New CJ critic goes to Thai Cafe

[Robin Garr]

So, what do you think? Do you like the new critic's style? How does she compare to the old one?
http://www.courier-journal.com/story/en ... /12411961/

Again, I would like more of an overall restaurant review rather than a straight food critique. We get paragraphs about the food and one tacked on at the end about the service and what amounts to a blurb about the decor at the beginning. For me, dining out is an experience that is not limited to the menu. I would like to see more of that.

I didn't see the star rating, but this seems like two glowing reviews in a row from someone who set herself up as being "stingy with stars."

Nancy also seems to be a bit heavy handed with the "this, but that" style of writing. She goes for it 7 times in this piece and often more than once in a paragraph. (mainly how I took note.) She also does that thing I hate (and sometimes do myself) of starting a sentence with "But." It's a conjunction, it needs to conjunct two things, like sentences and should therefore come in the middle, you know, conjuncting. Since she already over uses the "this, but that" device, making it "this. But that" really stands out. It just reads like an inexperienced writer who is unsure of herself, or has failed to proofread. (can't pin it all on Nancy, though, she must have an editor somewhere...)


Overall, it's a decent review. Nothing outstanding, but serviceable. Still hoping she can settle into the job and look forward to great things ahead.

So, what do you think? Do you like the new critic's style?

Well' since' this' is' the' second' time' you've' asked' this' question' in' the' past' couple' of' weeks'...I'd' have' to' say' I' like' her' style' just' fine'. She' seems' to' be' articulate' and' I' like' the' fact' that' she' has' already' hit' on' one' of' the' under' the' radar' places' I've' been' wondering' about'. After' all' the' yapping' on' this' forum' about' Simply' Thai' I' have' to' say' we' were' significantly' underwhelmed' both' times' we' went'...So' I'm' looking' forward' to' trying' The' Thai' Cafe' based' solely' on' her' review'.

But is a fine way to begin a sentence, if used with élan.

When I do like the fact that she mentions whether the place is accessible or not in her summary (Robin take note) which is obviously a plus for me. As mentioned above I never did see an actual rating for this restaurant, there was a scale showing how many stars meant what I never saw how many stars this restaurant was given anyplace in the article.

It seems like she entered the experience planning on everything being great at the beginning of her discussion after she gave a minor dish to the decor of the place because of the Formica tables etc. Other than that I really didn't get a feel for the restaurant other than what she said about it being anything but flashy. Like Ronnie, I would like to get a little more feel for what the restaurant is about from a review, something that Robin normally does very well. It also seems like she has been a regular visitor to this restaurant for quite some time, even before taking the new assignment, so reviews are somewhat slanted. I'm going to be interested see how she reviews a new restaurant she's never been to before.

Only time will tell how well she does but so far I'm not overly impressed with how she's started.

[Robin Garr]

I never did see an actual rating for this restaurant, there was a scale showing how many stars meant what I never saw how many stars this restaurant was given anyplace in the article.

In the print edition, Mark, it got 3 1/2 stars out of a possible 4.

It's pretty well known that the CJ was late to come to the Internet and still hasn't mastered its mysteries very well. The restaurant star ratings usually don't make it over to the Web edition, and I suspect that they don't even know this.

It's pretty well known that the CJ was late to come to the Internet and still hasn't mastered its mysteries very well.

They had better figured out very soon because the print edition is going to be gone!

I have no problem with her writing other than it's a bit dull. I happen to like the restaurant she reviewed and found her descriptions of the dishes pretty accurate. ( or, at least, I agree with them. )
I think she might be better suited to writing shorter reviews for aps or abbreviated situations. Much in the same way I like Jimmy Buffet as a song writer but as a story writer in book length he's kind of "meh".

It seems like whenever I see comments on the quality of a restaurant critic's reviews, the comments are negative. From mild stuff like calling this new CJ critic's style "boring" to the regular trashing that Eater.com outlets all over the country subject their local critics to...it's all critical of the criticism.

What makes a truly great restaurant review or critic great? Are there examples of legendary critics you can point me to? I'm curious to see what makes their writing stand out.

Frankly, while I hear a lot of folks say they'd love to have the critic's job ("Who wouldn't want to get paid to eat?"), it seems like a no-win situation to me. There's only so many ways to describe a business that's full of intangibles like taste, and (to my layman's mind) it seems like doing so almost always involves lots of flowery, descriptive adjective-laden words, which I've always been taught are a cornerstone of bad writing.

[No offense or criticism at all intended towards our gracious host, btw. I enjoy Robin's reviews and I think he does a good job. I just don't consider myself a very good critic of critics.]

Well Jeff, we were asked for our opinion. That was my opinion.

[Robin Garr]

It seems like whenever I see comments on the quality of a restaurant critic's reviews, the comments are negative. From mild stuff like calling this new CJ critic's style "boring" to the regular trashing that Eater.com outlets all over the country subject their local critics to...it's all critical of the criticism.

For the record, I very carefully tuned the OP to avoid leading in any direction. I was honestly curious what everyone thought. I find the new critic's style significantly different from her predecessor. That's a neutral statement, too.

Robin asked what I thought, I responded. I hope my response wasn't entirely negative. I think there are good points about Nancy's reviews and some areas that need work. Maybe I need to accent the positives more.

I want the reviewer to take me to the restaurant and all that such an experience might entail.

Here's what I look for in a restaurant review/critique:

Overall dining experience based on:
appearance and presentation of the restaurant (is it clean? how's the music? how is the floor layout? is the design consistent?)
service (speed, courtesy, handling of requests, consistent with restaurant identity?)
Food (appearance, preparation when relevant, taste, innovation, menu consistent with identity?)
Spectacle (why should I go to/avoid this restaurant rather than another?)

Not every review/reviewer is going to hit all of these points in every review, but I think a good review has an eye on all of these aspects.

Just to be clear, I wasn't criticizing anyone for making negative comments. Critical remarks are entirely valid. I was just making the point that I rarely see critics praised for their work.