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

[Jinmyo]

Just to be pedantic, here is the link to the article.

[Jinmyo]

By the way, about B&B:

Mr. Bastianich, who is known to appear at each of his six restaurants every night, is spending a lot of time at Casa Mono: at the door, taking coats, serving wine, clearing plates, and in the open kitchen, keeping an eagle eye on the cooks.

Mr. Batali, the contributing chef and partner, is not just watching the cooks but also cooking with them.

That's the way to do it.

They deserve every success.

[KatieLoeb]

From today's New York Times restaurant review of Casa Mono by Marion Burros:

"Even fried anchovies are well prepared, if you like fried anchovies. I am not a fan." 

Okay. Fair enough. But then...

"I will never know how cap i pota fria (the name is catalan dialect for calves head and feet, or headcheese) tastes. Do you really want this on the menu in the age of mad cow?"

Translation:  "EEwww! Scary and gross. I'm not touching it! And it might make me sick! Maybe you shouldn't eat it either (though I don't know cause I ain't putting that in my mouth--ever.)"

NOTE: The dish is one of the best things on the menu--and a cherished--some say signature feature of Batalidom.

"And I am afraid you are on your own when it comes to cockscomb and tripe."

Translation: " Gross! Who would ever want to eat tripe?! That's like guts, right? And cockscomb..That can't be good. Yuk! YOU try it--if you want. Not me--I'm ONLY THE ACTING FOOD CRITIC OF THE FUCKING NEW YORK TIMES!!"

NOTE: Again--one of the best things on the menu--and about as traditional--and representative of both Casa Mono, the chefs' philosophy--and a little place called SPAIN--as one could hope for.

Given her unapologetically stated prejudices,and unwillingness to even TRY important menu elements,  Ms. Burros is reviewing Casa Mono.....WHY?

Hey--It could be worse. They could hire a seriously compromised, immediately recognizable  novelist with minimal food knowledge,a 20 year trail of comped meals in his past--and no culinary background. But that would never happen, right?

I've never been fond of this flavor of "passive-aggressive" reviewing. And it's pretty common, it would seem. Basically boils down to saying "It was good, but it was awful".

Makes it difficult to figure out what point the reviewer is really driving at, unless it's merely their own taste preferences.

It's kind of like asking, "Do you walk to school, or carry your lunch?"

[Pan]

Tony, I think you and the other people who've made critical comments about Burros' review have made good points, but I also think that you may be going overboard, since the review was highly positive, anyway. Or does that not enter into it for any of you? More to the point, does a reviewer have to like everything? Supposing an Australian restaurant opened in New York and served not only kangaroo steaks and so forth but also witchety grubs. If the reviewer declined to eat the witchety grubs, should s/he be fired?

[VeryApe77]

More to the point, does a reviewer have to like everything? Supposing an Australian restaurant opened in New York and served not only kangaroo steaks and so forth but also witchety grubs. If the reviewer declined to eat the witchety grubs, should s/he be fired?

Personally, I don't think a reveiwer has to like everything, but I would expect them to at least be prepared to try everything (within reason, of course).

Cap i pota fria, cockscomb and tripe are all foods with a rich history (as are witchety grubs - I would absolutely expect a food critic to try these if this restaurant existed). If you don't like them, fine, but I feel that if you are going to be paid to write about eating, you should be prepared to give it a go.

Edited January 28, 2004 by VeryApe77 (log)

[adrober]

I had a similar reaction to the review. What if Roger Ebert, when reviewing, say, "The Exorcist" wrote: "As for the pea soup vomit scene, I'm afraid I had the projectionist skip that part. I hate pea soup vomit!"

Call me crazy, but isn't a critic paid to eat the gross things that we don't want to eat? How else would we know if they're worth eating?

[Minou]

Personally, I don't think a reveiwer has to like everything, but I would expect them to at least be prepared to try everything (within reason, of course).

... or at least not squirm about it in print?

[Pan]

I had a similar reaction to the review. What if Roger Ebert, when reviewing, say, "The Exorcist" wrote: "As for the pea soup vomit scene, I'm afraid I had the projectionist skip that part. I hate pea soup vomit!"

Call me crazy, but isn't a critic paid to eat the gross things that we don't want to eat? How else would we know if they're worth eating?

