New York Times

[jhlurie]

The bottom line, I think, is that from reading her actual words... she was complimentary in general and seemed to like the place. She may be the less experienced of the two New Jersey reviewers, and she doesn't have the same flair that David C. has, but nothing in the review seems unfair or slanted against the restaurant. And because her writing is a bit less polished than Corcoran's--a bit less authoritative--I think most people would take her rating with a grain of salt.

The restaurant or the chef may be disapointed in the rating if they were expecting to be ranked alongside Ryland Inn, true, but this argument seems to all be about half a star's difference. VERY GOOD and EXCELLENT fall right next to each other in the list of possible ratings. A strong VERY GOOD might be one twitch away from an EXCELLENT.

And I'm fairly sure that the inclusion of these articles online is a recent development. When the Times reviewed an eGullet favorite last year, Kinara in Edgewater, Jason Perlow asked Corcoran for a link to the review and Corcoran himself told him that it wasn't available that way.

[David Corcoran]

I checked with our Webmasters about archiving restaurant reviews online. The bad news came back that they don't archive any of the regional weeklies (New Jersey, Connecticut, Long Island, Westchester) and have no plans to do so. A question of manpower, they say. , but there you have it.

If you know the name of the restaurant, you can check it out by entering its name (and some delimiting info like the town) in the "Search" window at the top of the www.nytimes.com home page. If it's an older review, be sure to click on pulldown menu right next to the Search window and change "Past 30 days" to "Since 1996." There appears to be no fee for calling up a review.

David

[ngatti]

First, I’d like to thank Steve Shaw for posting the link to Karla Cook’s review of ‘The Frog and the Peach ‘

To carry on:

Steve Klc said:

Nick--her writing ability and the issue of whether this group of seven outing was her only meal at the restaurant aside--she stated there was another visit after the first visit--I read the review and I think I'd have to get more of a feel of the other restaurants Cook and Corcoran have rated "Very Good, Excellent, or Extraordinary" and their price points in order to assess it and in order to address David's post. Seemed like a typical Grimes "one star but should have been a two star" review--but what we're supposed to infer from the lack of stars and the verbal ranking of "very good" I am not sure.

I think it helps to treat the New Jersey section of the New York Times as a discrete entity, a weekly regional newspaper unto itself, if you will. Once one peels off the New Jersey section from the rest of the Sunday Times, it becomes easier to divorce oneself from the baggage of ‘stars’, Grimes, Asimov, and Hesser, et al. At this point the word ratings (fair, good, VG etc) become more natural as a method of rating restaurants and Cook’s and Corcoran’s criticisms can then be judged as unique New Jersey food writing and criticism. Now that we have some links, and a method of finding these writings (thanks khao!) perhaps others will read these reviews and enrich the discourse.

Steve Klc also said:

The review was all about the food--which she seemed to like quite a bit--but nary a hint about the restaurant experience, nothing about the pacing of the meal, the attentiveness of the service, professionalism of the host or sommelier, the ambience, decor, cool bathrooms if those are your thing, lighting, intimacy, etc. In all, a very weak assessment of the "total" experience and there is nothing in this review to inspire me to trust her perfunctory wine list assessment as "extensive and expensive."

If I were the chef--I wouldn't be upset because this clip will help him get a better job or a raise; if I were the restaurant owner--I'd likely be a little more upset that so much was not mentioned or not appreciated--assuming those bases were covered. They may also be trying to do without a real pastry chef--and if so, they only have themselves to blame.

In short, I wonder if her other reviews also lack nuances of the overall experience, and merely feature how individual dishes were composed or how they worked on her palate. I like more nuance than "clean tablecloths.

I mostly agree with you, Steve. But as a Chef I confess that I was thrilled to see another Chef get so much attention (more about that later). I assure you, a purely gratuitous response on my part. I would also like to submit that ‘The Frog and the Peach’ is a very well known New Jersey ‘destination restaurant’. I can’t say for sure, but I seem to recall no less than three reviews of this restaurant in the Pages of the ‘New York Times’ within my recent memory. Consequently Ms. Cook may have made a conscious decision to concentrate on the ‘hash’ rather than the ‘flash’. I offer this only as a possible mitigating circumstance.

Jhlurie said:

She may be the less experienced of the two New Jersey reviewers, and she doesn't have the same flair that David C. has, but nothing in the review seems unfair or slanted against the restaurant. And because her writing is a bit less polished than Corcoran's--a bit less authoritative--I think most people would take her rating with a grain of salt.

I have been reading Ms. Cook in the Times since her first bi-weekly review. Since David Corcoran joined her in sharing the reviewing duties, I have found her the more pedantic of the two writers. I have always had difficulty pinning down in precise terms exactly why I’ve always felt somewhat uncomfortable with her criticism. Of course Jon nails it with what seems to me now to be an obvious spot on comparison of the two writers.

