Bruni and Beyond: NYC Reviewing (2007)

rich · May 9, 2007

I often disagreed with Ruth Reichl but I never had any questions about her authority. Her opinions and assessments were almost always imbued with a well informed perspective that was always pretty clear to her readers. Often it is in disagreement that we often learn the most.
When I disagree with Bruni I learn nothing. (even worse--when I agree with him I also learn nothing).
←
I think we all agree with this part. (In fact, I think it's probably the best succinct statement of what's wrong with Frank Bruni as a restaurant reviewer that I've yet seen.)
I just don't see where all the other stuff comes from. Not just your stuff, John. But everything from everybody. It's like, as far as many people here are concerned, Bruni couldn't possibly do a single thing right. His every move is apocolyptic.
I mean, he rereviews a restaurant that arguably deserves a rereview: he gets slammed.
He discreetly refers to his sexual orientation in a context so fraught that it would have been borderline fraud (and also astonishingly humorless) for him to omit it: he gets slammed.
He reviews a chain that has been highly touted within the NYC foodie community: he gets slammed.
I think all this carping diminishes the very real fundamental criticism that Bruni richly (no pun intended) deserves.
←

I think I was the most critical of the Strip House and I know I wasn't crticizing him for reviewing it (and stated that many times). I was criticizing the Times for the manner in which they promoted it (and still think they were "tabloidish" about it) and him for the sophomoric/locker room humor in the review.

I was very critical of the Chocolate Factory review because it didn't belong in the main dining column - and still doesn't. It was/is a waste of the precious fifty-two.

Don't care what he chooses to re-review. But if he's going to re-review, have something more meaningful to say other than the word "sear."

And yes, he does very little right. It's not his fault, he was just born that way (apologies to Jackie Gleason).

Lastly, I don't think the "carping" (and I not sure I would use that word) diminishes the fundamental criticism. In fact, it enhances it by emphasizing his "NAC" mentality with respect to the NYC dining scene.

Nathan · May 9, 2007

The question is: why is any of this an issue to begin with?
Why is it even raised?
Nathan:
google gay perspective and criticism. I would also suggest you read Brendan Beehan
Oscar Wilde or any of the myriad great gay critics/writers.
The gay perspective is an important and legitimate approach to music, film, art and yes even restaurants and food. For popular culture I suggest you try to view some TV episodes of the late lamented "Queer Eye..." or if that's too low brow how about Amistead Maupin's "Tales" or maybe "The L Word."
Bruni brought it up coyly in a review as an attempt at humor. The point is it was not relevant to the task at hand and in and of itself launched a discussion of how his sexual orientation may impact his reviews. I would posit that were Bruni possessing of stronger credentials and knowledge this would probably, for most, not be an issue at all. it was obviously distracting.
As a point of fact, many restaurant reviewers never mention the gender of their so called dining companions in the context of their reviews. Why? it just doesn't matter, does it?
You may think Bruni was being funny, I think he was being sophomoric and snarky.
We can disagree here (I like Benny Hill) but the end result was an awful lot of buzz or needless discussion about something that you yourself seem to believe is not very relevant.
←

that fact that my references to Butler, Eagleton, etc. meant nothing to you kind of ends this discussion. I don't need to google shit. I studied under some of the leading critical theorists on the planet in my Ph.D. work, including some of the originators of queer theory. pulling college freshman level relativism isn't going to work here. no one's ever articulated a queer theory of restaurant criticism and I guarantee you that Bruni doesn't see himself as acting upon one. (of course, all that stuff is passe anyway)

edit: oh, and btw, Wilde for years wrote music criticism under the psuedonym Corneto di Basseto. some of it quite good. i'm unfamiliar with any convincing attempts to assert that those reviews were written any differently because of his orientation. but why don't you google it and find out?

Edited May 9, 2007 by Nathan (log)

Nathan · May 9, 2007

Bruni brought it up coyly in a review as an attempt at humor. The point is it was not relevant to the task at hand and in and of itself launched a discussion of how his sexual orientation may impact his reviews. I would posit that were Bruni possessing of stronger credentials and knowledge this would probably, for most, not be an issue at all. it was obviously distracting.
You may think Bruni was being funny, I think he was being sophomoric and snarky.
We can disagree here (I like Benny Hill) but the end result was an awful lot of buzz or needless discussion about something that you yourself seem to believe is not very relevant.
←

The "controversy" was limited to an awfully small number of people.

