The Bruni Thread

[Sneakeater]

Nathan, now you're getting foolish.

 

The intent of the restauranteurs is clearly relevant to determining what kind of place a restaurant is.

 

You could always have gotten the Soltners to pack your meal for you and eat it on a stoop on the block, but that wouldn't have made Lutece a flophouse type of place.

[g.johnson]

To me, the balance is that there are levels over which certain "genre" restaurants can't go. I think Sripraphai is supremely good, but it could never get more than two stars. I think the Carnegie in its prime was as good as Jewish deli can possibly get, but that could never get more than one or possibly two stars. Even if a great Southern barbecue place were somehow transported to Manhattan intact and of equal quality to its indigenous location, it could never get more than two stars.

 

But that doesn't mean they can't be reviewed.

Of course, of course. I have repeatedly said that these places should be reviewed. However, IMO, the starred reviews should be confined to a certain type of place where a comparative rating makes sense. It makes sense to compare Hearth and Craft. It makes no sense to compare Hearth on Sripraphai because you go to the two on different types of occasion looking for different types of experience.

[Sneakeater]

Which is why there shouldn't be starred reviews at all.

 

But if there are, this kind of privileging of a certain kind of place over others -- which is what happens even if it's not what you intend -- is intolerable, and the star system should be tweaked to avoid it. Even if leads to internal inconsistancies or other analytic problems.

[g.johnson]

So should Sripraphai not have been reviewed?

Yes, but not in Bruni's column.

 

Lots of sit down, with wine list for almost a year now. Not cheaper than many other restaurants reviewed either.

Then I may revise my opinion. (I have never been as it's against my religion to cross water in search of food.) Again, one can always argue which restaurants make the cut. But that does not imply that no distinctions exist between types of restaurant.

[Nathan]

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.

 

 

But that's my point. G.'s preferred way of eating isn't mine. But he thinks his should be the only one acknowledged by the NY Times restaurant reviewer.

[Sneakeater]

It's a different point, though.

 

It doesn't contravert g. AT ALL to argue that restaurants that he considers "restaurants" could also be used the way you like to. It's simply beside the point.

[TaliesinNYC]

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.

 

45 minutes? Seems a bit rushed to me.

 

This thread is better than cable.

[Nathan]

To me, the balance is that there are levels over which certain "genre" restaurants can't go. I think Sripraphai is supremely good, but it could never get more than two stars. I think the Carnegie in its prime was as good as Jewish deli can possibly get, but that could never get more than one or possibly two stars. Even if a great Southern barbecue place were somehow transported to Manhattan intact and of equal quality to its indigenous location, it could never get more than two stars.

 

But that doesn't mean they can't be reviewed.

It makes no sense to compare Hearth on Sripraphai because you go to the two on different types of occasion looking for different types of experience.

 

Who says? That's you. I don't. Many times I've decided after I left my apartment whether I was going to go to Corner Bistro or Perry Street. and I'm hardly alone in that. same occasion. different experiences...but not really that different. in both cases I'm looking for good food in a welcoming atmosphere.

[Nathan]

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.

 

45 minutes? Seems a bit rushed to me.

 

This thread is better than cable.

 

 

the mains at Hearth are huge. full meal in themselves.

[Nathan]

It's a different point, though.

 

It doesn't contravert g. AT ALL to argue that restaurants that he considers "restaurants" could also be used the way you like to. It's simply beside the point.

 

no it's not. the mode of eating matters.

 

he thinks that Bocqueria or Tia Pol shouldn't be reviewed in the main column. after all, traditionally tapas are eaten standing up! and certainly not as a full meal in one establishment.

 

but that's the way people want to eat today.

[TaliesinNYC]

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.

 

45 minutes? Seems a bit rushed to me.

 

This thread is better than cable.

 

 

the mains at Hearth are huge. full meal in themselves.

 

Are they? Not in my experience. Check the blog; there are lots of examples.

 

It's common knowledge that the eating capacities of hobbits differ significantly from those of elves or Men.

[g.johnson]

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.

I've said three or four times that I think all these places should be reviewed but that the starred reviews should be reserved for a certain type of restaurant, including places like Hearth and Craft which hardly seem like "stodgy old formal places".

[Liza]

but that's the way people want to eat today.

 

That's the way you want to eat today.

[g.johnson]

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, I would suggest, most diners do not eat that way at Hearth.

[Nathan]

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.

I've said three or four times that I think all these places should be reviewed but that the starred reviews should be reserved for a certain type of restaurant, including places like Hearth and Craft which hardly seem like "stodgy old formal places".

 

right. and I find it almost morally offensive to think that Tia Pol can't be reviewed on the same scale as Per Se.