Jump to content

The Bruni Thread


Guest Aaron T

Recommended Posts

ah....Bruni said exactly what I said. thanks for the evidence.

 

and no one said shit about "equal consideration"

 

1. Did Pete Wells say exactly what you said, or does he outline the paper's alternatives to the Restaurants column when it comes to covering quick, casual, inexpensive eats?

 

2. Let's have a look at what people actually did say:

 

Right, he doesn't mean that either.

 

I don't think there's any great mystery: the premise is that the Restaurants column in the Times, as a general matter, doesn't review diners, delis, sit-down hamburger joints, sit-down pizza joints, pubs, tacquerias, etc...

 

...unless there's something unusally special and notable about the food.

 

As it happens, the Times has a cheap eats column which picks up some of those places which are worth noting.

 

As a rule, the Restaurants column reviews restaurants. And yes, we can extend the definition of "restaurant" until it covers a Washington Heights cuchifrito truck, but that just displays an insensitivity to the context.

 

I think that's elitist nonsense. (can't believe that I'm sounding like Jim Leff)

 

Now what on earth could you possibly mean by "elitist nonsense" other than that the Restaurants column either does or should review pizza joints, taco trucks, etc just like it reviews more formal dining options?

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 7.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

but the 2nd Avenue Deli is a sit-down place!

Short hand for "sit down place with reasonably long wine list where you'd expect to spend a couple of hours over a full meal" which is more or less what I posted originally.

 

Are you seriously suggesting that 2nd Ave. D. is a similar restaurant to Hearth, say?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Abbott's lobster in the rough (Noank CT) scores well on food quality and preparation, very well on ambiance (a bench adjacent to the Sound), but it would never get three or any stars in the NYT.

 

I'd argue that it could easily get one star -- and that would be a very proud result for it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I thought some had interpreted Yvonne as saying that the Times should only review restaurants which are clear contenders for the highest rating (hence cries of elitism). I think she was in fact saying that they should only review restaurants which are contenders to be rated somewhere on the four star scale.

 

Maybe I am making it all more confusing.

Yes, I agree that that's what Yvonne said. My question is: what disqualifies the 2nd Avenue Deli? The perception that the NYT critic historically reviews only sit-down places with wine lists just ain't so.

But most of their reviews are of sit-down places with wine lists

 

and so are virtually all of Bruni's.

Indeed. What I am arguing is that all his reviews should be of such places (and that should have applied to his predecessors too).

Link to post
Share on other sites
ah....Bruni said exactly what I said. thanks for the evidence.

 

and no one said shit about "equal consideration"

 

1. Did Pete Wells say exactly what you said, or does he outline the paper's alternatives to the Restaurants column when it comes to covering quick, casual, inexpensive eats?

 

2. Let's have a look at what people actually did say:

 

Right, he doesn't mean that either.

 

I don't think there's any great mystery: the premise is that the Restaurants column in the Times, as a general matter, doesn't review diners, delis, sit-down hamburger joints, sit-down pizza joints, pubs, tacquerias, etc...

 

...unless there's something unusally special and notable about the food.

 

As it happens, the Times has a cheap eats column which picks up some of those places which are worth noting.

 

As a rule, the Restaurants column reviews restaurants. And yes, we can extend the definition of "restaurant" until it covers a Washington Heights cuchifrito truck, but that just displays an insensitivity to the context.

 

I think that's elitist nonsense. (can't believe that I'm sounding like Jim Leff)

 

Now what on earth could you possibly mean by "elitist nonsense" other than that the Restaurants column either does or should review pizza joints, taco trucks, etc just like it reviews more formal dining options?

 

 

 

 

 

IT DOES. it's just that very few are notable.

Link to post
Share on other sites
but the 2nd Avenue Deli is a sit-down place!

Short hand for "sit down place with reasonably long wine list where you'd expect to spend a couple of hours over a full meal" which is more or less what I posted originally.

 

Are you seriously suggesting that 2nd Ave. D. is a similar restaurant to Hearth, say?

 

 

right....you think only stodgy old formal places with long wine lists should be reviewed.

 

f--- that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
But that's not really what g.johnson means by "sit down". He is using it figuratively. You can sit down a Shake Shack, you can sit down at McDonalds, but that's not what he means by a "sit down" place. I bet.

 

By "sit down place with a wine list" he means...you know...a restaurant. Not a diner. Oops, deli.

 

 

right...he really means that only a formal, expensive place is a restaurant.

 

I think that's balderdash.

That's not at all what I mean. My modest claim is that there are different types of restaurant (obvious, I would have thought). My further claim is that rating systems only make sense when applied to similar types of restaurant.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't want to be as confrontational as Nathan, but a NYC review system that didn't have room for the very best delis and cheap Asian places wouldn't be one that I'd want to have anything to do with. I don't think I'd even read it, as a matter of principle (just like Yvonne appears to avoid Classical music as a matter of principle -- and I'm not saying that to be provocative; that approach to restaurant reviewing really would offend me).

Link to post
Share on other sites
That's not at all what I mean. My modest claim is that there are different types of restaurant (obvious, I would have thought). My further claim is that rating systems only make sense when applied to similar types of restaurant.

 

To me, that's the best argument against the star system. It leads you to this conclusion.

 

Imagine if movie reviewers had to feel so constrained, so they couldn't review good genre films like Pretty Poison but would still be obligated to review every stupid overblown middle-brow piece of trash Hollywood threw their way.

 

(Which is why I keep insisting it's an insult to cuisine that the Times feels it can assign stars to restaurants when it clearly recognizes that it can't assign them to film, theater, music, and visual arts.)

Link to post
Share on other sites
as for Hearth, the ideal way to eat there is at the bar or pass...it's convivial, loud, and you can have a dish and a glass of wine and go your merry way in 45 minutes.

 

But that's not what the owners of Hearth have in mind as "ideal". They want customers to sit at table, order a bottle of wine, and up the expense. Which most every decent restaurant wants you to do. Also, please to note that your "ideal" is just yours and others may have differing opinions.

Link to post
Share on other sites
as for Hearth, the ideal way to eat there is at the bar or pass...it's convivial, loud, and you can have a dish and a glass of wine and go your merry way in 45 minutes.

 

That may be YOUR favored way, but it's hardly the intended use.

 

ETA: OOPS. Cross-posted with Liza.

Link to post
Share on other sites
as for Hearth, the ideal way to eat there is at the bar or pass...it's convivial, loud, and you can have a dish and a glass of wine and go your merry way in 45 minutes.

 

But that's not what the owners of Hearth have in mind as "ideal". They want customers to sit at table, order a bottle of wine, and up the expense. Which most every decent restaurant wants you to do. Also, please to note that your "ideal" is just yours and others may have differing opinions.

 

1. is Ssam Bar not a decent restaurant?

 

2. and I'm not interested in what the owners of Hearth want me to do. I'm interested in what I want to do. until they pay me to eat there, their desires are of no import.

 

3. and would people stop making the totally banal and obvious point that personal opinions are personal opinions! we all KNOW that. let's not be children here.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...