Sneakeater

True, but especially if you're a lawyer, it's hard not to care about abuse of process (if that's true, and I have no idea what the true facts are). This is a topic that I do not think bears further public discussion.

I would actually bet money that Bruni wrote those captions.

Yeah, actually, wasn't one of the reasons Otto was named "Otto" that, between them, Batali and Bastianich have eight children? Didn't they originally set aside a table for their kids? (Doesn't make it less annoying. Just means they're not hiding it.) (Although how are you to know? After all, they called Babbo "babbo" cuz they're both fathers.)

It's interesting to see that the way people write shills is absolutely unchanged, even if the medium of their distribution has.

OK, sorry I forgot that reference to the service. To be simple-minded about it, Bruni gave two stars to Wolfgang's. He said in the Wolfgang's review that Luger's steak is better than Wolfgang's. He said in the Robert's review that Robert's steak is better than Luger's. So, if Robert's is getting one star less than Wolfgang's, it's obviously being docked for price and service (and maybe mainstream unapalatability). (I haven't eaten at Robert's, so I'm not in a position to say whether I think he's right about the high quality of the steak there.)

To be fair, he mentioned the prices (remember, he made that "cute" remark about their being "topless"). He could have made more of them. But since he only gave the place one star, in the face of what appeared to be extreme enthusiasm for the quality of the food (if I read him right, he was saying it's the best steak in the City -- which is really saying something), he obviously was downgrading it for something. I actually did notice his lack of any discussion of the service. Because I was curious how the service was. So I thank you for stating that. I guess Bruni was too distracted to notice.

I meant "normal as in 'no different from other restaurants of its type (i.e. the fact that FCI operates it being irrelevant)." I agree that the lack of a definition here makes this hard to talk about. But I stand by my suggestion that we muddle through until a definition becomes apparent. One thing that should be emphasized is that when you're in the kind of restaurant we're talking about, you're very aware that you aren't in a "normal" place. It's very clearly different -- not just because of price.

L'Ecole's a normal restaurant.

Jesus Christ. I never read A.A. Gill before. At least Frank Bruni doesn't go on about off-the-menu penises.

I'm not sure I agree with them, but Dave H's last two posts were just great. Here's a point that's been discussed in the past but which I think warrants revisiting (yet again): I've made that argument in the past (and Pan has made it very persuasively). Others have countered that we're wrong, and that the "average" reader is unpleasantly surprised when he or she goes to a place like Spicey & Tastey on the basis of a two-star review and finds someplace completey unprepossessing. I still think that people like Pan, Dave H, and me are right about this. But it might be worth discussing some more. I wonder, too. Apparently, they like places with lots of swords in the ceiling.

Those of you who know Sneakeater probably also know that his name isn't Susan Giff.

I was afraid he was going to give Robert's two stars, and then I would have to go on a tirade about how he holds what he views as inflated prices against places with "haute" pretensions, but not steakhouses in strip clubs. But he didn't. I think he got it exactly right.

I dropped in at one point to see if I could snag a seat at the bar (and left when one didn't seem to be forthcoming). Sorry I missed you!

I think this is a case where the common-law style of reasoning celebrated by Karl Llewellyn is especially apt. Meaning, you go through a process of deciding what does and doesn't fit, and then you articulate the general principles that you discover to be behind the intuitive common-sensical decisions you've made. ← d___, how do you remember that? I'm just over four years out and I barely recall that stuff.... ← Believe it or not, I remember that kind of thing cuz it's actually what I DO.

I think this is a case where the common-law style of reasoning celebrated by Karl Llewellyn is especially apt. Meaning, you go through a process of deciding what does and doesn't fit, and then you articulate the general principles that you discover to be behind the intuitive common-sensical decisions you've made.

Much more casual room at Perry Street. Just think of the different kinds of dress that seem appropriate in each. (Also, think of how much I like the room at Perry Street and don't at Jean Georges.)

