Zagat: Grocery is the 7th best in NY

[Pan]

Did Grimes call anyone, or any group of people a moron or morons?

Well if he won't do it I will. First of all, Bux, clearly you're a moron. But that's beside the point. The important thing is that everybody except me is a "tasteless moron." Especially those pesky Mexicans. And if you think the Grocery is as good as Daniel, forget about it, even the tasteless morons won't talk to you -- you're basically a disabled tasteless Jewish non-union Mexican moron with unconventional sexual preferences and leftist political opinions working for minimum wage, which we all know is the worst kind of tasteless moron.

But seriously, not that I'd like to take Grimes' side in the low vs. high culture argument, but many non-Western cultures also have similar distinctions, so it's not necessarily racist or cultural-imperialist to make that distinction. And is it really that different from distinctions on the sophistication of cuisine, or does substituting "complexity" for "sophistication" eliminate a cultural or/and class bias?

[Pan]

And having read the rest of the thread to date, I have another comment:

Haute cuisine isn't inherently better. Rather, when I go to a restaurant that's fancy and expensive and has a reputation or pretention for haute cuisine - especially if it's already received 3 or even 4 stars in the New York Times - I am much more critical of faults than if I'm going to an unstarred $12-for-dinner diner. I guess I don't even think that haute cuisine at its best is necessarily better than the great meals I had in certain restaurants in India, Indonesia, Thailand, and Malaysia. Of course, some of those were haute cuisine in relation to food in those countries - but some were not. I know the argument about ingredients, but it doesn't always obtain. When you have access to fresh seafood, free-range meat and poultry, and high-quality fresh produce in a place like Malaysia without paying an arm and a leg for it, what's the obvious, inherent advantage of French-style haute cuisine? I wonder what Tony Bourdain, the well-known fan of Southeast Asian cuisine, would have to say about all of this. Frankly, this kind of talk strikes me as having more than a whiff of the "complexity" man who will remain nameless unless someone pushes me to name him.

[ExtraMSG]

And is it really that different from distinctions on the sophistication of cuisine, or does substituting "complexity" for "sophistication" eliminate a cultural or/and class bias?

First, it's just an analogy. To say that something is grounded in a similar way to the grounding for racism (or more accurately, cultural bigotry) is not to say that it has the same moral weight. Using such a rhetorical device just hopefully makes the other aware that they'd never stand for that type of faulty foundation when it does have moral weight.

Second, I think "complexity" does in some ways reduce problems because "complexity" doesn't have the same sort of connotations that "sophistication" does. To say something is complex is not necessarily to imply that it's better. The terminology previously was "better", "higher", etc, which does, of course have the connotations of being superior. But then you're not necessarily making the point you want to make which is that some ways of cooking, some types of dishes, etc, are inherently better than other kinds. Certainly you don't want to argue for complexity or even difficulty as defining what is better. That'd be stepping into a trap -- first because there is so much we applaud in its simplicity in haute cuisine, and second because there is so much "low" food that is extremely complex and difficult.

I guess I don't even think that haute cuisine at its best is necessarily better than the great meals I had in certain restaurants in India, Indonesia, Thailand, and Malaysia. Of course, some of those were haute cuisine in relation to food in those countries - but some were not. I know the argument about ingredients, but it doesn't always obtain. When you have access to fresh seafood, free-range meat and poultry, and high-quality fresh produce in a place like Malaysia without paying an arm and a leg for it, what's the obvious, inherent advantage of French-style haute cuisine?

Then you and I at least agree on this point. I would just extend this to say that even the food common to us Americans, such as BBQ, soul food, Chicago deep dish pizza, and the like, or to other cuisines, such as German, Middle Eastern, Mexican, and other cuisines that at least get some notice in Zagat while even at their best are unable to attain more than three stars in Mobil (and their showing even in their own countries in Michelin is pretty sad, too). Part of that is that these other cuisines don't focus on the overall experience that a restaurant can offer and so do better when they're rated just for food. Part of it is just that they don't get respect because French has for so long and probably will continue to be largely considered the apex of cooking. Even Zagat undervalues a lot of these cuisines, imo. I'd like to see BBQ score better in the south, and Tex-Mex score better in Texas, and deep dish pizza score better in Chicago, and Jewish delis score better in NY. But at least in Zagat they make respectable showings (or show at all).

