Nathan

Monday through Friday Jean-Georges offers a lunch of any two courses for $24 (it might be $28 now) and additional courses for $12 each. separately, the Nougatine room has a $24 prix fixe lunch (this is boring compared to the dining room though)

I haven't been to Grom yet, but here's my ranking: 1. Otto (by far the best in the city...MK's olive oil, ricotta and sweet corn gelatos are all tremendous). 2. Laboratorio (which after all supplies most restaurants) 3. Cones 4. Ciao Bella

I have it on the best authority that Momofuku Ko is intended to be a type of performance art. both the room and the food will be a direct facsimile of Gordon Ramsay at the London. and it will be twice the price. Chang secured a McArthur grant for this purpose.

the general outlines of this have been known through the grapevine for some time. I don't know that there's much to post about right now. I'm sure most of us will be enthused to check it out and see what they have up their sleeve. but until they open, what's there to say?

He was lambasted for that??? ← that was satire (my statement that is). (in other words, your orientation is only an issue if you're gay...it's perfectly ok to reference it if you're straight) ← In fairness, the two situations aren't quite comparable. Grimes didn't write a whole review around his heterosexuality. If you replace "My wife" and "She" with "My partner" and "He," and that's what Bruni wrote, then they would be comparable. ← like I said, Grimes' statement is explicit in a way the Bruni statement is not (witness the feminist blogs calling out Bruni for his patriarchal sexism)...but sure, Grimes never used heterosexuality as a hook....it'd be hard to do so...well, if he had reviewed Roberts I'm sure he would have made some comments on the matter.

Grimes wrote: He was lambasted for that??? ← that was satire (my statement that is). (in other words, your orientation is only an issue if you're gay...it's perfectly ok to reference it if you're straight)

1. what you seem incapable of comprehending is that it is unclear to the rest of us why his credibility as a critic has anything to do with whether his sexual orientation is "an issue"....what difference does it make whether he is the best food reviewer on the planet or the worst? how do either of those statuses make his orientation an issue? assume for a moment that Sneakeater is a shitty food writer (sorry, Sneak!), does the fact that he mentions his heterosexuality on occasion make it an issue because of his (hypothetical) shitty food writing? (he writes about food quite well btw). you're still insisting on different rules if someone is gay. 2. no one here has ever said that someone's gender or sexual preference never affects their writing or criticism. no one ever said that. what I called you on in your initial post was your implicit reference to critical theory to make the absurd claim that someone's sexual orientation (well, you didn't say this applied to us breeders) inevitably affects all aspects of their writing no matter what they write about. as I said before, there are gay writers and there are writers who happen to be gay. and there's a difference (and a continuum in between).

William Grimes was famously lambasted when he made an explicit reference (more explicit than Bruni's Robert's review -- where some people really didn't get it) to his heterosexuality in this review: http://events.nytimes.com/mem/nycreview.ht...260&oref=slogin

I get you...because Bruni is gay he carries a greater credibility burden than if he were straight. can we leave the 1950's?

This is true, banal and irrelevant. There is evidence that Bruni does this with Italian food and informal v. formal dining. I absolutely agree. Where you went off the reservation is with some absurd idea that because Bruni is gay, therefore his restaurant criticism, in the aggregate, somehow reflects his sexual orientation. You have neither presented evidence that Bruni's criticism reflects his orientation or presented a causal mechanism. Instead, you have merely assumed that who someone sleeps with automatically affects how they write about food. This is absurd. I noted, that for aesthetic reasons, this is conceivably possible, albeit highly unlikely. so, I ask you, which of Bruni's known biases (against formal dining, for Italian food, for Asian food) reflects him being gay..and which different biases would he have if he were straight? (btw, if his orientation were affecting his restaurant appreciation, shouldn't he have downgraded Robert's?) you seem to have the following train of thought: 1. human beings are inherently biased. (true) 2. some human beings are affected by their biases more than others (true) 3. a man who sleeps with men automatically has different biases about all aspects of life from those of straight men (for example, he is more likely to be a Mets fan). (unproven) 4. therefore, Bruni writes differently about food than if he were straight (unproven, foundering on #3).

actually, it was academics that argued for the roundness of the earth. the problem here is one of the following, either a. you lack reading comprehension; or b. I'm incapable of expressing my points in a comprehendible manner. because you have no clue what my points were.

