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

[jogoode]

Let's take this discussion here, to the Q&A.

[bourdain]

Terribly sorry about the misspelling of your name. Really. Sloppiness is the least of my sins.

Not that it's important , but I did think your review was fair. I agree with the conclusion (number of stars). And I've always enjoyed your writing .

But I do tend to get a little fire and brimstone about offal. Spanish offal in particular. I'm obviously a fervent supporter of all things Mario and I felt, I have to admit, personally offended that you appeared to miss what I believe best and most important about both Batali and the kind of place he's trying to recreate. I also tend to view "Fear of Cow's Head" in apocalyptic terms: as a threat to everything and everybody I believe in. The allusion to Mad Cow--in the review--was, I still think, alarmist.

Lighten up?

Yeah....Not the first time I've heard that.

[Peckish]

Heck I hate to be the pollyanna. But Ms. Burros (sp?) ia a lady and Mr. Bourdain a gent. I love food and I love this forum wherein people can discuss their opposing views in a civil yet spirited fashion.

Thanks.

[Fat Guy]

It's Marian Burros. There's another major food writer named Marion Cunningham, which is probably the source of much of the confusion. It's kind of like how David Bouley and Daniel Boulud often get inverted as Daniel Bouley and David Boulud.

And please, call Bourdain anything -- smart, talented, handsome, a great kisser -- but don't call him a gent.

[Jason Perlow]

It's kind of like how David Bouley and Daniel Boulud often get inverted as Daniel Bouley and David Boulud.

And in fact, Bouley and Boulud are friends and worked with each other in the same restaurants, which makes it even MORE confusing.

[robyn]

But I do tend to get a little fire and brimstone about offal. Spanish offal in particular. I'm obviously a fervent supporter of all things Mario and I felt, I have to admit,  personally offended that you appeared to miss what I believe best and most important about both Batali and the kind of place he's trying to recreate. I also tend to view "Fear of Cow's Head" in apocalyptic terms: as a threat to everything and everybody I believe in. The allusion to Mad Cow--in the  review--was, I still think, alarmist...

What is so particularly wonderful about Spanish offal in your opinion?

The best offal I can remember eating was an offal tasting menu at Manoir aux Quat Saisons in the UK. Of course - that was before mad cow. I doubt you'll find a similar menu at that restaurant now.

By the way - thanks for your explanation of the menu item under discussion here. Robyn

[robyn]

I guess I better defend myself. No, I don't eat brains and haven't for many years. I used to liike them very much .Maybe a little knowledge is a dangerous thing and I worry about calves brains and other parts of their tete in this day and age. When people started eating calves brains, tete de veau, etc, etc., we didn't have something called mad cow disease. I make no apologies.

As for the other items, I've eaten all of them at one time or another, decided I don't really care for them and saw no reason to eat something I don't like to begin with. What good could I say about it. As it is I ate the anchovies even though they are not a favorite of mine, wondering if the rendition would make me like them more.

Please lighten up Mr. Bourdain and, if you get a chance, take a look to see how my name is spelled.

Mea culpa. I spelled your name wrong too.

My past and current eating history are pretty much the same as yours. Used to eat offal - but won't these days.

I have a question for you - or anyone else who has an opinion. We live in a reasonably affluent culture (I'm not talking only about the US - but other places in the world where people spend more than $200 for dinner). Given this background - why do some people think it's necessary to prove that they're "foodies" by eating really garbage parts of animals - especially when some of these animal parts are dangerous? I can understand why poor people used to do it 50 years ago - but I don't understand the allure now. Perhaps it's a macho "guy" thing - but I just don't get it.

By the way - if anyone here cares to answer - and you're not a professional chef - I'd like the know the last time you cleaned some kidneys at home in your kitchen. I tried it once - and I didn't think it was particularly amusing. Robyn

[Pan]

robyn, a few more or less random thoughts:

There are rich people in every country in the world, but if you investigated the percentage of Americans who pay more than $200 on dinner on even an occasional basis, I'm willing to bet it wouldn't pass 1%.

