NYT Articles on Food, Drink, Cooking, and Culinary Culture (2002–2005)

[Jinmyo]

Bah, Suzanne. Junkie-assed rantings would be fine for the Voice but not the stately NYT. Unless the Times does some time and comes back stateless.

As it is:

Asimov. I understand what he means, I know why he said it, he basically makes sense, and I can easily calibrate the variances from my palate to his.

[Fat Guy]

Remember, when it came time to replace William Grimes, the first four people they offered the job to said no. Perhaps, then, the ideal isn't even a relevant question. The question may be what's the best they can do, given that nobody who is even close to ideal wants the job.

[tommy]

"ideal" as far as the posting members of egullet consider ideal. their (NYT) reach and target, like it or not, is well beyond what some might like or appreciate. other than that, i'd nominate me before anyone else, because i like the way i write and agree with my opinions usually 100 percent. until tomorrow, when they're likely to change.

Edited October 17, 2004 by tommy (log)

[SobaAddict70]

The question "why (would you or Person X not want to be the critic)" is one I've long wanted to ask. Leaving aside the issue of "power" (which is a very real issue when it comes to positions that critics hold), the main NYT resto critic has the ability to impact the food and restaurant industry (not to mention the way we eat and cook) in a very positive manner.

Now whether the recipients of their reviews would see it or consider it on that level is a different story.

Oh well. Maybe next time there's a Q&A.

Soba

[oakapple]

Leaving aside the issue of "power" (which is a very real issue when it comes to positions that critics hold), the main NYT resto critic has the ability to impact the food and restaurant industry (not to mention the way we eat and cook) in a very positive manner.

←

I wonder who was the last NYT restaurant critic who actually did impact the food and restaurant industry in a very positive manner.

[Bux]

I wonder who was the last NYT restaurant critic who actually did impact the food and restaurant industry in a very positive manner.

←

I think a good review will send new diners scurrying to a restaurant, but then just a notice that it's been reviewed might do the same. I wonder how much difference it makes if it's a two star or four star review. I don't think bad review will cause a restaurant to lose regulars, but it might dissuade some new diners from trying the place and thus have a worse effect on new restaurants than existing onnes.

[ariggsby]

I'd agree with the suggestions above that there probably is no "ideal" critic, but as for "favorite" I have no problem picking Ruth Reichl. I think that's because she is (to my tastes) far and away the best writer. That seems to me to open up an issue not raised above:

Is the NYT restaurant critic writing for New Yorkers or for the paper's national audience (or somewhere in between)?

This makes difference. Bruni's interest in going outside Manhattan is probably good for locals, but nearly useless for me (in Texas). Ditto for reviews of "hot" spots serving mediocre food, at least most of the time. What I'd want are reviews of places that (1) I'd travel 1000+ miles for or (2) illustrate something interesting or important in the food world. So, under the latter category, I'd probably rather read about a very innovative and/or specialized place, even if not entirely successful, than about a really great bistro. Under the former, I'm not particularly interested in "neighborhod restaurants." Someone from NY might rightly have exactly the reverse interests.

Andrew

[Pan]

Andrew, it seems to me that the New York Times caters to a local, regional, national, and to some (probably small) extent international audience, plus of course its advertizers. It's all a question of balance, marketing, etc. As a New Yorker, I do like the reviews of good neighborhood places, but I, too, could do without reviews of trendy places that serve mediocre food - except that I tend to think they deserve to be slammed for that. What I don't see much point in is a review of a hanger-on that was trendy 15 years ago.

[Todd36]

Andrew, it seems to me that the New York Times caters to a local, regional, national, and to some (probably small) extent international audience, plus of course its advertizers. It's all a question of balance, marketing, etc. As a New Yorker, I do like the reviews of good neighborhood places, but I, too, could do without reviews of trendy places that serve mediocre food - except that I tend to think they deserve to be slammed for that. What I don't see much point in is a review of a hanger-on that was trendy 15 years ago.

←

They need 3 or 4 reviwers (if the budget permits).

1. The real under $25 for Manhattan. This is where noodle shops, hamburgers, things like F&B should be, where you can really get dinner for $25. Also, much of what Semesta (spelling again) covers for the Voice could fit in here.

2. Over $25 and under $75 for Manhattan. This I guess is entry to moderate "fine dining." Where you can actually get a main, dessert and a drink for say $60. This is where say Otto or Dunguri belong.

3. Over $75 for Manhattan. This is fine dining and in theory, every restaurant should be aiming for at least two stars. Per Se, Sugiyama, Deanube etc.

4. One person to cover the rest of NYC.

If the NTY budget permits, this would make the reviews much more useful. #3 is for tourists and those who really want fine dining, #2 is for people who want find dining on a budget, and #1 is for people who want something inexpensive. #4 keeps the rest of the city happy. Will the NYT budget permit this? Heck, I'd do #1 myself for free

[oakapple]

They need 3 or 4 reviwers (if the budget permits).

