Bruni and Beyond: NYC Reviewing (2004)

[Pan]

My thought on reading the Sripraphai review last night was that this was Bruni taking after Mimi Sheraton. I was surprised by the two stars, but kind of pleased. That said, I don't think a rave in the $25-and-under column would have been out of place.

[Bux]

It does seem a little weird for the main review to be of a restaurant in the same price range (or lower?) than the $25 and Under review. The clear message, in spite of the rather good review of Thomas Beisl, is that those restaurants reviewed in the $25 and Under column, aren't in the same league as those that get a real review and it's not price that makes the separation.

[Pan]

The clear message, in spite of the rather good review of Thomas Beisl, is that those restaurants reviewed in the $25 and Under column, aren't in the same league as those that get a real review and it's not price that makes the separation.

←

I've always gotten that impression from the Times, though I haven't always agreed.

[Fat Guy]

I love Sripraphai as much as anyone on eGullet, I'm sure. I've been there as many or more times as JJ. I remember when Mitchell Davis (who wrote the article that was attributed to Ed Behr above) took me there for the first time many years ago -- and even then it was an established Chowhound favorite. But it's not a two-star or one-star restaurant, nor was it appropriate to review it at all.

It's not a question of price. A restaurant should not be categorized a certain way only because it's a great deal. If ADNY suddenly starts charging $24 for meals and keeps everything else the same, it should still be a four-star restaurant with a Frank Bruni review. The "$25 and Under" designation should be about style, not price -- it is I think understood by most to be representative of the polyglot dining culture of non-fancy restaurants in New York. In other words, it is about restaurants like Sripraphai.

If there was any doubt, Frank Bruni's review of Sripraphai makes clear that he is waging an all-out assault on the star system as we have come to know it. To the extent that restaurant reviewers have "platforms," this is his -- just as much as Grimes's was to protect the star system and get star inflation under control.

So now what?

As an interpretive task, if one wants to continue reading New York Times restaurant reviews and deriving meaning from them, one needs to start understanding them as JJ has explained above. Whether or not you agree with Frank Bruni's approach, you can probably agree that the star system, for now, means whatever he decides it means. So we are slowly learning what it means -- "Sripraphai is a two-star restaurant" is a useful benchmark -- and we need to paint a different picture.

On a more general level, it is possible to be for or against what Frank Bruni is doing and to take action accordingly: praise or criticize. I agree with the characterization of Frank Bruni as a kindred spirit (perhaps a wannabe kindred spirit) of Mimi Sheraton and Ruth Reichl, as opposed to Craig Claiborne, Bryan Miller, and William Grimes -- I see those as rough divisions between the "Sripraphai gets stars" and the "Sripraphai doesn't even get reviewed" schools of thought. I can respect either of those positions, though I strongly agree with the latter -- again, not because I love Sripraphai any less than anyone, but because I think the system only works (barely) as a system for evaluating fine-dining restaurants.

But to those who would compare Bruni to Sheraton, I would say: Frank Bruni, you're no Mimi Sheraton. Mimi Sheraton had the experience, expertise, gravitas, and sense of mission that one needs in order to wage a campaign to change the Michelin-like system created by the old white men. So did Ruth Reichl. Frank Bruni has demonstrated no such talent. When it comes to food, he is a talented writer of prose, and as far as I can tell not a whole lot more.

[emilymarie]

I look forward to the food reviews (or used to, rather) every week--and then I turn to a review of this Thai place in Queens!!!! I've never eaten at this particular restaurant, and I am sure it's wonderful, a destination restaurant, the best in the country, etc., etc., but I immediately thought--well there goes another waste of a week!!!

No matter how well this place executes "authentic" Thai food, it does not qualify for the main review. It belongs in the $25-and-Under section, which to me should be reserved for places that you decide to go to when you get home from work at 6:30 or 7 at night. You get home and say: Honey I'm in the mood for Thai. Let's go to Queens. What will he review next--the small hole-in-the-wall that makes the best fried chicken and cornbread north of wherever?? And what will his justification be--it's fried chicken at its best?! It's the ultimate execution of this staple food?

