On May 9, 6:33*am, Melba's Jammin' > wrote:
> In article <080520081053266509%ouchimbleed...@ouchimbleeding. com>,
> *dull knife > wrote:
>
> > In article >, sf wrote:
>
> > > A restaurant "review" is meant to influence people. *I didn't think he
> > > was trying to do that. *I just read it as his experience in one
> > > particular unit of a big chain.
>
> > You're both right. *It was narrative and opinion. *The rules of
> > exposition are going to be looser here than an editor of a newspaper
> > might impose on a columnist. *I'm just trying my hand at it.
>
> > Barb, I would be happy to try it another way. *Perhaps you could direct
> > me to a review you like that I could emulate, or give me a set of
> > restaurant-reviewing rules to try. *I've only been published once (re.
> > a particularly challenging hang-glider flight), so I readily admit that
> > I have much to learn.
>
> Heh! *Like I know anything about it. *Not. *We've a local writer for the
> Star Tribune's food section who comes up with some of the damndest
> phrases in his restaurant reviews. *Hokey. *I'm not big on hokey. *
> Laughable in their pretentiousness. * If being published is your goal,
> look long and hard at others' pieces and identify what it is you like
> and don't like about the report. * Know your target audience. *If you
> can figure out a style that would be appealing to that audience, try it
> out. *Try to sound intelligent. *Do some research about the place and
> its chef if that seems like a good thing to do.

Wine reviews are sometimes weird. Some pretentious and others... well
I read one that said the wine had subtle aromas of hot bitumen...
what? Had the writer been out licking the road?

After that one, a few of us ran a competition for who could find the
silliest wine reviews.

JB
<snip>