Bruni and Beyond: NYC Reviewing (2007)

[Fat Guy]

Graydon Carter owns the Waverly Inn, not Little Owl.

[oakapple]

If the stars are ignored and the reviews stand on merit, then this conversation is moot.

Not really. The opera fans jump all over the critics when they think a review is wrong, and there are no stars for opera reviews. Frank Bruni's errors would still be errors, whether there are stars at the bottom of the review or not.

Edit: Come to think of it, some of Bruni's reviews have indeed been controversial for the stars, and no other reason. If the Times had no stars, then the Sripraphai review would have come across as just a rave review about a Thai restaurant in Queens, without anyone arguing about whether it "deserved" two stars. But for those who think Bouley is a great restaurant, Bruni's smackdown would have still been a low blow, with or without *** at the bottom.

I know Marc, you think the stars are important because it's a way to rank things (and we as a society like to rank - just look at basketball and football polls).

←

It's not so much that I think they're important, but that I don't see the pernicious harm in them that some people complain about. Edited February 27, 2007 by oakapple (log)

[oakapple]

Nathan - I don't mean this as an ad hominem remark - but simply as a question.  Don't expect an answer.  Just think about it.  When you get a little older - and have your lots of money - is this the way you want to live - waiting on line to get into the new hot place...?  I personally don't think this is a civilized way to live - or dine.

←

I'm not going to answer for Nathan (he's pretty good at doing that himself), but I do have an observation.

I cannot foresee the death of great restaurants that: A) take reservations; B) have serious wine lists; C) have luxurious service; D) serve top-notch food. Any critic who insists on using adjectives like "fussy," "effete," "starchy," "self-conscious," "[in]accessible," "ritual[istic]," "preening," "vain," or "highfalutin" to describe that kind of restaurant is in the wrong job.

And any critic who insists a generational shift has taken place, and that "savvy" diners (as a category) no longer are interested in such things, is totally out of touch. I would add (in case it is not obvious) that the opposite critic would be no good either.

[Nathan]

Little Owl - Graydon Carter - integrity.  What is this - a test of which words don't belong in the group  ?  You can insult south Florida all you want - I don't live there these days.  Haven't for over a decade.  (Although I do respect some of the business people I met there during the years I lived there - for reasons having nothing to do with their dining habits - others - of course - were idiots.)  As for downtown New York - it got a lot less interesting to me when the artists I knew there made more money on their real estate than they had ever made on their art and moved elsewhere.

FWIW - I guess these same people are the ones fighting over beach and pool chairs at fancy resort hotels (along the lines of the article in this weekend's WSJ).  Nathan - I don't mean this as an ad hominem remark - but simply as a question.  Don't expect an answer.  Just think about it.  When you get a little older - and have your lots of money - is this the way you want to live - waiting on line to get into the new hot place and fighting for a chaise near the pool?  I personally don't think this is a civilized way to live - or dine.  Don't think it now - didn't when I was 25 (when there was a hot disco I wanted to go to when I was 25 - I always figured out who to "grease" to get in - I was never one to wait behind a "velvet rope").  These days - well - if my reservation isn't enough - I'm not willing to go further.  It is food for thought.

BTW - what do you think of Frank Bruni's attitudes toward restaurants insofar as they are affected by his friends - his "social crowd" - the people he hangs out with when he dines.  Do you think that affects his POV?  I do.  Combine his friends - and the relatively traditional dining experiences he probably had during his years in Italy - and well - that's what makes Frank Bruni the kind of restaurant "critic" he is.  Robyn

←

see here's the problem...you're awfully opinionated about a city that you're not very familiar with (not anymore anyway). almost everything creative and interesting being done today in food, fashion, art, dance and music in NY (excepting ballet and classical/jazz -- my personal preferences actually) is downtown or in Brooklyn. literally.

but anyway..the fact that you would confuse Graydon Carter and the Little Owl is just embarrassing (since you're so opinionated about the topic). furthermore, um, no, none of us have any interest in waiting at velvet ropes...that's a mug's game.

the last thing in the world that Little Owl, Degustation, Ssam Bar, etc. are, are "velvet rope" places.

(edit: put differently, there aren't too many people from NY waiting outside of those velvet rope joints....)

I'm a lawyer too, I have the same tendency to talk like an authority on everything, but I'm not going to claim to have the slightest clue what the habits are of a different generation than mine own in Tampa.

