Lame Restaurant Reviews.

[Vadouvan]

I always wonder why much credibility is given to the second and third tier "food critics" in Philadelphia who seem more interested in prose and cute sentences than actual substantive knowledgeable information. They actually seem to be getting worse and I am referring to the Elisa Ludwigs, Kristen Henris and in this case the review of Mantra by Catherine Lucey in the daily news yesterday.

Besides all the bitching about Chains and rent in the Lacroix thread, one of the worst things about the evolution of food in terms of public perception in Philadelphia is the continous issue of Local papers hiring clueless people who just dont get it.

I am pretty sure the public doesnt have an interest in a critic stating not much more than a skewed personal opinion but seriously do we really care what her boyfriend thinks ?????

What gives ?

http://www.philly.com/mld/dailynews/living/14926903.htm

It's more of a recitation of a date than a dinner.

[Rich Pawlak]

I have complained to the food editor of the Daily News, April Lisante, but to no avail. Lucey was a hire necessitated by the rules of the writers guild. As for the weeklies, well, you get what you pay for. I do think Kirsten Henri is a good food writer (great write-up of the Grey Lodge this week!!!! yay!) but I think the quality of writers after her drop precipitously low at the weeklies.

[matthewj]

V, I remember one of the earlier reviews of Lacroix. That one of the writers stated "ewww Sweetbreads" Any writer that uses that combination of words in the same sentence, that should be commenting on the quality, not if one appreciates them or not, should be disregarded as a serious food journalist. Talk about run on sentence. That was a good one

By the way not bitching, venting, I love to "vent", keeps the juices flowing, unfortunately I left my soap box in Philadelphia

[mrbigjas]

for the weekly, i thought that moving beyond robin "here is a column listing the things i don't like" rinaldi was a step in the right direction--kirsten henri is miles better, even if she likes to take cheap potshots at us nerds here on the interwebs.

rich, what does that mean, a hiring necessitated by the rules?

[Vadouvan]

for the weekly, i thought that moving beyond robin "here is a column listing the things i don't like" rinaldi was a step in the right direction--kirsten henri is miles better, even if she likes to take cheap potshots at us nerds here on the interwebs.

They all still suck.

Emphasis is definitely on prose and the flow of information as opposed to accuracy or legitimacy of content.

One other thing is these chicks tend to do is describe menu items they rave about and cannot possibly be tasting.

Case and Point, the sidebar with the "recently reviewed" places speaks to L'angolo which is a good enough restaurant but then she waxes poetic about a "Homemade ricotta gnocchi with gorgonzola-thyme sauce".

How much contribution would thyme or any other herb for that matter make to a cream sauce based on Gorgonzola cheese..........

I mean just total cluelessness

Sitar India with "lesser known dishes like goat curry and spicy chickpeas"

Goat Curry and Channa Masala.....lesser known dishes in Indian cooking.........seriously....

[Rich Pawlak]

for the weekly, i thought that moving beyond robin "here is a column listing the things i don't like" rinaldi was a step in the right direction--kirsten henri is miles better, even if she likes to take cheap potshots at us nerds here on the interwebs.

rich, what does that mean, a hiring necessitated by the rules?

←

When Sono Motoyama left the Daily News, taking a buyout as well as maternity leave, the Daily News had to offer, by union (guild) rules the restaurant critic position to an existing union member at the paper before they could consider a writer (like me, for example) outside of the union. That is why I can only freelance there. Had no existing writers for the paper responded to the restaurant critic opportunity, the DN would have been able to consider a non-union writer. That's how it was explained to me anyway.....

[handmc]

I always scratch my head about food writers. What makes one? A keyboard?

By comparison a "legal analyst" should, at a minimum have gone to law school. Having practiced law a plus, but since the trade is specialized if the issue is beyond the area of expertise it is in many instances useless. The problem is people believe this talking head and often use the information to make important decisions about their lives. Gaahhh!

Shouldn't a food writer have some training? Wouldn't it be better if the actually worked in a professional kitchen for a time? How about being at least a line cook first.

