Sneakeater

This is so fucking cool.

I forgot this one: not enough fat.

I'm an adventurous eater. But I have to say that Korean is near the bottom of my favored cuisines. I eat it several times a year, but it's not in heavy rotation the way Chinese, French, Italian, Japanese, Mexican, Iberian, German/Austrian, Indian, Thai, and even Vietnamese are. There are even times when I'm around 32nd St. at dinner time and I opt to eat something else. I can't say why, beyond that I find it (at least as presented here in New York) too salty and too forward-flavored in ways I don't like. These are just not my favorite flavors. And again, it's not that I dislike anything other than Middle American cooking. I just don't love this cuisine as much as some others. I wouldn't have bothered to say this -- it's only a personal preference, after all, and therefore of no particular interest -- if this thread hadn't raised the issue. It may be that my palate isn't that different from that of other European-descended Americans, and that Korean has had a hard time here simply because it's something that people raised in this culture aren't going to like a lot.

OTOH, until they come up with a monthly Metrocard for going back and forth to Tokyo, the carfare here will be slightly less . . . .

It's funny, cuz when I ordered Lambrusco at a different place -- Franny's in Brooklyn -- after having my Via Emilia epiphany, they asked me if I was sure I knew what it was like before they'd even pour it.

Just like you, I went to Via Emilia looking down on Lambrusco, and came out thinking there's a new kind of wine I like. There are even (slightly) different styles of it, I've learned after eating there a few times. And you're right: couldn't be better in this weather.

Bumped to encourage wannabechef to post a review.

I wish I could find an electronic version to link, but since I can't, I direct all your attention to Henry Alford's piece about Bryan Miller's repeated use of the word "nubbin," which is collected in Alford's book Municipal Bondage. I laugh out loud just thinking about it.

"Lovely"

Part of the fun.

FRIENDS Pegu Club DATE Milk and Honey

It kind of has to, doesn't it? It's sort of endemic to the nature of the category, isn't it? In any event, Ruth Reichl certainly did a lot of "boosting" of humbler places (especially Asian ones) -- which I guess is the more controversial use of the ** rating. The use of ** for "smackdowns" of ambitious places seems sort of inevitable. I think the problem a lot of people have with Bruni's "smackdowns" isn't that he gives ** ratings to ambitious places he views as failed, but that he views too many ambitious places as "failed" that others view as successful (The Modern, Alto, Gilt). I don't hear a lot of wailing here over Le Cirque getting only **, for instance. (And, contrary to the response here at the time, I don't think there's a lot of bitterness anymore over the ** given to Cafe Gray.) In sum, what I'm trying to say is that I don't think the problem is that the ** rating is being used as a combination of "boosts" to humbler places and "smackdowns" of ambitious places. I think the problem is that too many places are being "boosted" that people don't think deserve it, and similarly two many places are getting "smacked down" without desert. We all have models for what a one, three, and four star restaurant should be. But I wonder if most of us have a similarly clear idea of a model two-star (i.e., not a failed three-star or an overperforming one-star, but a two-star performing at its level)?

I guess maybe the way to be fair to someone like Bruni is to call him a reviewer rather than a critic. Which I guess is more accurate.

Speaking for myself, I do have a platonic ideal of a critic. Maybe it's unfair to expect real criticism from a reviewer in a daily newspaper. But in general, I don't read criticism for the bottom line. I read criticism to learn things. If all I got out of the New York Review of Books was thumbs-up-or-down recommendations, I'd cancel my subscription.

Does the community board have to approve having their gas turned on?

If you would like a transplant, please let me know.

According to the NY Times two-star rating, Little Owl competes with the big boys (WD-50, Gilt, The Modern and many, many, many, many more), just fine. ← Yeah, and Al Di La has THE SAME two NYT stars. That's part of my point. The Times gives them the same rating in the same category, whereas New York defines one as "cheap" and one as "normal." (Admittedly, Al Di La's first NYT review, shortly after it opened, was in the "$25 and Under" column.) My other point is that, while Al Di La and Little Owl have a lot in common with each other, anyone who goes to those two places thinking they're going to have much in common with such fellow NYT two-starholders as WD-50 or Gilt or The Modern or Alto or Le Cirque is going to be, ummm, surprised.

Obviously this isn't even important or anything, and everything we (or at least I) say should be taken with that caveat in mind. As I said before, a lot of the problem is with the term "Cheap Eats". Which was just appended to this list in this issue, and will not (as I understand it) have any future life as the title of this category. But having said that, I do see a big problem at the upper margin of this category. No matter what can be said, I can't see how Degustation could be included on any list of inexpensive restaurants. And although this is more nit-picky, how can you justify Little Owl's getting a colored-in all-red Adam Platt star rating, but Al Di La's getting a red-outlined "cheap" star rating? They're restaurants of simlilar ambition and (from what I can tell) not wildly different prices. To put them into different categories cuz Al Di La's Brooklyn rent allows it to charge slightly lower prices than Little Owl seems to me to be misleading. I don't think I'm saying this just because Al Di La is a personal favorite, but to be clear, it's not that I think the "cheap" rating is a dishoner or anything. Just that I think that the categories should alert readers what to expect when they go to a restaurant, so similar places shouldn't be categorized differently. If there's a solution, to me, it would be to create yet another separate category for the "middle". Cuz I don't think it's fair to the Al Di Las and Little Owls of the world for them to be lumped together with EITHER the Le Cirques and the Altos on the one hand OR the DiFaras and Tanoreens on the other. (This is obviously an even bigger problem at the Times.) And I think it's absurd for places like Al Di La and Little Owl to find themselves in separate categories based on fairly insignificant price differences.

I forgot to mention Yakitori Totto. I overspend on eating out pretty much habitually, but it disturbs even me to see a place whose expense makes me feel guilty about dropping into it casually (although I do, often) on a "Cheap Eats" list.

But the problem with this New York Magazine thing is that it's not only a fun list, but a new alternative star system for "cheap" places. And the problem -- as it inevitably would have to be -- is that they're having trouble defining the category and keeping it separate from the "regular" category.

Of course you're right that lists like this are fun almost by definition. Even disagreeing with them is fun. Make that especially disagreeing with them is fun.

In case Jason or anyone interested missed it: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/26/dining/26israel.html?8dpc

"good deals" abound, for sure. ← Not to nit-pick, but to me Bouchon Bakery is a perfect example of where they go wrong. I think Bouchon Bakery is good, really -- but overpriced for what it is. I don't think that anyone who went there without knowing Thomas Keller was behind it would feel differently -- except for moneyed out-of-towners visiting the TW Mall, who would expect to be overcharged for lunch there as a matter of course.

I have to say that the Union Square location sure looked open when I took a cab by it last night. Maybe it was a F&F or a preview.

But that's not comparing apples to apples. The only thing Angel's Share and Decibel have in common is that they're both "Japanese places." The drinks selections are completely different, are they not? Angel's Share is more about cocktails, whereas Decibel is more about sake. ← To me, it's not that they're both "Japanese places." It's that they're both places to go for a drink and to hang out in that part of the East Village. (Like I might say about the Theater District, "the cocktails at the Blue Bar at the Algonquin are better, but I have more fun watching the pool from the bar at the Hotel QT." I'd compare the two because they're a block from each other -- not because they're both hotel bars.)