Bruni and Beyond: NYC Reviewing (2007)

Fat Guy · April 24, 2007

I agree with respect to Marc's blog 100%. And yet, it sounds like Marc would agree that Bruni's word holds more weight and has more influence, and that Bruni is able to accumulate vastly more experience. More to the point, there's no restaurant in the City that would trade a single positive review from Bruni for a dozen great reviews from people like Marc.
←

There are plenty of customers, like me, who would go to a restaurant Marc likes and the professional reviewers don't, because they consider Marc's opinions more reliable and informed than those of every professional reviewer working in New York right now. Except when I disagree with him.

Nathan · April 24, 2007

...Marc's blog is a good example of a highly conscientious, true amateur (in the best Olympic sense of the word) blog. He's out there eating all the time, he has no agendas, he pays his own way and his opinions are highly informed. Approximately 100% of the time I would trust his one-visit/six-dishes analysis of a restaurant over Bruni's four-visit/forty-dishes inanity.
I agree with respect to Marc's blog 100%. And yet, it sounds like Marc would agree that Bruni's word holds more weight and has more influence, and that Bruni is able to accumulate vastly more experience. More to the point, there's no restaurant in the City that would trade a single positive review from Bruni for a dozen great reviews from people like Marc. Or perhaps even more to the point, it may not be good to use Bruni as an example, since most of us agree that we don't particularly value his opinions.
I'd add Steve Plotnicki's blog to that list -- he may very well dine out more than Bruni.
Maybe he does. IMO he's the textbook example of high knowledge and expertise that's unfortunately greatly devalued by axes to grind and other factors. One thing that having a professional gig in the print media brings along with it is editorial oversight and supervision. No publication would employ a restaurant reviewer with Steve Plotnicki's intractable biases (unless, for example, they never intended to review Italian restaurants).
As we've discussed before, the professional/amateur distinction has been so deeply eroded as to be meaningless. How do we categorize Andrea Strong's blog, Restaurant Girl's blog, Jennifer Leuzzi's blog, etc.?
None of these are amateurs. The Strong Buzz, Restaurant Girl and Snack are all written as part of a strategy for developing the respective bloggers' professional writing careers. And again, I'm not saying it's "right," but I think the general perception from the public is that, for example, an article Jennifer Leuzzi has written for the Sun has more cred than one that is only published on Snack And, of course, everything on her site benefits from the cred she brings to the table by being a writer in the print media.
←

yup. though ultimately their cozy relationship with the industry and acceptance of free meals will ultimately prevent them from getting the jobs they really want....

oakapple · April 24, 2007

As we've discussed before, the professional/amateur distinction has been so deeply eroded as to be meaningless. How do we categorize Andrea Strong's blog, Restaurant Girl's blog, Jennifer Leuzzi's blog, etc.?
None of these are amateurs. The Strong Buzz, Restaurant Girl and Snack are all written as part of a strategy for developing the respective bloggers' professional writing careers.
←
yup. though ultimately their cozy relationship with the industry and acceptance of free meals will ultimately prevent them from getting the jobs they really want....
←

Actually, FG has said in the past that the comped professional writer that's cozy with the industry is fairly commonplace. As far as I know, Andrea Strong is already earning a living as a food writer. She isn't getting rich at it, but it's what she does. Leuzzi is much the same. RG, who's newer at it, probably still has a day job. She is also the most blatant self-promoter of the bunch.

Fat Guy · April 24, 2007

I think Nathan is saying -- or at least this is the one example that I think is true -- is that (for example) Andrea Strong is never going to be hired as the restaurant reviewer for the New York Times. Whether she wants that job is another story. Whether she could get that job absent "coziness" with the industry is yet another story. It seems that these days to get the job as New York Times restaurant reviewer you have to have no background whatsoever as a food writer.

However, aside from a couple of high-profile reviewer and New York Times positions, I can't think of any food-writing gigs for which (for example) Andrea Strong becomes less eligible on account of whatever she does in pursuit of her blog. If anything, her blog is very helpful to her in getting paid work.