Indeed it is. I mentioned upthread that I consider it one of his best reviews—not only for the quality of the writing, but because it fulfilled an essential need that should be part of the NYT critic's core responsibility. By your definition, both Rosanjin and Petrosino weren't truly "off the radar." People had mentioned them, though not in fair proportion to their merit. But yes, those are the types of places Bruni ought to be finding. And yes, I think there are many more of them.Now, Bruni's job is multi-dimensional, and I hardly think that such reviews could ever take up the bulk of his time. But in relation to the length of his tenure, I think there have been far too few of them. As it appears to me, he spends far too much of his time following other people's footsteps, ratifying Received Opinion, and when he runs out of ideas, and writing lazy reviews like Max Brenner. This is unprovable, but that's what opinions are for! In the sense that it's well off the critical radar, yes it would. But my premise is not merely that Bruni should be finding such places, but that he should be using his bully pulpit to A) identify culinary trends (rather than merely ratifying them after they're widely publicized by others); and B) directing diners to under-appreciated restaurants whose merit is not matched by recent critical attention I seriously doubt that Bruni would think La Grenouille fits in either of these categories. Indeed, we can write the review in our sleep. He would criticize its tired rituals, and advise us that no one under 55 is actually interested in that kind of food any more. I would eat my hat if he re-affirmed La Grenouille's existing three-star rating. We all know that Bruni knows how to announce that established restaurants aren't as good as previous critics said they were. A Bruni review of La Grenouille would almost certainly fall in that category. Now, if Bruni were to discover that—surprise, surprise—La Grenouille is doing some great things no other prominent critic had given them credit for, it would be precisely the kind of thing I'm talking about. Bruni will sooner be elected Pope. ← I think we're actually on the same wavelength then. pity it took this long to determine. my only quibble is that Rosanjin and Petrosino were off the radar in a different way than Esca was.

I recommend Jeremiah Tower's book "California Dish" for those who do not believe there is a gay sensibility in food writing. IMOP the book is hilarious and brilliant! For highly personal writing in restaurant criticism I recommend Gael Green. For those who do not believe that a personal perspective can impact a piece of reportage the master is Hunter S Thompson. The Times itself has suffered from their putting factors like politics, race and gender ahead of Journalistic excellence--one can go back to Walter Duranty whose politics "shaped" his reporting to the degree that Josef Stalin was portrayed in the Times as a somewhat benevolent dictator. The truth is, there is reporting and then there is reporting that is highly personal. The two should be separate and clear to the reader. Bruni clouded the picture with his joke. I tend to agree that his impetus for the joke was probably a belief that he was simply being entertaining. It is not because Bruni is gay it is because he is not a very good critic or writer. that's my opinion of course. Craig Claiborne was openly gay yet this was never an issue for him or his readers. His criticism was based on his expertise and knowledge and experience with food and cooking and restaurants. I can not imagine him making a gay joke to be entertaining. I miss him in the pages of the Times. JW Apple was not gay his sensibility was based upon the same foundation Claiborne's was. Bruni would be wise to look to these writers/critics for inspiration. The Times would be wise to hire writers and critics based on their experience and abilities first and foremost. ← none of this has anything to do with what I posted. I was as clear as possible.

WD-50 shouldn't ever be characterized as "Alinea-lite"...WD-50 is far more analogous to Moto (Gilt under Liebrandt was supposed to be the NY Alinea). both WD-50 and Moto are more molecular/cerebral than Alinea (which falls on the conservative end of the avant garde spectrum)....with the exception of the unique tablewear at Alinea. in my view (and that of a number of others who have eaten at both restaurants), WD-50 falls more on the cerebral end of the "molecular" spectrum, while Alinea falls more on the "taste" end. edit: I like WD-50 for what it is, but I could easily see how someone else would not. also, Alex Stupak is the dessert chef at WD-50...he was doing the desserts at Alinea until last summer.

well sure, but in that case, the Esca review is exactly the sort of thing you're talking about. Rosanjin stands out because it was virtually unknown (except as a delivery sushi place); the late Petrosino stands out because it was virtually ignored by foodies (I'm apparently the only person on this thread to ever go there). my point is that Bruni "found" those two (Petrosino had already been open for a couple years) and put them on the radar. I'm curious how many restaurants (of any age) of serious merit are off the radar. If he reviewed La Grenouille next week would that count for your purposes?

Paul Adams reviewed Koca Lounge before you. Its opening was covered by Andrea Strong and the other usual suspects. So, no. There are several other full-time food critics besides Bruni in NY. There are at least 40 food bloggers hitting restaurants pretty heavily. Once again, I'd like an example of a hidden gem, open for some period of time (i.e. not an account of its soft opening), in Manhattan, that someone "discovered". It just doesn't happen. Not anymore. People check the liquor license databases for goodness sakes!