You're using the word "garbage" advisedly because it used to mean "intestines."

It doesn't matter to me whether people eat offal or not, but the question is whether a critic needs to eat offal at a place where that's a specialty, and I think it's probably best to focus on that narrower question. If you'd like to start a thread of "offal machismo," I think the General forum is probably the most appropriate place for that.

Ms. Burros, thanks for commenting in this thread.

[Bux]

She's not an adventurous eater..a restaurantuer waiting for Burros' review told me that he's quite apprehensive, she had a limited selection of his much tamer food choices.

Elsewhere on this site in another discussion about this review, I noted that the danger of having a reviewer with limited tastes is that new restaurants may be tempted into opening with offerings that appeal to a reviewer if the reviewer represents an important journal. The NY Times is such a journal. The public announcement by the current NY Times reviewer in regard to her tastes could well affect what the rest of us will find on menus.

While I may not agree with Tony's style, I also think he had a valid point when he implied the reviewer was not someone who could best appreciate what the restaurant had to offer and thus while perhaps the number of stars was appropriate, the review lacked the enthusiasm the restaurant's food may have deserved. Were I dependant on this review for my decision regarding Cas Mono, I'd not have as much enthusisam as I have from reading other reports.

[Bux]

why do some people think it's necessary to prove that they're "foodies" by eating really garbage parts of animals - especially when some of these animal parts are dangerous? 

I don't ask anyone to eat dangerous foods, although many people crave blowfish which can be deadly and I can't get enough raw oysters. My point here is that it's not up to you to tell me which parts of an animal are really garbage parts if I prefer sweetbreads to filet mignon or tripe to porterhouse steak. It's as reasonable to call the whole carcass surrounding the intestines the garbage as it is to say the tripe is garbage.

In colonial times, indentured servants had contracts that limited the number of times a week they could be fed oysters and salmon. There were no farmed salmon in those days and wild salmon was so plentiful that it, along with oysters, was considered garbage. This is a purely relative term and dependent on the culture in which it's used. What may be garbage in one culture may be highly prized in another.

I find your need to label food and people a bit offensive. It's not your place to question why I eat what I eat.

[jogoode]

I posted this in the Q&A, because I thought the discussion could continue there. But I'll repost here:

As for the other items, I've eaten all of them at one time or another, decided I don't really care for them and saw no reason to eat something I don't like to begin with.

There is a reason, in this case, to eat something that you don't care for. Since offal is an important part, as bourdain said in the Food Media and News thread, of Batali's culinary philosophy, and because there are at least four dishes on Casa Mono's menu that include offal, some assessment of the execution of these offal dishes is necessary in a review of the restaurant. Since you said that you've had most of the offal on the menu before, you would have been in a position to judge how well the offal at Casa Mono was prepared, even if you didn't love it. You did this with the anchovies.

To be sure, those who've commented on this review are mainly criticizing the NYT for their choice of temporary reviewer -- as they (and I) will inevitably do with any reviewer they choose -- and praising your handling of the position in which you have been put.

[SobaAddict70]

I have a question for you - or anyone else who has an opinion.  We live in a reasonably affluent culture (I'm not talking only about the US - but other places in the world where people spend more than $200 for dinner).  Given this background - why do some people think it's necessary to prove that they're "foodies" by eating really garbage parts of animals - especially when some of these animal parts are dangerous?  I can understand why poor people used to do it 50 years ago - but I don't understand the allure now.  Perhaps it's a macho "guy" thing - but I just don't get it.

Because they like it? Because it tastes good? Gee, I dunno.

I liked tripe, kidneys, liver and other "garbage"/offal long before I became a foodie. I don't need to eat them on a regular basis to prove my "foodie" badge.

Do you feel the need to have gefilte fish and matzah brei on a regular basis to prove your "Jewish" badge? No, I didn't think so.

Get over it, sister.

Soba

[Mark Sommelier]

I think Ms. Burros answer was right on and correct. She had all of them before, she didn't want to have them again. Case closed.