←

This is an idea that would no doubt please the foodies, but I'm sure the Times has no intention of doing it. They're spending on food reviews what they want to spend.

My own suggestion is that the Times should admit that $25-and-under is a fiction, and raise the ceiling to about $50. There would then be two critics, one covering the $25-50 range, and the other covering the over $50 range. Both categories would be eligible for stars.

I don't believe the Times should bother covering the truly budget restaurants — not because they're unimportant, but because I think the local papers are better equipped to cover them. Likewise, I don't think the Times should review outer borough restaurants merely because the critic wants to give out some free publicity. The Times should cover those places if they reasonably qualify as dining destinations (i.e., they're more than just neighborhood places).

[SobaAddict70]

I wonder who was the last NYT restaurant critic who actually did impact the food and restaurant industry in a very positive manner.

←

I think each of the critics have influenced the food and restaurant industry in a positive manner, each in his or her own way.

To give a few examples:

Craig Claiborne. The grandfather of restaurant critics, he also made it possible, along with contemporaries of his at the time, for cuisine in the United States to evolve to its current form.

Mimi Sheraton. As a result of her work as the Times critic then, she set the standard for restaurant reviewing.

Even in major cities, the line between restaurants that advertised and restaurants that got good reviews was pretty faint. Editors neglected to set rules regarding anonymity, special training, background and number of visits (to save money, they wanted as few as possible). Sheraton and the New York Times set a new standard for reviewers.

Click here to read the rest of the article in the SF Examiner.

Ruth Reichl. Make what you will of her article on her experience at Le Cirque, but it was illuminative to many (and still is) of differences shown between the well-known and the know-nothings. Reichl's work has also delved into the issue of sexism that often confronts women who dine out (e.g., the solo female diner).

On one of my visits there, I had dinner with [longtime Times editor and current London Bureau Chief] Warren Hoge, who had hired me, and he said, "I'll make the reservation. They don't know me." So he made the reservation in his own name, and they seated us at this apparently not-good table. Halfway through the meal, Sirio [Maccioni, Le Cirque's owner] came rushing over. He didn't recognize Warren, but somebody had said to him, "That's Warren Hoge." And he wanted to move us. He said, "So-and-so just said, 'How could you seat Warren Hoge behind the glass?'" It was shameless. It was like, "We've given you a bad seat; we've made a terrible mistake; please let us move you."

Click here to read more.

Each restaurant critic brings something different to the table. And maybe that's the best we can hope for -- that a critic will capitalize on his or her strength and leave the weakness in the dust.

But we can also dream.

Soba

[Todd36]

I don't believe the Times should bother covering the truly budget restaurants — not because they're unimportant, but because I think the local papers are better equipped to cover them. Likewise, I don't think the Times should review outer borough restaurants merely because the critic wants to give out some free publicity. The Times should cover those places if they reasonably qualify as dining destinations (i.e., they're more than just neighborhood places).

←

The Times does do weekly reviews for the 'burbs (Patricia Wells has done Conencticut for example). Given that, I think they should also have someone dedicated to the outer boroughs. And I think they should also cover budget restaurants---they are not the paper of only the rich. The only other paper in the city with what I consider decent reviews is the Voice with Seimesta (spelling), and he concentrates on the really unusual most of the time, true its budget, but its unusual budget places.

[Pan]

It's Sietsema, Todd.

Oakapple, I disagree with the idea of the Times simply not reviewing inexpensive restaurants. Not all NYT readers are rich. And I'd have to say, I felt Asimov covered that beat better than Sietsema. I didn't always agree with Asimov, but I sometimes wonder whether Sietsema is occupying the same planet as the rest of us, given his praise for a horror show like Proton Saga, for example. I realize I went there only once, but my Asam Laksa was so horrendous there that I cut Sietsema no slack for repeatedly rating that place highly. And that's not to mention other odd things like his ratings of Italian restaurants, which so many eGulleteers scratched their heads at.

Edited October 19, 2004 by Pan (log)

[oakapple]

Oakapple, I disagree with the idea of the Times simply not reviewing inexpensive restaurants. Not all NYT readers are rich. And I'd have to say, I felt Asimov covered that beat better than Sietsema.

←

Pan, I'm not suggesting that all Times readers are rich. For that matter, even the affluent do not eat every meal at Veritas and Cru.

But the reality is that the Times is covering something like 2% of the $25-and-under restaurants. It's almost a random event when they happen to publish a review in that category that you can really use. It doesn't help that probably half of the $25-and-under reviews are of $25-50 restaurants.

My comment is about the Times's institutional limitations. I don't disagree that Asimov is a better reviewer than Sietsema.

[Pan]

But the reality is that the Times is covering something like 2% of the $25-and-under restaurants. It's almost a random event when they happen to publish a review in that category that you can really use. It doesn't help that probably half of the $25-and-under reviews are of $25-50 restaurants.

←

Of course, there's no real way to make a dent in the huge number of cheap eats in town on a week-by-week basis, but it is possible to have some 52 reviews of under-$25 places per year. That they don't do that seems to me rather an institutional choice than an inherent limitation.