Again...I'd like to know what unknown gems in Manhattan are out there to be discovered. By my count, Bruni as brought attention to two very good (at least I assume Rosanjin is very good), very neglected restaurants in the borough. Thats' two more than anyone else in recent memory.

that's interesting. of course, one Grimes outlier was Otto. he gave it two. (something which I think it's fair to say Bruni would be roundly criticized for if he did it.) and the menu at Otto was inferior then. (no pastas, fewer meats, fewer specials)

(here's a quick explanation of gender and sexuality related-critiques for those who (thankfully) didn't waste time studying it in grad school): there are some critics who specifically attempt to adopt gendered or sexuality-determined approaches to specific critical fields...i.e. they write on 15th century literary descriptions of dissections of the feminine anatomy as rape or on implicit homosexuality in the 19th century German bildungsroman. this can also look at how specific narratives may have been impacted by sexuality or gender even though it wasn't explicit (i.e. looking for correlations between Wilde's orientation and certain passages in The Picture of Dorian Grey). what you won't find (except among freshman papers) are arguments that someone's gender or who they do or dont' sleep with affects everything they do and write. that's nonsensical. in other words, gendered or oriented critical approaches are explicit. put in the simplest terms possible: Bruni writes as a journalist who happens to be gay. he doesn't write as a gay journalist. to analogize, I don't think of myself as a straight male foodie, I think of myself as a foodie.

The "controversy" was limited to an awfully small number of people. My only question for you is would you have had the same reaction if Reichl had written that review and made humorous comments (which she would have)? You'll probably say "yes"...I won't believe you.

that fact that my references to Butler, Eagleton, etc. meant nothing to you kind of ends this discussion. I don't need to google shit. I studied under some of the leading critical theorists on the planet in my Ph.D. work, including some of the originators of queer theory. pulling college freshman level relativism isn't going to work here. no one's ever articulated a queer theory of restaurant criticism and I guarantee you that Bruni doesn't see himself as acting upon one. (of course, all that stuff is passe anyway) edit: oh, and btw, Wilde for years wrote music criticism under the psuedonym Corneto di Basseto. some of it quite good. i'm unfamiliar with any convincing attempts to assert that those reviews were written any differently because of his orientation. but why don't you google it and find out?

you know, Richman is my favorite food critic on the planet (I realize that I just p____ed off the entire city of New Orleans by saying that). he's not quite as good a writer as Bruni, but his culinary acumen is second to none in my view. here's a review he just wrote of Wild Salmon: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=206...olumnist_usdine I think it's an excellent review. better than the vast majority of Bruni's. but if Bruni had written that review I'm sure that someone here would have excoriated him for it.

I think part of the problem is that at least two posters have made much of the fact that Bruni, as a gay man, had a reaction to the "decor" at the Penthouse Club different than a straight man ostensibly would. This then purportedly affects how he reviews restaurants. There are several problems with this: A. the assumption that Bruni's reaction is somehow problematic while that of a straight man would not be. which leads to; B. ignoring the fact that a straight female may well have also had a different reaction to the "decor" and found humor in the situation and made light of it in a review (do you really think Reichl or Sheraton would have written that review with a straight face?) C. the comically absurd assumption that somehow Bruni's reaction to the "decor" affected his (positive) review of the food and ultimate rating of the restaurant; D. that somehow this singular reaction to a strip club indicates reactions and assumptions when dealing with other restaurants that are dissimilar to those of his readership. those who know me well and know my distinctly un-PC nature know that I'm about the last person to go around making accusations of homophobia...but I think there's an undercurrent of it here (which to me was manifestly apparent in McNally's letter)

sure. my point is that the Craftsteak review doesn't stand alone. either of those reviews are certainly more justified when paired with the other.

I don't have the foggiest clue what you're saying here. And I say that as someone who was trained in critical theory (Lacan, Eagleton, Butler, Derrida, Fish, Rorty etc. etc. etc.) at the Ph.D. level during its heyday (the 1990's). If there's such a thing as a gay or feminist or racial perspective on "restaurant quality"...you're going to have to explain to me how that works. Cause offhand I see no prima facie reason to believe that who (or what) you sleep with affects your views on or judgment of restaurant quality. For example, there's no such thing as a gay or feminist perspective on gravity....culinary taste, being somewhat a matter of aesthetics, could conceivably have a relation to some of those factors...but I've never seen such a linkage expressed, described, or posited, let alone demonstrated. And Bruni, being a steak guy, kind of dispels notions of what a stereotypical effete gay man might be into food wise. as for the one and only occurrence where Bruni interjected some humor relating to his orientation into a restaurant review (a situation mind you which was begging for it), was no more inappropriate or asking for a debate than it would be for a heterosexual restaurant critic to mention his or her spouse in a given humorous context. there's something seriously wrong if this is an issue in Manhattan in 2007.