Fat Guy

In the best of all possible worlds, you'd have highlighted the difference between the way a critic eats and the way a consumer eats. Because as much as it irritates most people, any place can have an off night. Even the best restaurants in the world will have off nights. There's nothing that can be done about it, and somebody has to be on the receiving end of the meal that sucks. So, the division between the role of the critic and the role of the consumer becomes useful: the critic theoretically can maintain a bit of emotional distance if a meal isn't good (particularly at a brand-new restaurant) and can inform the consumer of the restaurant's range of potential. In reality, unfortunately, most newspaper critics are barely well financed enough to pay for one meal at a restaurant. At some of the smaller outlets, the critics are essentially hobbyists who get a small subsidy to dine out once a week. At other outlets, critics are expected to get most of their meals comped and to cover other expenses themselves. Only at a very few of the most financially and critically robust journals are critics able to spend the 3 or 4 grand a week that it costs to take 4-6 people to a restaurant 3-5 times every week (not to mention the restaurants that are visited but ultimately not reviewed). So, there is little question that many critics can, will, and have no choice but to base reviews on a single visit. We can complain about it, but not realistically.

$28 madolines at JB Prince! Seriously. We're not talking about those plastic Asian ones. This is an actual big-ass stainless steel Bron mandoline. Immediately on your left as you walk in the door. Originally $97. Marked down repeatedly. Final price is $35 for the flawless ones and $28 for the scratch-and-dents. There's a little sign up that says they're unloading these because some professionals don't like the placement of the adjustment screw. 36 E. 31st Street (between Park & Madison) 11th Fl. http://www.jbprince.com/

I'm no expert on British law, or even American law for that matter, but my general sense is that not only would the plaintiff definitely lose this case but also it would be a resounding loss. Defamation law is one of the only areas where it's easier for a plaintiff to build a case in the UK than in the US. In most other areas, such as personal injury, the standard is quite high. But the way in which issues of free speech, press, etc., have been treated in the UK has allowed defamation law to progress in such a way as to make the whole area different. But that doesn't mean it's easy to win a defamation case in the UK. It's actually quite difficult. In addition, balanced against the easier standard for defamation claims is the "English rule," which holds that the loser in a court case typically pays the other side's legal fees (this is not always the case anymore, but it's still the baseline standard). For the most part, under the "American rule," where each party pays his own fees, frivolous litigation isn't particularly costly. Under the English system, you need to be a lot more certain of your chances of victory. There are far fewer experimental fishing-expedition-type lawsuits filed in the UK than in the US. But aside from differences in US and UK defamation law, both nations' laws are in agreement on the basic distinction between fact and opinion: there is rarely such a thing as a false opinion, and therefore only in truly exceptional circumstances could a defamation action ever be brought for an expression of opinion. Indeed, to allow defamation actions against statements of opinion -- essentially making some opinions illegal -- would be antithetical to the political philosophy of every democratic nation. This restaurateur is angry. It's a sign of the times that, today, when people are angry they think the solution is a lawsuit. Most of the time, though, it isn't. And even more often, it shouldn't be. There doesn't appear to be a single word in this review that could be taken seriously as a hook for a defamation claim. The other reason the restaurant would lose the lawsuit has to do with resources: the entire media community (and the civil liberties community) would close ranks were an opinion columnist to be at risk of losing a defamation case for making harsh statements of opinion. The best legal minds would be sent out to crush the opposition, because the potential precedent would be viewed as so fundamentally reprehensible. As for the statement cited above from The Copyright, Permission and Libel Hanbook, "However, many courts will rule that if a review or critique is made in bad faith or maliciously, and it does not represent the critic's honest opinion, the review may not be protected from defamation claims." -- I wonder, are there actual examples of these "many courts" that have actually made such rulings, or is this just a theoretical admonition to play it safe? I'd be very interested to see the precedent in UK law for ruling against a critic on the basis of a bad-faith review.

I think history will demonstrate -- extremely soon -- that the concern about New Yorkers' unwillingness to schlep for supper is unfounded and a red herring. It's true that location is critically important to a restaurant's success -- even a destination restaurant (not all destinations are equally convenient or desirable). But we're not worried about location per se (sorry): this is already a great location, smack dab in the middle of a gigantic city and in the middle of a complex of buildings that are in and of themselves a small city. The more important question will be whether these restaurants, with their huge startup costs and inflated promises of greatness, can deliver experiences that New Yorkers will want to pay for repeatedly. I think, if the economy stays strong, that's not going to be a problem because the standard by which meals are deemed worthwhile will settle at a certain point. If we see any sort of contraction, though, I could easily see these places getting decapitated.