The main review should be reserved for places you can't just walk in to. They should be reserved for special restaurants that deserve special attention, a reservation for god's sake--places we all can't just go to on a Tuesday night! These are places that are shaping how we think of food and what we eat, that are introducing us to new flavors, dishes, etc. They are my chance to experience a meal, albeit secondhand, at places like Per Se, Jean-Georges, Daniel.

I have a feeling that my frustration may be futile and that in order to continue to read these reviews without getting pissed off that I should learn to understand what Bruni is doing, what his intentions are for his stars, as per your suggestion FG.

Perhaps they should implement a star system for the $25-and-Under places. The stars for these restaurants would mean something very different than the stars for the main reviews. As one poster mentioned, I suppose that the 25aU restaurants are not of the same quality/caliber as the "main review" restaurants, so maybe they need their own rating system? Am I just babbling at this point?

[bloviatrix]

I'm wasn't suprised that Bruni chose to review Sripraphai. If I'm home on tuesday night, I make a concerted effort to watch him deliver his review on NY1, and time and time again he has talked about his goal of "democratizing" the restaurant reviews. By this, he means that he wants people to understand that you can get fabulous food all over the city, not just Manhattan. And that destination restaurants come in several styles, not just those that require reservations, have a french-bent and tablecloths.

[Busboy]

I'm an out-of towner who has been reading the NYT reviews pretty regularly for several years, and I have to say that from this distance Bruni's decision to abandon the beaten track appears positively refreshing.

The Grimes years seemed to bring an endless stream of reviews of over-decorated 1-stars full of mojito-drinking yuppies concerned far more with the scene than food. "Chef Y, late of Craft and the Bouley Bakery has teamed with designer Y to offer Manhattan's late-night crowd another minor variation on Italian cooking in a jewel box-like setting that reportedly cost more than $1.5 million to decorate."

I'm sure these restaurants have distinctive personalities and kitchens, and that these distinctions are obvious to those who live in New York. But from a distance, they all kind of blurred into a dot-com era parody of a expense account dining and celebrity chefdom. The change is refreshing -- and might even be refreshing for a lot of people in the Times' home delivery area.

Sure, eGulleters have made the trek to Queens for Sripraphai, but it's likely that a number of other New York Times readers have not. They may appreciate, as I do, a look at what some apparantly consider the finest Thai restaurant in the U.S. And drawing arbitrary lines as to what "deserves" a review and what does not strikes me as odd. Good Chinese food but not good Thai food? French but not Uruguayan? Park Slope but not Queens? Butcher paper on the table but not formica?

What do I know, I'm just a provincial from DC? But sometimes it seems that people are demanding that Bruni be rigid and formulaic in a way that would be found tired, boring or unispired in a chef.

[jogoode]

I look forward to the food reviews (or used to, rather) every week--and then I turn to a review of this Thai place in Queens!!!! I've never eaten at this particular restaurant, and I am sure it's wonderful, a destination restaurant, the best in the country, etc., etc., but I immediately thought--well there goes another waste of a week!!!

No matter how well this place executes "authentic" Thai food, it does not qualify for the main review. It belongs in the $25-and-Under section, which to me should be reserved for places that you decide to go to when you get home from work at 6:30 or 7 at night. You get home and say: Honey I'm in the mood for Thai. Let's go to Queens. What will he review next--the small hole-in-the-wall that makes the best fried chicken and cornbread north of wherever?? And what will his justification be--it's fried chicken at its best?! It's the ultimate execution of this staple food?

←

Not to be picky, but very few people decide to head off to Queens after work to eat. And judging by your dismissal of this excellent Thai restaurant in a city full of crappy Thai food ("A waste of a week") and your hypothetical dismissal of excellent fried chicken, you may not be one who'd happily take the potentially two-hour round trip. Your dismissal belies your willingness to expend effort to seek out this destination at all, let alone after a long day at work.

Which is, of course, fine. There's absolutely nothing wrong with not being particularly interested in a review. But Sripraphai is an important restaurant, more important than the newest incantation of ambitious Italian, which often sees two stars. If you admit that the pleasure you take in the review is vicarious, then why is reading about Thai a waste of a week, when reading about Per Se is not? The reviewer is telling you whether or not you should spend good money (or precious time) on a restaurant. And if it's an important restaurant, why shouldn't the Times sic its main reviewer on it. This is not something Bruni does often -- we'll get about seven to ten Babbo/Per Se reviews for every Sripraphai review.

