Dine.TO new food writers and changes?
I read on an earlier post that some of you don't trust Dine.TO's reviews because it's a site where restaurants pay to be apart of it. I don't know if I altogether trust that, they have writers like Sara Waxman who have written for them - who is iconic in her own right.
I hear that her son, Adam now writes for them as well as this other new up and coming food writer, Marie Nicola. It looks like they write segments for a section that doesn't get archived and focuses on new restaurants. I just read Nicola's review on Steak (a new steak restaurant on richmond) and I really liked it, I read one other of hers on Spice Route, which was a little tongue in cheek, she mentioned something about young urban professionals on a thursday night and it made me laugh/feel her pain. But I can't find it now...
It looks to me that Dine.TO is trying to branch out and to find a niche in non-critical reviews and chef profiles and it looks like they are without stepping over the line.
I think Stephanie Dickison's posts on Dine.TO are some of her worst work and I don't even bother visiting the restaurants that she reviews.
Does anyone else have any experience with the Prince of Kensington's writing or Nicola's work?
Never mind Dine.TO, how about Toronto Life? Obviously Chatto is for real but if you were a visitor to Toronto and picked up a copy of their dine out magazine, you would assume that their 'best of' was a true reflection of the scope of choices we have in Toronto...NOT...The reviews are a reflection of which venues have paid for advertising with Toronto Life...period...
I used to love reading Toronto Life. But, since they started publishing articles and reviews on restaurants that have closed, I've written them off. They aren't reliable.
Nicola wrote a cute article on She Does the City on finding honey in the city - http://www.shedoesthecity.com/honey
Looks like they just started a food section too.
There's her review on steak - I like it because it's real. She's a real person, she loves food and she's honest about it.
nicola's writing doesn't seem particularly compelling and that review on steak is just a gush fest. is the food and the restaurant itself that perfect?
i'm critical only because it was revealed on torontoist that their "review" of steak for their "eat me" column was actually paid for by the restaurant and it was even a journalist gathering at their expense! the torontoist review reads like a tear sheet from their marketing pages and isn't all that far off from what nicola is saying.
besides, i have very little respect for marty galin. if you pay him, he'll eat anything and write about it.
Sara Waxman iconic? LOL Hack of the highest degree, more like. It's been said La Waxman never met a free meal she didn't like.
LOL I love reading the replies, they are awesome!
Galin I don't think writes for Dine anymore...
Waxman I respect, she's travelled the world, wrote books and has had a really great career over a long time. I think she's really classy.
I don't think to have a good review you must be critical. I think there's a way to present information in a balanced way. What I like about Nicola is that there's something that I get from her writing that makes me believe in the experience.
Where do you go get your reviews online? What's so good about them?
Then tell me about good reviews in the city, I want to check them out. But, all I'm hearing is about the how one isn't good because she's too positive, another is no good because he's a sell out, another isn't good because of whatever.
Seriously. Why should I feel like I have poor taste because I dig this one girl's writing and I get something out of it.
Give me perspective, so far, I'm reading the opinions of a lot of haters, which isn't very helpful. Well, I'm getting that in order to be taken seriously you have to not be positive...
my full take on nicola after a second read of the steak review specifically is that she is earnest, but her writing style shows a jeuvenile love for food. her analogies and euphemisms are silly, overdone and not very descriptive in the end. she misses a lot of details that she should be offering up like how she ordered her steak and what the kitchen actually produced based on this request. there's no clear description of any dish as to the flavours and their combinations but just a basic "it was good to me in my opinion" statements. instead i get a lot of gushing that makes me think of the torontoist article.
your taste is your taste. if this is the kind of writing you like and you get something out of it then that's great for you. but when you put out an opinion and basically ask for another one back, don't expect positive responses only. people disagree with me constantly, doesn't mean i don't respect that they have their own tastes, but i do mentally note that mine doesn't jive with theirs.
you really want to know who i read? no one. save for the few posters on chowhound that i really feel jive with my tastes, i only read reviews/posts to find out cost, portion size, surprises in dishes that aren't described on the menu, major faux pas in service or food (over salting), and to learn of a few other places that might have what i'm looking for. i have learned that i will only know how good a restaurant is based on my tastes and my experiences. if i want to read some good food writing, i get a non-fiction book from bourdain, kurlansky, herve, etc.