively think how they stack up in the general world of restaurants, according to generally-applicable criteria that go beyond how much he personally liked (or was "excited" by) the meal.

I mean, The Modern.  He apparently just didn't like it that much.  But looking at it objectively, applying general criteria of what makes a restaurant good as opposed to simply noting your own personal responses, how is it not a three-star restaurant?  Really, how is ADNY not a four-star?

←

Fat Guy has made a similar point on numerous occasions. Even in subjective criticism, there are norms that must be observed, or you fail to communicate. A restaurant critic that can't appreciate Alain Ducasse is like a music critic who can't appreciate Beethoven. I make that analogy to point out that it's not about the stars. Bruni's reviews of Alain Ducasse and The Modern would be wrong-headed even if the Times didn't award stars. The fact that they do just makes it more apparent.

←

One of the greatest of all American music critics, Virgil Thomson, in fact did NOT appreciate Beethoven. But he gave cogent reasons for that controversial position. He didn't just dismiss Beethoven's work, or act as if it wasn't important.

Mostly, I guess, that just means Thomson was a better critic than Bruni is (an obvious observation). But to an extent, I'd argue, the use of stars in restaurant reviews encourages Bruni's fault. Because, as you say, in the end what we remember is the peremptory judgment encapsulated by the star award. I'd argue that encourages a similar peremptory approach to the whole critical/evaluative process.

Because, after all, the stars make it seem like it's just a consumer guide, not a piece of serious criticism. So what would be inappropriate about just going by your own likes and dislikes?

Edited December 2, 2006 by Sneakeater (log)

[Nathan]

considering that Virgil Thomson was a fan of Gertrude Stein, I question whether I would take him seriously on anything!

but to extend the music criticism analogy a bit -- going back to FG's comments on mackerel, Sir Thomas Beecham besides being a fine conductor (and singlehandedly rescuing Delius from obscurity) was a bit of a music critic as well. He also hated the harpsichord (comparing it to the sound of cats copulating on a tin roof)...but I daresay he knew the difference between good and poor harpsichord-playing, or even composition for it.

Another example of a music critic that one must take seriously, despite his numerous presuppositions and pre-ordained tastes, see Shaw's writing under the pseudonym of Cornetto di Bassetto.

Edited December 2, 2006 by Nathan (log)

[Sneakeater]

And, of course, Thomson too knew the difference between a good Beethoven performance and a bad one. He was particularly impressed by Beecham's reading of the Seventh.

Edited December 2, 2006 by Sneakeater (log)

[Nathan]

which is why on this point -- I think FG is right.

[oakapple]

I just reread the ADNY review...I don't think this is a case of Bruni simply not getting a restaurant.

We'll have to agree to disagree on that one.

btw, are they certain he hasn't been back?

←

My only data point is a magazine article a number of months after Esnault replaced Delouvrier. It's a visit one would expect the principal restaurant critic of the Times to make under those circumstances, especially if it was a restaurant he liked—or, to use his word, that "excited" him.

(I am taking it as a given that Bruni could not dine at ADNY unnoticed.)

Edited December 2, 2006 by oakapple (log)

[Fat Guy]

It's not likely they'd miss him, now that he's known -- though it's worth noting that the first time he went he wasn't recognized at first, and he had some sort of unfortunate encounter with the assistant sommelier that seems to have poisoned him against the place. This is his version of it:

Ducasse's astonishing and formidable wine list doesn't have very many bottles under $100, but it carries hundreds over $200. And so I initially offered few particulars one night when I asked a sommelier to recommend a French red that would be full-bodied enough for my suckling pig, not too heavy for the preceding lobster tart and about $175.

''But what region?'' he said with a derisive huff and repellent hauteur. ''What grape?'' I wish I could report what he chose, but when I later thanked him for the fine selection and asked him to write down its name, he wordlessly reached over and started picking at the label, then abruptly spirited the bottle away. That was that: I never received the information.

He follows up with:

During later visits, when the restaurant clearly knew me, I was treated with reliable courtesy, as most diners, from my observation, seemed to be. An infinitely friendlier sommelier, asked to do wine pairings, made consistently inspired, interesting selections: a De Trafford chenin blanc from South Africa; a Carole Bouquet passito zibibbo from Pantelleria, a tiny island off Sicily.