[marlena spieler]

Testicles!!!

Some say Yum!

Before I met him, when my husband was training for his accounting career in london, he went from business to business doing the books etc and brushing up his skills. one of his employers was greek cypriot, and paid him not in money, but in pigs testicles!

When I asked: but no salary? he didn't give you money?

Husband answered: no, I just loved the pigs testicles, couldn't get enough!

(serious obsession issues; he went through a stage of victoria sponge obsession, too, one year. and has been known to go on a three meal a day beetroot-a-thon periodically).

[jogoode]

I think Ms. Burros answer was right on and correct. She had all of them before, she didn't want to have them again. Case closed.

Come on, Mark. I'll say it again: this is the restaurant reviewer -- however temporary -- for the New York Times. It is her duty during the short time for which she holds this position, as I said a few posts above, to comment on the execution of a restaurant's menu. Not necessarily its entire menu, but she can't neglect four dishes on a relatively small menu that are typically made particularly well by the chef behind the restaurant. She admitted that, because she was familiar with most of the offal in question, she was in the position to judge its execution, as she did with the anchovies, even if she's not crazy about this food she's assessing. Her excuse might work for my 14 year old cousin, but I just can't buy it in this context.

[slkinsey]

I think Ms. Burros answer was right on and correct. She had all of them before, she didn't want to have them again. Case closed.

Come on, Mark. I'll say it again: this is the restaurant reviewer -- however temporary -- for the New York Times. It is her duty during the short time for which she holds this position, as I said a few posts above, to comment on the execution of a restaurant's menu.

I think there are several things worthy of note here:

• Ms. Burros is not the regular NYT reviewer, and does not appear to seek to be the regular restaurant reviewer. Were she to take this job on a full-time basis, then perhaps some "palate reeducation" a la Steingarten might be recommended to broaden the scope of her reviewing. There isn't much point in doing this for a temporary gig.
  
• Understanding the above, I would argue that she made the best out of a restaurant assignment for which she was not particularly well suited. I imagine that even Ms. Burros would admit she was not the ideal fit to review this restaurant. But what were her choices? Refuse to review that restaurant? Eat a bunch of food she already knows she doesn't like?
  
• Given that she does have a strong aversion to many of the things that seem central to Batali's aesthetic, I think it was admirable for her to come right out with it in the review. Plenty of food writers would simply have skipped over those things.
  
• I find it interesting that most everyone agrees she gave the restaurant a fair assessment and the proper number ot stars, etc.
  

[jogoode]

I do think Ms. Burros handled this review well, though not flawlessly. And I'm she'd admit that she wasn't the best person to review Casa Mono. However:

But what were her choices?  ...Eat a bunch of food she already knows she doesn't like?

Yes. And attempt to assess the preparation, even if her opinions of these dishes aren't explicit in her review. If she had some extreme aversion to the offal, that's one thing. But her response in this thread suggested that she didn't.

I find it interesting that most everyone agrees she gave the restaurant a fair assessment and the proper number ot stars, etc.

She gave it the "proper" number of stars without experiencing an important part of the menu. If Casa Mono's chefs were messing up the offal dishes, she wouldn't even know about it, and the "proper" number of stars might be inaccurate. Now that I think about it, should Casa Mono be a two-star restaurant? Or a great one-star?

[mjc]

I find it interesting that most everyone agrees she gave the restaurant a fair assessment and the proper number ot stars, etc.

does everyone really think she gave it the proper number of stars?

Haven't been yet, but from what I understand, I thought 0 would have been more appropriate.

[slkinsey]

I find it interesting that most everyone agrees she gave the restaurant a fair assessment and the proper number ot stars, etc.

does everyone really think she gave it the proper number of stars?

Haven't been yet, but from what I understand, I thought 0 would have been more appropriate.

Most people I know who have been there seem to agree that the number of stars was appropriate. As for eGullet, we have:

she seems to arrive at a logical conclusion and a sensible star rating based on a reasonable sampling of the dishes.