The basic idea behind Craft is to put the spotlight on individual ingredients cooked to enhance their essential flavors rather than on combinations, sauces, etc. -- separating out the instruments from the symphony, as owner Tom Colicchio has put it. The ways in which this theoretical underpinning manifests itself to diners are as 1) an opportunity for unconventional extreme a la carte ordering, 2) a focus on ingredients of an unusually high level of quality, and 3) a minimalist approach to preparation. I think the reason there aren't more restaurants like Craft is that the audience for such an experience is rather limited. Most people are not going to have a takes-my-breath-away reaction to Craft's presentation; that reaction is likely to be reserved for big flavors and combinations in other restaurants. If, however, you are a member of that audience you are going to be very happy with what Craft does. So, what did you eat? Did you have any wine? How was the service? Did you enjoy the room? Tell all!

That "cutting board" is fascinating. At first I chuckled when I saw it, but then after dwelling on the photos for a bit I realized it's a pretty sensible piece of equipment, what with the way the onions land in the bowl no matter which way the pieces fall.

And I gave him a "satisfactory."

I ain't no five dollar lady, Bourdain, and anyway if I gave a shit about money I'd still be a lawyer. No, the best way to get to me is by appealing to my vanity: send the prettiest waitresses out to tell me how handsome I am and maybe you'll get an extra star.

Better fair than right? I can't buy that. A restaurant is damaged just as much by an incompetent critic as by a corrupt one. The standard should be the quality of the reviews, so I don't see how we can accept indifference to results in favor of dogmatic attachment to the myth of the anonymous reviewer. Focusing on quality of reviews rather than the reviewer's level of detachment, I think what we see is that the best reviewers have been engaged with the industry: Bryan Miller was exceptionally fair, yet he was a product of the industry. Rosengarten was never anonymous in his life, yet his reviews for Gourmet were superior to anything that ran in the Times. Hal Rubenstein surely doesn't fly under the radar, but the guy has impeccable taste and he totally knows how to make the English language his bitch. Gael Greene too. Those are the best reviewers we've had in the past couple of decades and they were always easily recognized and heavily connected. Whereas independence and lack of connection to the industry has never done shit to improve the reviews from Grimes, Platt, Gold, and their ilk. Ultimately, the goal of finding a totally unconnected critic is at odds with the goal of finding an informed, educated, and experienced one.

The experience issue is a big one, I think. Probably the most important one to me. Far more important than any sort of bullshit "appearance of impropriety" standard.

If that lazy fuck ever comes through with an eGullet Q&A I'll ask him my damn self. Until then, I'll have to take your word for it.

Then again, it is indeed pretense, and an end to pretense could be a good thing for everyone. I agree that this would be a marquee-value move, and a major change in direction. And having looked further into McInerney's case since the first rumors started I'm inclined to agree that he'd be a questionable choice. But he'd also be a bold and interesting choice, and I'd give him a chance to prove himself -- I'd be willing to be surprised. But I'm also thinking, regarding the step-down point, that it would be a strange move for him. They must be offering a much nicer package than I'd assumed.

Point taken, Vic, but two things bear mentioning/repeating: 1) they don't assign different reviewers to different restaurants; that's just not the system and they aren't going to change it for one restaurant; and 2) Mario isn't nearly so evangelical about beaks and feathers as he used to be; I think he's downright Episcopalian about that stuff now -- he offers it, he likes it, but he no longer seems to think you'll go to hell if you won't eat it.

Yeah, but dessert costs are very low everywhere -- usually less than 10% even at fancy places, right? The thing that's nice about Sparks is that the wine markups are quite reasonable, though I'd gladly pay a little more for better wine service and stemware.

I don't have access to the balance sheets, but I bet Sparks has a higher food cost. But even if the food cost percentage is the same at both places, the large portions of steak and seafood are going to mean that Sparks will be the more expensive restaurant, which it is.

There are service problems at all the Batali/Bastianich restaurants. Fundamentally, they just don't seem to grasp the full extent of what's required to provide good hospitality on a consistent basis. I would say, however, that Esca has the best service of all the Batali places. As observed above, it's really a breed apart from the others: it's a Midtown seafood restaurant with a chef who operates with a great deal of independence. My one major objection to Esca is that lunch is totally inadequate. The only crudo offering is a tray of three pre-chosen items, and the fish entree choices are mostly unappealing and limited. I've also experienced really bad service and one out-of-bounds cooking error at lunchtime. At dinner, I've always done very well. Not that my sample size is particularly large at either meal.

