Bruni and Beyond: NYC Reviewing (2004)

[rich]

Even though Sri belongs in the $25 column, I truly believe giving it a 2-star rating in the main review area is a total disservice to the restaurant and the public. Sri is a 4-star restaurant. Granted is has no decor or ambiance, and the service is simple, but it still serves 4-star food.

By giving it a 2-star rating, the public is being misled. The food is much better than that. Once again, Bruni has made an exceptional case for eliminating the star system. Thanks, Frank.

[herbacidal]

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.

←

I think that's the fundamental problem.

The problem on top of that is whether those who consider it their local rag view its dining section as the only read on dining in the 'hood, or the place to read about fine dining in the 'hood.

[Stone]

Asserting that any place worthy of a special trip deserves two stars because the Michelin Guide defines two stars as "worth a detour" is semantics.

←

I don't understand precisely what you mean; please elaborate. Are you suggesting that stars are all about price and ambiance? I prefer for them to be about the quality of the food, above all.

←

"Worth a detour" is a meaningless phrase in this context. Yes, the words have meaning, but they are so broad that the phrase means nothing. What restaurant isn't "worth a detour" to some person for some reason? The suggestion that "by the way, if you find yourself at Tompkins Park, it's worth a detour to get a falafel sandwich at Chickpea" merits two michellin stars is silly, even though I'll agree that Chickpea is worth a detour.

The debate here seems to have become the question of what place and purpose the NY Times food review should serve in the panoply of publications (paper and digital) that review restaurants. (As opposed to a debate over the star-rating system.)

[rich]

The debate here seems to have become the question of what place and purpose the NY Times food review should serve in the panoply of publications (paper and digital) that review restaurants.  (As opposed to a debate over the star-rating system.)

←

Actually, I think it's become a debate about both. In fact, I don't see how the issues can be separated.

[slkinsey]

It seems to me that one of the fundamental problems that led to the current topic of debate is the whole way the Times reviewing is set up. This is to say, the "main reviews with stars" are the important reviews that get most of the column space, and the "$25 and under" reviews are the little sisters. I mean, since Asimov stopped writing it, they haven't even had one consistent reviewer for "$25 and under."

Fat Guy says that "there is no lack of space in the Times for coverage of Sripraphai or of any other restaurant from multiple angles" -- and while this is strictly speaking true, it's also the case that none of these things offer the same kind of context, importance or impact as a Main Review. And this is a problem. I think we can all agree that Sripraphai is an "important restaurant" in its own way, and one that is well worth knowing about.

Frankly, Sripraphai is too important and too good to be given a 300 word review by whatever freelance they get to do "$25 and under" that week (and let's not even get started on the stupidity of the $25 limit). This is no less true of plenty of restaurants in NYC that deserve wider recognition and fall into the "one star or less" category. And, let's be honest, despite the fact that the Times has a somewhat elite circulation demographic, most people who read the Times food section do most of their eating at places in the range between Sripraphai and @SQC. I just don't see any justification for giving Spice Market 1,000 words and giving Sripraphai 300, not least because Sripraphai serves much better food on just about any objective standard.

So, while it may be true that places like Sripraphai can be covered more extensively in first-person essays, Diner's Journal writeups, Magazine pieces and so forth -- it is also true that these are unsatisfactory compared to a real review. They are not written consistently enough or with enough consistency to have any meaningful context. What would be ideal would be to have two equal-sized reviews with similar consistency of reviewer (i.e., no "rotating reviewer" like they're doing with $25 and under right now). The "haute guy" would take all the places that would traditionally get starred reviews, all the way down to the occasional exceptional one-star restaurant. The "not-haute guy" would take everything from regular one stars to places like Sripraphai. Both would write 1,000 word reviews, only the haute guy would assign stars. This would allow places like Sripraphai to have the benefit of an actual in-depth review and a context in which to place that review without breaking the haute reviewing system. I think this would increase readership of the food section, but I have no doubt that it will never happen.

[Jason Perlow]

Even though Sri belongs in the  $25 column, I truly believe giving it a 2-star rating in the main review area is a total disservice to the restaurant and the public. Sri is a 4-star restaurant. Granted is has no decor or ambiance, and the service is simple, but it still serves 4-star food.