My only question for you is would you have had the same reaction if Reichl had written that review and made humorous comments (which she would have)?

You'll probably say "yes"...I won't believe you.

Edited May 9, 2007 by Nathan (log)

Sneakeater · May 9, 2007

Or perhaps it only seems that way, because he's failing to get better.
←

For whatever little it's worth, that's what I think.

Sneakeater · May 9, 2007

I don't know about Oscar Wilde and any queer theory of restaurant criticism, but I do know that even though I'm a non-homosexual heterosexual male (although you couldn't have told that from my activities after Bite Club) (damn you Daniel), the next time I write about WD-50 I'm going to say that Wylie's food is better than it tastes.

Sneakeater · May 9, 2007

(Fuck that was Twain.)

(Should've googled it.)

rich · May 9, 2007

Bruni brought it up coyly in a review as an attempt at humor. The point is it was not relevant to the task at hand and in and of itself launched a discussion of how his sexual orientation may impact his reviews. I would posit that were Bruni possessing of stronger credentials and knowledge this would probably, for most, not be an issue at all. it was obviously distracting.
You may think Bruni was being funny, I think he was being sophomoric and snarky.
We can disagree here (I like Benny Hill) but the end result was an awful lot of buzz or needless discussion about something that you yourself seem to believe is not very relevant.
←
The "controversy" was limited to an awfully small number of people.
My only question for you is would you have had the same reaction if Reichl had written that review and made humorous comments (which she would have)?
You'll probably say "yes"...I won't believe you.
←

Nathan, I know you weren't speaking to me, but indulge my answer - I can't resist.

The Times during Reichl's era would not have promoted that review as it did two months ago, because it was more of a real newspaper then.

Reichl probably would have made funny comments based on her writing, but there's big difference in being funny and sophomoric - and that's what he was.

Edited May 9, 2007 by rich (log)

Nathan · May 9, 2007

(here's a quick explanation of gender and sexuality related-critiques for those who (thankfully) didn't waste time studying it in grad school):

there are some critics who specifically attempt to adopt gendered or sexuality-determined approaches to specific critical fields...i.e. they write on 15th century literary descriptions of dissections of the feminine anatomy as rape or on implicit homosexuality in the 19th century German bildungsroman.

this can also look at how specific narratives may have been impacted by sexuality or gender even though it wasn't explicit (i.e. looking for correlations between Wilde's orientation and certain passages in The Picture of Dorian Grey).

what you won't find (except among freshman papers) are arguments that someone's gender or who they do or dont' sleep with affects everything they do and write. that's nonsensical.

in other words, gendered or oriented critical approaches are explicit. put in the simplest terms possible: Bruni writes as a journalist who happens to be gay. he doesn't write as a gay journalist. to analogize, I don't think of myself as a straight male foodie, I think of myself as a foodie.

ulterior epicure · May 9, 2007

I don't know about Oscar Wilde and any queer theory of restaurant criticism, but I do know that even though I'm a non-homosexual heterosexual male (although you couldn't have told that from my activities after Bite Club) (damn you Daniel)...

... so, I'm glad I left early.

You Bruni scholars are quite entertaining, you know that? :wacko:

JohnL · May 9, 2007

Gee Nathan!

" freshman level relativism!" All I am saying is you should stop reading so much theory and get out once in a while!

The culture is alive with gay perspective!

Just because an esteemed (by you) critic hasn't formulated a theory (formally) doesn't meant is does not exist.

All I am saying is if Bruni were a good critic and writer, his attempt at humor (you liked it, I didn't) would not be relevant to anything. It wouldn't have prompted the discussion. The humor played off the fact that Bruni and his pals are gay. I do not recall any other Times critic ever mentioning his or her sexual preferences (or alluding to them) in their writings.

We can disagree. No big deal.

By the way we do agree on Richman. (bet he isn't familiar with Butler or Eagleton but we won't hold that against him). If you promise to refrain from flaunting your academic credentials I promise to stop badgering you with my freshman relativism.

