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

[slkinsey]

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.

Dude... I am so inviting you over for dinner the next time I visit my parents in Houston.

[jogoode]

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.

I took the "I don't care for them" part of her statement as her expressing a moderate dislike, as opposed to your clearly maniacal aversion .

I'm not trying to be picky, but she says she "saw no reason..." I see a reason.

[Fat Guy]

Are we still on this?!?!

I really think this obsession with Ms. Burros's eating habits represents a collective failure to see the forest for the trees. Restaurant reviewing is about a lot more than a reductionist examination of every dish on a menu.

Again, this was not a one-off assignment where the editors of the paper asked, "Who would be the absolute best person to review this particular restaurant?" Rather, it was a restaurant review written by the restaurant's weekly critic. It was not a matter of choice: she did her job, and she did it well.

Whatever extremely minor issues are presented by Ms. Burros's failure to eat a few menu items are in my opinion entirely outweighed by her experience as a diner, her professionalism as a journalist, her editorial detachment, the high quality of her writing, her long track record as an authoritative voice on the food scene, and the need to have a consistent voice from week to week in the paper's restaurant reviews. There would be very little value in having 52 different writers covering the restaurant beat -- those would no longer be reviews. Why should we pick an offal obsessed writer just to review an offal restaurant? How does that help anything? Every writer has a set of opinions, biases, and prejudices. We get to know that writer over time and we take opinions for what they're worth.

The question isn't "is she the best person to write this review?" or "is she the best person to be the NYT restaurant critic?" Rather, the question is "is she the best person to bridge the gap between William Grimes and his successor?" For that job, the best choice is an established veteran, somebody who has held the reviewer's position in the past, whose knowledge and experience are above reproach. It's hard for me to think of any better choice.

Mark my words: you'll all miss her terribly when the next critic starts.

[robyn]

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.

Pan - A couple of random thoughts back .

I agree about the numbers of people who spend that much on dinner. But - in my experience - you're not likely to find extensive offal offerings in lesser restaurants (perhaps they're not the most expensive ingredients in the world - but they're labor intensive). Seems like the more expensive the restaurant - the more likely I am to find offal on the menu.

Is indeed offal the main/dominant thing to eat in this restaurant? I found two eating descriptions on the internet. They really didn't amount to serious reviews - but they discussed a lot of the dishes the writers and their parties ate. Only one mentioned offal at all - and it mentioned it only once (the author's table had a single dish with sweetbreads). So it seems that people do go to this restaurant without indulging in offal.

I think I would feel a lot more strongly about this issue if a person had been sent to Ruth's Chris - didn't eat steak - and ordered chicken. But what about a vegetarian food critic who went to a high end restaurant and ordered only the vegetarian offerings (which most high end restaurants have these days)? I suspect a true vegetarian could do more justice to these offerings than a non-vegetarian.

By the way - I enjoyed the review when I read it in my morning paper. I thought it was very honest in terms of the reviewer placing her cards on the table in terms of her personal likes/dislikes. We all have them - and since a reviewer can't eat everything on a menu - it's good to know what governed her decisions in terms of what to eat/not eat. Robyn

[robyn]

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.

I think it's important to separate issues of health from issues of taste. As far as taste is concerned - whatever someone wants is ok by me. As far as health is concerned - there are higher authorities than me.

You brought up oysters. Let's talk oysters. In my part of the world - a large percentage of the Apalachicola oyster beds have been closed by health officials due to sewage contamination (which can cause hep A). But people take oysters from those closed beds - and they sell them to restaurants here. I don't think in terms that "you have a right to eat them" (especially since hep A is a communicable disease). I do think the people who harvest those oysters and the restaurants which sell them are criminals (because they're violating the law). In the best of all possible worlds - they'd be prosecuted.

