Do you have what it takes to be a restaurant critic?

What is a chef to think when a leading newspaper's restaurant critic, in her review, heaps praise on his rawas (salmon) preparation when the dish in question was chicken wings? Can you blame the chef for thinking there is something fishy about this particular reviewer? Wouldn't he then also question the credibility of the newspaper that sent her on this assignment?

This rawas-chicken wings gaffe is just one of the many sticking points in the relationship between chefs and restaurant critics, Lhendup Bhutia tells us in a recent issue of Open:

Earlier, a few writers reviewed eateries, but now almost every publication or website with a lifestyle section has one such reviewer. Unlike in the West, where food reviewing is a serious job and most writers have a background in culinary arts, here it is very rare to come across a food writer with any such expertise. What’s more, most of them don’t specialise in the subject.

It is not surprising that chefs dislike reviewers. But in India, where a chef’s competence is usually judged by a gaggle of fledgling writers, this dislike is replaced by utter contempt.

Read Bhutia's enlightening piece in its entirety here: "What Chefs Make of Food Reviews". Be warned, though: You may never again take a restaurant review in an Indian publication seriously. Worse, you may stop reading restaurant reviews.

The problem appears to be the lack of expertise on the part of restaurant critics in our country. Of course, there are exceptions, such as the food reviews in Time Out Bengaluru, which come accompanied by the claim, "The best food and drink in Bangalore, reviewed anonymously by experts".

But is there any food critic in India whose fame and prowess is on par with that of Frank Bruni, the New York Times legend? Of course, Bruni was a seasoned (no pun intended) journalist before he was appointed the newspaper's restaurant critic in April 2004 (he moved to the Op-Ed page as a columnist in June 2011). His background in journalism surely contributed to his approach — and success — as a food reviewer.

Some time ago, Bruni answered a couple of questions from readers on why he gave up conventional reporting and took up the position of restaurant critic. His response is so illuminating:

Q. Until reading the section on your background connected with "Talk to the Newsroom," I had not realised what an extensive background you had in journalism. I was wondering 1) why you chose to become a restaurant critic and give up your involvement in day-to-day news reporting and 2) do you miss being a more conventional reporter?

— Kenneth Astrin

Q. I've read your articles in The Detroit Free Press and The New York Times since the early '90s, and have always admired your work. With all respect, I can't understand why you are now doing restaurant reviews. It's honest work, but it seems frivolous.

— James Gerardi

FRANK BRUNI

A. Restaurant criticism was a new challenge and new adventure that came along at a time when I was almost ready for both. I say “almost” because I would have loved to have spent another 12 to 18 months as the newspaper’s Rome correspondent, but the critic’s job came open when it came open, just under two years into my Rome assignment.

Frivolous? I understand why it might be seen that way, but I myself don’t see it that way at all.

Food in general, including restaurant food, is an object of ever greater attention from ever larger numbers of people.

Restaurants often serve as handy mirrors of a neighborhood or a city or a moment in time. They reflect people’s passions and foibles and vanities.

They bring people considerable joy. They claim a considerable fraction of many people’s incomes.

So acting as a guide through the restaurant world and writing dispatches from it strike me as meaningful work.

At times I indeed miss what you call “conventional reporting.” There’s a very particular satisfaction in gathering information, in picking up the phone or hitting the road and, chalk mark by chalk mark, filling in what was a blank blackboard.

But I get to do some of that in the restaurant-related articles I write beyond reviews, and even reviews themselves incorporate more "conventional reporting" — or at least reporting — than you’d think.

They pivot, as all reporting does, on close observation and on making sense of a certain experience, a certain small patch of the world. 

What an insightful piece of writing this is! In nine paragraphs we get the essence of what it means to be a restaurant critic. Read the entire Q&A with Frank Bruni here. You will savour some delectable tidbits in the form of Bruni's replies to questions on topics such as the reactions of chefs to his reviews, and the music and noise in restaurants. He also addresses the very important subject of anonymity, and tackles firmly this question asked by a reader in Montreal: "What do you say to chefs who feel a critic without having worked in a restaurant or studied in a culinary environment, should not be a restaurant critic?"

For dessert, sample the restaurant review by Frank Bruni that prompted the owner to take out a full-page ad in the New York Times in protest against the review. (You will also want to read this trenchant post on the inappropriateness of the ad by former NYT restaurant critic Mimi Sheraton in Slate: "Restaurateur bites critic". And you must, absolutely must, read the New Yorker take on the restaurateur-critic face-off: "Kobe Beef". That's a great headline, too!)