By giving it a 2-star rating, the public is being misled. The food is much better than that. Once again, Bruni has made an exceptional case for eliminating the star system. Thanks, Frank.

←

Sripraprai is not serving "4-star food". Its not even serving 2 star food. The luxury of the ingredients just isn't there.

[rich]

Even though Sri belongs in the  $25 column, I truly believe giving it a 2-star rating in the main review area is a total disservice to the restaurant and the public. Sri is a 4-star restaurant. Granted is has no decor or ambiance, and the service is simple, but it still serves 4-star food.

By giving it a 2-star rating, the public is being misled. The food is much better than that. Once again, Bruni has made an exceptional case for eliminating the star system. Thanks, Frank.

←

Sripraprai is not serving "4-star food". Its not even serving 2 star food. The luxury of the ingredients just isn't there.

←

And yet another argument against the star system.

[Stone]

Even though Sri belongs in the  $25 column, I truly believe giving it a 2-star rating in the main review area is a total disservice to the restaurant and the public. Sri is a 4-star restaurant. Granted is has no decor or ambiance, and the service is simple, but it still serves 4-star food.

By giving it a 2-star rating, the public is being misled. The food is much better than that. Once again, Bruni has made an exceptional case for eliminating the star system. Thanks, Frank.

←

Sripraprai is not serving "4-star food". Its not even serving 2 star food. The luxury of the ingredients just isn't there.

←

And yet another argument against the star system.

←

When you say that Sripraphai serves four-star food, are you suggesting that it's of the same level as Per Se, Le Bernardin or Jean Georges? Dude, it's street food.

[Fat Guy]

Rich, do you think the star system should be eliminated?

[Stone]

Even though Sri belongs in the  $25 column, I truly believe giving it a 2-star rating in the main review area is a total disservice to the restaurant and the public. Sri is a 4-star restaurant. Granted is has no decor or ambiance, and the service is simple, but it still serves 4-star food.

By giving it a 2-star rating, the public is being misled. The food is much better than that. Once again, Bruni has made an exceptional case for eliminating the star system. Thanks, Frank.

←

Sripraprai is not serving "4-star food". Its not even serving 2 star food. The luxury of the ingredients just isn't there.

←

And yet another argument against the star system.

←

When you say that Sripraphai serves four-star food, are you suggesting that it's of the same level as Per Se, Le Bernardin or Jean Georges? Dude, it's street food.

←

If Rich believes that Sripraphai's and Per Se's food can be meaningfully compared other than to say "they both serve excellent food" (and I'm not saying Rich has taken this position), then I'd say that there's no meaningful rating system to account for that position.

[Todd36]

Look at the last paragraph in the review:

"But the bang for buck here is atomic. For those without wheels or navigational skills, the 61st Street stop on the No. 7 train is nearby. The smiling servers are both kind and wise: if you puff up your chest and request your dishes very spicy, they will rightly redirect you to moderately spicy, which is spicy enough. Like Pam Real Thai in Midtown and too few other Thai restaurants in New York, this one does not pander. But it sure does delight."

The NYT recently had that feature on Pam's (and that article was glowing). Based on this review, it seems Bruni has been there. And he likes it. Could he think NY has two 2 star Thai restaurants?

[Busboy]

Even though Sri belongs in the  $25 column, I truly believe giving it a 2-star rating in the main review area is a total disservice to the restaurant and the public. Sri is a 4-star restaurant. Granted is has no decor or ambiance, and the service is simple, but it still serves 4-star food.

By giving it a 2-star rating, the public is being misled. The food is much better than that. Once again, Bruni has made an exceptional case for eliminating the star system. Thanks, Frank.

←

Sripraprai is not serving "4-star food". Its not even serving 2 star food. The luxury of the ingredients just isn't there.

←

And yet another argument against the star system.

←

When you say that Sripraphai serves four-star food, are you suggesting that it's of the same level as Per Se, Le Bernardin or Jean Georges? Dude, it's street food.

←

If Rich believes that Sripraphai's and Per Se's food can be meaningfully compared other than to say "they both serve excellent food" (and I'm not saying Rich has taken this position), then I'd say that there's no meaningful rating system to account for that position.