Edited February 27, 2007 by Nathan (log)

[Nathan]

Nathan - I don't mean this as an ad hominem remark - but simply as a question.  Don't expect an answer.  Just think about it.  When you get a little older - and have your lots of money - is this the way you want to live - waiting on line to get into the new hot place...?  I personally don't think this is a civilized way to live - or dine.

←

I'm not going to answer for Nathan (he's pretty good at doing that himself), but I do have an observation.

I cannot foresee the death of great restaurants that: A) take reservations; B) have serious wine lists; C) have luxurious service; D) serve top-notch food. Any critic who insists on using adjectives like "fussy," "effete," "starchy," "self-conscious," "[in]accessible," "ritual[istic]," "preening," "vain," or "highfalutin" to describe that kind of restaurant is in the wrong job.

And any critic who insists a generational shift has taken place, and that "savvy" diners (as a category) no longer are interested in such things, is totally out of touch. I would add (in case it is not obvious) that the opposite critic would be no good either.

←

I agree with this. of course, I don't think Bruni is saying that either.

[flinflon28]

Little Owl - Graydon Carter - integrity.  What is this - a test of which words don't belong in the group  ?  You can insult south Florida all you want - I don't live there these days.  Haven't for over a decade.  (Although I do respect some of the business people I met there during the years I lived there - for reasons having nothing to do with their dining habits - others - of course - were idiots.)  As for downtown New York - it got a lot less interesting to me when the artists I knew there made more money on their real estate than they had ever made on their art and moved elsewhere.

FWIW - I guess these same people are the ones fighting over beach and pool chairs at fancy resort hotels (along the lines of the article in this weekend's WSJ).  Nathan - I don't mean this as an ad hominem remark - but simply as a question.  Don't expect an answer.  Just think about it.  When you get a little older - and have your lots of money - is this the way you want to live - waiting on line to get into the new hot place and fighting for a chaise near the pool?  I personally don't think this is a civilized way to live - or dine.  Don't think it now - didn't when I was 25 (when there was a hot disco I wanted to go to when I was 25 - I always figured out who to "grease" to get in - I was never one to wait behind a "velvet rope").  These days - well - if my reservation isn't enough - I'm not willing to go further.  It is food for thought.

BTW - what do you think of Frank Bruni's attitudes toward restaurants insofar as they are affected by his friends - his "social crowd" - the people he hangs out with when he dines.  Do you think that affects his POV?  I do.  Combine his friends - and the relatively traditional dining experiences he probably had during his years in Italy - and well - that's what makes Frank Bruni the kind of restaurant "critic" he is.  Robyn

←

see here's the problem...you're awfully opinionated about a city that you're not very familiar with (not anymore anyway). almost everything creative and interesting being done today in food, fashion, art, dance and music in NY (excepting ballet and classical/jazz -- my personal preferences actually) is downtown or in Brooklyn. literally.

but anyway..the fact that you would confuse Graydon Carter and the Little Owl is just embarrassing (since you're so opinionated about the topic). furthermore, um, no, none of us have any interest in waiting at velvet ropes...that's a mug's game.

the last thing in the world that Little Owl, Degustation, Ssam Bar, etc. are, are "velvet rope" places.

(edit: put differently, there aren't too many people from NY waiting outside of those velvet rope joints....)

I'm a lawyer too, I have the same tendency to talk like an authority on everything, but I'm not going to claim to have the slightest clue what the habits are of a different generation than mine own in Tampa.

←

Well said.

[robyn]

Little Owl - Graydon Carter - integrity.  What is this - a test of which words don't belong in the group  ?  You can insult south Florida all you want - I don't live there these days.  Haven't for over a decade.  (Although I do respect some of the business people I met there during the years I lived there - for reasons having nothing to do with their dining habits - others - of course - were idiots.)  As for downtown New York - it got a lot less interesting to me when the artists I knew there made more money on their real estate than they had ever made on their art and moved elsewhere.

FWIW - I guess these same people are the ones fighting over beach and pool chairs at fancy resort hotels (along the lines of the article in this weekend's WSJ).  Nathan - I don't mean this as an ad hominem remark - but simply as a question.  Don't expect an answer.  Just think about it.  When you get a little older - and have your lots of money - is this the way you want to live - waiting on line to get into the new hot place and fighting for a chaise near the pool?  I personally don't think this is a civilized way to live - or dine.  Don't think it now - didn't when I was 25 (when there was a hot disco I wanted to go to when I was 25 - I always figured out who to "grease" to get in - I was never one to wait behind a "velvet rope").  These days - well - if my reservation isn't enough - I'm not willing to go further.  It is food for thought.

