Bruni and Beyond: NYC Reviewing (2007)

oakapple · January 12, 2007

A trip into the time warp might dampen our nostalgia for critics past. Earlier this week, I dined at Le Boeuf à la Mode (539 E. 81st between 1st & York Avenues), a classic French bistro that has been in the same family since it opened in 1962. Although remodeled in the 1990s, I strongly suspect the cuisine has barely changed since then. [blog review here.]

The last—and as far as I can find, only—New York Times review was on April 25, 1975. In a double review, John Canaday awarded two stars apiece to Le Muscadet and Le Boeuf à la Mode. Incredibly, he acknowledges that he paid but two visits to the former, and only one visit to the latter — unthinkable by today's standards.

The food writing, frankly, is rather pedestrian. Here are some examples:

The lamb was nice and pink, served with flageolets as it should be, plus good potatoes prepared with either sweet onions or leeks, we couldn't tell which. The chicken, roasted to a lovely golden brown but still succulent, came with rice and peas.

On another visit, we found the grenadin of veal with mushrooms, at $8.75, lacking oomph, but the pepper steak at $12, the maximum price on the menu, was very good indeed.

As hors do'oeuvre, an artichoke vinaigrette was young, tender, altogether excellent, and a very good crab meat crepe was served piping hot. The soup du jour was cream of leek, and I hope it's on the menu if I get a chance to go back. It could hardly have been better.

The "lacking oomph" line struck me as very much in the Bruni style.

But there is a humorous couple of paragraphs at the end:

A postscript, now, about restaurants visited but not reviewed:
Usually it's just a case of the restaurants being neither good nor bad, not worth calling attention to. But during the last few weeks three were visited following letters from the proprietors saying business was so bad that they would have to close unless they got a life-saving recommendation in this column. All I can say is that reviews could have served only one humanitarian functuion: they would have had to be mercy blows.

Edited January 12, 2007 by oakapple (log)

rich · January 12, 2007

But there is a humorous couple of paragraphs at the end:
A postscript, now, about restaurants visited but not reviewed:
Usually it's just a case of the restaurants being neither good nor bad, not worth calling attention to. But during the last few weeks three were visited following letters from the proprietors saying business was so bad that they would have to close unless they got a life-saving recommendation in this column. All I can say is that reviews could have served only one humanitarian functuion: they would have had to be mercy blows.
←

I think those restaurants were Luchows, Jack Dempsey's and The Grotto (W.46 St.).

Ah, those were the days. Taking a date to dinner in the NYC of the late 60's was an adventure. Yes, and before you can say it Nathan, I'm old. :rolleyes: So old in fact, I'm only able to stay awake about six hours a day - 11am - 5pm. I wish I could just get around without my walker once more. It would such freedom, such joy - hell I may even remain awake an extra hour.

PS - wnet to Boeuf al la Mode many times in the 60's and 70's. I think was was 2-3 stars. Last time I was there was 1978 (when I was still able to walk).

Edited January 12, 2007 by rich (log)

Sneakeater · January 12, 2007

When people talk about the Great Old Days of Times restaurant criticism, I somehow don't think John Canaday is what they have in mind.

Fat Guy · January 12, 2007

I also think the question is confused by the fact that Grimes and Bruni are such good writers in general. The old-school critics were not necessarily at that level. But they were much better on food. Ruth Reichl is probably the only Times restaurant critic who was at the very top of both the writing and food-knowledge heaps.

Nathan · January 12, 2007

Sheraton's review of the QG had about 1800 words.

Bruni's review of RTR had about 1330 words.

So I misspoke. it's certainly not double. But they also clearly have about 25-30% less space to work with today (FG was right on the money).

Sneakeater · January 12, 2007

Appropos of nothing much, when Ruth Reichl first started at the Times, the stylishness of her writing actually put me off. I think I was so inured to Bryan Miller's clunkiness that I viewed Reichl's stylish writing as a sort of affectation. I got over that pretty quickly, though.