←

Intersting take, inasmuch as it draws the question of, at what point can food from two different cultures be compared, except to say "they both serve excellent food?" How does one compare an excellent Chinese restaurant with an excellent steakhouse? How does one compare French and Italian, for that matter? Any system that allows only five grades is bound to be inexact. Maybe it should be chucked.

On the other hand, why not trust the diner to bring a little nuance to the rating and understand that a 2-star Thai in Queens will be an excellent, but very different, experience than a 2-star New American (or whatever we call them these days) restaurant in Mid-town. I think people are bright enough to figure these things out.

Finally, since I'm feeling inquisitive, why not do as Michelin does (and as old DC'ers will remember that Donald Dresden, pre-Phyllis Post critic, did) and break out a second rating for service/ambiance. Then Babbo could get four stars for its food but only two stars for its Led Zepplin soundtrack; we could zero out Sri on the ambience scale so no one in a Barney's suit accidently took a client to lunch there, and we could pick restaurants depending on whether we were in the mood to be pampered or well-fed.

[Stone]

Intersting take, inasmuch as it draws the question of, at what point can food from two different cultures be compared, except to say "they both serve excellent food?" How does one compare an excellent Chinese restaurant with an excellent steakhouse? How does one compare French and Italian, for that matter?  Any system that allows only five grades is bound to be inexact.  Maybe it should be chucked. 

←

That's not what I'm saying. It has nothing to do with comparing different cultures. It's 4-star cuisine (for lack of better term, perhaps haute) compared to street food.

The best hotdog at Grays Papaya cannot meaningfully be rating equivalent to a dinner at Gramercy Tavern. Nor could the best burger served anywhere, unless it's stuffed with so much foie, braised short rib and truffle that it's no longer street food.

[Busboy]

Intersting take, inasmuch as it draws the question of, at what point can food from two different cultures be compared, except to say "they both serve excellent food?" How does one compare an excellent Chinese restaurant with an excellent steakhouse? How does one compare French and Italian, for that matter?  Any system that allows only five grades is bound to be inexact.  Maybe it should be chucked. 

←

That's not what I'm saying. It has nothing to do with comparing different cultures. It's 4-star cuisine (for lack of better term, perhaps haute) compared to street food.

The best hotdog at Grays Papaya cannot meaningfully be rating equivalent to a dinner at Gramercy Tavern. Nor could the best burger served anywhere, unless it's stuffed with so much foie, braised short rib and truffle that it's no longer street food.

←

I can't get my mind around the idea that there's a bright line between fine dining and street food. Pretty easy to say that there's no comparing a hot dog and the Gramercy. But what about an excellent Thai restaurant and a 1-star but neighborhood-y Italian place? If we're dealing with a contnuum that runs roughly from spam warmed over sterno to nine courses at Per Se, what are the distinguishing characteristics that separate NYT lead review material from the hoi polloi? Saying this is "street food" and that is "neighborhood stuff" is not illuminating. Since everyone seems to agree that Sri serves great food, what is it that differentiates it, and others, from the reviewable spots. As Kant put it (Iggy Kant, food reviewer for the Leipzig Gazette) "Speak as if your definitions are to become through your will a universal law of food journalism."

[rich]

I'll answer a couple of questions - Personally, I would eliminate the star system and just have a text review (but then we woudn't have anything to debate). Since I don't think that's possible, then I would separate the stars into categories - food, service ambiance/decor. Someone posted the SF Examiner does that - and SF is a serious food town.

Sri, in my opinion, does have four-star food. It's the best example of Thai I've ever had, so why shouldn't it get four? Hell, the NY Times truly gave it four considering that ambiance/decor and service all are determing factors. Since Sri virtually has a zero in those categories, Bruni must have thought the food was four stars as well. (And they don't play heavy metal.) Having eaten at both Pe Se and Sri, I would give them both four stars in the food category - different approaches, but both do the best within their chosen cuisine.

I don't consider this equivilent to giving a pizza and/or hot dog place four stars because Thai is a type of serious cuisine, not fast food. All types of cuisines can be four stars - Chinese, Austrian, German, Italian, Spanish, Irish, etc, etc. - okay maybe not Irish .