Now there is only one question that begs an answer: What would happen if restaurateurs in India were to emulate the American restaurant owner?

• Illustration courtesy: The New York Times 

Experience in journalism is an advantage if you want to be a restaurant critic

SAUMYA IYER

SAUMYA IYER (Class of 2014), a foodie whose wish is to be a food writer and who is currently an intern with Bangalore Mirror, commented via e-mail:
I think you at least need to be an experienced journalist with knowledge about the food industry in order to write about it. One of my favourite food critics, Marina O’Loughlin, absolutely loves restaurants. That passion speaks to me through her writing; not only is she experienced in the field of journalism but she is also very well versed with the nuances of food and the thought that goes into making a particular dish.

I also agree that a reviewer must remain anonymous at all costs because having the chef and staff give you special attention when they should be going about their own business is not how a reviewer can soak up the real flavours of the place.

As for amateur food writers, there are so many bloggers and Facebook groups like “Foodies in Bangalore”, that it got me thinking: just because you love eating food, does that make you an expert? I also spoke to one of the city’s famous chefs about this, and he told me that there’s nothing you can really do about it and that opinions are like a**holes, everyone’s got one.

• SAFFANA MICHAEL, Dubai-based communications manager for Middle East and Central Asia, commented via e-mail: And we place so much of our decisions — whether food or movies or books — on these so-called "reviewers". Loved reading the Bruni critique on the Kobe Room …ouch!  

• KOKILA JACOB, a media professional now living in Dubai, commented via e-mail: Ha ha, this is hilarious. I think there are not many expert food reviewers here in Dubai either.

How do you know you love your job?

Dharmesh Shah, founder and CTO at HubSpot, a marketing software company based in the U.S., has put up a post that has already garnered 2,000 "likes" on Facebook. Some 500 people have tweeted about it and it has been shared almost 9,000 times on LinkedIn.

That's not at all surprising considering Shah (pictured) has addressed a topic that is top-of-mind for all of us: How do we know we love what we do?

Shah has helpfully given us what he says are 14 telling signs that you love your job. These range from "You don’t talk about other people; you talk about the cool things other people are doing" to "You don’t think about surviving. You think about winning" and "You view success in terms of fulfillment and gratification — not just promotions and money".

Check out the list here and then take the mini-quiz at the end of Shah's post (read the hundreds of comments, too) to figure out if you need to register on Naukri.com — or stay put where you are.

• ALSO READ: "If you love what you do, is it 'work'?"

• VARUN CHHABRIA (Class of 2012), associate editor of Books & More magazine, commented via e-mail: "How true! Answered yes to all 14 statements. :)"

• DIYOTIMA SINHA ROY (Class of 2014), currently an intern with JWT in Bangalore, commented via e-mail: "Well, my score is 10/14. :)"

• NIRANJANA MURALEEDHARAN (Class of 2014), currently an intern with R Square Consulting in Bangalore, commented via e-mail: "I have always had this question in mind. The moment I saw the subject of your e-mail, I opened it :) I scored just 7, maybe because I am an intern. Haha!"

DNA does a U-turn and brings back the Edit Page

On February 1, 2011, DNA did away with the Edit Page.

On April, 2, 2013, one month ago, a new-look DNA brought the Edit Page back and proclaimed the change with a bold statement: "The Edit Page is back. But it's not boring. And while you're at it, check out the kickass Op-Ed page."

That reference to "boring" was possibly a dig at the editor who had written, back on February 1, 2011, that the newspaper was nixing the Edit Page because "it's boring, very few read it, and it's a chore to fill. It's more punditry than expert comment." 

Be that as it may, DNA is a proper newspaper again.

THE NEW-LOOK DNA HAS A NEW-LOOK EDIT PAGE.

Also read: When DNA scrapped the Edit Page.

"Three Little Words": A multi-part true story that keeps you wanting to read on. This is what journalism is really about

Journalism guru and Poynter doyen Roy Peter Clark, whose writing and teaching skills I have the greatest admiration for, is the author of a true story, Three Little Words, which he wrote as a multi-part series for The St Petersburg Times in 1996. This is how the newspaper introduces Three Little Words on its website:

Author Roy Peter Clark worked for two years to piece together this intensely personal family history. The story, which unfolded here and on the pages of the St. Petersburg Times over 29 days, challenges us to reconsider our thoughts about marriage, privacy, public health and sexual identity.

It is a touching story about a journey of trust, betrayal, and redemption. Make time to read it. You will marvel at the writing style — this is what journalism is about. Read it here: "Three Little Words".

