Sneakeater

One obvious difference is that one doesn't "consume" artwork (in most instances) in order to enjoy it. Barring the collector (there's that dirty word again!) who hides a work away, many people can experience a work of art without owning it. ←

Nobody's saying that. You're knocking down a straw man. The issue here is whether producers should somehow be prevented from charging what the market will bear so that the deserving poor can afford their products. The sub-contention seems to be that the rich, who can afford them now, are somehow by definition undeserving. What do "struggling artists and writers" have to do with it? Why can't a rich person enjoy the wine? BTW -- Why not say the same thing about paintings? And since each one is unique, they're much rarer than wine bottles?

Another place on the "good" side of fusion. I started with the cured sable (black cod to all you non-Eastern Europeans). The cliche would be to describe the fish as "silky", but that's what it was. The soft shell crab dish was one of the better ones I've had. It was served with English peas and bacon -- those favorite ingredients of Japanese cookery -- and some vegetables more readily identifiable as Japanese. All I remember about dessert is vaguely enjoying it. I used to dismiss fusion out of hand, just as a matter of principle. Sumile taught me that, if the chef is imaginative and yet rigorous, fusion can work beautifullly. The food at Taku is perhaps less audacious than the food at Sumile -- more a Westerner's take on Japanese cuisine than the cross-cultural fantasia that Josh DeCellis concocted on West Thirteenth Street -- but it's still very good. When you think about it, fusion is more chef-dependent than many more traditional cuisines; if the chef lacks chops and the ability to assemble new dishes, then the food will fall apart. So it's a tribute to Adam Shepard that this food works so well.

FINALLY went here this weekend. I figured that on a Saturday in July there'd be no wait. They were only serving the pork belly out of the tea sandwiches. Despite my misgivings, they were ordered by my friend, who will order anything that says "pork belly" on the menu. They were OK. But blown out of the water by the pork/pickled watermelon salad. This is the pork belly dish of our dreams (at least this week). Added to the list of Irresistable New York Cravings (what am I gonna do in the Fall when everybody comes back and you can't get into this place again?). The Clay Pot Chicken gets a bad rap in this thread. I agree that the chicken pieces are flavorless. But I liked the fishy gravy so much, I didn't care. I really liked this dish. And, of course, the short ribs. If it weren't for Gray Kunz, one might be tempted to say something stupid, like they're the best short ribs in New York. Fortunately, we're saved from that. I went into Fatty Crab conceptualizing it as a Zak Pelaccio restaurant rather than a Malaysian one, and that's really how I experienced it. Genius treatment of pork and fat in general. Maybe a little one-note in his invariable exuberence, maybe a little restraint would sometimes help, but the guy really IS a wizz with fat.

This is the first thing I've read in this blog that has disappointed me.

I don't suppose you should do it in this thread, but would you be able to start a thread somewhere appropriate where you could tell us more about this food? (Unless you already have, in which case, could you provide a link?)

I hope I made it clear (by referring to Shun Lee when it first opened) that I don't think that any of the Shun Lee locations now provide anything worth much.

In discussions whether Asian restaurants like Sripraphai or Noodletown deserve the two stars they received from the Times, someone always points out that those of us who love places like that are operating in ignorance of a whole upper level of the cuisines in question. Accordingly, we're told, those of us who love those places are incapable of judging whether they're truly "star" material, because we don't know about the haute cuisine from those cultures that, it is argued, would really deserve stars under the star system. We think they're top-level, we're told, because we're ignorant of what, from their cultures, is really top-level. It's like, we're told, someone who never saw a real NYC two-star place arguing that DiFaro's deserves two stars because he got knocked out by the quality of the pizza there and doesn't know how much more a restaurant can be. For example, there's Chinese banquet cuisine (which some of the larger Hong Kong-oriented Chinatown places purport to offer, on a special-pre-order basis, for about a zillion dollars, but which is otherwise not readily available in New York restaurants). I guess the point is, Chinatown Brasserie isn't that. It isn't the upper level of Chinese cuisine that we were told would make us understand why Noodletown didn't deserve two NYT stars. It's just a fancier version of the kind of Chinese food we're used to. I join with larrylee in hoping we someday get access to the Chinese (and other Asian) haute cuisine we've been told about. (Maybe Kittichai was a start?)

You know, one thing occurs to me. The duck I had didn't particularly seem "flattened" or "butterflied". I THOUGHT I ordered the only duck entree on the menu. Is it possible I somehow managed to order some other dish than Ed S. recommended?

I should have added that I totally enjoyed my dessert of rhubarb custard tart with Chinese celery. Can't get THAT at Noodletown.

Frankly, I hope you think I'm wrong and love CB unreservedly.

Actually, I have recently been told that any time you spend talking about Frank Bruni doesn't count toward your allotment. The same goes for time spent tying neckties.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think anyone is claiming that the Rao family is actually cooking the sauce that gets put in the bottles. I think the question is whether they maintain control over the recipes or whether they simply let some manufacturer use their name on a product that in actuality has nothing to do with them.

Not that it matters, but I think I have basic disagreements with you about the nature and function of criticism. Let me put it this way. I go to a lot of concerts (I'm talking about classical music here). I own and listen to a lot of records. I (personally) think I have excellent taste in music, and can tell a good performance from a bad one. (Of course, others can disagree.) I also think I can write (I certainly get paid a decent amount to do it). But I have no musical training, can't read music, and have no idea whatsoever about technique beyond what I have gleaned from going to concerts these many decades. I think I would be a complete waste of time as a music critic. Even though you might well agree with my conclusions a lot of the time.

Well, they hired Elvis Mitchell the same time they hired Tony Scott. Although Mitchell didn't last (whose decision was it for him to leave?).