I do understand, however, that Bruni's choices of restaurants to review represent a break from tradition. But I don't think that Bruni is adjusting what stars mean for traditionally star-worthy restaurants. If that doesn't suffer, why do Bruni's actions represent an all-out assault on the star system? I agree that the stars don't mean much when used for Sripraphai, because we have little, if no, basis for comparison. (How many stars would Grand Sichuan deserve?) But again, the context fills you in. You know immediately that these are two stars on a different scale -- a scale, possibly, from zero to two.

[bpearis]

Sripraphai certainly deserves two stars way more than Spice Market deserves three (or two for that matter).

[slbunge]

"Chef Y, late of Craft and the Bouley Bakery has teamed with designer Y to offer Manhattan's late-night crowd another minor variation on Italian cooking in a jewel box-like setting that reportedly cost more than $1.5 million to decorate."

←

As another outlier who reads the Times reviews and thinks that they (used to) focus a bit too much on a 'certain' type of restaurant with a 'certain' address range, this cracked me up.

[emilymarie]

I guess part of Bruni's (or anyone's) job as the NYTimes restaurant critic is to bring to people's attention fantastic restaurants of every kind--Thai, French, fried chicken, white or no tablecloth. And that's an important job--and I've gotten many a good idea from the 25-and-under section, in particular.

It's not that I want to dismiss completely good Thai, or any type of cuisine, as not good enough for a review (though I suppose it looks like this is what I did in my first post). I did not mean to say that this restaurant should have been ignored completely--I just think that it should have been reviewed in the 25-and-under section.

I come to the reviews each week with a very personal goal (and bias, it appears) in mind: I want to know what a certain caliber of restaurants and chefs are doing with food, how they're using certain ingredients, what is going on in the business foodwise. I use these reviews like I do cookbooks and eating out.

I do not want reviews of the latest, "hot" new restaurants b/c they're hot, and I don't want yuppy-expense account-dot.com-scene reviews but an examination of the kind of food and food pairings and restaurants that are really important influences "in cooking" (I'm having a hard time articulating myself here). And to me, there are certain restaurants and chefs that I look to as these types of innovators and guides, which would reveal my bias. And though Bruni reviewed a good Thai restaurant that is to some the best in the U.S., I was disappointed because I could have just as easily gone to Sripraphai myself whereas I can't just pick up and go to Per Se or Babbo or Fleur de Sel, for example, to see what chef xyz is doing these days.

And as for the assertion that I am not the kind of person who would make a 2 hour trip to eat at a restaurant, well, that's a fine, but misinformed, assumption based on one posting.

[docsconz]

And though Bruni reviewed a good Thai restaurant that is to some the best in the U.S., I was disappointed because I could have just as easily gone to Sripraphai myself whereas I can't just pick up and go to Per Se or Babbo or Fleur de Sel, for example, to see what chef xyz is doing these days.

←

Perhaps this restaurant may have been more appropriately placed in the $25 and under category. That certainly should have been the case with anything less than a two-star review. The value of this review, as I see it, is that simply because it was the main NYT review and it was so positive, so many more people are likely to discover it than if it were simply in the $25 and Under category. In my mind a restaurant that serves truly great and unique cuisine (I have never been to Sripraphai so I cannot personally attest to this in this case) deserves this kind of attention no matter the location, decor or price point. Is the food special or is it not? According to Frank Bruni it is. I just hope that extra attention this is likely to receive doesn't ruin it.

[jogoode]

I was disappointed because I could have just as easily gone to Sripraphai myself whereas I can't just pick up and go to Per Se or Babbo or Fleur de Sel, for example, to see what chef xyz is doing these days.

But you never have picked up and went to Sripraphai. Now you might. If it were reviewed in $25 and Under, you might have, as I might have had I not been, not considered it important to go.

And as for the assertion that I am not the kind of person who would make a 2 hour trip to eat at a restaurant, well, that's a fine, but misinformed, assumption based on one posting.

←

You're right. Sorry about this. I was being snotty. What I meant to emphasize was that Sri is not, for Manhattanites, a place you run to after work, just because it is far away, and therefore something of a destination.

[Fat Guy]

There are plenty of people who love Sripraphai and the whole world of restaurants it represents -- the best of the best in various categories, represented by places like Katz's deli, the Peter Luger steakhouse, et al. -- who would just as soon argue that these places deserve zero stars and should not be reviewed. I would be one of those people.

