and the new NYTimes critic is...

[Harry Covére]

according to andrea strong's web site, and now gawker

hmm, guess who's picture will be posted on every hostess stand from here to hackensack.

[Lady T]

The proof's in the writing. Let's see how he does.

[russ parsons]

he's a helluva writer, that's for sure. the piece he did on mario batali for the new yorker was really wonderful. and i'd heard he'd spun it out into a book deal. it will be interesting to see how they finesse that conflict, if true.

[JPW]

he's a helluva writer, that's for sure. the piece he did on mario batali for the new yorker was really wonderful. and i'd heard he'd spun it out into a book deal. it will be interesting to see how they finesse that conflict, if true.

Russ,

What issue of New Yorker? I missed it.

Thanks.

[Fat Guy]

I'll eat my hat if he takes the job; in fact my best sources have said he's not going to do it. I'm still inclined to believe it's going to be McInerney as per previous reports.

[Carolyn Tillie]

I'll eat my hat if he takes the job

Just out of curiousity, if you HAD to eat your hat, how would you prepare it and what sauce might you serve it with? Care to discuss sides and wine pairings with said hat?

[Fat Guy]

Hat sashimi.

[Suzanne F]

Hats of meat?

[Harry Covére]

FG, we'll hold you to that. And if J.M. takes the gig (please, lord, no) I'll eat my boxers (blanched, of course, with beurre blanc).

[elizabethnathan]

The Batali piece was in the New Yorker food issue, August 19 & 26, 2002. It had a Wayne Thiebaud on the front.

[Carolyn Tillie]

Hats of meat?

Ooooooh - I just had a childhood flashback!

When I was a kid, my Dad would grill slices of bologna (baloney, as a kid). It would be a big production 'cuz I would get to watch it puff up in the middle.

My Dad called it "Hat Meat!"

[FoodMan]

The Batali piece was in the New Yorker food issue, August 19 & 26, 2002. It had a Wayne Thiebaud on the front.

That was a great issue, I still have saved in between my cookbooks.

[bloviatrix]

I remember he was nominated for a Beard award for that article. Did he win?

[jhlurie]

Just in case that link above dies at some point in history, we should probably state that we are talking about Bill Buford.

In the future, be careful of posting links to outside sources without giving some kind of summary as well.

[JPW]

thanks for the citation elizabethnathan!

[bourdain]

I hear they're considering that guy from Hootie and the Blowfish.

[bpearis]

I hear they're considering that guy from Hootie and the Blowfish.

He won't even eat fugu!

[Fat Guy]

Some discussion of this in the Observer today (scroll to end):

According to sources familiar with the situation, the strapping Mr. Buford, author of the forthcoming book Heat (about Babbo chef Mario Batali), turned down the chance to replace William Grimes as the paper’s man about flan.

Internet rumors had him pegged as the final choice for the job, which was vacated Dec. 31 when Mr. Grimes wrote his last column, about Tom Valenti’s Upper West Side restaurant Cesca.

....

But The Times hasn’t been entirely spurned in its literary aspirations for its next food critic. Rumors aside, sources tell Off the Record that Bright Lights, Big City author Jay McInerney—who’s become an accomplished wine writer with his column at Condé Nast’s House and Garden is still in the running.

http://www2.observer.com/observer/pages/offtherec.asp

One quibble: Whatever the source of those "Internet rumors" was -- be it MediaLife, Gawker, eGullet, or someplace else -- it should have been named. Just as it would be improper to cite the New York Times as "newspapers," citing an online source as "Internet" is tantamount to not citing the source at all. Unless a source asks to be protected or there is some other compelling reason not to name the source, credit should be given where credit is due.

[Fat Guy]

Also, just another quick point on the Observer piece (from the part having nothing to do with any of this):

While perhaps a reasoned, well-thought basis for a beat, The Times assigning a reporter to cover conservatives still feels strange, if not off-putting—a little like Judd Nelson peering through the bathroom window at Phoebe Cates in Fast Times at Ridgemont High.

Yes, that would be quite offputting to see, since Judd Nelson wasn't in Fast Times. Perhaps the writer was thinking of Judge Reinhold.

[Fat Guy]

They've improved it to "Judge Reinholt" now. Getting warmer.

[Kim WB]

It's goijng to be hard for me to ever take Jay McInerey seriously..I once waited on his table ( in the height of BLBC fame) and I believe he was...chemically compromised. Not rude, very funny actually, but the impression will still linger.

Edited January 29, 2004 by Kim WB (log)

[Schneier]

I'll eat my hat if he takes the job; in fact my best sources have said he's not going to do it. I'm still inclined to believe it's going to be McInerney as per previous reports.

I agree with you. I didn't think he's take the job.

(Now the path is clear for me...)

Bruce

[bourdain]

I like Jay. And I think he'd write a good dining column--from the point of view of a long-time, seasoned night-life afficianado, restaurant-goer, and wine and food enthusiast.

But as THE New York Times restaurant critic/reviewer? No way. Mistake (ie: a step down) for him, and an historic break/change of direction for the Times in that any pretense of anonymity, separation of writer/subject would be lost. Jay's wrong for the same reason I would be wrong for ANY critic/review position: We've been around too long, know and are friendly with too many people in the business--and have benefited from their largesse and their discretion on too many occasions. Jay's a known quantity. If not "reachable",fairly or unfairly, he will always APPEAR to be reachable. Hell, people would be asking him for autographs while he reviews a restaurant! There is also, of course, the lack of real expertise/experience to consider. It's a telling thing that the Times are even considering him. (And seriously, it's said)This would be a horrifyingly transparent and cynical switch to "marquee" value over substance for the Times, the Dining section version of the egregious, witless, pained and painful ascent of Boldface Names (the Times version of Grandma putting on high-tops and attempting to break-dance--and thinking it's hip all the way).

The Times just doesn't/shouldn't do "hip". It's not why we love them. It's not what they're good at. The recent articles in the Style section on some ludicrously goofy-ass bonehead in a Jamiroquoi hat who presents himself as a Master Pick Up Artist--and the even dumber annual article on the Lower East Side are best examples of why the Times should leave that shit to others.

Edited January 29, 2004 by bourdain (log)

[Busboy]

Jay's wrong for the same reason I would be wrong for ANY critic/review position: We've been around too long, know and are friendly with too many people in the business--and have benefited from their largesse and their discretion on too many occasions. Jay's a known quantity.

Wait -- didn't FG recently spend many megabytes maintaining that no self-respecting food writer would allow these kinds of things to compromise his or her review?

If Jay takes this, I think Brett Easton Ellis deserves a shot at the "Under $25".

[Fat Guy]

an historic break/change of direction for the Times in that any pretense of anonymity, separation of writer/subject would be lost

Then again, it is indeed pretense, and an end to pretense could be a good thing for everyone.

I agree that this would be a marquee-value move, and a major change in direction. And having looked further into McInerney's case since the first rumors started I'm inclined to agree that he'd be a questionable choice. But he'd also be a bold and interesting choice, and I'd give him a chance to prove himself -- I'd be willing to be surprised.

But I'm also thinking, regarding the step-down point, that it would be a strange move for him. They must be offering a much nicer package than I'd assumed.