But we don't have enough inspectors to track down the violators. So what should be done about it? Well - eventually - a whole lot of people are going to get sick (as opposed to the isolated cases now) - and some are going to die - and that's going to be the end of raw oysters down here. All restaurants will have an exclusion in their insurance policies for serving raw oysters. And it will be as difficult to find a raw oyster in a restaurant as a rare burger. Robyn

[robyn]

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.

It sounded a bit to me like "the lady doth protest too much".

Also - I read other people writing about this restaurant on line - and I didn't see any indication that this restaurant was supposed to be the New York equivalent of St. John (a London place known for its offal). Offal is served - but it didn't seem to be the primary reason for the restaurant. So I wondered why everyone jumped on Ms. Burros. Just seemed to me that a lot of guys jumped on a woman who has concerns about health issues in the foods she eats for no good reason at all.

And I really wonder about people and offal. I've tried it all - multiple times. Sweetbreads are certainly the best in terms of taste. At the other extreme - more often than not - when I've been served kidneys - they smell of urine - however faintly. Robyn

[cdh]

Kidneys are one of those things that are like sheep flesh. Veal kidneys are good. Lamb kidneys are good. Beef kidneys, on the other hand, suck. (as does mutton) See the Rosa Mexicana thread for a clear description of how terribly they suck... suffice it to say that they suck significantly.

I've had good veal kidneys that are extremely similar to calves' liver, and terrible beef kidneys that smell like a urinal. Pork kidneys I've left alone.

[Pan]

From robyn:

I agree about the numbers of people who spend that much on dinner. But - in my experience - you're not likely to find extensive offal offerings in lesser restaurants (perhaps they're not the most expensive ingredients in the world - but they're labor intensive). Seems like the more expensive the restaurant - the more likely I am to find offal on the menu.

You've gotta go to some cheap Chinese (perhaps especially Chao Zhou) and Dominican restaurants more often and take note of the Pig Ears, Pigfoot Noodle Soup, Pig Intestine dishes, Tripe with Black Bean Sauce, Mondongo, etc. These items are not expensive in such settings.

By the way - I enjoyed the review when I read it in my morning paper. I thought it was very honest in terms of the reviewer placing her cards on the table in terms of her personal likes/dislikes. We all have them - and since a reviewer can't eat everything on a menu - it's good to know what governed her decisions in terms of what to eat/not eat. Robyn

I agree. I am not indignant over the review. But I do think her critics have a point.

[foodie52]

I'm sorry, but I don't understand how someone with food prejudices can have the job of food critic. Shouldn't that priviledge be given to someone who embraces all foods?

It's like someone who has the job of sports writing, but hates baseball and refuses to go to games, or goes and just says that it was totally boring and incomprehensible. Oh...and someone scored a run.

By the way, I ate at St. John's a few weeks ago. I had pork cheeks. Devilled kidneys. Lots of offal. It was all delicious and beautifully presented. It's not like a bunch of intestines were dumped , steaming, on a plate in front of me. It was all exquisite.

[fresco]

I'm sorry, but I don't understand how someone with food prejudices can have the job of food critic. Shouldn't that priviledge be given to someone who embraces all foods?

I'd think that a strong point of view would be a job requirement.

[jogoode]

I'm sorry, but I don't understand how someone with food prejudices can have the job of food critic.

It should be said that everyone has prejudices that they bring with them to the table. Even Steingarten, who set out to rid himself of his aversions and succeeded has biases, I'm sure. Maybe he still turns down ant eggs when he sees them on a menu in Thailand, because he appreciates their flavor, and enjoys them on some level, but doesn't dream about them the way he might dream about a Milky Way. HOWEVER, when your preferences stop you from trying a particular food, it simply makes it hard for many readers to relate to the reviewer.

That said, I understand that Ms. Burros is in a special situation, and has done a fine job. I think what the critics of Burros are taking issue with -- or at least what I am taking issue with -- is the general practice of avoiding a particular food, which, perhaps, is not entirely apprpriate for this thread.