It's all well and good to talk about "democratizing" the restaurant reviews, but what does that really mean? Frank Bruni already works for the New York Times, so he already writes for an elite group of readers. The New York Times dining section is already undemocratic as an institution, because it segregates reviews into full reviews and $25 and Under reviews. And ultimately, if you take the democratization process to its logical conclusion, you step over the line between something that sounds nice but has little intellectual weight to something more akin to deconstruction and absurdism.

Four years ago, I wrote of the state of restaurant reviewing:

"Although the process has taken a while, restaurant reviewing has at last caught up with critical fashions in art, music, and literature. The spirit of deconstruction is now everywhere in the air. Just as, in the nation's English departments, comic books have been declared to be on a par with Shakespeare or Jane Austen, so, too, in the nation's food press, the entire enterprise of fine dining is in the process of being leveled and 'demystified,' the high pulled down, the low raised up." ("Culinary Correctness," Commentary, October 2000)

Frank Bruni seems determined to push this agenda forward, though doing so as a writer for the New York Times is patently ridiculous. All we'll be left with at the end is another tired example of what Tom Wolfe called "radical chic," or what I called a "display of egalitarian fervor by some of society's best-paid sybarites." Okay, so Tom Wolfe is a better writer.

[emilymarie]

You're right. Sorry about this. I was being snotty. What I meant to emphasize was that Sri is not, for Manhattanites, a place you run to after work, just because it is far away, and therefore something of a destination.

←

No worries, jogoode. I just get so darn excited when I talk about restaurants . This is all in good fun, and I love this thread. Forgot this last time--

[emilymarie]

("Culinary Correctness," Commentary, October 2000)

←

A little off-subject Woody Allen humor that I was reminded of (not quoting verbatim): "I thought Commentary and Dissent had merged to form Dysentery." Gets me every time!!!

Back to the subject at hand, I agree with you FG when you say: "Frank Bruni already works for the New York Times, so he already writes for an elite group of readers." While some might quibble with your use of "elite" I think that you are right on here. Restaurants are not democratic institutions--they don't want to be and I don't think a lot of people eating in them want them to be.

[rich]

"...or what I called a "display of egalitarian fervor by some of society's best-paid sybarites." - FG

Sybarite - nice word, haven't seen or heard that word in decades. I think I'll start using it. But then again I haven't been self-indulgent in memory.

Getting back to the thread. Bruni has now decided that "distasteful" music eliminates four-start consideration. He has determined that a neighborhood "storefront" Thai (albeit one that serves outstanding food) deserves two stars and a major review. Since he has deconstructed the star system (similar to the manner that restaurants have with food), why not take it to the next level and just eliminate the star system? I've been advocating this longer than I care to remember, but this could be the best argument yet. If not eliminate, then certainly separate the food, decor, service etc.

Sri is a $25 and under place - to put it into the main category is a disservice to the restaurant and the public. If Sri gets a New York Times primary review, then where can sybarites turn anymore? They have no one to trust.

Edited November 4, 2004 by rich (log)

[Busboy]

There are plenty of people who love Sripraphai and the whole world of restaurants it represents -- the best of the best in various categories, represented by places like Katz's deli, the Peter Luger steakhouse, et al. -- who would just as soon argue that these places deserve zero stars and should not be reviewed. I would be one of those people.

It's all well and good to talk about "democratizing" the restaurant reviews, but what does that really mean? Frank Bruni already works for the New York Times, so he already writes for an elite group of readers. The New York Times dining section is already undemocratic as an institution, because it segregates reviews into full reviews and $25 and Under reviews. And ultimately, if you take the democratization process to its logical conclusion, you step over the line between something that sounds nice but has little intellectual weight to something more akin to deconstruction and absurdism.

Four years ago, I wrote of the state of restaurant reviewing:

"Although the process has taken a while, restaurant reviewing has at last caught up with critical fashions in art, music, and literature. The spirit of deconstruction is now everywhere in the air. Just as, in the nation's English departments, comic books have been declared to be on a par with Shakespeare or Jane Austen, so, too, in the nation's food press, the entire enterprise of fine dining is in the process of being leveled and 'demystified,' the high pulled down, the low raised up." ("Culinary Correctness," Commentary, October 2000)

Frank Bruni seems determined to push this agenda forward, though doing so as a writer for the New York Times is patently ridiculous. All we'll be left with at the end is another tired example of what Tom Wolfe called "radical chic," or what I called a "display of egalitarian fervor by some of society's best-paid sybarites." Okay, so Tom Wolfe is a better writer.