Perhaps then I might respect it when they write, "but most of the creations were uninspired, lacking kick and flavor." Compared to what the fast food you had at lunch?

Gets up on SOAPBOX:

Have these authors of restaurant criticism ever had to come up with a menu for thier family? That's a challenge in itself. But to come up with something new something that will catch the eye of travel worn, fickle patrons each with different tastes is a huge undertaking, could Lucy do it? I doubt it. It is particularly annoying when you consider the resturant being reviewed is at least trying to do something differ. Its not like he opened a steakhouse or burger joint.

What is most infuriating are these witless, haphazard comments. People looking for someplace to eat over the holiday weekend may go somewhere else because this person and her date didn't enjoy thier meal.

When considering qualifications of this "writer" to review this restaurant I find this quote disturbing, "the sushi, coated in fried Japanese bread crumbs, tasted oily and fishy."

Sushi tasting fishy! Imagine that! While sushi coated in bread crumbs sounds like an abomination, and maybe that was what she was taking issue with, this was not effectively communicated in her writing. But a complaint that sushi tasting fishy, that's just silly.

Off soapbox.

The papers like to crow about responsible journalism, it should apply to all aspects of the paper. Unskilled or unqualified restaurant reviewers can kill hard working restaurant's chances early on and that is not right.

[Vadouvan]

Perhaps then I might respect it when they write, "but most of the creations were uninspired, lacking kick and flavor." Compared to what the fast food you had at lunch?

CORRECT HandMC........

I tend to find that language is important and I read between the lines. Most descriptions of food lacking "kick" that the 3 gringas have used in thier reviews were atributed to food that the brilliance of the dish was it's subtlety. i remember the abysmal review of SALT by one of them using the catchphrase "salt could use more salt" but it was Miso glazed halibut with pea fondue and braised baby fennel. In this day and age when people salt food before tasting it, accept black pepper which has no place in most cooked food simply because the waiter offers it and destroys most wine, Italian cheeses on seafood pastas, Sriracha on everything......ect ect.

Sushi tasting fishy! Imagine that! While sushi coated in bread crumbs sounds like an abomination, and maybe that was what she was taking issue with, this was not effectively communicated in her writing. But a complaint that sushi tasting fishy, that's just silly.

Indeeeeeeed.....!

If the "sushi" wasnt fresh, she would have elaborated and said it was a bit off. Some fresh pieces of Sashimi have stronger tastes such as sawara, hamachi hara ect ect.

ONLY sushi neophytes encounter panko crusted sushi rolls and not criticise the obvious (Fried sushi) as opposed to delving into its finer points.......

I do like the....."my boyfriend doesnt know what's in the sauce" like he is freaking Michele Bras or Alain Ducasse...so what !

[philadining]

I've hauled-out this quote before, but I agree with it:

From Alan Richman's Fork it Over

I am a restaurant critic. I eat for a living.

Chefs complain about people like me. They argue that we are not qualified to do our jobs because we do not know how to cook. I tell them I'm not entirely pleased with the way they do their jobs, either, because they do not know how to eat. I have visited most of the best restaurants of the world, and they have not. I believe I know how to eat as well as any man alive.

I don't think it's important whether a critic is able to cook, or has had experience working in a restaurant. But I do think it's important that he or she has solid knowledge about the food being written about, to be able to intelligently comment on the particular execution of it.

Sadly this is not unique to food writing, many reviews of any cultural experience are being done from the perspective of a neophyte. I think it's misguided, but the theory is that the writer is standing in for the reader, going in cold to some new and exotic experience.

It's an anti-elitist pose, but is really dismissing the seriousness of the subject. I don't think I've seen any opera reviews that consisted mainly of reports that "those ladies sure do sing loud, and I though it was pretty good, but my boyfriend just thought it was weird," or reviews of exhibits at the Philadelphia Art Museum written from the perspective of someone who's never studied art. I'll stick to the analogy above: I don't care whether the opera reviewer can sing, but I do hope she knows something about music, and could intelligently discuss this performance, hopefully with a frame of reference from having heard the work previously, live or on a recording, or at the very least be well-versed in the genre as a whole.

