Bruni and Beyond: NYC Reviewing (2006)

[Nathan]

the definition that he gave for "excitement" (the sum of food, service and ambience) is not the usual one, correct.

but the critiques of the following sentence ("The number of stars chart ever greater degrees of excitement.") have all been inapposite because he gave his unusual definition of "excitement" in the previous sentence. So what he actually said was "the higher my rating for food, service and ambience, the more stars I give", not "I give more stars to places I get really excited about it."

edit: this is what happens when a couple litigators argue about food.

Edited December 1, 2006 by Nathan (log)

[Nathan]

"The star ratings take into consideration all of those elements, giving primary importance to food, to come to a conclusion about how excited I would be to return to the restaurant."

res ipsa loquitur

[Fat Guy]

In other words, the term "excitement" has zero meaning. The sentence could have been written without it.

"The star ratings take into consideration all of those elements, giving primary importance to food, to come to a conclusion about how excited I would be to return to the restaurant."

Equals exactly:

"The star ratings take into consideration all of those elements, giving primary importance to food."

Or maybe the common-sense reading of Bruni's comments make more . . . sense: that he's giving independent value to personal excitement.

[Sneakeater]

the definition that he gave for "excitement" (the sum of food, service and ambience) is not the usual one, correct. 

but the critiques of the following sentence ("The number of stars chart ever greater degrees of excitement.") have all been inapposite because he gave his unusual definition of "excitement" in the previous sentence.  So what he actually said was "the higher my rating for food, service and ambience, the more stars I give", not "I give more stars to places I get really excited about it."

edit: this is what happens when a couple litigators argue about food.

←

Bruni is a writer. "Excited to return" means something. He can pretend to be defining it otherwise. But anyone who reads that phrase is going to understand it in a different way than you say he's defining it. I think even HE understands that phrase the way we usually do, but just wasn't thinking hard when he used it.

The reason this is even worth talking about is that this is more than just a matter of semantics. The point is, using a term like "excited to return" makes it seem like you think reviews are completely subjective, with no obligation to take account of existing standards or possible differences in taste. And that's just irresponsible.

Edited December 1, 2006 by Sneakeater (log)

[Nathan]

"In other words, the term "excitement" has zero meaning. The sentence could have been written without it."

Correct.

"Or maybe the common-sense reading of Bruni's comments make more . . . sense:"

Your reading is only possible if you only read the second sentence and ignore the first one.

[Sneakeater]

Eater's really gonna like this part of the thread.

[Nathan]

"The point is, using a term like "excited to return" makes it seem like you think reviews are completely subjective, with no obligation to take account of existing standards or possible differences in taste. And that's just irresponsible."

It would be irresponsible if that's what he had said. But he didn't. He explicitly stated that the stars are based on food, ambience and service.

You guys are seizing upon the one incongruous word (and it was an unfortunate choice since it clearly confused even some very intelligent people) and ripping it entirely out of context.

[Fat Guy]

Nathan, it's not one incongruous word; it's the premise.

"There are no assigned percentages for food versus service versus ambience. The star ratings take into consideration all of those elements, giving primary importance to food, to come to a conclusion about how excited I would be to return to the restaurant. The number of stars chart ever greater degrees of excitement."

Res ipsa whatever.

[Nathan]

either this says what it says, or I'm fundamentally and functionally illiterate:

"take into consideration all of those elements....to come to a conclusion about how excited...."

[Fat Guy]

You can be wrong without being illiterate, just as you can use the word illiterate incorrectly without being illiterate. I mean, obviously, you're writing and reading, so you're not illiterate in any sense of the word. But I understand what you're saying, because I know you're using the term illiterate to mean "profoundly incapable of getting what this means." In this case, though, I'd say you're being so literal as to lose sight of the plain meaning of Bruni's comments.

[Sneakeater]

either this says what it says, or I'm fundamentally and functionally illiterate:

"take into consideration all of those elements....to come to a conclusion about how excited...."

←

So you're saying that, as determined by his metric, he'd be more "excited" to "return" to a place he sounds like he didn't enjoy much than to a place he clearly loved, and we're supposed to think he's (a) making sense, (b) thinking through what he said, and © meaning something different from what his words clearly seem to convey.