BTW - what do you think of Frank Bruni's attitudes toward restaurants insofar as they are affected by his friends - his "social crowd" - the people he hangs out with when he dines.  Do you think that affects his POV?  I do.  Combine his friends - and the relatively traditional dining experiences he probably had during his years in Italy - and well - that's what makes Frank Bruni the kind of restaurant "critic" he is.  Robyn

←

see here's the problem...you're awfully opinionated about a city that you're not very familiar with (not anymore anyway). almost everything creative and interesting being done today in food, fashion, art, dance and music in NY (excepting ballet and classical/jazz -- my personal preferences actually) is downtown or in Brooklyn. literally.

but anyway..the fact that you would confuse Graydon Carter and the Little Owl is just embarrassing (since you're so opinionated about the topic). furthermore, um, no, none of us have any interest in waiting at velvet ropes...that's a mug's game.

the last thing in the world that Little Owl, Degustation, Ssam Bar, etc. are, are "velvet rope" places.

(edit: put differently, there aren't too many people from NY waiting outside of those velvet rope joints....)

I'm a lawyer too, I have the same tendency to talk like an authority on everything, but I'm not going to claim to have the slightest clue what the habits are of a different generation than mine own in Tampa.

←

Ah - mea culpa. That's what happens when I write a message after a martini or two. Remember Dorothy Parker - and what she said about martinis. More or less. I like them - two at the very most. Three and I'm under the table. Four and I'm under my host.

Still - you didn't answer my questions.

And I don't have the slightest clue about dining in Tampa either (go to New York more often than Tampa - haven't been in Tampa for over 10 years). Robyn

[Sneakeater]

I'm not Nathan. But I've been a lawyer for 25 years and I've made my money (even if I live in Brooklyn), and I know plenty of people who've made their money. So maybe I can say something about this.

Maybe it's New York. Maybe it's that there are any number of things you can't do here without waiting. (You still haven't answered my question about whether i-bankers simply never go to the movies.) Maybe it's also because you're sort of mischaracterizing (not on purpose or anything -- just from not having seen it) what the experience of "waiting" to get into these places is like. Reread FG's post about it. It's not that uncivilized. It isn't like waiting to get chosen by a bouncer to be admitted to a velvet-rope club that no New Yorker (except for some of the more clueless i-bankers) ever would go to, or fighting for a chaise longue at some petit bourgeous resort. In its way it's even sort of glamorous. And it's what much of daily life in New York is like. Even for i-bankers.

EDITED TO ADD: But the point isn't what people my age or yours like after we've made our money. It's what the generation coming up is going to like after they've made their money. FG is positing that there are a different set of expectations and preferences being generated. It doesn't answer to say that you don't share those expectations and preferences, and expect the current generation to drop them once they get older. Especially since you acknowledge that you didn't share those preference even when you were young.

Edited February 28, 2007 by Sneakeater (log)

[robyn]

Nathan - I don't mean this as an ad hominem remark - but simply as a question.  Don't expect an answer.  Just think about it.  When you get a little older - and have your lots of money - is this the way you want to live - waiting on line to get into the new hot place...?  I personally don't think this is a civilized way to live - or dine.

←

I'm not going to answer for Nathan (he's pretty good at doing that himself), but I do have an observation.

I cannot foresee the death of great restaurants that: A) take reservations; B) have serious wine lists; C) have luxurious service; D) serve top-notch food. Any critic who insists on using adjectives like "fussy," "effete," "starchy," "self-conscious," "[in]accessible," "ritual[istic]," "preening," "vain," or "highfalutin" to describe that kind of restaurant is in the wrong job.

And any critic who insists a generational shift has taken place, and that "savvy" diners (as a category) no longer are interested in such things, is totally out of touch. I would add (in case it is not obvious) that the opposite critic would be no good either.

←

I agree.

Guess it's just a question of Bruni attempting to impose his prejudices on the New York dining scene. There's a time and a place for all kinds of restaurants - and eating IMO. But that's a different issue than defining the role of the New York Times restaurant critic. Is his weekly review supposed to be like a blog - what I ate this week and what I liked or didn't like - or something more important? I don't think Bruni is the only questionable newspaper restaurant critic in the US - he's just the most visible. I can understand that happening in my home town paper - where the restaurant critic is probably an unpaid volunteer - but it is less forgiveable in a major metro area.