Reichl is actually instructive. She put a lot of "color" into her reviews. At first, I thought that was a distraction from the actual analytic criticism. But as I came to appreciate, she was in fact able to do what Bruni isn't: to make the "color" tell. Instead of simply (sorry oakapple) wasting space, it shed light on her conclusions. I guess that's because, with her, the "color" supplemented the analysis instead of replacing it.

Edited January 12, 2007 by Sneakeater (log)

rich · January 12, 2007

I also think the question is confused by the fact that Grimes and Bruni are such good writers in general. The old-school critics were not necessarily at that level. But they were much better on food. Ruth Reichl is probably the only Times restaurant critic who was at the very top of both the writing and food-knowledge heaps.
←

Currently I think Eric Asimov has both qualities as does Mehan.

oakapple · January 12, 2007

Ruth Reichl is probably the only Times restaurant critic who was at the very top of both the writing and food-knowledge heaps.
←
Currently I think Eric Asimov has both qualities as does Mehan.
←

I am reasonably sure that Asimov, had he wanted it, could have had the principal critic's job after Grimes left. Meehan would probably have a shot at it after Bruni leaves, but there's no telling how long that will be. If he stays as long as Reichl and Grimes did, we're only halfway through his tenure. Edited January 12, 2007 by oakapple (log)

Fat Guy · January 12, 2007

I also think the question is confused by the fact that Grimes and Bruni are such good writers in general. The old-school critics were not necessarily at that level. But they were much better on food. Ruth Reichl is probably the only Times restaurant critic who was at the very top of both the writing and food-knowledge heaps.
←
Currently I think Eric Asimov has both qualities as does Mehan.
←

I think both Asimov and Meehan are strong writers, and Asimov is also super-genius-level in intellect, and of course they're strong on food, but they're not at the Grimes or Bruni level as writers. Either Grimes or Bruni could easily, under the right circumstances, win a Pulitzer or something on that level. Bruni actually was a Pulitzer finalist when he was at the Detroit Free Press. And did you read Grimes's chicken story? He's also quite brilliant as a book reviewer, I think. He just wasn't a particularly good restaurant critic, though he did grow a lot in the job.

oakapple · January 12, 2007

I think both Asimov and Meehan are strong writers, and Asimov is also super-genius-level in intellect, and of course they're strong on food, but they're not at the Grimes or Bruni level as writers. Either Grimes or Bruni could easily, under the right circumstances, win a Pulitzer or something on that level.
←

I'm afraid I don't share your enthusiasm for Bruni's craftsmanship. Yes, he's competent, and certainly better than I am. But so many of his reviews are plagued by irrelevant material, overwrought imagery, and misplaced emphasis. I don't think Pulitzers are awarded merely because the writer knows how to string together technically correct sentences that read well.

Sneakeater · January 12, 2007

I agree. I think Bruni's writing, at least in his current position, has been overrated by some. It's too cute and mannered.

Nathan · January 12, 2007

Grimes actually wrote a couple of the best cocktail books ever written...he can sustain his style at length (as can Bruni).

remember that the job was offered to McIrnerny as well. there clearly seems to be an emphasis on writing for the position of late.

Fat Guy · January 12, 2007

Grimes actually wrote a couple of the best cocktail books ever written...he can sustain his style at length (as can Bruni).
remember that the job was offered to McIrnerny as well. there clearly seems to be an emphasis on writing for the position of late.
←

Yes, Bruni wrote the New York Times bestseller "Ambling into History." He's truly a first-rate journalist and writer. He's just not a good restaurant reviewer.

rich · January 12, 2007

This is an interesting topic and may deserve its own thread.

I think he is a very good, highly skilled journalist, but not when it comes to food or restaurants and I think his writing suffers accordingly. I agree with both Marc and SE that he becomes too cute and includes meaningless phrases and paragraphs. This is something that often occurs when writing about a subject that you're not familar.

Reading him over the years was interesting as he was very insightful when it came to world affairs and the inner workings of government - his writing was excellent. Why he chose to take his current position is a mystery to everyone but him. Maybe he was becoming burned out or just wanted a change and get to eat for free every night.

I guess the real question is who is more to blame? Him, for accepting the position or the Times for offering it?

