56 replies to this topic

[Anthony Bonner]

I had a Passetoutgrains that I would actually call rather delightful.

I had a regnie that made me say "oh yeah- this is why people think Beaujolais sucks"

[Sneakeater]

If you don't like plonk, don't go to bistros.

[Anthony Bonner]

If you don't like plonk, don't go to bistros.

I think I like my plonk overly harsh rather than banana-y is all.

[Wilfrid]

As you've noted, he skipped Seäsonal, and there was a clear decision there, regardless of whether he thought about it consciously.

He skipped re-reviewing Veritas too, despite eating there. I think that supports your point (I agree that a critic's work can make a point very forcefully, even if it's not entirely clear to the critic that it is doing so).

[Sneakeater]

You know -- off topic, sorry -- I had a Lapierre at Amfora recently that tasted all banana-y. I thought, the most respected dead maker of Beaujolais in the world, maybe -- the guy who was supposed to make Beaujolais truly respectable -- and it still tastes like bananas.

[Sneakeater]

As you've noted, he skipped Seäsonal, and there was a clear decision there, regardless of whether he thought about it consciously.

He skipped re-reviewing Veritas too, despite eating there. I think that supports your point (I agree that a critic's work can make a point very forcefully, even if it's not entirely clear to the critic that it is doing so).

And just to be clear, I'm not disputing that, either. If a critic has any coherent viewpoint at all -- and he's pretty worthless if he doesn't -- then of course the sum total of his decisions is going to end up making a point.

I'm just saying that I think we (very much including me) tend to exaggerate the extent they do it on purpose. I'll emphasize again that I'm guilty of this, too. We often say, "Mr. Critic chose to review [X restaurant] in order to demonstrate [Y]." I don't think they work that way. Their choice may have the effect of making a point, but I don't think they choose review subjects (or make other decisions) for the conscious purpose of making a point.

ETA -- This may be less true of Sifton than Bruni only because there are so many fewer mandatory review spots opening today, giving -- even forcing on -- Sifton greater discretion in his choices. I'm sure Sifton is purposely trying to make a point when he singles out Chin Chin for review. But that's different from Bruni's failure to appreciate Seasonal or Pugin's Veritas. I don't think that was purposive. It was just Bruni's blinders.

[Wilfrid]

Yes, I especially agree with the last paragraph. I have the impression Sifton does have some agenda, but obviously it operates within the constraints of the job.

[Nathan]

If you take what Bruni says of his own NYT reviews at face value, I have a bridge to sell you. And I would definitely take that bet, but even if Sifton would answer it, he'd probably answer it as Bruni would - in whatever revisionist way he felt suited him best.

ETA - ok, maybe not enough of a Bruni expert to say it that assertively. But he's certainly aware of his legacy, I'll put it that way instead.

Bruni, both in person and if you read him casually (as opposed to like a scholastic or a la Bataille (as is the wont here or on EG)), comes across as very not-tendentious. He just isn't. And if you get around to reading his recent piece on restaurants in Athens...well, that's exactly the way I think he'd prefer to write about food. (sidenote, but related: Bruni some time before the Adour review -- "Oh I love that place." Me -- "Really????????" (thinking silently, "Oakapple will be completely befuddled if Bruni ever gets around to reviewing it.") He just wasn't tendentious.

[oakapple]

Bruni, both in person and if you read him casually (as opposed to like a scholastic or a la Bataille (as is the wont here or on EG)), comes across as very not-tendentious. He just isn't. And if you get around to reading his recent piece on restaurants in Athens...well, that's exactly the way I think he'd prefer to write about food. (sidenote, but related: Bruni some time before the Adour review -- "Oh I love that place." Me -- "Really????????" (thinking silently, "Oakapple will be completely befuddled if Bruni ever gets around to reviewing it.") He just wasn't tendentious.

My observations about Bruni, and for that matter Sifton, are empirical: I look at what they do. I don't try to peer into their souls. Bruni had an obvious viewpoint that pervaded his reviews, regardless of how he arrived at it, and regardless of how he came across in person.