My husband and I travel a fair amount - and I have found it increasingly difficult over the years to find places I like relying on newspaper reviews - or even the Michelin guide. Curiously - we had excellent eating in Japan - where I couldn't (due to language barriers) do hardly any research on my own. Just relied on concierge and friend recommendations - walking around a neighborhood and eyeballing places at meal times - and reading an English website on dining in Japan written by an American ex-pat.

Perhaps this would be a decent way for a tourist to approach dining in New York these days? What do you think? Robyn

[Sneakeater]

I do agree with that last post, though.

[robyn]

Graydon Carter owns the Waverly Inn, not Little Owl.

←

Yes - mea culpa. Gin will muddle the brain.

Note that I do like Graydon Carter because he keeps getting arrested (or getting citations - whatever) for smoking in his office . Robyn

Edited February 28, 2007 by robyn (log)

[Sneakeater]

But note that in this discussion, Graydon Carter is The Bad Guy -- The Clinging Remnant Of The Bad Past -- not The Harbinger Of The Future.

[Nathan]

Little Owl - Graydon Carter - integrity.  What is this - a test of which words don't belong in the group  ?  You can insult south Florida all you want - I don't live there these days.  Haven't for over a decade.  (Although I do respect some of the business people I met there during the years I lived there - for reasons having nothing to do with their dining habits - others - of course - were idiots.)  As for downtown New York - it got a lot less interesting to me when the artists I knew there made more money on their real estate than they had ever made on their art and moved elsewhere.

FWIW - I guess these same people are the ones fighting over beach and pool chairs at fancy resort hotels (along the lines of the article in this weekend's WSJ).  Nathan - I don't mean this as an ad hominem remark - but simply as a question.  Don't expect an answer.  Just think about it.  When you get a little older - and have your lots of money - is this the way you want to live - waiting on line to get into the new hot place and fighting for a chaise near the pool?  I personally don't think this is a civilized way to live - or dine.  Don't think it now - didn't when I was 25 (when there was a hot disco I wanted to go to when I was 25 - I always figured out who to "grease" to get in - I was never one to wait behind a "velvet rope").  These days - well - if my reservation isn't enough - I'm not willing to go further.  It is food for thought.

BTW - what do you think of Frank Bruni's attitudes toward restaurants insofar as they are affected by his friends - his "social crowd" - the people he hangs out with when he dines.  Do you think that affects his POV?  I do.  Combine his friends - and the relatively traditional dining experiences he probably had during his years in Italy - and well - that's what makes Frank Bruni the kind of restaurant "critic" he is.  Robyn

←

see here's the problem...you're awfully opinionated about a city that you're not very familiar with (not anymore anyway). almost everything creative and interesting being done today in food, fashion, art, dance and music in NY (excepting ballet and classical/jazz -- my personal preferences actually) is downtown or in Brooklyn. literally.

but anyway..the fact that you would confuse Graydon Carter and the Little Owl is just embarrassing (since you're so opinionated about the topic). furthermore, um, no, none of us have any interest in waiting at velvet ropes...that's a mug's game.

the last thing in the world that Little Owl, Degustation, Ssam Bar, etc. are, are "velvet rope" places.

(edit: put differently, there aren't too many people from NY waiting outside of those velvet rope joints....)

I'm a lawyer too, I have the same tendency to talk like an authority on everything, but I'm not going to claim to have the slightest clue what the habits are of a different generation than mine own in Tampa.

←

Ah - mea culpa. That's what happens when I write a message after a martini or two. Remember Dorothy Parker - and what she said about martinis. More or less. I like them - two at the very most. Three and I'm under the table. Four and I'm under my host.

Still - you didn't answer my questions.

And I don't have the slightest clue about dining in Tampa either (go to New York more often than Tampa - haven't been in Tampa for over 10 years). Robyn

←

There was nothing to answer. You don't understand the way we live. I don't know who the heck is fighting for a poolside chaise...but it's not anyone I know. Those aren't NY'ers (except for some young and clueless Normandie Court and financial district types) waiting in the velvet rope line outside of the Chelsea and MP clubs.