Not really. The opera fans jump all over the critics when they think a review is wrong, and there are no stars for opera reviews. Frank Bruni's errors would still be errors, whether there are stars at the bottom of the review or not.Edit: Come to think of it, some of Bruni's reviews have indeed been controversial for the stars, and no other reason. If the Times had no stars, then the Sripraphai review would have come across as just a rave review about a Thai restaurant in Queens, without anyone arguing about whether it "deserved" two stars. But for those who think Bouley is a great restaurant, Bruni's smackdown would have still been a low blow, with or without *** at the bottom. Rich may be in the process of converting me when it comes to stars. Precisely because of the arts analogy. We saw Savion Glover this weekend (we last saw him in New York in Bring in Da Noise, Bring in Da Funk - maybe almost 10 years ago). He's fabulous. I don't know if he's the greatest tap dancer who will dance during my lifetime - but if he isn't - he's one of the top 3. How do you compare what he does to opera - to symphony orchestras - to ballet? Perhaps he has off nights (although this wasn't one of them). What do you do then? I read back through all the reviews of the show I saw. None has a "star rating" - but - if I had read them before I bought tickets - all would have encouraged me to go. Perhaps when it comes to restaurants - all we need is: 1) basic information (meals served - hours - etc.); 2) the nature of the restaurant and the food it serves; and 3) how good the place is in terms of accomplishing what it's trying to do. Awarding stars when you're reading about everything from BBQ or noodle places to the best haute cuisine restaurants in the world - well maybe it just doesn't make sense. Robyn ← Another one! Rich, we're gonna win this, one diner at a time.

But note that in this discussion, Graydon Carter is The Bad Guy -- The Clinging Remnant Of The Bad Past -- not The Harbinger Of The Future.

I do agree with that last post, though.

I'm not Nathan. But I've been a lawyer for 25 years and I've made my money (even if I live in Brooklyn), and I know plenty of people who've made their money. So maybe I can say something about this. Maybe it's New York. Maybe it's that there are any number of things you can't do here without waiting. (You still haven't answered my question about whether i-bankers simply never go to the movies.) Maybe it's also because you're sort of mischaracterizing (not on purpose or anything -- just from not having seen it) what the experience of "waiting" to get into these places is like. Reread FG's post about it. It's not that uncivilized. It isn't like waiting to get chosen by a bouncer to be admitted to a velvet-rope club that no New Yorker (except for some of the more clueless i-bankers) ever would go to, or fighting for a chaise longue at some petit bourgeous resort. In its way it's even sort of glamorous. And it's what much of daily life in New York is like. Even for i-bankers. EDITED TO ADD: But the point isn't what people my age or yours like after we've made our money. It's what the generation coming up is going to like after they've made their money. FG is positing that there are a different set of expectations and preferences being generated. It doesn't answer to say that you don't share those expectations and preferences, and expect the current generation to drop them once they get older. Especially since you acknowledge that you didn't share those preference even when you were young.

I'm with you until you claim that Perry Street is as "understatedly formal" as Jean Georges. I think it's indisputable that Perry Street is an attempt to do JG with less formality, in terms of the food, the presentation, the room, the service, etc. Sure, it's not "new paradigm". It's still a traditional restaurant, in ways that Upstairs and Ssam aren't. But let's not overstate things to the point of transgressing reality.

Lutece was my favorite restaurant, so I'm not knocking it. I guess I'm just puzzled by your insertion of the phrase "for its time and place." It's precisely because it's a different time and place that I believe Lutece would no longer get four stars. As for your assumption that Andre Soltner would be cooking different food if he were active now, who can know? His friend Rachou is certainly cooking the same.

I think it's true that there are very few extant places that actually fit this paradigm. And I agree that the title FG gave to this thread sort of misses a few key features of the places appropriately classed the way I think he means. But I also think we all pretty much know what he's referring to. I mean, I don't think anyone's excluding Perry Street or WD-50 because they don't reach the desired conclusion (whatever that may be). They're just not the kind of places FG appears to be reaching for. To me, the hard case is Atelier Robuchon. It sort of exhibits all the features of one of these places -- except for its absurdly high prices. Is that really enough to exclude it?

What about Lutece? Would that still get four stars today? ← Not a chance.

Ate here last night. They still don't have a liquor license. Expect it within the next couple of weeks. (Unlike elsewhere, no one's going around accusing them of reviving the Holocaust or anything.) By an amazing stroke of luck, I happened to be toting around the undrunk half of a bottle of excellent Portuguese wine. By emphasizing the most imaginative aspects of the menu, Cutlets made this place sound more interesting than it actually is. The food is solid, well-sourced, and well-prepared -- but it's a basic gastropub, and that's it. I had the pork cheeks with sage polenta, the lamb stew, and the Guiness pudding. It was all good. None of it was great. (This isn't close to the Spotted Pig, for example.) OTOH, with entree prices hovering around $20, and none going much higher, you can't complain about value. Go expecting good reasonably-priced food that you don't have to cook yourself. Don't go expecting to be excited.