[Fat Guy]

Two clarifying points regarding my own position on this:

- By haute cuisine I definitely do not mean to imply only French haute cuisine. I mean the most sophisticated, upper-level, professional restaurant cuisine of whatever nation or ethnic subdivision we're talking about. More importantly I'm talking about haute cuisine as a process of chefs refining food and elevating it.

- I use the word sophisticated rather than the word complex because not all haute cuisine is directly complex. Once you go down the complexity path, you're in big trouble when you come up against culinary minimalism in its various forms.

ExtraMSG

The French culinary tradition has a largely established laundry list of what is required of great food. So some objectivity can be slipped in to show that a dish indeed conforms to that tradition.

The French culinary tradition is more diverse than that, but the point is still relevant. It is not, however, limited to French cuisine. Among those who cook at the top levels, from New York to Sydney and from London to Singapore, there is a relatively clear multinational consensus about what does and doesn't conform to the notion of high cuisine. Of course there can be some controversy -- a particular chef whose work is in a gray area -- but the discussion we're having isn't one you'll hear among professional chefs in any modern nation with international exposure. To them, the standards are pretty intuitive and the head chef at the Shanghai restaurant in the Mandarin Oriental hotel somewhere in Asia is going to have no trouble at all coming to New York City and immediately recognizing the categorical culinary differences between a place like the Grocery and a place like Daniel.

[Pan]

Something that has been alluded to but is being somewhat submerged in this discussion is that the people who gave high marks to Grocery probably overlapped very little with people who gave high marks to the much more expensive haute cuisine restaurants. I wasn't much different when I filled out Zagat surveys, in the sense that, as I mentioned previously, if 3 was "excellent," Grand Sichuan got a 3. And of course, what happened if I hadn't been to any 3-stars that year (let's not talk about 4-stars because all three meals I've had at 4-stars in New York have been really underwhelming)? That's right: Since I took the instructions seriously, I didn't rate any of them that year. The upshot, I think, is that it may have been perfectly reasonable for Grocery's clientele to rate it a 3 for excellent in large percentages. What may be senseless is that such a hodge-podge of clienteles get to determine overall ratings in a book.

[ExtraMSG]

The French culinary tradition is more diverse than that, but the point is still relevant. It is not, however, limited to French cuisine. Among those who cook at the top levels, from New York to Sydney and from London to Singapore, there is a relatively clear multinational consensus about what does and doesn't conform to the notion of high cuisine. Of course there can be some controversy -- a particular chef whose work is in a gray area -- but the discussion we're having isn't one you'll hear among professional chefs in any modern nation with international exposure. To them, the standards are pretty intuitive and the head chef at the Shanghai restaurant in the Mandarin Oriental hotel somewhere in Asia is going to have no trouble at all coming to New York City and immediately recognizing the categorical culinary differences between a place like the Grocery and a place like Daniel.

I'm sure there is an extent to which many high cuisines of many cultures do share some values. I don't know that hotel dining should be the representative, however. So often hotel dining is disproportionately influenced by western traditions -- chefs trained in the French tradition and menus oriented towards satisfying wealthy foreign palates.

I'd have to do some research on high cuisine traditions around the world before I could make too strong of a judgment. My readings of food history suggest that most cultures have very limited high cuisine traditions, ie, traditions where food is treated as an art or where impressiveness, showmanship, and luxury items are emphasized. What these different attempts at high cuisine share, however, I haven't the slightest clue, really.

In taking a thoughtful approach to the question of what they share and whether they have meanigfully divergent goals, I think it would be necessary to try to move backwards through time to try to filter out some of the western influences (and it's not just western influences, but influences of modern dominant food cultures). Or at least, I think it would be more interesting to the ultimate goal to see how much diversity there has been.

I have to say, though, as a diner I don't know that if I always understand the passion some cultures have for their delicacies. Sometimes I get it, sometimes I don't. I'm inclined to say that while many goals may be shared between culinary traditions, there will always remain a set of criteria between that are incommensurable, that cannot be truly explained or translated. If that's the case, I think, then, that guides such as Mobil and Michelin that truly hold the French culinary tradition as the proper or model culinary tradition will never be able to adequately recognize restaurants from other traditions. Those traditions will have to transform themselves and mold themselves to the French ideals to be recognized as equals. I think to a large degree that's unfortunate.

Here's a question. If a Moroccan restaurant used the best ingredients, had wonderful and creative preparations, was in a fabulous setting, had luxurious tables and plates, washed your hands for you, etc, but you ate with your hands and sat on pillows on the floor, could it ever even achieve 3 stars in Mobil?