Maybe this will help:

Here's what waiting in line can be like at say Tartine (which is about as hot as a WV joint that is byo and has been around for 20 years can be....no one's been writing it up for a long long time...but it's always full...of people from the hood)...it's a small place...and in the summer the line can be twenty people waiting outside. Everyone brings bottles of wine. Everyone uncorks them. People drink wine, chat, make friends and have one great party....while waiting... You know what else? There are people making millions in that line (literally) and NYU grad students making a T.A. stipend. That's the NY I know.

Edited February 28, 2007 by Nathan (log)

[robyn]

If the stars are ignored and the reviews stand on merit, then this conversation is moot.

Not really. The opera fans jump all over the critics when they think a review is wrong, and there are no stars for opera reviews. Frank Bruni's errors would still be errors, whether there are stars at the bottom of the review or not.

Edit: Come to think of it, some of Bruni's reviews have indeed been controversial for the stars, and no other reason. If the Times had no stars, then the Sripraphai review would have come across as just a rave review about a Thai restaurant in Queens, without anyone arguing about whether it "deserved" two stars. But for those who think Bouley is a great restaurant, Bruni's smackdown would have still been a low blow, with or without *** at the bottom.

Rich may be in the process of converting me when it comes to stars. Precisely because of the arts analogy.

We saw Savion Glover this weekend (we last saw him in New York in Bring in Da Noise, Bring in Da Funk - maybe almost 10 years ago). He's fabulous. I don't know if he's the greatest tap dancer who will dance during my lifetime - but if he isn't - he's one of the top 3. How do you compare what he does to opera - to symphony orchestras - to ballet? Perhaps he has off nights (although this wasn't one of them). What do you do then? I read back through all the reviews of the show I saw. None has a "star rating" - but - if I had read them before I bought tickets - all would have encouraged me to go.

Perhaps when it comes to restaurants - all we need is: 1) basic information (meals served - hours - etc.); 2) the nature of the restaurant and the food it serves; and 3) how good the place is in terms of accomplishing what it's trying to do. Awarding stars when you're reading about everything from BBQ or noodle places to the best haute cuisine restaurants in the world - well maybe it just doesn't make sense. Robyn

[Sneakeater]

If the stars are ignored and the reviews stand on merit, then this conversation is moot.

Not really. The opera fans jump all over the critics when they think a review is wrong, and there are no stars for opera reviews. Frank Bruni's errors would still be errors, whether there are stars at the bottom of the review or not.

Edit: Come to think of it, some of Bruni's reviews have indeed been controversial for the stars, and no other reason. If the Times had no stars, then the Sripraphai review would have come across as just a rave review about a Thai restaurant in Queens, without anyone arguing about whether it "deserved" two stars. But for those who think Bouley is a great restaurant, Bruni's smackdown would have still been a low blow, with or without *** at the bottom.

Rich may be in the process of converting me when it comes to stars. Precisely because of the arts analogy.

We saw Savion Glover this weekend (we last saw him in New York in Bring in Da Noise, Bring in Da Funk - maybe almost 10 years ago). He's fabulous. I don't know if he's the greatest tap dancer who will dance during my lifetime - but if he isn't - he's one of the top 3. How do you compare what he does to opera - to symphony orchestras - to ballet? Perhaps he has off nights (although this wasn't one of them). What do you do then? I read back through all the reviews of the show I saw. None has a "star rating" - but - if I had read them before I bought tickets - all would have encouraged me to go.

Perhaps when it comes to restaurants - all we need is: 1) basic information (meals served - hours - etc.); 2) the nature of the restaurant and the food it serves; and 3) how good the place is in terms of accomplishing what it's trying to do. Awarding stars when you're reading about everything from BBQ or noodle places to the best haute cuisine restaurants in the world - well maybe it just doesn't make sense. Robyn

←

Another one!

Rich, we're gonna win this, one diner at a time.

[Fat Guy]

I agree that star ratings are bad, and have been arguing it for at least a decade. Probably the best thing ever written on the subject is James Poniewozik's 1998 essay in Salon: "The St*r Report" (which references something I wrote earlier). Here's the thing, though: the star ratings aren't going anywhere. You'll likely see stars added to opera and art criticism before you'll see them removed from restaurant criticism. So there's only so much that can be accomplished by endlessly repeating the claim that they're a bad idea, and by answering every objection to specific star ratings with, "Well, there shouldn't be star ratings." The best we can do, as people concerned with the quality of dining criticism, is fight to have the stars applied in a rational manner. This is a place where the voices of commentators and readers can have some actual influence. Not a lot, but some.