• ADDITIONAL READING: "Point your mouse to Poynter" and "Roy Peter Clark's scintillating analysis of film critic Roger Ebert's intros".

• EXTERNAL READING: Roy Peter Clark takes us step by step through an American reporter's story about the Boston bombing and explains "not just why it works, but how it works". With this one blog post, Clark gives us a masterclass in news writing. Read this marvellous piece in its entirety here: Boston Globe reporter shows how news writing can unfold ‘like a story in a book’.

A sight to gladden the hearts of journalists — and media students — everywhere

Not too long ago, the venerable New Yorker carried an extensive article explaining why India's newspaper industry is thriving.

Last week, on Saturday, April 27, Mint, too, provided evidence of the appeal newspapers have for Indians:

 Take a look at Mint's photo essay here: "Newspaper Nation".

Should a cartoonist apologise when readers complain his work is "insensitive and tasteless"?

Fourteen people died and as many as 200 others were injured in an explosion in a Texas town earlier this month.

Last week a newspaper published from Sacramento, the capital city of California, published this cartoon by Jack Ohman on its editorial pages:

Joshua Gillin, writing on Poynter, tells us that Ohman has said on his blog that he had received many complaints calling it (and him) “insensitive and tasteless” and pointed out he had drawn much more graphic images in the past to make his points.

I knew it was close to the edge, but I went with it, and I don’t go with things I can’t defend. I’m defending this one because I think that when you have a politician travelling across the country selling a state with low regulatory capacity, that politician also has to be accountable for what happens when that lack of regulation proves to be fatal.

Ohman also writes on his blog that when he has to come up with these ideas, he is not deliberately trying to be tasteless. He continues:

What I am trying to do is make readers think about an issue in a striking way. I seem to have succeeded in this cartoon, one way or the other.
 
The question is whether it is tasteless or not.
 
My answer, respectfully, is that it isn't.

Read Ohman's blog post here to understand how to defend brilliantly and pithily the seemingly indefensible: 'Explosion' cartoon published to make a point.

• ALSO READ: "Telling it like it is... with cartoons".

• Sherry M Jacob-Phillips (Class of 2007), who is a journalist in Bangalore, commented via e-mail:
  I found Jack Ohman's cartoon strip a tad insensitive, but the message was clear. Hence, it served the purpose. But where is the need for him to apologise? The cartoonist is not making any assumptions here; instead, he is sketching an independent analysis of the situation. If writers can express every note that lingers in their mind, then why prevent cartoonists from doing so? Ohman justifies his stance by writing that he is trying to make people think about an issue in a striking way. This is the best way by which one can measure the levels of press freedom a country enjoys. If you fear such cartoons, then just stay away from them.

Here's your official reason to listen to music at work

Who doesn't like listening to music? Specifically: Who doesn't like listening to music at work?

I usually have songs from one of my many iTunes playlists going on in the background when I am sitting at my workstation at Commits and checking my e-mail, writing a blog post, speaking with my students, and, of course, playing Scrabble on Facebook. (Right now I'm listening to the acoustic version of "You Learn" by Alanis Morissette, pictured.)

I play music at work (and in my car) because... I enjoy it.

But are there certain songs that can get you motivated at work or get you feeling productive on days when that's not so easy? Songs that, perhaps, simply inspire you at the office?

Yes, asserts Dave Kerpen, an American CEO who is also a New York Times best-selling author and keynote speaker.

Kerpen recently published on his blog a list of 21 songs "to inspire you at work". On the recommended listening list you will find Eminem, John Lennon (can you imagine which song by Lennon has made it?), Beyonce, Michael Jackson, Queen, even Katy Perry.

Check out Kerpen's post here and see if you agree with the choices: "21 Songs to Inspire You at Work".

PS: Take a look at my "jam history" on This Is My Jam to find out what kind of music moves me.

• VARUN CHHABRIA (Class of 2012), associate editor of Books & More magazine, commented via Facebook: 

Kerpen should stick to CEO-ing... fortunate that his job doesn't require him to list too many things. :-)

For starters, instrumental music is scientifically proven to stimulate the growth and development of the brain, specifically the left hemisphere that deals with creative thinking and problem solving. Music with overtly aggressive lyrical content (such as Eminem's "I'm doin' this for me, so fu^k the world") doesn't come across as intellectually stimulating.

If I had to suggest listening to be inspired at work, I would go with Mozart, Beethoven, Bach, improv jazz like Frank Sinatra, Louis Armstrong, or contemporary instrumental music (Russian Circles, Six Organs of Admittance, Snarky Puppy, The Mount Fuji Doomjazz Corporation, Noveller, etc.) to name a few.