No one is asking, Steven, for

... a reductionist examination of every dish on a menu.

And

her professionalism as a journalist, her editorial detachment, the high quality of her writing, her long track record as an authoritative voice on the food scene

all contribute to my respect for her as a journalist. I suppose all I should have said is that learning of her aversion to something I enjoy makes it hard to relate -- not hard to trust -- her reviews.

[bergerka]

As regards Ms. Burros' review, upon reflection I suppose I fall somewhere in the middle. I appreciate her telling the readers straight out what her particular food likes and dislikes are, because it seems to me they definitely affect her perception of this restaurant in particular (unless I am mistaken, a fair number of menu items contain offal. Or fried anchovies, which I'd try, but most likely wouldn't like, because I have only liked anchovies ONCE and that was in the context of a bagna cauda). I do wish, however, she had taken with her a knowledgeable friend who DOES like offal and could speak to the quality of the preparation and the taste with some degree of authority...but I don't really know what falls within the responsibilities of a food editor, and given that I don't presume to speak for what Ms. Burros should or shouldn't do.

And I really wonder about people and offal.  I've tried it all - multiple times.  Sweetbreads are certainly the best in terms of taste.  At the other extreme -   more often than not - when I've been served kidneys - they smell of urine - however faintly.  Robyn

Ah, I see. So because you don't like it, you assumed that anyone who professes to enjoy it must just have something to prove, rather than assuming that different people have different tastes. Put the shoe on the other foot, and imagine I had just called a food you very much enjoy "garbage," if you would...would you be offended? Or would you simply assume I had a different point of view?

Oh well, more offal for me, I suppose.

K

Edited because, er, I thought I probably ought to address the actual topic of the thread while off on my tangent.

Edited February 4, 2004 by bergerka (log)

[robyn]

Kidneys are one of those things that are like sheep flesh.  Veal kidneys are good.  Lamb kidneys are good. Beef kidneys, on the other hand, suck.  (as does mutton) See the Rosa Mexicana thread for a clear description of how terribly they suck... suffice it to say that they suck significantly.

I've had good veal kidneys that are extremely similar to calves' liver, and terrible beef kidneys that smell like a urinal.  Pork kidneys I've left alone.

Well now we know your food prejudices - no mutton. By the way - mutton's not my favorite either - but I got ripped apart for saying that in a discussion of London restaurants. Perhaps there are chefs who have tricks up their sleeves in terms of working with the stuff. Robyn

[robyn]

You've gotta go to some cheap Chinese (perhaps especially Chao Zhou) and Dominican restaurants more often and take note of the Pig Ears, Pigfoot Noodle Soup, Pig Intestine dishes, Tripe with Black Bean Sauce, Mondongo, etc. These items are not expensive in such settings...

I don't think of ears and feet and the like as offal. When I think of offal - I think of organ meats. Technically though - what you're talking about is offal. Robyn

[Daniel]

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.

So you are saying that every chef prepares these dishes exactly the same and there is no variation of dishes from place to place. Doesnt that by definition make a food critic redundant

[Marrow Margin]

I guess I better defend myselfI make no apologies.

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

Jesus. Is this all it takes to lose Anthony "Champion of the Culinary Poison Pen" Bourdain. I say it's time to pull that tail out of those bony little Everclear saturated legs and start slamming some foie banners again. l

[mikeycook]

Personally, I would like to see our dear friend Mr. Bourdain take a shot at the Times critic post. What should be the qualifications of the Times critic anyway?

1. Ability to write (check)

2. Appreciation of many types of cuisine (check)

3. Knowledge of the restaurant industry (check)

4. Willingness to eat anything (check and check)

Am I missing anything (other than the fact he might not want the job)? Obviously he is recognizable, but most times restaurants know who the critic is anyway. Can we start a write-in campaign?

[jogoode]

I guess I better defend myselfI make no apologies.