[stetson99]

I hate to go off topic, but today Bruni awards one star to Robert's Steakhouse. I am sure that this will allow the Chodorow Breakdown to continue to grow at an exponential rate.

[Dave H]

How to Fix the NYT Star System

(a somewhat wordy manifesto)

-------------------------------------------

Everyone sort of understands this, but I feel it might help this discussion to make it explicit:

The difficulty with the star system is that it combines a descriptive which-category factor and a subjective how-good factor into a single, coarse-grained score. The main reason Bruni has come in for criticism vis-a-vis his star ratings has been that he has increased the weight given to the how-good factor, thereby deemphasizing the which-category factor. I would argue that, all things being equal, this makes the system somewhat more useful (despite what some have implied I doubt a single consumer has actually confused Spicy & Tasty with Le Cirque as a result of Bruni's ratings). It does, however, have the unfortunate effect of making Bruni's ratings somewhat incompatible with his predecessors', although as we have discovered this regime only stretches back to Bryan Miller's tenure, with earlier critics handing out stars in a manner more like Bruni.

At this point I was prepared to make a principled argument that, if you ignore his often perplexing first year or so, Bruni has actually done a fairly excellent job awarding stars; that while his ability to describe food is clearly weak, the list of restaurants he has championed by bestowing ratings higher than what should possibly be allowed for their category under the Miller-defined system--Sripraphai, Little Owl, Spicy & Tasty, Bar Room, and Ssam Bar--is a damn good group of restaurants, well worth championing, and as Sneakeater and Nathan have been patiently explaining upthread, a list that is very relevant to how knowledgeable Manhattanites New Yorkers actually eat. (One quick comment on that discussion: I disagree completely with Bruni's implication that the savvy eaters of the Ssam Bar generation dislike stuffy stodgy ol' Per Se. Rather I think they eat at haute cuisine restaurants just as often as the savvy diners of previous generations--that is, a few times a year at special occasions, or a bit more frequently if they get to add in the occasional celebratory business dinner; the difference is that they also get to eat extraordinary food, and in the case of Ssam Bar near-haute cuisine, a few times a week at these sorts of places as well. Frankly I'm not sure Frank agrees with what he wrote either, it may have just been a quick caricature to situate Ssam Bar in the restaurant scene at large.)

Meanwhile if we look at the list of places Frank placed below what the Miller system would allow--Alto, the Modern Dining Room, Le Cirque, the Russian Tea Room, Gordan Ramsay, Kobe Club perhaps--it's not a very inspiring list. Many of these reviews prompted howls when they first hit, but my impression is that in the long term people's opinions of these restaurants have tended to fall into line with Bruni's. To be fair, I have not been to most of them, and it's possible that they are indeed great restaurants and that the fact that no one talks about them is only confirmation of Bruni's power to kill a worthy restaurant. But I doubt it. (What he did to Gilt, on the other hand, was a tremendous error and a tragedy, but every reviewer will make some mistakes.)

Of course his latest review makes an argument for Bruni's unimpeachable credibility and evolving seriousness pretty impossible (although, please note, he got the star rating correct!), so let's move on.

In the interminable discussion on this subject, several suggestions for how to fix the star system have come up. The first is to abolish star ratings. Not only is this, as Fat Guy points out, never ever ever going to happen, let me go on the record as saying it's a terrible idea. At some level one's opinion of a restaurant's quality involves the subjective matter of one's personal tastes, but, even more than most cultural fields, the vast majority of a proper restaurant evaluation is objective. I'd guess something like an 80-20 rule holds: assuming they have an equivalent experience or at least make enough visits to smooth out unrepresentative ordering choices or off nights, an informed and experienced group of eaters will probably independently agree on about 80% of how good a particular restaurant is, with the remainder up to their individual inclinations and tastes. Maybe it's closer to 90-10. (I also suspect that the more expert the group of diners the more their ratings will converge.) The point is that restaurants are something that can be objectively evaluated. At its base, restaurant reviewing is about telling people which restaurants are worth going to, and a quantitative rating system could aid that immensely even if the particular one in use at the Times may not.

