Can I rant? Thanks.

http://www.suntimes.com/restaurants/rev ... antreviews

I have sort of a ‘car crash’ mentality with Pat Bruno: I find him to be far and away the worst writer—food or otherwise—working in Chicago print media, but I’m rather addicted to his mediocrity. For the pleasure and pain of his reviews, I’m willing to withstand the stupid and nonsensical turns of phrases, the arrogant and unhelpful recommendations he makes for dishes, and for his general inability to form grammatically correct sentences (see the first sentence of this week’s review on Zealous…did Conrad Black re-direct funds intended for hiring a copy editor to himself?)…

Here, however, is what I cannot stand (but only sometimes, apparently): someone who has no idea what he is talking about. And after lord knows how many years (I’ve been reading him since high school), I’m still convinced—cookbooks or not—that he knows little to nothing about food.

This is the paragraph that inspired the post:

“If only more restaurants had a handle on the flavor spectrum -- the range of values attached to each ingredient as a dish is conceived. For example, one of the appetizers at Zealous was composed of pristine sea scallops that had been delicately seared and paired with a ragout of cannellini beans (definitely not from a can) and chips of crispy pancetta. Basically three ingredients, but what a delicious trio it was.”

So typical of Bruno: he takes a term (“flavor spectrum”), obfuscates or erroneously reassesses the definition, and then is unable to articulate how such a concept is to be applied or how it should be used as a means of evaluation. Remember when he used to do this with “goodness” all the time? Here, the second and third sentence of the paragraph indicates he lacks both the ability to evaluate what he eats and the vocabulary to discuss food beyond menu descriptions; he cannot apply evidence to his argument or make an assertion beyond “what a delicious trio it was”. Most of the 10th and 11th graders I’ve taught can explain their evidence as means of supporting a thesis; Pat Bruno cannot.

Ah, catharsis. I feel great.

I'm just trying to figure out if this is the same Zealous where I ate last summer, or if Pat Bruno has unwittingly discovered Bizarro Zealous.

My favorite thing about Pat Bruno is how he refuses to fact-check. Whilst claiming to have pizza expertise in one article, he went on to misdescribe the styles of pizza sold by several places in the city. A quick review of a mere press release for each place would have informed him he was wrong. I was so appalled and ticked at the misinformation that I emailed him. Of course, I heard nothing back.

It seems odds to focus upfront on bad coffee and then go on to praise in somewhat difficult-to-grasp terms the basic strength of Taus according to Bruno: his ability to blend different and seemingly incongruous ingredients into harmonious compositions (I've never been to Zealous downtown, but having been to the old Elmhurst location several times, I'm inclined to think this may, indeed, be something Taus brings to the table).
If this restaurant is, indeed, "incredibly fine," it just seems unfair to devote the first three paragraphs to coffee that failed to please as much as Intelligentsia might have. If I were to criticize anything in this piece of restaurant criticism, it'd be a lack of focus.