Maybe Felonius can lend you his date. MJC: I think he deserves either one or zero more stars. Otto should have one, not two. Lupa could be two or one depending: by today's re-inflated-in-the-later-Grimes-years standard it's a two-star restaurant, but I'd probably give it one on a more rigorous old-school scale that properly values the luxury components of a restaurant.

I wanted to show you all a photo of one of Ducasse's kitchens, so I went to the Ducasse Web site and filled out a request. I thought they had ignored me but today an envelope arrived in the mail from France with a slide and a nice note in it. Since we happen to have a slide scanner, I was able to capture the image. I believe this is the kitchen in France that Ducasse uses for teaching and training, but the restaurant kitchens don't look all that much different. You can see, of course, that the predominant feature is the black granite counter.

Congratulations! You've been hired as the new New York Times restaurant reviewer!

I'm hardly a regular at Esca -- I'm sure I've been fewer than 5 times ever -- but it's definitely the kind of place where, after a couple of visits, you can start asking them to push the performance envelope. I hope I never have to choose, but in many ways I'd say that Esca (when Pasternak is cooking "unplugged") is my favorite seafood restaurant. I get more raw (so to speak) enjoyment out of it than Le Bernardin, and as much as I love the purity of sashimi and sushi I find the crudo in some ways more intriguing. Hope we will see more of you on the boards.

They've improved it to "Judge Reinholt" now. Getting warmer.

I'll be interested to hear your comments once you have read it.

Felonius, in my experience Esca tends to be more expensive than Babbo if you order similarly. But Esca is a seafood restaurant. You're talking about a restaurant serving the most expensive category of ingredients versus one where the food cost is no doubt rather low. Babbo's range -- some of the dishes are made from truly cheap shit -- not only keeps the price range compelling but also subsidizes the seafood prices (the spaghetti with a one-pound lobster is, I believe, available at both places but is actually a couple of bucks cheaper at Babbo). It's conceptually similar to the comparison between, say, Blue Hill and Sparks. You will invariably spend more money at Sparks for shrimp cocktail, a steak, a side of creamed spinach, and a piece of cheesecake than you will at Blue Hill for "warm tomato soup, lightly smoked," etc. I agree 100% with your assessment that "Esca seems more about perfect preparation of the freshest ingredients, whereas Babbo pushes the culinary creativity/complexity boundaries a good bit further." And I think your ranking is in line with how the star-rating system would rank-order the Batali restaurants. My only disappointment in reading your report is that you weren't as enamored of the crudo selection as I've been.

I don't think a writer needs to dine at a chef's restaurant to have a valid opinion about that chef's cookbook. Indeed, depending on the style of the review, familiarity with the restaurant can be a distraction. And I think the author here has not overreached: she's looking forward to dining at El Bulli. She's mostly commenting on the aesthetics of the book and the style expressed therein. That she's dead wrong shouldn't be confused with a lack of standing to have a meaningful opinion in the first place.

Well, of course most restaurants are McDonald's and its ilk. So I don't think their goals are any different than the goals of most of the mass-production-oriented food corporations. And I certainly don't think there's anything evil about what they do, but from the standpoint of food connoisseurship it's worse than bad. I hope that distinction makes sense to you. Profitability is necessary, at least to some extent, in most food-service establishments (though I'm not sure El Bulli actually makes a profit). But the question is how profitability is combined with other goals -- it's the overall mix that matters. In a serious chef's calculus, quality has a very high value. Indeed, because it's part of what he's selling, it's intrinsically linked to his profitability. McDonald's and Frito-Lay, on the other hand, are not selling quality, and they don't give a shit about quality beyond the basic need to comply with the law and to satisfy the bare minimum of public perceptual standards of quality. To that extent, "big food" depends on public ignorance of quality issues. Public ignorance about cuisine benefits McDonald's. Public knowledge about cuisine benefits real chefs. It's true that those who sell food try to make food that people will like. But the mass-producers primarily focus on maximizing fat, sugar, and salt -- the most simplistically appealing flavors for an uneducated palate. They also push as hard as they can -- down to the billionth of a cent -- to use the cheapest, shittiest ingredients they can get away with using as vehicles for those flavors. Real chefs, on the other hand, try to create flavors that are far more subtle, complex, and interesting. They try to obtain the best ingredients for the job, and they don't look to low-quality ingredients as a source of cost savings.