The odd thing is that, while I've heard plenty of complaints about Alain Ducasse at the Essex House (and indeed about every top restaurant), the one complaint I've never hear is that anybody was ever treated with "derisive huff and repellent hauteur." I really think this must have been some sort of awful miscommunication or bad fit, maybe a language issue. I mean, go to the Modern and ask for the sommelier -- same guy at his new job -- and see if you get anything near "derisive huff and repellent hauteur." It's just not going to happen.

As for the analogy to music criticism, can you imagine any of the above being written in the context of serious arts criticism?

[Pan]

It's not likely they'd miss him, now that he's known -- though it's worth noting that the first time he went he wasn't recognized at first, and he had some sort of unfortunate encounter with the assistant sommelier that seems to have poisoned him against the place. This is his version of it:

Ducasse's astonishing and formidable wine list doesn't have very many bottles under $100, but it carries hundreds over $200. And so I initially offered few particulars one night when I asked a sommelier to recommend a French red that would be full-bodied enough for my suckling pig, not too heavy for the preceding lobster tart and about $175.

''But what region?'' he said with a derisive huff and repellent hauteur. ''What grape?'' I wish I could report what he chose, but when I later thanked him for the fine selection and asked him to write down its name, he wordlessly reached over and started picking at the label, then abruptly spirited the bottle away. That was that: I never received the information.

He follows up with:

During later visits, when the restaurant clearly knew me, I was treated with reliable courtesy, as most diners, from my observation, seemed to be. An infinitely friendlier sommelier, asked to do wine pairings, made consistently inspired, interesting selections: a De Trafford chenin blanc from South Africa; a Carole Bouquet passito zibibbo from Pantelleria, a tiny island off Sicily.

The odd thing is that, while I've heard plenty of complaints about Alain Ducasse at the Essex House (and indeed about every top restaurant), the one complaint I've never hear is that anybody was ever treated with "derisive huff and repellent hauteur." I really think this must have been some sort of awful miscommunication or bad fit, maybe a language issue. I mean, go to the Modern and ask for the sommelier -- same guy at his new job -- and see if you get anything near "derisive huff and repellent hauteur." It's just not going to happen.

As for the analogy to music criticism, can you imagine any of the above being written in the context of serious arts criticism?

←

What would the equivalent be? A review of a Martha Argerich recital at Carnegie Hall which begins with a complaint about one's treatment at the hands of the Carnegie Hall staff? I don't think so! Because the review is not of Carnegie Hall, but of a recital taking place there. Actually, I could make a complaint about the behavior of the staff at the Metropolitan Opera on one occasion, when I had tickets to stand for a performance of Wozzeck, and when a bunch of people left in between acts, the staff rudely refused to allow any standees to take those freed-up seats. But surely, a critic would never be treated that way by the Met -- it's a classist kind of snobbery.

[Fat Guy]

Needless to say, the conduct of a restaurant's staff is more important to a restaurant review than the behavior of the ushers at Carnegie Hall is to a review of a classical music performance. However, Frank Bruni's reviews are the equivalent of reviews of classical music performances at Carnegie Hall written by people who haven't got enough classical music experience and knowledge to understand why the performance was a good one or not -- you know, like your tone-deaf cousin who really does only care about the comfort of the seats, the smile of the usher, the clothes the solo violinist is wearing and the fact that some B-list television celebrity is sitting in the row in front of you: "I loved the violin soloist -- she played really fast; that must have been hard!"

Edited December 4, 2006 by Fat Guy (log)

[oakapple]

The biggest change implemented by Reichl is the one review/one restaurant policy.  In my opinion, the biggest effect of this is on re-reviews.  Before Reichl, many restaurants were re-reviewed every three years or so, and some even more frequently than that. On the other hand, a Grimes or Bruni re-review is more on the order of 10 years since the last review.

←

I was doing a bit of tangentially related research over the weekend. In 1977, Mimi Sheraton posted a double-review of Le Veau d'Or (1 star) and Smith & Wollensky (Fair). Those two restaurants are as different as can be. When Frank Bruni writes the occasional double-review (he seems to have renewed the practice after a long absence), the two restaurants are always thematically related.