←

I am a little confused. Are you saying that it's not possible for a Thai restaurant to rise above its genre into the realm of "serious" (or whatever term you prefer) cooking? That it, by definition, is the "Batman" of cooking while the French and Italians have "Hamlet" to themselves? Do you think that looking outside the accepted canon necessarily involves a decline in critical standards? Don't you think its possible that a serious examination of new or less-analyzed cooking and restaurants is a useful and legitimate role for a critic?

It's easy enough to demonize Bruni's sloppy use of the term "democratization," but you've made quite a leap -- if Bruni has equated Sripraphai with Per Se, I missed it. The fact that they both have been included in the flawed and imprecise star system is only tangentially relevant; reading the two reviews (painful as that is for many) makes it clear that Bruni is not engaged in a culinary guerrilla action aimed at tearing down haute cusine and distributing confiscated foie gras to the masses.

Bruni writes for a newspaper that serves millions of readers. It is by definition a popular, rather than an academic medium. As a writer in this type of publication he certainly has license -- if not an obligation -- to explore the "popular" restaurants that some percentage of his readers will find interesting or even preferable to the more traditional subjects of NYT reviews.

There is even an argument to be made that the first review of an apparently excellent Thai restaurant has greater marginal value for serious discussion and understanding of food and restaurants in New York, than the 17th review of yet another fashionable one- or two-star French, Italian or New American place.

It's tough not to get an alarmist, if not elitist, vibe from this post -- people have been decrying the death of standards for years yet, even in my son's leftish high school, no one equates comic books with Shakespeare; at the Symphony there's still a lot more Mozart than (Paul) Williams; and Yalies still get to run for president. One review is not an assault on the star system and, more important, not an assault on the concept of fine dining and (sometimes self-) important food.

Edited November 4, 2004 by Busboy (log)

[robyn]

I come to the reviews each week with a very personal goal (and bias, it appears) in mind: I want to know what a certain caliber of restaurants and chefs are doing with food, how they're using certain ingredients, what is going on in the business foodwise. I use these reviews like I do cookbooks and eating out...

←

I agree with you. Who is this review for? I'm sure most people in Queens know about the place - as do most knowledgeable diners in Manhattan and the other boroughs (although the latter are less likely to go there than people who live closer).

As for being a "destination" restaurant - I don't think so. How many people will arrange to sleep over near this restaurant to eat there (which is my definition of a destination restaurant)? Or travel 2 hours in the subway to eat there? Or wind up driving in the dark around LaGuardia Airport like Bruni did because he couldn't read a map very well? Or - have mercy on me - try to take a cab. Heck - when we hailed a cab in midtown and asked to be taken to 400 W. 119th St. in Manhattan this last trip - the driver told us he didn't know how to get there!

When I'm visiting New York - I don't want to do this - and I doubt many people who live there want to either.

And let's turn the tables. I never realized Thai food in New York is in general so terrible. We happen to have some pretty good Thai restaurants in Jacksonville. Now if I told you that there was a really good Thai restaurant an hour's drive away from your hotel when you're down here to play golf - or go to the Super Bowl - or whatever - would you think of going there - even for 10 seconds? You might drive the hour for great BBQ - or seafood - or something that is particularly distinctive about the cuisine here (even though I wouldn't). But you wouldn't go out of your way to get something that most people can get at home.

I used to have a guidebook called something like "Best Cheap Eats" in New York (I think it was written by a NYT critic - a person who wrote the $25 and under column - can't remember) - and that's the place where I think a review of this restaurant belongs.

