chuck sudo

Chuck Sudo is a food writer and current editor-in-chief at Chicagoist, one of the most influencial blogs about everything Chicago. He and other top critics sat down with discussion leader Kris Vire of Time Out Chicago to talk about their approaches to critiquing. Vire began with the simple question, “What qualifies someone to be a critic?” Everyone agreed that passion plays a huge role. In order to write powerful opinions you must have a passion for that in which you are writing about. With all of this emphasis on passion, Vire brings up education, and whether one is more important than the other. Some thought education was initially more important while others found them equally crucial. Sudo said, “Expertise is gained from sating your curiosity, then realizing there’s still more to learn.” Curiosity is an ongoing process. You don’t find deep interest in something, satisfy that hunger, and call it a night. There is a reason for the initial interest and an even bigger reason you pursued it. Be curious, follow that path of interest as far as it will take you. Expertise is found not at the end of the path but along the way. 

Sudo later brings up preconceived notions and how they can disrupt the quality of a critic and their work. Personality and bias and opinion are all important flags to wave throughout a critique but it’s the notions you assume or choose not to explore that will hold your work back. Sudo’s awareness of this shows an openness to those things maybe not favorable to him but more so to the reader.

Vire later asks, “How do we decide which critics we trust?” The first two responses were quick and to the point. Don Hall remarked, “Read them―see if your opinion coincides.” Sudo follows with, “One thing I’ve learned in this continuous on-the-job training is that, even thought I sometimes wear the mantle of a “critic” it’s still an opinion. A more informed opinion. but an opinion still.” Sudo seems to understand his words may be more informed than others but his opinion is no greater than the readers. There are those uppity pricks high on their horses writing reviews but Chuck Sudo is no such dick. He finds the work of others that he trusts by sifting through reviews, finding the patterns or consistency he wants as a reader. Maybe their opinions don’t coincide but the continuous defense the writer brings into the work is the consistency to look for. 

The discussion of “amateurs” and “professionals” was interesting because all of these talented writers have made names for themselves while some of them still wait for a paycheck in doing so. Sudo fears this lack of money involved in criticism may cause quality writers to steer clear of the subjects they are so passionate about. A valid point but this is the weeder system Chuck. It happens in all fields of art, work, and life. If you plan on going through life being compensated and praised for your oh so passionate work then good luck.

The web has changed the way we communicate both in form and function. Those who write for print/web have different approaches. Print is strict. Web is broad. Print is formal. Web is informal. These are all generalizations but there is truth in each one. Sudo says, “The Web medium lends itself to informality very well.” And follows with this, “I remember Roger Ebert once wrote that he writes his movie reviews ‘as though you’re walking in on the middle of a conversation,’ and that’s something I try to achieve online.” This is extremely refreshing because writing can be so stiff and overdone by anyone. He is passionate at what he does making his work carry with it a valid opinion. He is self aware of the position he approaches his work in. Chuck Sudo is a man who writes, reads, eats, and drinks in a very respectable manner.