Nathan · April 24, 2007

that's exactly what I meant...a credible restaurant reviewer job with a major newspaper is closed to writers who have pursued the Strong/RG/AG path. (I'm also of the opinion that the latter two know considerably less about food then Bruni.)

phaelon56 · April 24, 2007

How do we categorize Andrea Strong's blog, Restaurant Girl's blog, Jennifer Leuzzi's blog, etc.? I don't think they get any money for doing those blogs, so are they amateur?
←

Can't speak for the other two but RestaurantGirl's blog has a link for contacting her about advertising on the blog. And there are plenty of ads there. Perhaps not enough to pay the rent in Manhattan but if she's getting enough page views and click-throughs it mugh be a nice bit of supplemental income every month.

Fat Guy · April 24, 2007

a credible restaurant reviewer job with a major newspaper
←

How many such jobs do you count?

Fat Guy · April 24, 2007

How do we categorize Andrea Strong's blog, Restaurant Girl's blog, Jennifer Leuzzi's blog, etc.? I don't think they get any money for doing those blogs, so are they amateur?
←
Can't speak for the other two but RestaurantGirl's blog has a link for contacting her about advertising on the blog. And there are plenty of ads there. Perhaps not enough to pay the rent in Manhattan but if she's getting enough page views and click-throughs it mugh be a nice bit of supplemental income every month.
←

Yeah but if ads are the standard for the professional/amateur distinction then every blog with Google ads is professional. Again, these distinctions are pretty meaningless.

Nathan · April 24, 2007

a credible restaurant reviewer job with a major newspaper
←
How many such jobs do you count?
←

in the U.S.? 6-10.

ned · April 24, 2007

A restaurant is not a play.

Fat Guy · April 24, 2007

It's also worth noting that people like Jay McInerney, who have been serious candidates for the New York Times job (he may even have been offered it and rejected it), have a long history of industry contact. I think you'll find that if you pick it apart, newspapers make a lot of allowances for history, even if they have strict going-forward policies.

oakapple · April 24, 2007

that's exactly what I meant...a credible restaurant reviewer job with a major newspaper is closed to writers who have pursued the Strong/RG/AG path.
←

I took it as given that neither Andrea Strong nor RG sees themself in such a job. Among other things, you'll notice that there's hardly ever a negative review from either of them. Even within a broadly positive review, negative comments are held to a minimum. They just don't think like critics, or write like critics.

Frank Bruni doesn't have the background for what he's doing, but at least he has a critic's mentality.

oakapple · April 24, 2007

A restaurant is not a play.
←

Brilliant. Can you explain in what sense it's "fair" for one to be reviewed on its opening night, and not the other?

Nathan · April 24, 2007

that's exactly what I meant...a credible restaurant reviewer job with a major newspaper is closed to writers who have pursued the Strong/RG/AG path.
←
I took it as given that neither Andrea Strong nor RG sees themself in such a job. Among other things, you'll notice that there's hardly ever a negative review from either of them. Even within a broadly positive review, negative comments are held to a minimum. They just don't think like critics, or write like critics.
Frank Bruni doesn't have the background for what he's doing, but at least he has a critic's mentality.
←

eh...they wouldn't turn it down.

but of course they don't write negative reviews....it'd be pretty ungrateful to do so.

Nathan · April 24, 2007

A restaurant is not a play.
←

You're right. No one's livelihood is at stake in theater. All Broadway, off-Broadway, and off-off Broadway actors, dancers and singers are extremely well-compensated with excellent job security.

As well, there are no financial backers for theater productions, putting up millions of dollars with any real risk that they'll lose it all. Furthermore, no theater productions ever close after a week of performances, or even a month.

In addition, there are, of course, far more paid (or unpaid for that matter) acting jobs then there are actors. And anyone can get an Equity card.