However saying that, I still don't believe Sri should have been reviewed in the primary category since in my opinion it doesn't qualify under the standards the paper has set for those reviews. It should be in the $25 category or a feature as several have suggested. It's a disservice (to both the restaurant and clients) unless the paper and Bruni re-define the current system.

Edited November 5, 2004 by rich (log)

[Fat Guy]

I can't get my mind around the idea that there's a bright line between fine dining and street food. 

←

There is no such bright line. You can even have a fine dining street food restaurant, also known as Spice Market. But you don't need a bright line to know that some things are in one category and some things are in another. Nor is the distinction terribly complicated or mysterious -- it's already pretty well defined in most cuisines that have haute cuisine equivalents. If you go to Thailand, nobody there is going to have any trouble distinguishing between the street food and the fine dining restaurants, just as nobody here has any trouble distinguishing between Gramercy Tavern and a burger joint. There may be some restaurants that challenge the distinction and defy the old categories, but Sripraphai isn't one of them.

[Busboy]

I can't get my mind around the idea that there's a bright line between fine dining and street food. 

←

There is no such bright line. You can even have a fine dining street food restaurant, also known as Spice Market. But you don't need a bright line to know that some things are in one category and some things are in another. Nor is the distinction terribly complicated or mysterious -- it's already pretty well defined in most cuisines that have haute cuisine equivalents. If you go to Thailand, nobody there is going to have any trouble distinguishing between the street food and the fine dining restaurants, just as nobody here has any trouble distinguishing between Gramercy Tavern and a burger joint. There may be some restaurants that challenge the distinction and defy the old categories, but Sripraphai isn't one of them.

←

Using Justice Stewart's concurring opinion in Jacobellis v. Ohio as your logical precedent?

Edited November 5, 2004 by Busboy (log)

[Stone]

Imagine if the NY Times Book Review gave four stars to The Sound and the Fury and The Shining? Please, we must be able to agree that one is categorically a better book than the other, even though both are tops of their genre.

[Busboy]

Imagine if the NY Times Book Review gave four stars to The Sound and the Fury and The Shining?  Please, we must be able to agree that one is categorically a better book than the other, even though both are tops of their genre.

←

I'm going to back out of this because, while I find the topic interesting, I don't want to look as though I'm just trying to rattle the cage. But before I go, let me ask two fundamental questions that I don't think have been answered.

1) Given that it is neither a religious nor a philosophical text, where is it written that the lead NYT review must be devoted to a "serious" restaurant every single week?

2) Without saying I/we/everyone knows it when they see it, what are tangible objective differences between a reviewable and a non-reviewable restaurant.

Edited to add: regarding the lit crit, you've again given yourself an easy out. First, Sri didn't get 4 stars, it got 2. Second, a more apt example might be, say, a Jean Le Carre novel and a Graham Greene novel. Greene dabbles a bit in the spying and intrigue, but is considered literature, while Le Carre is a genre writer but a talented and insightful one. Do we cut Le Carre off because he's a genre writer, or do we allow him partial entrance into the canon -- say a one-star to Greene's three?

Edited November 5, 2004 by Busboy (log)

[rich]

Imagine if the NY Times Book Review gave four stars to The Sound and the Fury and The Shining?  Please, we must be able to agree that one is categorically a better book than the other, even though both are tops of their genre.

←

I understand your point and that's why Sri shouldn't have been reviewed in the primary category based on the current standards. But I think the genre should be between fast food and the like and serious cuisines of which Thai is one.

If you totally eliminate cuisines from being in the four-star food genre, where does it end? Can there be no German four star food restaurants or Norwegian or Indian? If I was reviewing Sri with with the same criteria as Per Se under a separate four star system (food, decor, service), Sri would get 4-0-0 and Per Se would get 4-4-4. At least that way, people would know the genre for food was the same, but the restaurant experience was not even close or in the same league. The last time I ate there, no one at the table had a fork that closely resembled anyone else's - but in that setting, who cares?

Bottom line, Per Se (and others) cannot be compared with Sri because the dining experience is so different. Both can still serve four-star food within their cuisine, but should never be compared because one is "Man and Superman" and one is

"Superman."

Edited November 5, 2004 by rich (log)

[rich]

←

2) Without saying I/we/everyone knows it when they see it, what are tangible objective differences between a reviewable and a non-reviewable restaurant.