By the way - in terms of discussions about "elitism" - I pay more attention to the Design and Arts sections of the NYT than the Dining section (I'm more interested in design and the arts than food). And although there are articles about trends in these areas that aren't necessarily "high-end" (not a huge number though) - I really can't imagine an editor who's determined to cover trends in these areas that are frumpy or low brow. Nor would I pay money to read about those trends. I see enough frumpy low-end stuff without having to pay to read about it. I buy the NYT because it helps me to keep in touch with the cutting edge of new trends. And if that is elitist (probably is) - so be it. If the NYT isn't elitist - what will distinguish it from the New York Post? Is there really anyone here who reads the NYT to find out about neighborhood Thai restaurants? Robyn

[robyn]

Under the Michelin system - the former would - if perfect - get perhaps a knife and fork or two.  Never a star.

←

I think this is misleading, at least to those who haven't used a Michelin guide. The crossed forks and spoons (there are actually no knives) and the stars are two separate and parallel ratings. The forks and spoons denote a level of comfort or luxury. The stars are for the cooking or the quality of the meal. It's been argued that the decor and service figure into the qaulity of the meal as well when Michelin awards its stars, but it's still a separate rank. Not all restaurants have stars, but all restaurants are rated from one to five crossed forks and spoons. All of the three star restaurants in Paris have either four or five forks/spoons. When we get to the one star places in Paris, the range is from one fork and spoon all the way up to five and there are restaurants with five forks and spoons, but no stars at all.

←

Technically you're correct. But I've always equated a couple of knives and forks with pleasant surroundings and decent food (because that's what I almost always get). Robyn

[robyn]

I'm wasn't suprised that Bruni chose to review Sripraphai.  If I'm home on tuesday night, I make a concerted effort to watch him deliver his review on NY1, and time and time again he has talked about his goal of "democratizing" the restaurant reviews.  By this, he means that he wants people to understand that you can get fabulous food all over the city, not just Manhattan.  And that destination restaurants come in several styles, not just those that require reservations, have a french-bent and tablecloths.

←

Then perhaps he should be writing for the New York Post - or the Village Voice - or a similar newspaper. Even an alternative newspaper (we have papers like New Times and Folio all over Florida - I suspect there are similar in New York). Or New York Magazine. But not the New York Times in its main restaurant reviews. I really don't think that's what most people are looking for in this review - in this newspaper. Robyn

[robyn]

I'm an out-of towner who has been reading the NYT reviews pretty regularly for several years, and I have to say that from this distance Bruni's decision to abandon the beaten track appears positively refreshing... 

←

Do you use these reviews for anything - or do you look at them as amusing non-fiction writing?

I've used these reviews for years to help me decide where to eat - where to spend thousands of dollars dining in New York when I visit there. Just like I use theater reviews (although the restaurant reviews are more important because most tickets to shows cost less than dinner - even at cheap restaurants - once you factor in transportation costs from mid-Manhattan).

If I had to guess - I'd guess that about half of the out-of-town readers (like me) use the NYT for this kind of thing - and the other half (like my husband) use the NYT for extensive coverage of world news (although I prefer the WSJ for the latter - except for Tom Friedman's op-ed column). So that's 25% of subscribers. Even if that's generous - and we're only talking about 10% - that's a hefty chunk of readers. And I'm the kind of reader most of the high-end advertisers are trying to reach (I actually check out the new stuff in those stores when I'm in New York - do you?).

If the NYT becomes parochial - then I'm afraid I'll tell my husband he has to read about what's going on in Upper Volta on the internet (it's free there - a lot less than we pay).

Don't mean to pick on you - but I want to make the point that the NYT has made an extensive effort to improve circulation by appealing to high-end readers all over the country. It's a "freebie" in many high end hotels with a sticker that says - "please subscribe". It has bucked the trend of declining readership among most newspapers by doing so. And adopting any editorial strategy which makes those of us who subscribe think that it's a waste of money is - no matter how laudable arguably from any number of points of view - simply a stupid business decision IMO. Robyn

Edited November 5, 2004 by robyn (log)

[Busboy]

I come to the reviews each week with a very personal goal (and bias, it appears) in mind: I want to know what a certain caliber of restaurants and chefs are doing with food, how they're using certain ingredients, what is going on in the business foodwise. I use these reviews like I do cookbooks and eating out...

←

I agree with you. Who is this review for? I'm sure most people in Queens know about the place - as do most knowledgeable diners in Manhattan and the other boroughs (although the latter are less likely to go there than people who live closer)....

When I'm visiting New York - I don't want to do this - and I doubt many people who live there want to either.