Getting back to the specific F&P review, I’d like to add that I thought Karla Cook’s review was pretty well written. I thought that she spent too much editorial currency on the Sea Bass issue, perhaps at the expense of the things that SK would have liked to see mentioned. I also agree that the review was much too Chef-centric. Other quibbles have more to do with outing the size of her dinner party (some of the restaurant reviewers magic should remain behind the curtain), and an occasional jarring mixed metaphor (i.e. “manly yet tender”). I also don’t much care for left handed compliments (the restrained use of butter is lauded, one sentence later the resultant loss of flavor is spanked!). Not such a minor quibble and one that I find stupefying is that the review is totally bereft of ANY mention of wine other than that which was cooked with.

To David Santos, I’d like to say that I thought this review, started life as one with a solid “Excellent” ranking. The major points seemed to be lost over the ficelle crouton under the duck (I don’t know another bread that cooks up so inadvertently rock hard), and the desserts (I assume at least 9 were ordered). In fact, I’d go so far to say that the “Excellent” became a “Very Good” right about the time the ‘Polenta Cake’ shot “off the plate”. She pointedly leaves the description for the last sentence. “Not the best last impression” is a telling final statement.

Thanx for Listening

Nick

[chopjwu12]

And im saying it is imposible for that polenta cake to shoot off the plate. Ive experienced that exact polenta cake and you would have to leave it in the oven for an hour to make it hard like she said. The bread i dont have an answer for maybe it happened maybe it didn't. But like i said before maybe its just me and my opinion. But ill stick to my guns because i know what i know, enough said. Its my opinion everyone else has to come up with theirs. Karla Cook has the right to hers thats her job right, we just have to see what evryone else sais you know.

[Steve Klc]

Still Nick, for a fairly well known destination restaurant, as you call it, to receive a "very good" ranking--clearly the reviewer is making a statement. Jhlurie--that's what I see as unfair--I just don't get the sense her written words back up her overall "statement."

Granted, it wouldn't be the first time nor the first reviewer found guilty of this.

Because the review focused on the hash and not any of the flash--again to use your terms, terms I wouldn't use Nick--I don't see where the content of the review or any of the reviewer's opinions point to any road for improvement or put the reader into any context as to why the "very good" ranking was received. Is she really saying to the Frog & Peach (and to her readers)--I really liked the food but you're not delivering on the total goods given your price point, given what is happening at the other restaurants rated "excellent?" Except for there being only two really good desserts--again, I consider that an achievement for New Jersey--you can't tell. Does F&P have the panache or the refinement or deliver the goods of other restaurants at that price point, other destination restaurants?

By avoiding the "flash"--what I view instead as mere essential components of any fine dining review--wine, decor, service sensibility, ambience, professionalism, pacing of the meal--I have no idea what the experience of taking a meal there would be like, nor how it fares in the context of New Jersey fine dining.

Nick, you astutely nailed her wasted word count over the chilean sea bass but that's forgiveable, it's been in the news and is trendy. I imagine it would be hard to resist the lure at least once.

Viewed as a separate entity, Nick--a fine idea--I still submit this is simply a poor review on its merits, inherently flawed conceptually and structurally, lacking both the nuance and respect a supposed "destination" restaurant should expect from any fine dining reviewer. Perhaps Cook would be better served on the ethnic or cheap eats beat or by reading eGullet a little bit more often.

[Rail Paul]

She may be the less experienced of the two New Jersey reviewers, and she doesn't have the same flair that David C. has, but nothing in the review seems unfair or slanted against the restaurant. And because her writing is a bit less polished than Corcoran's--a bit less authoritative--I think most people would take her rating with a grain of salt.

I have been reading Ms. Cook in the Times since her first bi-weekly review. Since David Corcoran joined her in sharing the reviewing duties, I have found her the more pedantic of the two writers. I have always had difficulty pinning down in precise terms exactly why I’ve always felt somewhat uncomfortable with her criticism. Of course Jon nails it with what seems to me now to be an obvious spot on comparison of the two writers.

Without disputing any of the observations made, it should be noted that Karla Cook has been a food journalist for several (many?) years. It's not like she just parachuted onto the food page from reporting stock option accounting or tax issues.

She formerly edited and was chief writer for the Star-Ledger's Savor section for several years, although I don't recall she wrote formal reviews.

[ngatti]

Thanks for the 411, Paul. The only thing I knew about her was the very brief bio that the Times printed alongside her debut piece. I still think that I saw a mention of culinary school there, but perhaps it was a senior moment on my part.

Nick