←

Every restaurant is "reviewable" but within specific categories. The Times has $25 category. Others could be fast food, self service, paper napkins, no wine list etc.

I feel to be fair to the restaurant and the public, each restaurant sould be reviewed vs. others within its own category. Granted sometimes the lines are vague, but most of time it's fairly obvious.

Edited November 6, 2004 by Jason Perlow (log)

[Pan]

"Worth a detour" is a meaningless phrase in this context.  Yes, the words have meaning, but they are so broad that the phrase means nothing.  What restaurant isn't "worth a detour" to some person for some reason?  The suggestion that "by the way, if you find yourself at Tompkins Park, it's worth a detour to get a falafel sandwich at Chickpea" merits two michellin stars is silly, even though I'll agree that Chickpea is worth a detour.

←

I think "worth a detour" is a definable phrase. Going to Chickpea if you find yourself at Tompkins Sq. Park is not a detour but a restaurant that's worth going to if you're in the area or making a trip to the area anyway (which to me is in some way analogous to the "interesting" category of 1 star in Michelin or, better yet, the unstarred bib gourmand). A detour to me means that if you're driving, you find it worthwhile to go a fair distance out of your way to have lunch or dinner somewhere, or in this case, that you're willing every once in a while to take a ~80-to-90-minute round-trip on the subway because the place is so good. Much as I like Chickpea - and I'm delighted to be a regular there - I don't put it in that category. I do put Sripraphai, Tanoreen (at least based on one visit), Spicy & Tasty, and a few other places that are not expensive in that category (forgetting about more expensive places for the moment). I think it is a very small number of places.

I also think that people who are suggesting Bruni would ever give four stars to a cheap, informal place that serves great fried chicken or you name it are engaging in really overblown hyperbole. (How's "overblown hyperbole" for a hyperbolic phrase. )

[Pan]

why not do as Michelin does (and as old DC'ers will remember that Donald Dresden, pre-Phyllis Post critic, did) and break out a second rating for service/ambiance.  Then Babbo could get four stars for its food but only two stars for its Led Zepplin soundtrack; we could zero out Sri on the ambience scale so no one in a Barney's suit accidently took a client to lunch there, and we could pick restaurants depending on whether we were in the mood to be pampered or well-fed.

←

Sounds like a good idea to me, but for some reason, the Times hasn't done it. It would make their star system a lot easier to understand.

I must say, I wonder if anyone other than Rich thinks Sripraphai serves 4-star food. I can think of an Indian restaurant I ate at a few months ago that served what I thought of as at least 3- and probably 4-star food, but it was considerably more expensive than Sripraphai. I think Sripraphai serves delicious everyday food. And there's nothing wrong with that!

[oakapple]

Getting back to the thread. Bruni has now decided that "distasteful" music eliminates four-star consideration.

Rich is referring to the Babbo review. Like much of what Bruni writes, his choice of words was inelegant, and he will probably never live it down. Nevertheless, I am quite sure that Bruni was not saying that. He said the music was "emblematic" of a host of reasons (which he went on to itemize) why Babbo is not four stars. It is all of those reasons, and not just the music, that take Babbo out of four-star territory.

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?

The incompetence of the present critic is an entirely different matter than the system itself, which actually used to mean something. On the other hand, Bruni has not yet debased the three and four-star categories, so we have half a system left.

If not eliminate, then certainly separate the food, decor, service etc.

I entirely agree. Frank, are you listening?

Sri is a $25 and under place - to put it into the main category is a disservice to the restaurant and the public.

I fail to see how it's a disservice to the restaurant. They are no doubt delighted.

[Nathan]

I don't know many people who get their outfits at Barneys and then take the subway to eat dinner in Queens.

←

Sorry to be blunt, but this could have only been written by someone who does not know NY as well as they think they do....or at least they don't know any NY'ers under 50.

I both shop at Barneys and make the trek to Sri....which is most certainly a "destination" restaurant....always on a weekend.....I get home from the office at 9 or 10....I'm not traveling that far for a "neighborhood" place....I'm actually more likely to eat at Lupa on a whim (and who would be complaining if that got a 2-star review?).