By the way - in terms of discussions about "elitism" - I pay more attention to the Design and Arts sections of the NYT than the Dining section (I'm more interested in design and the arts than food). And although there are articles about trends in these areas that aren't necessarily "high-end" (not a huge number though) - I really can't imagine an editor who's determined to cover trends in these areas that are frumpy or low brow. Nor would I pay money to read about those trends. I see enough frumpy low-end stuff without having to pay to read about it. I buy the NYT because it helps me to keep in touch with the cutting edge of new trends. And if that is elitist (probably is) - so be it. If the NYT isn't elitist - what will distinguish it from the New York Post? Is there really anyone here who reads the NYT to find out about neighborhood Thai restaurants? Robyn

←

Most people in Queens and Manhattan know about Babbo and ADNY, too, but I suspect that wouldn't be raised as an aobjection if Bruni turned his sights on them. As for taking the subway out to Queens, I've heard that even Manhattanites and tourists get there every now and again, knowing that there's a restaurant worth going a little out of your way to find, if you happen to be in the borough anyway, or worth a special trip if you really like Thai food. Personally, I wouldn't spend an hour on the subway for most of the 1 and 2-star restaurants reviewed in the Times, though I'm sure they're fine establishments.

Finally, elitism based high standards and genuine appreciation for something is fine. Elitism based on sniffing about "neighborhood restaurants" and pointless highbrow-lowbrow dichtomies is suspect.

[bloviatrix]

I'm wasn't suprised that Bruni chose to review Sripraphai.  If I'm home on tuesday night, I make a concerted effort to watch him deliver his review on NY1, and time and time again he has talked about his goal of "democratizing" the restaurant reviews.  By this, he means that he wants people to understand that you can get fabulous food all over the city, not just Manhattan.  And that destination restaurants come in several styles, not just those that require reservations, have a french-bent and tablecloths.

←

Then perhaps he should be writing for the New York Post - or the Village Voice - or a similar newspaper. Even an alternative newspaper (we have papers like New Times and Folio all over Florida - I suspect there are similar in New York). Or New York Magazine. But not the New York Times in its main restaurant reviews. I really don't think that's what most people are looking for in this review - in this newspaper. Robyn

←

Based on that logic, the Times has no business reviewing Off-Broadway theater productions.

For many people in NYC, The Times is the only newspaper they read. Therefore, they want to see a spectrum of restaurants reviewed in the paper (whether in the main column or $25 and Under).

Perhaps the problem is that The Times serves two audiences looking for different things: those who consider it their local "rag" and those out-of-town who read it to be clued in to all things cosmopolitan.

[jogoode]

As for being a "destination" restaurant - I don't think so.  How many people will arrange to sleep over near this restaurant to eat there (which is my definition of a destination restaurant)?  Or travel 2 hours in the subway to eat there?

I'm sorry to harp on this point, but almost everyone interested in food in New York reads the Times. I don't read it in order to find out about the boroughs -- Robert Sietsema, of the Village Voice, is the master of that domain. But if the Times reports on New York's street vendors (as it did a few weeks ago), on Astoria, Queens (its front pager this week), or on cakes in swing states (R.W. Apple's "low-brow" article last week) then I read with relish. These are great writers, most of whom have good credibility as eaters, writing about things high-end and low. Many people on this thread have admitted that they don't have the money to eat at the big restaurants; so why do you assume that these are the only restaurants that interest Times readers? The review of, I don't know, 'inoteca is no more valid than this most recent review. 'Inoteca serves Ligurian food. It's not cutting edge, but because of its higher price point, people think it's appropriate to review.

When I'm visiting New York - I don't want to do this - and I doubt many people who live there want to either.

I went to Las Vegas and ate in one restaurant. It was the only restaurant in Vegas I cared anything about. It was Lotus of Siam, reportedly the best northern Thai restaurant in the US. (And I read the Times religiously.)

But you wouldn't go out of your way to get something that most people can get at home.

This is exactly why Bruni's doing this review is appropriate. You can't get this food in Jacksonville. You can't get this anywhere else in New York. No one would be talking about a rave about Sripraphai if it had been the 25 and Under. Now we are talking about it. Now Sri has recognizability outside of a rareified foodie circle. Bruni is saying that if you are in New York, this is worth your time to seek out. Because you would not does not mean others woul not.