Those standards are not always as closely followed in food writing. Everybody eats, most people have an opinion about what they eat, so sadly it follows, in some editors' minds, that if one can write at all, one can write about food.

All things considered, we have some very good food writing here in Philly, but not all of it...

[Mano]

I previously posted my view of what to expect from a restaurant critic:

Professional reviewers of food, wine, music or art must be experts. Either they received formal training at an established institution or they had extensive training "in the field."

By expert, I mean someone who has the practical and academic background and knowledge to understand and appreciate what constitutes excellence in a particular area. But this is not enough and in fact, many excellent reviewers share their expert knowledge only sparingly in their reviews.

The best food critics have a depth and breadth of knowledge that extend far beyond where they might have eaten. They are passionate about knowing the history of the food and region, and delight in their ability to know what ingredients work best together and why.

Professional food and wine writers should be "super-tasters," who have the ability to taste and identify a wide range of obvious and subtle flavors and ingredients. I know super-tasters who can consistently identify wines in blind tastings and who can identify most all ingredients in dishes.

One of the things that makes a critic great is their ability to also take on the perspective of the average customer and explain to that customer why the food is great or not so great. In other words, to take the customer by the hand and show them "This is why this sashimi so superior" and have the average customer say, "I get it." This ability is why I like Antique Road Show so much, and why Julia Child was so popular and why the art critic, Sister Wendy, is so fantastic.

[murkcury]

It's true that restaurant critics need not have cooking backgrounds. In fact, it's preferable. If they did 94.3% (please accept my hyperbole as this figure was NOT factually confirmed) of reviews would be devoted to the overly harsh criticism of imperfectly executed food. That's what cooks wiil do. They do, however, need to understand food. It's imperative. They need to understand ingredients and preparations and flavors. Just as writers who review books, movies or cars need to understand their milieu(s) so too do food critics. No one is going to ask me to fill in for Thomas Friedman when he takes his next vacation and I would hope that the same holds true for food writing vacancies. Yes, sometimes outsiders are able to adapt to the job after some time. Take Frank Bruni. As much as I despised him at the onset of his tenure as the NY Times restaurant critic (I think his previous position was as a writer or editor in the Styles section) he has made strides in the right direction. While I still don't view him as a great restaurant critic, he is becoming a better food writer. Don't rest on your laurels Frankiepants, there's still a lot of work to be done. That said, I don't think he should have ever been given the job. While his reviews are now serviceable, they do not make up for a year of utterly irrelevant, off the mark, inane commentaries. As bad as his reviews were, however, at least the man could write. The reviewers we're dealing with A) know nothing about food and B) couldn't write to save their lives. It's a sad state of affairs when unqualified individuals such as these hold so much sway over whether some restaurants make it or fail.

[KatieLoeb]

If I need real news, I read a legitimate newspaper. If I want business news I pick up the Wall Street Journal.

The second and third tier critics in the bird cage liner free-on-the-doorstep newspapers can hardly be expected to be on the same par with the professionals at the larger newpapers. I keep that in mind in taking their advice. I take it with a spoonful of salt rather than a grain.

And when the review is about their boyfriend's taste I give it the consideration and respect it deserves and ignore it altogther.

[herbacidal]

If I need real news, I read a legitimate newspaper.  If I want business news I pick up the Wall Street Journal.

WORD!

The second and third tier critics in the bird cage liner free-on-the-doorstep newspapers can hardly be expected to be on the same par with the professionals at the larger newpapers.  I keep that in mind in taking their advice.  I take it with a spoonful of salt rather than a grain.

←

This is especially true. I think people have too high expectations of the "other" food writers. I expect nothing more than a better idea of the feel of the place, a description of the menu, with some elaboration.

Actually, that's what I expect from the top food writer too.

I only expect to be educated firsthand, by experiencing it myself, talking to the people there, talking to others, etc.

Edited July 1, 2006 by herbacidal (log)

[MarketStEl]

Keep in mind that all newspaper writers and broadcast journalists can be divided into two types:

Those who majored in journalism or communications in college, and those who majored in a subject they wanted to cover.