Not that it's important , but I did think your review was fair. I agree with the conclusion (number of stars).

The emphasis is mine. You may draw your own conclusions and are, of course, entitled to your own opinion... although I am not quite sure what reports form the basis of "what you understand."

[Bux]

Suppose a reviewer doesn't like beef. Should he review Peter Lugar? Suppose a review had a legitimate allergy to fish and seafood, what's the position on le Bernardin, Oceana and Citarella? I am serious. I fully understand a larger part of the NY Times audience is going to be poorly served by a review of the vegetables at Peter Lugar and that the number of stars may be inaccurate, but in spite of the few numbers of offal devotees, aren't they and a restaurant whose long suit is offal being served poorly in this case. Do the numbers justify this? The answers are not as easy as the questions, but Tony had a valid point if too caustic an approach.

I'm sorry this is turning into an offal defense thread, but perhaps the very fact that the subject is so easily dismissed by the NY Times and that those of us who enjoy tripe and organs are reviled as "foodies" here in this thread is reason for the turn in this thread in an attempt to increase public awareness.

Tripe is one of the glories of Lyon, a city know for it's food, in a country know for it's food--gras-double à la lyonnaise, tablier du sapeur & andouillette lyonnaise for example.

[bergerka]

I have a question for you - or anyone else who has an opinion.  We live in a reasonably affluent culture (I'm not talking only about the US - but other places in the world where people spend more than $200 for dinner).  Given this background - why do some people think it's necessary to prove that they're "foodies" by eating really garbage parts of animals - especially when some of these animal parts are dangerous?  I can understand why poor people used to do it 50 years ago - but I don't understand the allure now.  Perhaps it's a macho "guy" thing - but I just don't get it.

By the way - if anyone here cares to answer - and you're not a professional chef - I'd like the know the last time you cleaned some kidneys at home in your kitchen.  I tried it once - and I didn't think it was particularly amusing.  Robyn

1. I have never cleaned kidneys at home, nor do I ever intend to. That's what I have slkinsey for.

2. I'm neither a guy nor macho, but I do enjoy the offal I've eaten (my experience is actually relatively limited, to sweetbreads, the intimate parts of a male turkey, and haggis, which I like to call "all offal, all the time!"). I don't have anything to prove by eating it, I eat it because I like it. It tastes good. If it didn't taste good, I wouldn't eat it. Okra is slimy and doesn't taste good, therefore I don't eat it. I do subscribe (for the most part...every once in a while some particularly bizarre dish will set off my gag reflex and I won't even try a LITTLE) to the "if I haven't tried it, how do I know I don't like it?" school of thought, but I don't really think that counts as machismo or status-seeking in foodieland.

Just out of curiosity, why was your automatic assumption that people who eat things like that feel the need to prove their "foodie" status, rather than that they actually might like the taste? I'm quite serious.

K

Edited to clarify my school of thought.

Edited February 3, 2004 by bergerka (log)

[slkinsey]

I do think Ms. Burros handled this review well, though not flawlessly. And I'm she'd admit that she wasn't the best person to review Casa Mono. However:

But what were her choices? ... Eat a bunch of food she already knows she doesn't like?

Yes. And attempt to assess the preparation, even if her opinions of these dishes aren't explicit in her review. If she had some extreme aversion to the offal, that's one thing. But her response in this thread suggested that she didn't.

I'm not so sure I agree, actually. For example, as mentioned elsewhere in these forums, I have a serious and longstanging dislike for squash, eggplant and okra. I find them intensely disgusting, and according to my parents have found them so practically since the day I first took solid food. Understanding this, there is no way I could hope to comment on the preparation of, for example, ratatouille. How could I, when I would have to steel my nerves and force myself to choke down that (to me) revolting slop? Now, if I were the main NYT reviewer, I would find a way to reeducate my palate and learn to like (ugh) squash, eggplant and okra. But, if I found myself in a temporary assignment thrown into reviewing a restaurant whose chef featured "extra-slimy okra" and "squash-stuffed eggplant" I, too, would skip these items. I can only hope I would have Ms. Burros' ethical fortitude to disclose this in my review.

