Jump to content

The Bruni Thread


Guest Aaron T

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 7.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

He has angrily slapped down the notion (as "shit", I believe) that genre/cheap/casual dining options get equal consideration with somewhat more formal dining options when the Restaurants author chooses what to cover.

 

huh? I do think that genre/cheap/casual restaurants get equal consideration.

 

more formal restaurants have more money behind them....thus often having better staff, kitchens, locations, PR etc. so they're far more likely to be notable. but that's not a difference in kind when it comes to eligibility for a review.

Nathan, I think it would enlighten me greatly if you could refer to this post, and help me to understand what you mean, then, by:

 

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

 

and no one said shit about "equal consideration"

 

emphases added

 

different use of the term. quick and cheap isn't inherently notable the way very expensive and formal is. but I suppose we could all do better at defining our terms in this discussion.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I honestly think you are building your house on sand there. If cheap places get reviewed only when exceptionally high quality or notable or newsworthy, then the general practice is to treat them differently than "proper" restaurants.

 

And we can see this in practice: a restaurant with a "pedigree" might get reviewed, and zero-starred if it's bad. Ask El Chod.

 

A taco counter on Roosevelt Avenue will not get reviewed if its crap.

 

The difference is inherent in the system,

 

(Cue Mongo: Look at the violence inherent in the system.)

 

incorrect. a restaurant with a pedigree is inherently notable or newsworthy. that's the whole point.

Link to post
Share on other sites
There are other people participating in this discussion (who are married to each other) (and doctors of philosophy) (at least one of whom comes from Wales)

 

the other is from scotland. one is paleolithic and the other is neolithic. hence their anxious grasping at any kind of social authority.

Link to post
Share on other sites
different use of the term. quick and cheap isn't inherently notable the way very expensive and formal is. but I suppose we could all do better at defining our terms in this discussion.

 

So you do or you don't think all types and levels of dining options get "equal consideration" when the Restaurants critic decides what to review?

 

Somehow I desperately need to know.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I honestly think you are building your house on sand there. If cheap places get reviewed only when exceptionally high quality or notable or newsworthy, then the general practice is to treat them differently than "proper" restaurants.

 

And we can see this in practice: a restaurant with a "pedigree" might get reviewed, and zero-starred if it's bad. Ask El Chod.

 

A taco counter on Roosevelt Avenue will not get reviewed if its crap.

 

The difference is inherent in the system,

 

(Cue Mongo: Look at the violence inherent in the system.)

 

incorrect. a restaurant with a pedigree is inherently notable or newsworthy. that's the whole point.

No, you mean "correct" because that's what I said. That's why cheap/casual/genre places worth reviewing are in practice exceptions. You may have an argument with Sneakeater, possibly.

Link to post
Share on other sites
different use of the term. quick and cheap isn't inherently notable the way very expensive and formal is. but I suppose we could all do better at defining our terms in this discussion.

 

So you do or you don't think all types and levels of dining options get "equal consideration" when the Restaurants critic decides what to review?

 

Somehow I desperately need to know.

 

on one level, yes.

on another, no.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I honestly think you are building your house on sand there. If cheap places get reviewed only when exceptionally high quality or notable or newsworthy, then the general practice is to treat them differently than "proper" restaurants.

 

And we can see this in practice: a restaurant with a "pedigree" might get reviewed, and zero-starred if it's bad. Ask El Chod.

 

A taco counter on Roosevelt Avenue will not get reviewed if its crap.

 

The difference is inherent in the system,

 

(Cue Mongo: Look at the violence inherent in the system.)

 

incorrect. a restaurant with a pedigree is inherently notable or newsworthy. that's the whole point.

No, you mean "correct" because that's what I said. That's why cheap/casual/genre places worth reviewing are in practice exceptions. You may have an argument with Sneakeater, possibly.

 

the phrasing "in practice" is key. it makes all the difference in the world.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I honestly think you are building your house on sand there. If cheap places get reviewed only when exceptionally high quality or notable or newsworthy, then the general practice is to treat them differently than "proper" restaurants.

 

And we can see this in practice: a restaurant with a "pedigree" might get reviewed, and zero-starred if it's bad. Ask El Chod.

 

A taco counter on Roosevelt Avenue will not get reviewed if its crap.

 

The difference is inherent in the system.

Yes, I think that is a close-to-accurate statement of the system. I don't think the main critic has ever actually reviewed a taco stand (or any place that doesn't actually have seats). But yes, in general the extremely casual places aren't reviewed unless the critic feels at least one star can be justified, whereas a Chodorow restaurant will be reviewed whether it's bad or good.

 

There are also exceptions to nearly every rule. Bruni reviewed Freemans (one of his many borrowings from the $25-and-under segment), only to give it zero stars. I thought that review was one of the most pointless that he has done.

Link to post
Share on other sites
So you do or you don't think all types and levels of dining options get "equal consideration" when the Restaurants critic decides what to review?

Clearly they don't, since Bruni has reviewed only two delis in over 3½ years on the job.

 

You'd think the point would be hardly worth making.

 

ETA: You see, I think Sneak - for entirely honorable reasons - would like it to be a matter of principle that the Restaurants critic should offer a level playing field to every kind of dining option. But even when he comes to frame the principle, he introduces special considerations which would need to apply to cheap/casual/genre places. And I don't see how it could possibly be otherwise.

Link to post
Share on other sites
the phrasing "in practice" is key. it makes all the difference in the world.

 

So I'm correct, then. Right?

 

 

 

 

since you are now stating precisely what Sneakeater and myself have been stating for pages (I'm the one who already said it was "de fact not de jure")...since you have decided to agree with us, you are now correct.

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...