Here's another band and song to add to the list: Mogwai — "Take Me Somewhere Nice".

P.S.: Here's one of the websites that I've followed over the years about music's effect on the brain: Effects of Instrumental Music Training on Brain and Cognitive Development in Young Children: A Longitudinal Study.

• ANKITA BHATTACHERJEE (Class of 2014), who is currently an intern with the Statesman in Kolkata, commented via e-mail:

Although I'd love to listen to music at work I can't. The people at the Statesman would surely consider me a nuisance and chuck me out. And being me I know I'd love to sing along with the song, which I'm pretty sure would earn me a nasty look at least. So for me listening to songs at work is not an option. Moreover you know the kind of songs I like: party songs. I'm pretty sure my colleagues wouldn't approve of that either. 

By the way, somehow, even before reading the list I knew Katy Perry's "Firework" would be on the list. It's one hell of an inspiring song! Another one that I'd like to add to the list is "Perfect" by Pink. These two kept me going through my dark days.

• NIRANJANA MURALEEDHARAN (Class of 2014), who is currently an intern with R Square Consulting in Bangalore, commented via e-mail:

Doesn't that lead to continous partial attention? :-) I really can't concentrate when I listen to music and, moreover, I feel uncomfortable when people see me with the headphones.

• AJAY U. PAI, my 18-year-old nephew who is a budding economist, commented via e-mail:

No wonder you call it your workstation. It's where all your work comes to a stop! But seriously, you know how much I love music; even so I maintain that music isn’t meant to be heard at work. You can multi-task all you like but music isn’t one of those tasks. It's a taste, a hobby, or interest. It can never mix with work.

• SAUMYA IYER (Class of 2014), who is currently an intern with Bangalore Mirror, commented via e-mail:

I love listening to music anywhere, anytime! The one song that motivates me whenever I’m about to begin my first day anywhere — it could be an internship or attending a new college — is “Brand New Day” by Sting. My favourite pick-me-up song, when I think that nothing is going my way, is “Hold Your Head Up” by Uriah Heep. Of course, given my eclectic taste in music, the songs I listen to on my iPod at work range from death metal, psychedelic rock, and punk to anime music and jazz; all of which help me through the day. It helps instill a "Fighting Spirit" which is also coincidentally an OST from my favourite anime, Naruto.

• ANANYA CHATTERJEE (Class of 2014), who is currently an intern with Fremantle Media in Mumbai, commented via e-mail:

Music can be everywhere. It need not have a specific time and place! I listen to it because I get a weird, incomplete feeling if my earphones are not plugged in. However, recently one of my friends at work misplaced my earphones and I've been given a headphone by the office. Sitting in this quiet environment I cannot really play music on my phone :( As my work involves calling up "talent" (as we refer to the participants of reality shows here), this headphone becomes really irritating after a point because it doesn't allow me to call and listen to music at the same time (as my earphones did).

As for the music I love, the song in question need not have the most inspiring lyrics. It just needs to hit you in the right spot! It somehow makes you want to work more :) Listening to music and connecting the songs with every situation you're involved in is beautiful! Somehow, there are certain songs which will remind you of a particular place and a particular time, every time you listen to it. :) Oh dear! What would we have done without music! :D

Talking about songs to inspire you, I suggest you all should listen to "I hope you dance" by Ronan Keating and "I've gotta have you" by The Weepies.

• LINSIYA PATRAO (Class of 2014), who is currently an intern with CNN-IBN in New Delhi commented via e-mail:

Well said, Sir. Who doesn't like music? I make it a point to listen to it at work or before I go to sleep at night. This is the one thing that keeps me going through the day. Sometimes it does become a little difficult at work with all the hustle and bustle, but as soon as I see things settling down, I slowly slip into my radio mode. Listening to "Don't leave home" by Dido in the mornings is such a beautiful experience.

• RANJINI N. (Class of 2010), who is a copywriter with Radio Mirchi in Bangalore, commented via e-mail:

I always enjoy music playing in the background — on my laptop, radio, or TV. As long as it is in the background and not blaring into my ears! I can never imagine working without music. It feels weird to work in a quiet environment.

My choice of music depends on my mood. Personally, I prefer listening to melodious Bollywood music, and Meethi Mirchi on Gaana.com does exactly that for me. If I want retro, I switch to Purani Jeans; I can also choose from the playlists on the site.