[badthings]

Thanks to another thread, I finally tracked down a Mimi Sheraton article on Zagat I've been trying to find for months:

Having always distrusted consensus, I feel the system of relying on a vast public rather than professional critics has no more validity in assessing restaurants than it would if applied to art or theater. The majority can be wrong, and one well-informed opinion is worth more than those of a thousand amateurs. Popular success is not a measure of excellence. If it were, it would mean that McDonald's serves the world's best hamburgers, KFC makes perfect fried chicken, Pizza Hut is the envy of Naples and, come to think of it, that the Zagat Survey is our best restaurant guide.

Edit: Would I be muddying the waters to suggest that Pearl Jam isn't even as good as Soundgarden?

Sorry.

Edited October 31, 2003 by badthings (log)

[Bux]

I'd have to do some research on high cuisine traditions around the world before I could make too strong of a judgment.

But in a true democratic survey, your opinion would count as much as one offered by a someone with years of research in dining at all levels all over the world. In fact, it's quite possible that someone eating at one restaurant might rate it tops simply because he's never eaten better food and never eaten at the half dozen restaurants in the city that surpass it, while a diner who's eaten at both might offer a different opinion. My guess is that Zagat would produce a different survey if it required more experience from it's contributors, or required that they eat in a broad range of restaurants.

[ExtraMSG]

But in a true democratic survey, your opinion would count as much as one offered by a someone with years of research in dining at all levels all over the world. In fact, it's quite possible that someone eating at one restaurant might rate it tops simply because he's never eaten better food and never eaten at the half dozen restaurants in the city that surpass it, while a diner who's eaten at both might offer a different opinion. My guess is that Zagat would produce a different survey if it required more experience from it's contributors, or required that they eat in a broad range of restaurants.

Sure, but I can come up with all kinds of hypothetical counter-examples. The main one is that Zagat is a resource for the same type of people are surveyed for it. It's a cross-section of those people. Therefore, their opinions should be a better match than the opinion of an "expert" who has a specific palate. A good example is something like foie gras. Most people will not like foie gras almost no matter how it's prepared. Some foodie reviewer, however, may love the stuff, may praise a place because they got the best foie gras they've ever had there. That gives no help whatsoever to the average person -- even the average avid Zagat diner -- who may never enjoy foie gras.

Ultimately, food is a matter of taste, not experience. Being experienced does not necessarily make you a better judge of food for the masses but for others with your similar experience. An exception might be with an especially good writer. eg, I have quite different taste in movies, often, from Roger Ebert. However, he has the ability to indicate whether a movie is one I will like because he is a good writer who reviews movies in such a way as to let me judge whether I would like a movie whether he likes it or not.

[gersh]

Hi there:

I'm a food-loving reporter from the New York Post who is doing a story about The Grocery and the impact that the recent high ranking in the Zagat Survey (Zagat's) has had on this cute Brooklyn restaurant. My story is on the impacts -- both positive and negative -- that such a high ranking can have.

As such, I'm looking for anyone who was a regular at The Grocery who has had trouble getting into the joint since the new rankings came out. Or, conversely, anyone who has seen a positive impact since the Zagat survey was released.

You can respond directly to gersh.kuntzman@verizon.net.

Thank you so much!

GERSH KUNTZMAN

NY Post

[badthings]

Interestingly the Post had a Page Six item today on people who hate Zagat for other reasons:

There really is no merit to Zagat's," [Andrew Silverman, owner of City Crab and City Lobster] fumes. "Every year is the same [bleep]. For them to give me a 17 is ridiculous. The bottom line is, we have very busy restaurants and people love us . . . [Publisher] Tim Zagat is an elitist.

(that link will only work today.)

[Bux]

You can respond directly to gersh.kuntzman

Or you can post directly to eGullet with the full knowledge that your statement will be printed in your own words and in context with the rest of your message. I think Mr. Kuntzman's post and request, raises a few issues about the press and the Internet.

[Pan]

I agree, Bux. I tend to think it's poor posting etiquette to solicit emails on a topic that is not private and makes sense to discuss publicly. But then, I'm not a media person, so I don't know how they think about these things.

[Suzanne F]

I will be sending this as an e-mail:

Dear Gersh -- may I call you Gersh? Good.    Thank you for your interest in what eGulleteers have to say. And thank you for referring to yourself as "food-loving," NOT as a foodie. That's a loaded word. 