Edited January 12, 2007 by rich (log)

Nathan · January 12, 2007

like I said, they offered it to Jay McIrnerny before Bruni. Jay may have a decent amateur's knowledge about wine but nothing about food to the best of my knowledge....but he is a good writer (albeit I think his nonfiction is better than his novels).

As for Bruni, he at least knows Italian food (which is more than McIrnerny)...unfortunately, the rest of his culinary knowledge is problematic.

edit: This is also why I think he only really sounds enthused when he's writing about Italian restaurants.

Edited January 12, 2007 by Nathan (log)

Fat Guy · January 12, 2007

For what it's worth, McInerney won the MFK Fisher Distinguished Writing Award (that's the most coveted Beard Award) for his piece on Ducasse in Departures, and wrote a similarly impressive piece on Jean-Georges in New York Magazine. I wouldn't be so quick to write off his wine writing as irrelevant -- it has plenty to do with food. He's also a serious gourmet, bon vivant and "scenester." His fiction reflects this as well. He knows the New York restaurant culture extremely well. Not that there has ever been conclusive evidence presented that they offered him the job, but certainly there were talks.

flinflon28 · January 12, 2007

For what it's worth, McInerney won the MFK Fisher Distinguished Writing Award (that's the most coveted Beard Award) for his piece on Ducasse in Departures, and wrote a similarly impressive piece on Jean-Georges in New York Magazine. I wouldn't be so quick to write off his wine writing as irrelevant -- it has plenty to do with food. He's also a serious gourmet, bon vivant and "scenester." His fiction reflects this as well. He knows the New York restaurant culture extremely well. Not that there has ever been conclusive evidence presented that they offered him the job, but certainly there were talks.
←

Not to mention that it would be preposterous for someone on the recognition level of McInerny to even try to fly under the radar and not be spotted while reviewing restaurants.

slkinsey · January 12, 2007

Steven: Any truth to the persistent rumor that you and Bruni were both offered the job, which Bruni eventually won by defeating you in a hot-dog eating contest at Katz's?

Nathan · January 12, 2007

If I recall correctly, McInerney said he was offered the job.

I don't doubt that he is an excellent amateur gourmet, but I haven't seen anything to indicate that his technical knowledge is anymore broad than that of Grimes or Bruni before they started their jobs.

but my only point is that the Times clearly has gone after people who were writers first and gourmands second.

oakapple · January 12, 2007

Reading him over the years was interesting as he was very insightful when it came to world affairs and the inner workings of government - his writing was excellent. Why he chose to take his current position is a mystery to everyone but him.
←

By all accounts, Bruni was well known at the Times as a huge restaurant fan. Whenever people visited Rome, Bruni was (allegedly) like a walking Zagat Guide, so encyclopedic was his knowledge. I suspect that, having made his chops at more serious reporting, he wanted to do something fun. Johnny Apple is evidence that it is possible to be an entertaining food writer without having been trained for it.

Jay may have a decent amateur's knowledge about wine but nothing about food to the best of my knowledge.
←

Anyone knowledgeable about wine is not ignorant about food, since the vast majority of wines are made to be consumed with food.

Not to mention that it would be preposterous for someone on the recognition level of McInerny to even try to fly under the radar and not be spotted while reviewing restaurants.
←

The reality is that all of the major restaurants (and many of the minor ones) recognize Bruni anyway. Indeed, they recognized Grimes and Reichl too, and their likenesses weren't plastered all over the Internet, as Bruni's is. Just google him; you'll see. Edited January 12, 2007 by oakapple (log)

slkinsey · January 12, 2007

Reading him over the years was interesting as he was very insightful when it came to world affairs and the inner workings of government - his writing was excellent. Why he chose to take his current position is a mystery to everyone but him.
By all accounts, Bruni was well known at the Times as a huge restaurant fan. Whenever people visited Rome, Bruni was (allegedly) like a walking Zagat Guide, so encyclopedic was his knowledge. I suspect that, having made his chops at more serious reporting, he wanted to do something fun. Johnny Apple is evidence that it is possible to be an entertaining food writer without having been trained for it.