I don't know about "befuddled," but based on his history, Adour isn't a restaurant I expected him to like. I doubt that I was alone in thinking that. But with something like 275 restaurants reviewed, obviously there were going to be some anomalies.

[Nathan]

Bruni, both in person and if you read him casually (as opposed to like a scholastic or a la Bataille (as is the wont here or on EG)), comes across as very not-tendentious. He just isn't. And if you get around to reading his recent piece on restaurants in Athens...well, that's exactly the way I think he'd prefer to write about food. (sidenote, but related: Bruni some time before the Adour review -- "Oh I love that place." Me -- "Really????????" (thinking silently, "Oakapple will be completely befuddled if Bruni ever gets around to reviewing it.") He just wasn't tendentious.

My observations about Bruni, and for that matter Sifton, are empirical: I look at what they do. I don't try to peer into their souls. Bruni had an obvious viewpoint that pervaded his reviews, regardless of how he arrived at it, and regardless of how he came across in person.

I don't know about "befuddled," but based on his history, Adour isn't a restaurant I expected him to like. I doubt that I was alone in thinking that. But with something like 275 restaurants reviewed, obviously there were going to be some anomalies.

I'm not sure that we're disagreeing.

[nuxvomica]

never mind

[Daniel]

repeat

[Daniel]

came here for an early dinner the other week.. was in the area and have been looking forward to checking it out.. When you walk into the restaurant you can make a left and there appears to be a cozy bar area.. I think next time I would eat there.. We made a right instead and sat in the first of two dining rooms. As we sat in the narrow room, it took some time to adjust to the subway running underneath us.. As the apertifs were delivered, I no longer noticed.

To start with our drinks, we ordered the cheese spread served with endive and speck. The speck had a very nice subtle smoke. The endives wonderfully crisp.. The "cheese" spread was like a yogurt and boursin combo I believe.. it was fridge cold.. tasted like mint a little, thought i saw chives.. it was 11 dollars and the description of a cheese spread by the waiter led us to believe it was going to be warm. especially after the waiter told us it was melted cheese.

Miss A ordered the french onion soup. it was delicious.. beef broth, tasted the sweetness and richness of the long cooked onions, a piece of baguette with melted cheese, some stewed pieces of brisket. Really enjoyed this.

I ordered the pike quenelles. This was not the best dish or the best quenelles i have had. had lots of egg white, too much, it was eggy.. The lobster stock which was served over it and under it, was delicious but, did not hold up to the quenelle. Was happy to see they did not add a cream sauce as the quenelles had plenty.

Next up was a special.. venison chop served on sweet potato gratin.. Perfectly cooked.. Charred on the outside, rare on the inside.. two 4 ounce chops sitting on a smoked gouda and sweet potato gratin. Smoked gouda is a great combo with sweet potatoes.. works well if you think about it.. venison chop had a wine demi around it.

I ordered the pieds du porc. Stuffed pigs feet.. i have had this dish at a few places even going so far as to make it myself.. I feel this dish was again misleading.. i figured it would be done in a classic style where when you crack the shell, the rich meat oozes out.. Here, there was no oozing.. It essentially was a deep fried sausage patty.. The sausage patty was too dense and dry.. The saving graze was the wonderful mustard that it was topped with. Served on a bed of lentils and a little bacon..

For dessert, we had the beignets.. Again, it was not what we were expecting. they called them donuts yet, they were slices of apples that had a sort of crispy coating over them.. Not donuts but, deep fried apple slices..

Will go back to the bar and definitely get the onion soup, try the pate, maybe get the hot dog..

[Sneakeater]

That style of pig foot is a pretty common way of serving them in New York -- although usually as an appetizer rather than a main course. I've never had them that way in France, so I don't know where it comes from. I also don't like it as much as the regular way, and wish menus did a better job of letting you know when they're going to be that way. (Often but not always, the tip-off is if the menu calls them "crispy pig's foot".)

[Daniel]

I will certainly be wary of this next time I see this on a menu.. Seems like a cop out to me or perhaps they feel that it might be too intense for your average bear.... However, a deep fried dense dried porky hockey puck isn't that appealing to me.. But either is a deep fried apple.