At Writers and Cooks, Sarah has a few harsh words:
"His writing is jaunty, and I can never find its rhythm. Just when I've started to fall for a sentence or two, he throws in a curve ball—a jolting, short sentence that kills the flow. It almost reminds me of the notes I scrawl in my notebook—like he's keeping track of his sensory observations for an article he plans to write later. There's something that feels unfinished and thrown together about his work, and what's worse is that I think it's intentional. Some might call this his "style," but I find his prose lazy, less unique than unsure and floundering.
His frequent snarky remarks come out awkwardly, trying too hard to be entertaining. As a result, we're distracted from what should be the focus of the review: the food. Most of what I remember from a Sifton review is, well, Sifton."
She goes on to compare Sifton's descriptions to Adam Platt's, believing the latter to have a superior, clearer style that focuses more closely on the experience of eating each dish than the writing that describes them.
What do you think? Have you enjoyed the Sifton reviews, or do you find his writing a bit hard to wade through?