The only other option is to refuse the assignment, which may not always be a viable one.

I find it interesting that most everyone agrees she gave the restaurant a fair assessment and the proper number of stars, etc.

She gave it the "proper" number of stars without experiencing an important part of the menu. If Casa Mono's chefs were messing up the offal dishes, she wouldn't even know about it, and the "proper" number of stars might be inaccurate. Now that I think about it, should Casa Mono be a two-star restaurant? Or a great one-star?

Well... there's a very fine line between a two star and a "great one star" anyway. One can argue that question until the cows come home.

Perhaps if I found myself in her shoes -- reviewing "Skip's Squash and Eggplant Shack" -- I would take along a few trusted squashophile friends with good palates and ask for their impressions about the execution.

Suppose a reviewer doesn't like beef. Should he review Peter Lugar?

I don't know. Are we talking about the ideal world or the real world? In the ideal world, the reviewer who doesn't like beef would never be assigned to review Peter Luger, or at the very least would have a boss who would be happy to let him out of such an assignment. In the real world, however, something like this might happen. So, put yourself in the reviewer's shoes... what do you do? Do you march down to your editor's office and refuse the assignment? If your answer is yes -- I guess you don't like working there very much anyway, so losing your job won't be such a big deal. Then again, when word gets around that you rocked the boat it might impact your ability to get hired elsewhere... But of course, this is a matter of principle! You, the reviewer, should gladly sacrifice your job and career in the service of Food (note the capital "F"). In fact, it is incumbent upon you to do so! Or maybe not... Generally, in the real world, the reviewer takes the assignment and does the best he can. That's the way it works.

[jogoode]

For example, as mentioned elsewhere in these forums, I have a serious and longstanging dislike for squash, eggplant and okra. I find them intensely disgusting, and according to my parents have found them so practically since the day I first took solid food. Understanding this, there is no way I could hope to comment on the preparation of, for example, ratatouille.

But, Sam, it seems she has no such aversion.

[slkinsey]

For example, as mentioned elsewhere in these forums, I have a serious and longstanging dislike for squash, eggplant and okra.  I find them intensely disgusting, and according to my parents have found them so practically since the day I first took solid food.  Understanding this, there is no way I could hope to comment on the preparation of, for example, ratatouille.

But, Sam, it seems she has no such aversion.

You don't think so? That's what I make of this:

I don't eat brains and haven't for many years. ... As for the other items, I've eaten all of them at one time or another, decided I don't really care for them and saw no reason to eat something I don't like to begin with.

She has strong personal motivations to not eat certain foods, some for reasons of taste and some for health concerns. In my book, that's in the same category as my dislike for squash.

[Mayhaw Man]

SLKinsey said

But, if I found myself in a temporary assignment thrown into reviewing a restaurant whose chef featured "extra-slimy okra" and "squash-stuffed eggplant" I, too, would skip these items. 

I know someone who would gladly help you in this trying circumstance.

and SLKinsey said:

Perhaps if I found myself in her shoes -- reviewing "Skip's Squash and Eggplant Shack" -- I would take along a few trusted squashophile friends with good palates and ask for their impressions about the execution.

I just googled on this place and found no address, could you enlighten the more enlightened onces here who might enjoy this fare?

I fall into the camp with those that believe that a reviewer need not be in love with (or even like) all of the items on a menu in order to do a honest and fair assessment of a place.

I don't think that someone who hates seafood should review places that ONLY serve seafood, etc., but feel like someone who is willing to admit (as M.B. did in her review being discussed here) that there were some menu items that she did not particularly care for or eat and is clear that these items did not figure in the review can still do a good job.

Everybody doesn't eat everything. Just look at the axis of evil thread. People who are otherwise reasonable and sane can have some pretty strong feelings about their particular dislikes.