As you will see the more you hang around here -- and I hope you will --anything worth saying on eGullet is worth saying publicly. Sure, we have private side conversations to set up dinner dates, and so on. But we want to hear what everyone has to say on a given topic. We don't have to agree with each other (thank g-d), but we do keep our hands on top of the table. No note-passing. 

And since one of our founders is a lawyer -- they do like to eat, don't they?    -- we try to be pretty careful about attribution of our sources of information. Newbies learn pretty fast that they can't just cut-and-paste copyrighted material; they've got to provide links. And the "Quote" button is used a lot, to let everyone know who said what first.

Now, I can understand that you might not want to come back here to check for responses; this site is addictive, and you'll never get any work done.    But please, "Read -- Chew -- Discuss" here with the rest of us.

All the best,

Suzanne F

sometime Contributor to The Daily Gullet, and general noodge

PS: So now that the Post is no longer on the fringes of Chinatown, where do you go for lunch???

[mamster]

I think Mr. Kuntzman's post and request, raises a few issues about the press and the Internet.

Bux, you can't really be saying the New York Post isn't a paragon of ethical journalism, can you?

[Bux]

I think Mr. Kuntzman's post and request, raises a few issues about the press and the Internet.

Bux, you can't really be saying the New York Post isn't a paragon of ethical journalism, can you?

Sorry, I wasn't meaning to impugn the integrity of the Post or any particular print journal. I only meant to raise the issue of how the print and online media interact with each other and how they interact with the public. Suzanne's message touched on that issue, but I was trying to be straight forward in in my post. I think I would prefer to make my statement in public and allow a reporter to collect his information from what I've posted. I also understand why a reporter would want to source unpublished information rather than take if from what's published on the web.

However, asking for private information here, is not so different from asking for a private reply to any public post. It raises the issue of short circuiting replies and leaving the general membership out of the loop. In general, I'm reluctant to answer private questions as it defeats the reason for eGullet's existance--the public sharing of information and opinions.

[Pan]

I think Mr. Kuntzman's post and request, raises a few issues about the press and the Internet.

Bux, you can't really be saying the New York Post isn't a paragon of ethical journalism, can you?

That was the elephant in the room. You're the first to mention he's there.

[gersh]

I think Mr. Kuntzman's post and request, raises a few issues about the press and the Internet.

Bux, you can't really be saying the New York Post isn't a paragon of ethical journalism, can you?

Dear eGullet community:

It's Gersh, that guy from the New York Post. I'm really sorry that I caused such a ruckus with my recent email seeking comments for my upcoming story about The Grocery. As you know, I was extremely up-front about the fact that I am a) a reporter b) a reporter for a local paper and c) a reporter who is doing a story. I asked for your comments and gave you an email address where you could direct them should you want them to remain anonymous.

I'm really sorry if that was unclear, but I don't think my posting raises any "issues," as Bux called it. Reporters interview people for a living. The Internet means that instead of standing on a street corner stopping people as they rush to work, we can now reach out in different ways.

I hope that no one was offended.

GERSH

[Bux]

Gersh,

I can hope you believe I was not intending to raise issues about the post. In fact, the issue I was raising is that posting on eGullet is not the same thing as standing on a street corner and stopping people as they rush to work. For me, your reply confirms my point.

What are the issues here? I'm not sure they've been defined or that I am prepared to do it well. Some might well say the newspaper replaced the street corner as the means of exchanging the latest information. If that's so, it might prove to be that the internet replaces the newspaper. I'm not implying the newspaper is dead anymore than I'm saying the street corner is dead or that people don't meet on the street and exchange information that way anymore, but the dynamic about how information is exchanged is changing all the time.

If I was in the habit of exchanging information with some ten thousand or more people with simlar interests, why would I want to privately comunicate that information to someone who might publish it in a few days rather than just publish it immediately in a medium I know is being read by my hard core audience? I'm not saying there are no reasons, or that I have all the answers about how information should or will be exchanged. I am not offended by your request here, but issues were raised in my mind about the future or even the present state of communication and role of the Internet and newspapers. I'd also stress that the Internet is not eGullet.com anymore than the press is the NY Post. The Internet and the press are terms that encompass a whole lot of different activites.

Bux

[ExtraMSG]

A little update:

http://www.npr.org/display_pages/features/...re_1594349.html

The Grocery, a neighborhood restaurant in Brooklyn, was small to begin with. But since Zagat named it one of the seven best restaurants in New York City, it has become even tougher to get into the place. NPR's Susan Stamberg continues her weekly series on food with a visit to the Grocery.