(yeah, this is a little personal)

Edited April 24, 2007 by Nathan (log)

Fat Guy · April 24, 2007

eh...they wouldn't turn it down.
←

The point is that it's not the career path they're striving for, not if they have any sense of perspective. So it's not clear why this is a relevant point. It's like saying they'll never be President.

I also don't agree that Andrea Strong never writes anything negative.

Nathan · April 24, 2007

a major beef that I have with writers who accept comps, invitations and freebies...is that it raises a significant question not just about the veracity of their positive reviews, it raises an even larger one about their (infrequent) negative reviews.

are they really just panning a place because they were treated like ordinary diners?

oakapple · April 24, 2007

that's exactly what I meant...a credible restaurant reviewer job with a major newspaper is closed to writers who have pursued the Strong/RG/AG path.
←
I took it as given that neither Andrea Strong nor RG sees themself in such a job.
←
eh...they wouldn't turn it down.
←

Oh, of course not. There's probably lots of things they wouldn't turn down. But they're not acting like someone who expects, or even wants, to be in that kind of job. I believe Andrea Strong once said so explicitly—she doesn't see herself as a critic. Edited April 24, 2007 by oakapple (log)

oakapple · April 24, 2007

a major beef that I have with writers who accept comps, invitations and freebies...is that it raises a significant question not just about the veracity of their positive reviews, it raises an even larger one about their (infrequent) negative reviews.
are they really just panning a place because they were treated like ordinary diners?
←

I get the sense that Andrea Strong does pay for a good percentage of the meals she writes about. Not all, but most.

If you look back on the old archives of the StrongBuzz, you'll find that, from the beginning, her reviews tended to be overwhelmingly positive. Outright pans were a great rarity, and negative criticism in general was administered with a very gentle hand. I cannot believe she was getting regularly comped in those days.

This was also true of the early RestaurantGirl reviews. She surely wasn't getting comped then, because her site was brand new. She actually said at one point that she prefers to write about restaurants she likes. If she has a bad experience, she writes nothing.

Edited April 24, 2007 by oakapple (log)

Nathan · April 24, 2007

a cynic might suggest that a good way to get comps from restaurants and to develop a symbiotic, career-furthering relationship with them would be to write almost entirely positive "reviews" at the beginning of one's blogging career.

Edited April 24, 2007 by Nathan (log)

slkinsey · April 24, 2007

A restaurant is not a play.
Brilliant. Can you explain in what sense it's "fair" for one to be reviewed on its opening night, and not the other?

It's appropriate to review different things in different ways.

Plays, for example, are usually extensively workshopped and previewed. So, by the time they open, they should be largely worked out. It is, of course, possible to rehearse and refine a piece of staged theater without the need of having customers (aka, an audience). Therefore, it's more appropriate to review the opening night performance of a play.

In practice, whether a play's opening night is the reviewed performance will depend on the length of the run. If it's a scheduled run of 40 performances of Macbeth with Liev Schreiber at Shakespeare in the Park, the reviewers may choose to wait a while and may not review the opening performance. If, on the other hand, it's a scheduled run of 6 performances of Verdi's Macbeth at the Met, the opening performance will be reviewed. If the opening performance weren't reviewed, the run might be almost over by the time the review found its way into print.

Restaurants, on the other hand, aren't set up to have a limited run. They also don't have the luxury of 3 months of workshopping, previews and a "pre-run" in Toronto. They also are not working within a known, extensively interpreted repertoire and tradition like opera performers. They also work in a milieu in which having an audience changes everything, and they have a limited opportunity to work with a "practice audience" (3 days of F&F doesn't cut it). This makes it more appropriate, IMO, to wait a while before reviewing a restaurant. Give them a chance to rehearse. Reviewing a restaurant on opening night (or very early on) is like going to see a performance of a newly-composed opera that's only had one rehearsal. The perormers are going to settle in and get better, the composer might make some changes (Madama Butterfly was extensively revised three times after its premiere), and so on. So, to review the opera, the performers, etc. on the second rehearsal isn't meaninfgul. One could say the same thing about reviewing a restaurant in the first month.