[Deleted cuz I missed the line about the "liquid assets tax"]

Revisit to Chinatown Brasserie. As expected, the dim sum -- this time the shrimp and pea shoot leave dumplings -- were beyond excellent. Truly remarkably good. For the main dish, I suppose I really should have tried the highly-praised sable (I believe my late grandmother dies again every time someone refers to that fish as black cod). But Ed S. had also recommended the roast duck, and that was more of what I was in the mood for. I had it along with a side dish of snow peas, water chestnuts, and yellow chives. There is no question that the duck was very, very good. This was an excellent piece of poultry, very well prepared. Perhaps it was a little greasier than optimal -- but this is a greasy dish by its nature, so perhaps it was on purpose (it wasn't anything close to very greasy), and it in no way impeded my enjoyment of the delicious, crispy skin and succulent meat. The dipping sauce it was served with, which seemed to have very large components of garlic and the duck's own "jus", was truly excellent: better than I've gotten with any similar dish anywhere else. It added a whole flavor dimension to the dish. I have to give special praise to the vegetable side dish. It was much better than you'd have any right to expect a plate of stir-fried vegetables to be. It showed this kind of cooking at its best: fresh, high-quality produce, with a lot of garlic and the chives for a flavor kick, lightly cooked to maximize crispness of taste and texture. So this meal presented the concept of this restaurant in a much better light than my last one here. But I still have reservations. I thought about them as I was enjoying my duck, which was, of course, better than the counterpart dishes I've had at my favorite Chinatown and Garment District Cantonese places. But is it so much better as to justify the huge price difference? That's when I realized something. You often hear that the reason New Yorkers have so much trouble embracing upscale Chinese restaurants is that they have gotten used to classifying Chinese as a "cheap" cuisine. But that's not really quite it, I think. I think the real problem is that there are so many truly excellent, overperforming cheap Chinese restaurants in New York. Places where the quality of the food is completely out of proportion to the low prices charged. Places that are not just good values, but ridiculously good values. Because they're not just good for how much they cost, but objectively excellent.* So it's hard for Chinatown Brasserie to generate much excitement by producing a "better" version of this cuisine, because many of the cheaper available options are so fine. If my basis for comparison were Chinatown Wok 'n Roll on Flatbush Avenue near my apartment, Chinatown Brasserie would be a revelation. I wouldn't be able to believe that this kind of food can be this good. But the problem is, I already had that revelation, in the old downtown Phoenix Garden, in 1981. And I've continued to have it in a host of places of similar or even greater quality since. Chinatown Brasserie may be better, in some ways (although not, it must be said, in menu interest), than most or even all these places. But it isn't that much better. It isn't an order of magnitude better, the way those places are an order of magnitude better than neighborhood takeouts (or pedestrian Chinatown dives). But it is an order of magnitude more expensive. Let's think of the "upscale" Chinese restaurants that have really been embraced by the foodie community in New York. I think they have mainly been ones that offered food that was not only different in quality, but different in kind, from what's on offer in the excellent cheap places. I couldn't afford to eat in Shun Lee when it opened, but from what I understand, the excitement there wasn't just about the quality of the ingredients and technique (or the dinnerware). It was about their serving dishes that weren't like anything anyone had ever seen before. In contrast, even the dishes at CB that Ed points to above as being unavailable anywhere else aren't that different from the kind of things many of us frequently enjoy for a lot less money. Now again, despite how it must sound, I'm not putting down Chinatown Brasserie. I really really liked my meal last night, and I very much want to (and intend to) continue to explore Ed's recommendations from their menu. But I just can't see its being one of my "go-to" places, given how many places there are where I regularly get similar food that is perhaps a little less good, but a lot less expensive. ____________________________________________________________ * Of course, we know that one of the main reasons these restaurants are able to charge so little for such excellent food is that they grossly underpay their employees. In that sense, they're unfair competition to an honest mainstream restaurant like Chinatown Brasserie. Having noted that, I'm going to leave the moral qualms thus raised out of this discussion.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that, to me, competent criticism is informed judgment. (And that the most important part is the evaluation supporting the judgment, which is only of use if it's done by someone with expertise.)

Note, though, that the Times now only hires reputable cineastes to be movie critics (it didn't used to be that way, but it is now). And their theater critics are also specialists; they don't just appoint reporters from other beats. Their classical music critics are trained musicians. I don't think you can equate reporting (and its qualifications) with criticism (and its qualifications). So science (or any other type of) reporting is different from restaurant (or any other kind of) criticism. I could imagine a competent reporter immmersing him or herself in the science field and being able to report on developments. To me, professional criticism of any kind requires expertise and preferably training. Otherwise, it's just someone writing about their opinions. That's also, BTW, why I don't think it matters much how "correct" Bruni's star ratings tend to be. To me, the conclusion is just about the least important part of any piece of criticism. What's important is how the critic got there. Competent reviews have value even if you disagree with them. I have friends whose taste in restaurants I trust implicitly. I don't think any of them are qualified to be professional restaurant critics.

Thank you for saying that, Daniel.

He was a reporter at the Times.

Also, Grimes got better as he went along, but I think he suffered from the same deficiency as Bruni: insufficient specialized knowledge to support his criticism.

I know this is a minority opinion, but I think Amanda Hesser was a much better restaurant critic than Frank Bruni is. I often learned things from her reviews about the way restaurants operate. And clearly she knew all about cooking technique. Sure she got Asiate and Spice Market wrong. But I still found her more worthwhile to read than Bruni.

If you click on the words "garbage plate" in Gordon Cooks's post, it'll link you to an illustrated explanation.