This is not all that surprising, really. And maybe he could have been an amazing food writer about Roman restaurants. Here's the thing: Almost all of the restaurants worth knowing in Rome are making Italian food. More to the point, most of them are making Roman food. This is a significantly narrower field in which to operate compared to the NYC restaurant scene.

Leonard Kim · January 12, 2007

Based on what's said here, the implication is that a restaurant may well go through a three star swing in just a couple of years. (Do we really believe that? This seems an important issue in a discussion of reviewing practices.)

I've said before the Times' classical music criticism is bad. Now, I consider myself an expert in that field, so when I say that, I'm actually saying I think the criticism is of little value to the non-expert. I'd hope that lack of value would be evident to the non-expert, but I'm probably wrong. I certainly don't expect the non-expert to be able to discern whether a critic is or is not particularly expert.

I am assuredly not a food expert, and so I have to admit I can't, by myself, tell that it's obvious from the reviews that, say, Sheraton is more expert than Bruni. I don't doubt it's true since more knowledgeable people assure me of that. But to a non-expert like myself, something like Sheraton's first QG review and something like Bruni's Gilt review read awfully parallel (BTW, the odd combinations and penchant for sweetness is attributed by Sheraton to nouvelle cuisine's French practitioners; she doesn't say it's an American thing): from general strategies like praising the chef's talent and sincerity while questioning the concept to minor things like Bruni's bemused characterization of the waitstaff recitations and Sheraton writing, "if you forget that fact [nouvelle cuisine], don't worry about it; the captain is sure to remind you. On our first visit, he said: "nouvelle cuisine" seven times and a few weeks later, a plat du jour was described as, "not nouvelle, but fun anyway."

Now maybe specific statements Sheraton makes are those of an expert and ones Bruni makes are not. But I can't tell. As English, both are basically equally comprehensible and informative to me the non-expert to the extent that one isn't clearly less valuable than the other. So what level of expertise is at stake here? At what point is one's expertise such that Bruni is no longer valuable but Sheraton still is, and is that bar too high for most of us?

There would be a danger if Bruni made statements that were outright wrong about things that varying degrees of non-experts would not catch. Has that happened, and how often, and at what level? You know, my local classical music radio announcers once identified a composition as "Selections from Handel," identified a single movement of a virtuosic, late-19th century violin concerto as a couple movements of a Telemann suite, apparently thought a quintet was performed by a quartet and a conductor, and identified a clearly duple piece as a waltz. I don't think I'm so non-expert that I wouldn't catch comparable gaffes in a food review. And I don't think Bruni would make, let alone be allowed to make, such errors as well.

Fat Guy · January 12, 2007

Steven: Any truth to the persistent rumor that you and Bruni were both offered the job, which Bruni eventually won by defeating you in a hot-dog eating contest at Katz's?
←

Logic dictates the rumor is false, because there is no eating contest in which Bruni could defeat me.

I think there's a pretty simple reason why Bruni took the job: it's fun. And I think there's a simple reason why the Times offered it to him: they wanted a company man in the position. The same thing happened with Grimes. His appointment was, I believe, backlash against Reichl's independence. Then, after a few boring years of Grimes, I imagine the powers that be wanted to bring in somebody with a bigger personality. But it seems that during the search process -- again, I've never seen evidence that job offers were made, just heard that several other people were considered (Bill Buford, Julian Barnes, and wasn't Michael Bauer rumored to be a candidate?) -- they realized that's not really what they wanted at all, so they once again turned inward and chose a top-notch generalist reporter with a history of dedication to the Times. Bruni is certainly having fun, unfortunately it's at the expense of the public, the industry and the cause of excellence in dining.

Nathan · January 12, 2007

"Whenever people visited Rome, Bruni was (allegedly) like a walking Zagat Guide, so encyclopedic was his knowledge."

He was writing restaurant recommendations for Rome long before he was the Times restaurant critic. And along that line I'd suggest that his reviews of Italian restaurants in NY, as a body, have been the least flawed. Unfortunately, there are several restaurants in NY which are not Italian in orientation.

one quibble: he clearly wasn't recognized at RTR -- of course, that just goes to show how sloppy the front of that house must be.

Edited January 12, 2007 by Nathan (log)