[Squeat Mungry]

Eric Asimov looks for unpretentious Napa restaurants serving good food:

The air of self-importance that sometimes permeates the wineries can extend to the restaurants as well. There is no shortage of food in Napa that is hypercreative in a scattered, outdated, topped-with-mango-salsa sort of way.

Thankfully, one can also find food of subtlety and grace, served in restaurants that are ambitious but unpretentious, prepared by chefs who consider their duty to serve you a satisfying meal rather than persuading you that you are in the center of the universe.

During a trip to Napa Valley in mid-August, when the winemakers were tasting the grapes and calculating exactly when to start picking, I ate in restaurants of recent vintages, looking for food that was compelling without the hype. Three of these four fit the bill, while the fourth is still a work in progress. And each, as you might expect, has a fine wine list.

For the most part, he likes what he finds. Article here.

Any eGulleteers been to Stomp yet?

Cheers,

Squeat

Edited November 8, 2004 by Squeat Mungry (log)

[winesonoma]

Gotta link to the article?

[Squeat Mungry]

Doh! Sorry. Thanks! Original post now includes a link.

[Carolyn Tillie]

This explains why two different New Yorkers contacted me about where to eat in Napa in the next few weeks -- one already had indicated a desire to dine at Bouchon when she had read the article and another was chosing between Auberge du Soleil and Pilar.

I was surprised that a NY newspaper was reviewing Napa restaurants but hadn't the time to hunt out the review.

Thanks, Squeat!

[jeffperez62]

Just returned from a week in Calistoga. We ate at Pilar, Cindys and FL to name a few. Our hotel , the Calistoga spa is right across from Stomp, which was almost empty every night we passed by. Pilar was very good, I would eat at Cindy's every night if I could, and the FL.......need I say more. I just got off the plane and my eyes are rolling to the back of my head, so I'll give more details soon. We did stop up at Ladera to see Carolyn (which was spectacular.....and Carolyn, you rock!) which was one of the highlights of our trip!!

[VivreManger]

This explains why two different New Yorkers contacted me about where to eat in Napa in the next few weeks -- one already had indicated a desire to dine at Bouchon when she had read the article and another was chosing between Auberge du Soleil and Pilar.

I was surprised that a NY newspaper was reviewing Napa restaurants but hadn't the time to hunt out the review.

Thanks, Squeat!

←

Actually I am from New England, not NY. The Times in this case functions as a national rather than local paper. I guess the assumption reflects a Californian's view of the world, the mirror image of Steinberg's famous New Yorker cartoon. But perhaps Carolyn had some other contacts in mind besides mine.

In fact the NYTimes article was in its Sunday Travel section where it regularly covers out of town dining.

Edited November 9, 2004 by VivreManger (log)

[glenn]

Very appropos to recent discussions is this article in today's paper.

[rancho_gordo]

From the NYTimes:

Pilar easily won me over with its almost exquisite sense of simplicity and restraint.

I had such a great dinner there that I started to question my own tastse. Did I like itso much because I don't eat out as much as I used to and this was a special gig? Because other eGulleters liked the place (save Melkor who thinks it's good for a luncheonette)? I knew her a little personally from a Slow Food event? This review makes me think it was as good as I thought.

I realize I don't care much about eating in "concept" restaurants like Martini House, even though I'm sure it's excellent. Almost like going to farmers market to get produce from the someone closer the growing process, I prefer to eat in places where I'm closer to the chef. At Pilar you get a sense of the thought process that produced your meal.

I should say I have never eaten at Martini House (although I've been to the bar three or two times!) and I have no idea how much control the chef has over the menu.

[Carolyn Tillie]

This explains why two different New Yorkers contacted me about where to eat in Napa in the next few weeks -- one already had indicated a desire to dine at Bouchon when she had read the article and another was chosing between Auberge du Soleil and Pilar.

I was surprised that a NY newspaper was reviewing Napa restaurants but hadn't the time to hunt out the review.

Thanks, Squeat!

←

Actually I am from New England, not NY. The Times in this case functions as a national rather than local paper. I guess the assumption reflects a Californian's view of the world, the mirror image of Steinberg's famous New Yorker cartoon. But perhaps Carolyn had some other contacts in mind besides mine.

In fact the NYTimes article was in its Sunday Travel section where it regularly covers out of town dining.

←

You weren't the only one -- but I did assume you were in New York as you referenced the article. Slightly true that to us, if you are on the East Coast, it is simply "the other side of the US," but not necessarily all New Yorkers...

[MsMelkor]

What I think that article missed was that it is, for some of us at least, much more enjoyable to make espresso drinks at home than it is to wait in line at a coffee joint. It's not just the quality (although I do prefer the drinks we make to those at nearly all coffeeshops) - it's also the ritual of making the espresso/cappuccino/latte, not having to get dressed or leave the house, and the tinkering to account for variations in the roasted beans, humidity, etc.