The second suggestion is to split the current "overall" rating into several component ratings, most commonly for food, decor, and service ala Zagat. This sounds good initially, but it actually doesn't solve the problem at all: which-category and how-good would still be conflated into one number. To make this a bit more concrete: I find the space at Blue Hill elegant and pleasing, and I think the waitstaff is among the very best in the city. I found the room at Per Se odd and out of touch with New York, and the service a bit awkward. But there's no way in hell I would claim that Blue Hill has four star decor or service, or that Per Se does not. The which-category distinctions swamp the how-good ones.

The third suggestion comes from the existence of the $25 and Under column, because that's where you would traditionally see writeups of Sripraphai and Spicy & Tasty pre-Bruni. If we're recognizing that this category of restaurants (with the name suitably inflation-adjusted) can be good enough and important enough to warrant the attention and standards applied by a starred review, why not beef up the column length and slap a star rating on the end? That way it allows for the cheaper restaurants which form the bulk of many people's everyday eating a chance at a rigorous evaluation. This is exactly the approach newly adopted at New York Magazine, and I think it's a good one, as far as it goes. That's because it allows a partial separation of which-category from how-good.

This lets us take care of Sri and S&T, but it hits a roadblock when confronted with a Ssam Bar review. Clearly Ssam Bar belongs in the "fine-dining" review column, because the food is chef-driven and innovative and is frankly competing head-to-head with the best restaurants in the city--plus a meal there can easily cost $70pp or more, well outside of the range of "25 USD(1990) and Under". But then you've got the paper napkins and the backless chairs and the no reservations policy. No matter where you put it, its rating is going to be significantly affected by which-category and not just how-good.

This led a couple people upthread to propose a third, "middle" review category, presumably to include Ssam Bar, Little Owl, etc. But this is just kicking the can down the road. Where do we put the Bar Room? What about wd-50--is it right to grade it on the same scale as Per Se, when the food is arguably as serious but the formality clearly is not? Does Masa go up against Per Se, when so much of what makes for a traditional four star experience does not apply? If Masa does, does Sugiyama? And it's not like these problems don't show up in our Cheap Eats category: how do you grade the Arepa Lady on the same scale as Sripraphai? And where do the steakhouses go?

The solution, I think, is not to invent a new review section for every restaurant category, but to unify restaurant reviewing into a single section (with multiple reviewers as necessary) and explicitly identify the restaurant's category at the top of the review, along with a how-good rating that is independent for each category. There would be maybe 10 or 12 categories to choose from, based on how many internally comparable genres of restaurant actually exist in the city. Obviously new categories could be added down the road to incorporate the emergence of new genres, although this would have to be rare. Ratings in the same category are understood as being directly comparable, and incorporate the quality of the food, service, overall experience and value in the context of the standards for that category and the competing restaurants in it.

I'm stealing this idea from the way Steve Plotnicki has organized his reviews on his OAD blog. His somewhat quirky but serviceable categories for New York restaurants are:

• New York Casual Dining
  
• New York Creative and Bistro Cuisine
  
• New York Fish, Steak & Brasseries
  
• New York Formal Dining
  
• New York Formal Ethnic Dining
  
• New York Inexpensive Ethnic & Regional Dining
  
• New York Japanese Dining
  
• New York Upper Middle Dining
  

Within each category he grades restaurants on an A - F scale with +/-, which I also like because it offers more room for fine distinctions than 0 - 4 stars, and it's intuitively understandable. [One of my great moments with the NYT star system was when I was leaving a predictably mediocre meal at Ruby Foo's with some "non-savvy" friends (they picked the restaurant) and I was dumbstruck at Ruth Reichl's two star review hanging outside. My friends couldn't decide if I thought two stars was too high or too low, because, being non-savvy, their reference point was movie reviews where two stars is generally worse than average.]

Of course if adopted by the Times, the reviews themselves would be full reviews as currently written, not Plotnicki's capsule reviews. Obviously there are problems with this approach, primarily in choosing the categories so they are broad enough to be relevant but narrow enough to ensure comparability. Of course there would be arguments over what category certain restaurants should be assigned to. But I think such a system would be worlds better than what we currently have.

The problem is conflating which-category with how-good. The solution is to separate them. What do you think?

[rich]

Mark the date - 2/28/07 - the day the NY Times offcially became a "rag."

It's been coming a long time, but this is the day the Times has finally reached the summit. It has now become the tabloid of newspapers, the page 6 of serious journalism and the rag that prints all the garbage it can find in the trash.