docsconz · April 24, 2007

I think that it is important to distinguish between someone who is trying to be a critic vs. someone who is just a blogger. The blogger is not necessarily a critic, but is most likely someone who posts about his or her experiences. Most will have an emphasis on the positive because that is what they like to write about. By no means does that mean that those positive "reviews" are not legitimate or that they are "bought" although it is certainly possible that in some cases they might be. I think that this is a salient difference between the professional "critic" and the blogger who is simply enjoys writing about good food. While I don't blog or post about food outside of these forums, I put myself squarely in the latter category.

Nathan · April 24, 2007

A restaurant is not a play.
Brilliant. Can you explain in what sense it's "fair" for one to be reviewed on its opening night, and not the other?
It's appropriate to review different things in different ways.
Plays, for example, are usually extensively workshopped and previewed. So, by the time they open, they should be largely worked out.
[text removed]
Restaurants, on the other hand, aren't set up to have a limited run. They also don't have the luxury of 3 months of workshopping, previews and a "pre-run" in Toronto. They also are not working within a known, extensively interpreted repertoire and tradition like opera performers. They also work in a milieu in which having an audience changes everything, and they have a limited opportunity to work with a "practice audience" (3 days of F&F doesn't cut it).
←

I can assure you that the vast majority of professional theatrical productions are not extensively workshopped and previewed.

3 days of F&F is more like it.

The big money/writer/actor productions that do have extensive previews and rehearsal are equivalent to a major new restaurant by say Thomas Keller or Jean Georges...who can certainly afford months of previews and rehearsal.

(I'm certainly not claiming that restaurants should be reviewed on opening night....but a couple months should be enough. Of course, in this respect perception is everything. Someone once asserted here that Bruni reviewed The Modern within two months of its opening...he actually waited almost six.)

Nathan · April 24, 2007

A restaurant is not a play.
Brilliant. Can you explain in what sense it's "fair" for one to be reviewed on its opening night, and not the other?
It's appropriate to review different things in different ways.
Plays, for example, are usually extensively workshopped and previewed. So, by the time they open, they should be largely worked out. It is, of course, possible to rehearse and refine a piece of staged theater without the need of having customers (aka, an audience). Therefore, it's more appropriate to review the opening night performance of a play.
In practice, whether a play's opening night is the reviewed performance will depend on the length of the run. If it's a scheduled run of 40 performances of Macbeth with Liev Schreiber at Shakespeare in the Park, the reviewers may choose to wait a while and may not review the opening performance. If, on the other hand, it's a scheduled run of 6 performances of Verdi's Macbeth at the Met, the opening performance will be reviewed. If the opening performance weren't reviewed, the run might be almost over by the time the review found its way into print.
Restaurants, on the other hand, aren't set up to have a limited run. They also don't have the luxury of 3 months of workshopping, previews and a "pre-run" in Toronto. They also are not working within a known, extensively interpreted repertoire and tradition like opera performers. They also work in a milieu in which having an audience changes everything, and they have a limited opportunity to work with a "practice audience" (3 days of F&F doesn't cut it). This makes it more appropriate, IMO, to wait a while before reviewing a restaurant. Give them a chance to rehearse. Reviewing a restaurant on opening night (or very early on) is like going to see a performance of a newly-composed opera that's only had one rehearsal. The perormers are going to settle in and get better, the composer might make some changes (Madama Butterfly was extensively revised three times after its premiere), and so on. So, to review the opera, the performers, etc. on the second rehearsal isn't meaninfgul. One could say the same thing about reviewing a restaurant in the first month.
←

In addition, comedic productions require a live audience before they can be polished. You simply don't know what all the laugh lines are until a live audience is reacted. This is immensely important in terms of pacing and ensuring that you don't talk through an audience response.