Kishore Kumar, Sonu Niigaam, and Shaan are my all-time favourites. Romantic numbers, peppy songs, and contemporary hit tracks from Bollywood always work for me. Then there's the instrumental series called "The Elements" and "Sound Scapes" composed by five musicians, including Pandit Shiv Kumar Sharma and Hari Prasad Chaurasia, which is apt when you are feeling serene. And when it comes to ghazals, nothing can beat Jagjit Singh’s soulful voice.

One thing has proved true for me. With radio playing all the time (even when I'd actually be happy to have a few quiet moments), the brain has learnt to be aware and consciously tune out the song enabling me to focus on the work at hand. You see, music essentially is not a distraction at all!

ADDITIONAL READING (AND LISTENING): Love music? Love the blues? You will love Shillong's Soulmate

Want to acquire knowledge?

All of us strive to acquire knowledge. Knowledge that will boost our careers. Knowledge that will help us lead better lives. Knowledge for knowledge's sake.

But is there an easy way to acquire knowledge? James T. Mangan believed there is, and in a book first published in 1936, he outlined 14 ways to acquire knowledge:

1.    PRACTISE
2.    ASK
3.    DESIRE
4.    GET IT FROM YOURSELF
5.    WALK AROUND IT
6.    EXPERIMENT
7.    TEACH
8.    READ
9.    WRITE
10.    LISTEN
11.    OBSERVE
12.    PUT IN ORDER
13.    DEFINE
14.    REASON

My favourite blogger Maria Popova recently published a post about Mangan, whom she refers to as "the prolific self-help guru and famous eccentric". Each of those points mentioned above has been elaborated upon in Popova's post, which you can read here: "14 Ways to Acquire Knowledge: A Timeless Guide from 1936". Especially read what Mangan has to say about acting on your desires, reading, and writing.

Scintillating analysis of Roger Ebert's film review intros

Any experienced writer can master the short snappy sentence.  It takes a good writer to master the long sentence, the one that takes the reader on a journey of discovery, the one that leads you to a special place you could not have imagined when you stepped on board the bus.

That is Roy Peter Clark, a brilliant journalist and writer himself, paying tribute to Roger Ebert by explaining why he thought the late film critic was a good writer.

Good? Why not "great"? Clark writes:

Notice I am not using the word “great” because good is good enough, especially if you’ve been good for more than forty years.

And then Clark examines the intros, what he calls "leads", from the first three examples of Ebert's work that he could find online.

Read Clark's post in its entirety here to understand why I am saying this is a scintillating piece of writing from which media students, journalists, and people who simply love reading good writing can learn plenty.

PS: Don't miss the punchline — Roy Peter Clark gets a zinger from Roger Ebert.

ADDITIONAL READING: "Point your mouse to Poynter".

ALSO READ: "Roger Ebert: A film critic like no other".

If you want just one "golden rule" of writing...

...and a very good one, too, here it is:

Intend every word you write.

This is the golden rule formulated by veteran blogger Eric Cummings, who has written a guest post on the subject of writing rules for Write to Done, a blog about the art and craft of writing.

Cummings says he came up with this rule, or, rather, he learned it on the second day of the creative writing class he was taking, as his story about a farmer and his mule was read aloud.

I had spent some time writing it, one day rewriting it, and another afternoon editing it. I was nervous but confident. It was a good story.

The story began, “Light barely flooded into the room.”

“Wait.” Less than a sentence in, the Professor stopped the student reading my story. He turned to me, “Eric, what do you mean, ‘Light barely flooded into the room.’?”

“Well, it is sunrise, and the sun is coming up.” I said.

“But how can light ‘barely flood’ in? Do you mean the word flood?”

Light could either barely trickle in, or flood in, but it couldn’t do both. The lesson wasn’t that I needed to be clearer and more precise with my language–though I did–it was that I didn’t know what my words meant. I didn’t own the words on the page. The questions the professor asked us over the course of the quarter were always the same, “What do you mean?” “What did you intend here?” or “Why did you use this word?”

And so Cummings learned that writers must intend every word they write.

Read his enriching post here. (Enriching? Yes, you will come away feeling richer.)

In the same post, Cummings also provides seven tips for what he refers to as implementing intentionality behind your writing, to better convey what you want to say. Pay special attention to No. 2 and No. 7.

• Also, check out the "Popular Posts" list on the Write to Done site.

• ADDITIONAL READING: From the Daily Writing Tips blog — 10 Techniques for More Precise Writing and from Ali Luke's blog — Eight Secrets Which Writers Won’t Tell You.