It's bad enough for the restaurant reviewer to devote "another" precious (and entire) column to yet "another" NYC steak house, but for the editorial staff to place the review on page one (which used to be the sacred ground of the 4-stars) borders on hypocrisy at best, and the "dumbing down" of the paper at worst.

Along with two gratuitous photos, it prints a headline and sub headline worthy of the National Enquirer. It has taken the NY Times more than 150 years to reach this pinnacle of success, and it has achieved it with a flourish.

There is no more defending the Times or its chief restaurant critic. The debate is over. There's no more reason to debate the merits of Chodorow's ad, the NY Times has proven him correct. Only the Times could have snatched such a defeat from the jaws of victory.

2/28/07 - a day that will go down in infamy.

RIP NY Times - we once loved you.

Edited February 28, 2007 by rich (log)

[SusanGiff]

I'm just outraged. I don't understand why this guy gets to keep his job. Can anyone offer a defense for this review? Is there a steak anywhere that's so sublime that I'd be willing to share my dining time and my table with Mahogany or Brianne?

[Fat Guy]

Dave, I think a system with a dozen categories makes sense for a niche publication targeted at a savvy audience, however it's too unwieldy for a general-audience newspaper. One of the main virtues of the star system is that it's simple -- that's part of what makes it so powerful. Ratings like "Two and a half stars in the New York Upper Middle Dining category!" just aren't going to appeal to a general audience, or even mean very much. So, while I agree with your characterization of the problem, I don't think a system even more baroque than Michelin's symbolic language is the solution.

Moreover, what you characterize as a three-category solution is really a two-category solution: starred restaurants and non-starred restaurants. The point of running a third review each week is not to create a new category of ratings. It is, rather, to account for the increased number of restaurants and to make sure both cheap eats and the middle range get sufficient coverage (also in pursuit of this goal there should be occasional group reviews of steakhouses and other genre restaurants, so as to free up space for more thorough reviewing of fine-dining restaurants). This introduces no complexity; it simplifies. And while it's not as exhaustive (or exhausting) as a dozen-category system, it addresses 90+ percent of the problem.

[Fat Guy]

I don't understand the objection to the Penthouse Club review. Can somebody explain it? I thought Bruni did just about everything right. Should he have ignored the restaurant because some people are offended by operations like the Penthouse Club? No, I think he made the journalistically correct choice: he covered a restaurant that has food worthy of coverage, and he ridiculed its ridiculous non-food aspects.

[rich]

I don't understand the objection to the Penthouse Club review. Can somebody explain it? I thought Bruni did just about everything right. Should he have ignored the restaurant because some people are offended by operations like the Penthouse Club? No, I think he made the journalistically correct choice: he covered a restaurant that has food worthy of coverage, and he ridiculed its ridiculous non-food aspects.

←

Steve, it has nothing to do with reviewing the restaurant, though covering yet another average NYC steakhouse is worthless. (I think he's done three in the last few months). It just proves he lacks any type of journalistic sense or timing.

What is irrational is the manner in which the Times covered it - front page position, two abosolutely silly photos and three National Enquirer type headlines. There's no defending that by the publication that wants to known as the "paper of record."

If they want to be the National Enquirer or the New York Post, then sell the paper in supermarket check-out stands or change the format from newspaper to tabloid.

The problem is the manner of coverage Steve - that should be obvious to any serious/reputable journalist.

Edited February 28, 2007 by rich (log)

[Fat Guy]

Whether I'm serious or reputable is an open question, but I'm a journalist and none of what you're saying is at all obvious to me. It's so un-obvious that I believe the exact opposite to be true. You can't judge a newspaper in 2007 by the standards of 1954.

[oakapple]

I'm just outraged. I don't understand why this guy gets to keep his job. Can anyone offer a defense for this review? Is there a steak anywhere that's so sublime that I'd be willing to share my dining time and my table with Mahogany or Brianne?

←

Robert's Steakhouse has garnered praise from a number of serious food journalists. It so happens I liked the scenery better than the food when I dined there, but I seem to be in the minority. The fact that it's in a strip club shouldn't make it ineligible to be reviewed.

There are complaints on this thread every time Bruni reviews a steakhouse, because some people think that steakhouses should never be reviewed, but I think it's a legitimate genre. Unless the Times is going to pay someone to review only steakhouses, they're part of Bruni's territory. Claiborne, Sheraton, Reichl et al reviewed them too.

The review itself won't win any awards for excellence in culinary journalism, but none of Frank Bruni's pieces ever will.