I would daresay that the majority of newspeople outside maybe the top 5-10 percent of newspapers and broadcast outlets in the US fall into the former category.

In J-school, they teach you how to write news stories and journalistic ethics. What you're writing about, you have to learn on your own.

Since everyone eats, I don't think most food writers go into the subject thinking they need any special education. But learning how to recognize subtle flavors is not something most of us come by naturally. However, I don't think there's a collegiate major that covers this subject.

Caveat lector, I guess.

--Sandy, political science major in college

[philadining]

Keep in mind that all newspaper writers and broadcast journalists can be divided into two types:

Those who majored in journalism or communications in college, and those who majored in a subject they wanted to cover....

←

Not even! There are a lot of journalists working in print, and especially broadcast, that studied neither.

But in the end I don't think that really matters. Some of our best chefs didn't go to culinary school. People can reach mastery, or at least a decent level of competence, through many paths. But in the real world, warm bodies are often thrown into positions for which they have little preparation. They either get good at it, or don't.

There are plenty of people with journalism degrees that don't write or research well, and plenty of culinary school grads who are complete hacks in the kitchen. The proof is in what's on the page, or the plate. I'm not interested a person's resumé, I'm interested in the quality of the product.

[herbacidal]

Do people expect writers to educate them?

I've never grown up with that expectation.

It's possible because I've never grown up reading Gael Greene, Craig Claiborne, etc.,

but all I expect of writers is to give me information.

Fiction writers should give me information in an entertaining story.

Nonfiction writers should give me information in an entertaining writing style.

Edited July 2, 2006 by herbacidal (log)

[Fat Guy]

I was curious about this review, given all the vitriol it has inspired. I was expecting something ludicrous, indefensible, idiotic.

Actually reading the review was a real letdown. It was fine. I don't see the problem. There's nothing wrong with referencing what the other people in your group said about a meal, it's not convincing to claim that she should have gone off on how sushi shouldn't be cooked (in the past decade, panko- and tempura-style sushi have been firmly established as part of the genre -- and there has long been cooked sushi, like eel and shrimp), and a few generalizations are always going to be necessary in a short review (the word limit is hardly the reviewer's fault). The writing is fine, the restaurant doesn't sound very good and there's nothing in the review that hints at it being a fantastic restaurant where the reviewer just didn't get it. Has anybody dined there? Is it totally, indescribably great, or do the "Baby Bombay Burgers" and the "Sir Real Salmon Nori Roll" suck? If the latter, then the review probably conveys the right information.

[KatieLoeb]

Steven:

I think if you saw a bigger sample of the second and third tier reviews from the local papers here in Philly you'd have a better grasp of what we're all bitching about.

There seems to be a lot of boyfriends/husbands/Mr. Right-Nows mentioned that have little or nothing to do with the reviews and don't add any value with their (usually) uneducated musings about the food. This isn't an isolated incident. It's just a common symptom of the general malaise in the review scene here.

[Vadouvan]

There's nothing wrong with referencing what the other people in your group said about a meal, it's not convincing to claim that she should have gone off on how sushi shouldn't be cooked (in the past decade, panko- and tempura-style sushi have been firmly established as part of the genre -- and there has long been cooked sushi, like eel and shrimp),

1. I think our issue is repeatedly offering other people's opinions.....especially if it is someone you are intimately involved with.

As a food critic, repeatedly saying your boyfriend or girlfriend did or did not care for the food is absurd. It's kinda like "hearsay" under cross examination.

2. There is a big difference between Panko Fried maki and Tempura maki.

As for "cooked sushi" Unagi is never served uncooked as you well know and neither is shrimp for the most part except for the places that do really good "live" shrimp sashimi.

The "cooking" of sushi outside of the few things that are classically "cooked" while perhaps acceptable isnt taken seriously by anyone but sushi neophytes.

The point was rather than dwell on the finer points of fried food that shouldnt be fried in the first place, save your criticism for the sacrilegious act of deep fried "Sushi".