(say is there a formal treatise or theory on that?).

And I say this in good humor.

I suggest it is time to get back to bashing Bruni for his imcompetence.

not that there's anything wrong with......

Daniel · May 9, 2007

I don't know about Oscar Wilde and any queer theory of restaurant criticism, but I do know that even though I'm a non-homosexual heterosexual male (although you couldn't have told that from my activities after Bite Club) (damn you Daniel)...
... so, I'm glad I left early.
You Bruni scholars are quite entertaining, you know that?
←

Ok.. I will bite.. What the hell did you do after you left Barry? Let the record state, all guests left happy and healthy..

Leonard Kim · May 9, 2007

Let me start by saying that I'm no statistician, and am well aware there many ways to goof this up, so what follows should be taken in the spirit of giving everyone a feel for the numbers, and nothing more definitive than that.

I took a fairly narrow view of "Italian" -- I didn't include Little Owl or The Orchard (where "border jumping" is mentioned in the headline). The review pretty much has to identify the restaurant as Italian.

Given that, Bruni does not obviously review more Italian restaurants than Grimes or Reichl. Everybody is at about 15% of reviews.

Part of the problem, as has already been noted, is that we don't know what the "expected" star distribution of Italian restaurants is. Before reading further, it's worth thinking for yourself whether, for each star rating, you'd expect the rate of Italian restaurants getting that rating to be more or less than the "average" rate. Four stars is no problem -- everybody knows that the Italian rate is going to be less (zero) than the average rate (1-3%). But do you expect Italian representation in 0, 1, 2, and 3 stars to be more or less than the average?

Getting to the individual critics:

Bruni's rate of giving 0, 1, 2 stars to Italian restaurants are very close to his average rates. However, 3 stars is overrepresented -- he gave 3 stars to Esca, Felidia, Del Posto, Babbo, and A Voce. Given his average rate for 3 stars, you'd expect more like 2 restaurants to get 3 stars. Felidia and Babbo are re-affirmations. Esca is a promotion. The other two are new.

For Reichl, one and two stars for Italian restaurants are pretty much at her established rates. The discrepancies are at three stars -- she only gave three (Felidia, Babbo, and San Domenico) where you'd expect seven, given her usual generosity -- and at Satisfactory, which she only gave eight times in her tenure, but four of those are Italian (where you'd expect maybe one).

Grimes "underrates" Italian restaurants, putting most in the one star bin at the expense of both two and especially three stars. Only one Italian restaurant has 3 stars from Grimes.

So I'd say there is a difference between Bruni and his predecessors, particularly at the three star level. As I noted in a previous post, there's an argument this has to do with increasing ambitions of Italian places. Maybe there are just more "actual" three star Italian restaurants out there. Even if Bruni got Del Posto wrong, there's Alto. Asimov gave three stars to L'Impero, etc. Whereas perhaps Reichl and Grimes didn't give out their usual numbers of *** to Italian places because there were no candidates. (Though I can't explain Grimes' stinginess at the ** level.)

Historical note: Parioli Romanissimo had four stars from 1974-84.

Jesikka · May 9, 2007

All I am saying is if Bruni were a good critic and writer, his attempt at humor (you liked it, I didn't) would not be relevant to anything. It wouldn't have prompted the discussion. The humor played off the fact that Bruni and his pals are gay. I do not recall any other Times critic ever mentioning his or her sexual preferences (or alluding to them) in their writings.
←

I don't know whether she mentioned it in her reviews for the Times, but I don't think it would be unfair to say that Ruth Reichel wrote three books about her sexual preferences (for married men, mostly). Oh and they also talked about food and her mother a lot. I do not recall Bruni ever mentioning his mother.

Sneakeater · May 9, 2007

I don't know about Oscar Wilde and any queer theory of restaurant criticism, but I do know that even though I'm a non-homosexual heterosexual male (although you couldn't have told that from my activities after Bite Club) (damn you Daniel)...
... so, I'm glad I left early.
You Bruni scholars are quite entertaining, you know that?
←
Ok.. I will bite.. What the hell did you do after you left Barry? Let the record state, all guests left happy and healthy..
←

Get to my apartment.