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

Jesus. Is this all it takes to lose Anthony "Champion of the Culinary Poison Pen" Bourdain. I say it's time to pull that tail out of those bony little Everclear saturated legs and start slamming some foie banners again. l

bourdain responded, couple pages back:

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.

Then he jetted somewhere tropical. For a few weeks, I think.

[bourdain]

"Personally, I would like to see our dear friend Mr. Bourdain take a shot at the Times critic post. What should be the qualifications of the Times critic anyway?"

As I've said elsewhere, I am waay too mobbed up with cronies in the business, owe too many favors, have too many deeply held, publicly stated likes and dislikes to ever be a food critic. And the job sounds like a misery.

But my choice of best candidate for the job?

Amanda Hesser.

Okay. I HATE the Mr. Latte stuff. But:

She's not "bent".

She can write.

She actually knows what she's talking about.

She appreciates the fine works of Fergus Henderson.

All the above distinguish her as far far better a choice than any of the names being bandied about.

That there is apparently a "Mr. Latte" TV series in development is not, I hope, an obstacle. She's a fine writer when she choses to be, seems to handle even odious assignments with only slightly gritted teeth (see recent Jamie Oliver puff pieces), and would do, I think, a very good job.

[Marrow Margin]

Sometimes it's best to bait the snake. welcome back Bourdain.

[oakapple]

The New York Times reports that "Little India" - the stretch of Indian restaurants on 6th Street between 1st & 2nd Avenues - is in decline. Five years ago there were 30 Indian restaurants, and now there are just 19:

Rising costs and changing tastes have left their mark, and the number of customers has fallen by at least 40 percent in the last few years, according to restaurant managers.

[snip]

As Indian restaurants have closed, many non-Indian restaurants have taken their place. Within the past year, East Sixth has welcomed Mara's Homemade (Southern), Zerza (Moroccan), and Mancora (Peruvian), housed in a former deli famous for selling "500 varieties of beer." Boutiques have also arrived, among them Coup de Coeur (women's clothes), Tribal Soundz (musical instruments), and Prime Design & Printing, an Internet cafe.

[alacarte]

How do you write an article about how one "Little India" is languishing, and not mention that there's another flourishing about 20 blocks north? (Lexington and upper 20s)?

[neep]

Could it be, also, that the classic 6th street formula of bad food at cheap prices has become somewhat outdated. Not that I haven't enjoyed my share of meals at Panna (I not II), but the cuisines of the Indian sub continent are, perhaps, not shown at their best on 6th Street, whereas there are some really good places to have various Indian foods in NYC these days.

[Fat Guy]

Reporting on the loss of 11 restaurants and an unsubstantiated claim of 40% fewer diners is hardly enough to establish context or significance within that context.

The one attempt to provide some context appears to be based on no research or a misunderstanding of reality: "True, Bangladeshi and Indian restaurants can now be found throughout the city and in many suburbs, making a special trip to once-novel East Sixth Street unnecessary." Really? In what year was it possible to get Indian food on East 6th but not in Midtown? The article purports to discuss a decline that has occurred over a 5 year period. That takes us back to 1999. Are we seriously expected to believe that 5 years ago Indian cuisine in New York was something exotic that you had to trek to 6th Street to get?

I'd be much more interested in learning why some of the restaurants have survived while others haven't. We already know that tons of restaurants have closed since 9/11.

Most curious is the quoted statement calling the neighborhood "a great part of New York City history." What exactly is the history of that strip of restaurants? It appears to be nothing more than a collection of Bangladeshi-owned restaurants. Do Indians (or Bangladeshis) live there? Are there an abundance of shops, markets, and cultural resources? It would seem all that stuff is in Queens, and to a lesser extent up on Lexington in the 20s.

[slkinsey]

Isn't the observed exodus of cheapo Indian restaurants from 6th Street between 1st and 2nd easily explainable by the fact that the neighborhood has come up significantly in the last decade, and rent rates with it?