and the new NYTimes critic is...

[Lesley C]

So I guess, FG, you don't consider the lack of real expertise/experience an issue?

Are the top chefs like Boulud, Ripert, Vongerichten and DUCASSE expected to take this guy seriously?

[bourdain]

"An end to pretense"?

Huh?

Say what you will about Grimes. To his credit, you could NOT reach the guy. He avoided foodie cluster-fucks like the plague. Most restaurant people STILL couldn't recognize him if he stood right in front of them. And he had no history of corruption, coercion, commingling with his subjects. He was, truly, as "unknown" a quantity as one could hope for, whatever you think of the results. He was--even when wrong--fair, I think. Whether Ruth, Bryan Miller, or Mimi Sheraton..the Times always TRIED--and tried HARD to be fair and impartial and incorruptible, making the extra effort to avoid even the perception of favoritism or agenda. That some reviewers had a clear preference for French over Italian--or less of an understanding or affinity for some cuisines over others was inavoidable--but not fatal.

I agee that "pretense" plays a huge part in most--if not all--other NYC reviewers--and that the system is (perhaps inavoidably) bent. And that Grimes was, on occasion, guilty of (perhaps knowingly) buying into the "pretense" that, for instance, Bobby Flay works the line every night at Bolo--and personally designs and supervises every dish. (An assumption as unfair to Flay as it is to the reader/customer)

But this is the TIMES we're talking about! They should continue the tradition of at least making their BEST EFFORT to retain anonymity, objectivity and freedom from taint.

Millions of dollars and the futures of many a small businessman, chef and employee rest (rightly or wrongly--that's the way it is) with the Times review. To devalue that would not be a good thing.

Look at the alternatives:

You trust a review when the reviewer is getting free brunch delivered to their apartment on Sunday mornings from the subject?

Or seeing them socially ?

Or having their travel and hotel expenses paid for by a consortium of eager-to-please restaurateurs?

Or when the editors of a ubiquitous (Only Game In Town--and It Better Be--or else) guidebook call up subject chefs and shake them down for Viking ranges at cost?

I see no positive side to embracing this kind of bullshit--which is--as you know--endemic. While there is room for this kind of "roving enthusiast", it's inapropriate at the Times--and would be a terrible departure. To open the door--and embrace--this kind of libertarian free-for-all would be a starting pistol for every schnorrer, deadbeat, grifter, shakedown artist and blurb-o-mat in NY. And there's no shortage of these.

And the "marquee" option is another road straight to hell. You want Candace Bushnell reviewing your restaurant?

Neither you, nor I, nor Jay McInerny, nor anyone who's spent as much time in the pond as we have should be the New York Times Restaurant critic. This is NOT to say, of course that we don't have things of value to say--or that what we say can't be true and useful and illustrative. We just shouldn't do it in the Times review.

[fresco]

Could it be that the Times is trying to create some excitement about their ultimate choice with leaks about "celebrity" candidates when in fact they'll pick someone who is qualified, reasonably unknown and appropriate?

[bourdain]

Ahh!!

Yes, it's possible. That would be shrewd.

I hope that's the case.

[Kim WB]

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

Tama Janowitz would need a weekly column as well.

[Fat Guy]

So I guess, FG, you don't consider the lack of real expertise/experience an issue?

The experience issue is a big one, I think. Probably the most important one to me. Far more important than any sort of bullshit "appearance of impropriety" standard.

[Fat Guy]

He was, truly, as "unknown" a quantity as one could hope for, whatever you think of the results. He was--even when wrong--fair, I think.

Better fair than right? I can't buy that. A restaurant is damaged just as much by an incompetent critic as by a corrupt one. The standard should be the quality of the reviews, so I don't see how we can accept indifference to results in favor of dogmatic attachment to the myth of the anonymous reviewer.

Focusing on quality of reviews rather than the reviewer's level of detachment, I think what we see is that the best reviewers have been engaged with the industry: Bryan Miller was exceptionally fair, yet he was a product of the industry. Rosengarten was never anonymous in his life, yet his reviews for Gourmet were superior to anything that ran in the Times. Hal Rubenstein surely doesn't fly under the radar, but the guy has impeccable taste and he totally knows how to make the English language his bitch. Gael Greene too. Those are the best reviewers we've had in the past couple of decades and they were always easily recognized and heavily connected. Whereas independence and lack of connection to the industry has never done shit to improve the reviews from Grimes, Platt, Gold, and their ilk.

Ultimately, the goal of finding a totally unconnected critic is at odds with the goal of finding an informed, educated, and experienced one.

[KatieLoeb]

...and he totally knows how to make the English language his bitch...

Nice turn of phrase El Gordo! I'm having dinner with a magazine editor friend of mine. I'm certain she'll appreciate that one

[bourdain]

Note to restaurateurs:

Remember to send a set of steak knives--or at least a Whitman sampler--to Fat Guy every Christmas. You never know.

[Mayhaw Man]

After the response from Bill Borders to the recent error in the Times on the number of stars given in a review (discussed in this thread), perhaps the NYT is looking for a change in focus and substance. His attitude seemed to be that the current official position of the paper is that their reviews don't have that much influence.

[Suzanne F]

. . . His attitude seemed to be that the current official position of the paper is that their reviews don't have that much influence.

And I am Marie of Romania. (with apologies to Dorothy Parker)

[Fat Guy]

Note to restaurateurs:

Remember to send a set of steak knives--or at least a Whitman sampler--to Fat Guy every Christmas. You never know.

I ain't no five dollar lady, Bourdain, and anyway if I gave a shit about money I'd still be a lawyer. No, the best way to get to me is by appealing to my vanity: send the prettiest waitresses out to tell me how handsome I am and maybe you'll get an extra star.

[Jason Perlow]

Actually, I -did- give a set of Steak Knives to Fat Guy for Xmas. Really.

[Fat Guy]

And I gave him a "satisfactory."