Put on CD of romantic Romanian ballads. Check.

Turn off some lights. Check.

Get on the couch. Check.

HER: I can't move. I'm too full. I don't think I've ever eaten that much in one sitting. And I drank so much wine.

ME: I can't move either.

HER: Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

**********************

Damn you Daniel.

Nathan · May 9, 2007

that's interesting.

of course, one Grimes outlier was Otto. he gave it two. (something which I think it's fair to say Bruni would be roundly criticized for if he did it.) and the menu at Otto was inferior then. (no pastas, fewer meats, fewer specials)

Sneakeater · May 9, 2007

Damn you Daniel.
←

Of course, it was worth it.

JohnL · May 9, 2007

All I am saying is if Bruni were a good critic and writer, his attempt at humor (you liked it, I didn't) would not be relevant to anything. It wouldn't have prompted the discussion. The humor played off the fact that Bruni and his pals are gay. I do not recall any other Times critic ever mentioning his or her sexual preferences (or alluding to them) in their writings.
←
I don't know whether she mentioned it in her reviews for the Times, but I don't think it would be unfair to say that Ruth Reichel wrote three books about her sexual preferences (for married men, mostly). Oh and they also talked about food and her mother a lot. I do not recall Bruni ever mentioning his mother.
←

In her books which were about her life it is more than relevant.

In a restaurant review it is not and as witnessed with Bruni often distracts from the task at hand which is reviewing a restaurant.

Unless and I don't want to engage nathan again--the critic is clearly intertwining his or her reviews with their personal details. This would be valid and not distracting because it would be part and partial to the review.

Again, I think the Italian and steakhouse focus may be a result of a comfort level Bruni has with these places.

Daniel · May 9, 2007

Damn you Daniel.
←
Of course, it was worth it.
←

Ahh thank you.. So it was good we left out the foie gras course then.. :biggrin:

ulterior epicure · May 9, 2007

Damn you Daniel.
←
Of course, it was worth it.
←
Ahh thank you.. So it was good we left out the foie gras course then..
←

Except foie gras, supposedly, is an aphrodesiac.

To keep on task and topic, I think Daniel, had Bruni attended this dinner, according to some on this forum, you would have faired well. You're male. You served ravioli.

Sneakeater · May 9, 2007

Damn you Daniel.
←
Of course, it was worth it.
←
Ahh thank you.. So it was good we left out the foie gras course then..
←

Frankly, what difference would it have made?

oakapple · May 9, 2007

This may seem repetitive: but thanks, as always, to Leonard Kim for his detailed analysis.

One point about Frank Bruni: Because he came in as the ex-Rome bureau chief, there was a pretty obvious question whether he would favor Italian restaurants. With our antenae already alert to that possibility, it didn't take much for our suspicions to be triggered.

Of course, there is more. Of Bruni's five 3-star Italian reviews, two (40%) were essentially unnecessary, because they were re-affirmations of existing ratings, and nothing had really changed at the restaurant that particularly demanded a re-visit. I am not saying he must always have a reason, but the fact is that with re-reviews there usually is one. I am also pretty sure he has never demoted an Italian restaurant.

BryanZ · May 9, 2007

Get to my apartment.
Put on CD of romantic Romanian ballads. Check.
Turn off some lights. Check.
Get on the couch. Check.
HER: I can't move. I'm too full. I don't think I've ever eaten that much in one sitting. And I drank so much wine.
ME: I can't move either.
HER: Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
**********************
Damn you Daniel.
←

I know this story all too well. It comes with the territory of being a hardcore eater. With that said, I'm not sure if it's inappropriate to say so, but you do quite well for yourself.

To keep on task and topic, I think Daniel, had Bruni attended this dinner, according to some on this forum, you would have faired well. You're male. You served ravioli.
←

Yes, but the music, the bathrooms? Bruni is a fickle beast.

oakapple · May 9, 2007

I should add that Leonard's rather strict definition of "Italian" has given Bruni a break. Bruni gave three stars to Cru, which the Times website lists as an Italian restaurant, a characterization I've no doubt Bruni was responsible for. In the review, he described it as "Tilting heavily toward Italy, nodding slightly toward Spain." In his own mind, he regarded Cru as substantially Italian.