And yes the food is better than it reads, not unbeliveable food but to call it uninspired with such a low level of prose is abjectly ridiculous.

Edited July 3, 2006 by Vadouvan (log)

[Fat Guy]

I see two references to her boyfriend in that review, and one to a friend named Howard. Big deal. It's normal for a reporter to report conversations -- it has nothing to do with the principle of hearsay, because she was at the meal, tasted the food and is just giving credit to the source of a comment.

And I think plenty of people other than sushi neophytes have respect for Morimoto, Nobu and the hundreds of other examples of sushi chefs serving fried maki that you can pull up on Google.

So you've eaten at the restaurant? What did you have? Why was it better than the review said? The reviewer has made her case. Why not make yours?

Give me a mediocre restaurant review over a mediocre restaurant any day. At least you don't have to eat the review, at least you get some information out of it and at least it's free.

[Grub]

Okay, you don't have to know how to build a car, in order to drive it, or offer an opinion on its performance. You don't have to be Barenboim to tune a piano, or Kubrick to review a movie -- but Ebert did at least write the screenplay for a B movie, if nothing else. I think that's valuable.

A food critic's opinions would be far more insightful and comprehensive, if it pertained to a dish that she had repeatedly -- and successfully -- cooked herself. Even if her attempts had failed, she'd still have an appreciation of the difficulty involved in making it.

To critique a dish that you've never made yourself means you're sort of flying blind -- but if you at the very least have cooked a similar dish, and are familiar with some of the techniques used in preparing it, your opinions would be far more informed.

You know it's a bad sign if a cook never tastes his own food. Well, that's no worse than a food critic who never cooks what he eats.

That aside, the phrase "my boyfriend said" is used twice, and whether this Howard is the same guy or not, there are a few other references to him. I wonder if the writers' guild ensures the guy gets paid for having contributed a good portion of the culinary observations to the article?

[philadining]

As Katie and Vadouvan have already mentioned, there's a hyper-sensitivity here in Philly about reviews that seem to talk more about their significant others than about the restaurant, given an odd concentration of that in local food writing over the years. And I for one don't find "my boyfriend didn't like it" type comments all that helpful, even if it is common in reviews.

I think that element was enough of a trigger to set off the complaints about the larger issue: that there seems to be a fair amount of food criticism in the Philly papers written by people who seem to have little insight into food.

Edited July 3, 2006 by philadining (log)

[rlibkind]

To critique a dish that you've never made yourself means you're sort of flying blind -- but if you at the very least have cooked a similar dish, and are familiar with some of the techniques used in preparing it, your opinions would be far more informed.

←

Wrong! Excuse this extreme evaluation, but it only matches your extreme assertion.

It's been said earlier in this thread: you don't have to a conductor to critique an interpretation, nor a master of brushstroke to offer an intelligent opinion on a painting. You do need intelligience, reasonable technical and historical knowledge, and an ability to express your opinion in a way which holds the reader's attention. Experience is certainly welcome, and not to be dismissed, but it is not required. The usefulness of my opinion to readers depends on how I combine these skills and talents, not my misguided attempts to make Dobosh torte.

[matthewj]

I agree with Phillidinning. I myself do not care about the mentioning of whoever is in the article. I just read the article. The food does not sound good. Even without the description. Asian Caesar salad? Chocolate spring rolls? "Ewww." See .. I can say that, cause I am not a critic.

I think what V is saying, FG, is that there is a lot of talking significant others in the conversation, and not enough content. It is alright when Frank Bruni writes about his guests because he has more than ample writing room to continue his critique. This article was not very long, so maybe she should have stuck to the topic better.

I would just not go to the restuarant, not matter how good the tea is

[matthewj]

Maybe they need her to write towards her audience. I used to think Laban did not know much about food, until I started to read his online chat. He knows a lot about food, and dinning. Maybe he is just writing for the audience of the printed word.

I do not think critics should be chefs, but it would be neat if they had more than a working knowledge of picking up a fork and eating. They should be educated and have an interest in food. It does not have to be formal training either.