This isn't corporate drafting. It's not like you can take any term and define it as meaning something, however fanciful or unusual, and then that's what it'll mean for purposes of this one particular document. He's writing a general-audience piece in English. He couldn't possibly have meant, '"excited to return' is a defined term, and it doesn't really mean how excited I would actually be to return to a place, but rather where the place falls under my metric." Nor could he really mean, "I determine how excited I am to return to a place by means of a metric, rather than according to my actual subjective feeling about how excited I am to return there." Nor could he mean, "that metric actually accurately describes how I determine how excited I am to return to a place" -- you know that last one because his reviews, as written, belie it.

Edited December 1, 2006 by Sneakeater (log)

[Nathan]

FG: I meant "illiterate" as in incapable of reading the English language.

The words are there. I've quoted them repetitively. Either I can read or I can't.

Sneakeater: I'm not arguing for a or b at all. As for c, I'm asserting that his use of the word "excitement" was incorrect. I am saying that what the rest of his words clearly convey is exactly what he's saying.

You and FG are fixating on one word. I'm fixating on the other 30.

[Nathan]

"This isn't corporate drafting. It's not like you can take any term and define it as meaning something, however fanciful or unusual, and then that's what it'll mean for purposes of this one particular document."

But that's exactly what he did.

"Nor could he mean, "that metric actually accurately describes how I determine how excited I am to return to a place" -- you know that last one because his reviews, as written, belie it."

If I were to speculate, I would say that's what he meant. In fact, I'm pretty darn certain that's what he meant. Cause that's an excellent paraphrase of what he wrote. But he didn't think it through. This was a blog post, right? Probably written in haste.

Edited December 1, 2006 by Nathan (log)

[Sneakeater]

You and FG are fixating on one word.  I'm fixating on the other 30.

←

Ya see, actually, I think we're reading that passage as a whole, and you're the one who's taking a few words semi-out of context, and reading them for more than they're worth.

[Nathan]

Not at all. You and FG were busy mocking one sentence -- "The number of stars chart ever greater degrees of excitement" -- and ignoring the prior one.

[Sneakeater]

I can't speak for Fat Guy, but I'm reading both sentences.

[Sneakeater]

Maybe I haven't been clear enough in what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that, even if you're right, it's very telling that he'd have used the phrase "excited to return" AT ALL, however he might tortuously define it (not that I'm convinced that he means to be redefining it as you claim).

Because in the normal sense, ALL that phrase relates to is your subjective response to a place, which is but one element in reaching a review conclusion. So the fact that he chooses to privilege it, even if he does so by redefining it, is, as I said, very telling.

Edited December 1, 2006 by Sneakeater (log)

[Nathan]

Look, I read it as simply: "Here are three factors. Those factors dovetail with how excited I get about a restaurant. Therefore, my stars, which are predicated upon those factors, dovetail with my excitement level."

That's what he said. The fact that it was an inaccurate statement is irrelevant.

edit: See, I think you're focussing on the fact that this statement is inaccurate...and therefore can't be what he's saying. But that doesn't follow at all. We've put a heck of a lot more thought into this than I'm sure he did for one paragraph in a blog post.

(In actuality, I think he determines his stars by a combination of food, service, ambience, price and personal excitement. But that's not what he was saying in this post.)

Edited December 1, 2006 by Nathan (log)

[Sneakeater]

No it's not. The fact that it's inaccurate is, like, THE WHOLE POINT.

[Fat Guy]

Nathan, I really don't think you have to be illiterate to be wrong here. You're obviously so highly literate that you see meaning that Sneaky and I are incapable of grasping. If anything, you're too literate. Us normal people are just reading.

[Nathan]

Sneakeater, see my edit.

I've never said that the statement was accurate. Only that you were mocking him for saying something he didn't say. You can, of course, mock him quite easily for what he actually did say.

Edited December 1, 2006 by Nathan (log)

[Sneakeater]

But again, what I'm saying is that the fact that he made THAT PARTICULAR ERROR has its own significance.

[Nathan]

It does and I agree.

My sole point here was merely that you and FG were mocking Bruni for something that he didn't actually say (or even mean).

[Sneakeater]

I think he DID mean it. I just think he didn't think it through.

I mean, it's not like he said all those factors determine his "hephalump" or something. He used words that normally mean something not entirely irrelevant to this subject matter.

[oakapple]

I think he DID mean it.  I just think he didn't think it through.

←

For what it's worth, I agree entirely with SE and FG. What Bruni wrote was sloppy, and not really well thought out. Bruni is a man of the people; he doesn't write with tortured logic that you need to be a lawyer to parse. He throws stuff out there, and sometimes it just doesn't make any sense. This was one of those times.