I have to admit you make a good point, and make it very well.

It's just that I was surprised by the strongly negative reactions to Burros' positive review, even if I understand them now that I've read them.

[hathor]

After reading the review...sort of an ordinary, bland, nice review, cannot understand why she would throw in those last two lines.

Both dishes she mentions are traditional dishes, you would certainly expect that she would show respect and just graciously decline to taste them. But it doesn't make sense to blast them just because the ingredients don't appeal to her.

Should be interesting when she shows up for the Q&A

[Kim WB]

First, I think its important to include in a review that these types of food are on the menu. It would not scare e-gulleters, but some people might be put off by it, and if I were one of these people, read the review, went there, I'd be not pleasantly suprised that the menu was so authentic. Plus, for those looking for that kind of authenticity, its also important to know that those selections are on the menu.

I agree with some of the posters here that the way she brought them into the review was a poor reflection on her. 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. In her defense, she used self depricating humor, which is preferred over ignorance. Someone upthread mentioned that if she's a reviewer, she should have to tell us about it so we can know if its any good. I'd rather she tell us its on the menu, but if she's not versed in the item or its preperation, leave out the judgement.

I recall a reviewed not that long ago who complained about the "boring habit of serving fruit sauce with duck and pork"...and proceeded to dis a wonderfully prepared classic pork preperation. Better, if you don't know you're stuff, to acknowledge and move on, IMHO.

Edited January 29, 2004 by Kim WB (log)

[Fat Guy]

Given her unapologetically stated prejudices,and unwillingness to even TRY important menu elements, Ms. Burros is reviewing Casa Mono.....WHY?

Because it's her job. Her bosses at the Times said, "You're going to review restaurants until the compromised inexperienced novelist starts handing out stars like it's the end of the world," and she's making the best of a position she obviously isn't crazy about being in. To some extent she can pick and choose her reviews, but Casa Mono is an important blockbuster restaurant that came up on her watch, and she had to review it.

So, she did her best and decided to note some of her culinary preferences. I don't think a reviewer has an obligation to like everything, or even to try everything. The primary obligation a reviewer has is to write good reviews. Her review isn't compromised by her preferences: she seems to arrive at a logical conclusion and a sensible star rating based on a reasonable sampling of the dishes. Beyond that, it's a well written review.

Obviously, Burros's primary areas of interest are consumer, safety, nutrition, etc., issues. Her major claim to fame as a food writer is that she brought many of these issues to the fore in food writing. The mad cow quip, though I disagree with its basis profoundly, is her way of trying to introduce a global issue into her review. I don't have a problem with that, even though I think she's wrong -- it's a time-honored tradition among reviewers of all kinds to use reviews as platforms for related commentary. As for the general attitude of squeamishness, again I reject it completely but think it's within the legitimate spectrum of opinion.

[victornet]

Actually i wasn't too offended by the way she made these statements - at the end of a positive review. But her reviews this past month have seemed well below the standard (insight-into-foodwise as well as journalism-wise) of Grimes, Reichl, or Bryan Miller for that matter.

While I'm as wary of the ugly rumors as anyone, the Times is sorely in need of someone who is up to the task.

[Fat Guy]

Marian Burros has more insight into food in her pinky than three of William Grimes -- she's a pivotal figure in the history of food writing; can the same be said of Grimes? -- and I fail to see any flaws in her journalistic conduct, which I consider to be impeccable (despite the gratuitous swipe she took at me a few years back!). Sure, she isn't the best person for the restaurant reviewing position. She's not supposed to be. She has an assignment: to bridge the gap between full-time reviewers. Implicit in that assignment, I think, is that she's not supposed to rock the boat or be particularly gregarious. I believe she's succeeding at her job.

[rgruby]

Given her unapologetically stated prejudices,and unwillingness to even TRY important menu elements,  Ms. Burros is reviewing Casa Mono.....WHY?

Because it's her job.

Yeah, but nothing in that job description says "don't review the icky bits".

So, she did her best and decided to note some of her culinary preferences. I don't think a reviewer has an obligation to like everything, or even to try everything. The primary obligation a reviewer has is to write good reviews. Her review isn't compromised by her preferences: she seems to arrive at a logical conclusion and a sensible star rating based on a reasonable sampling of the dishes. Beyond that, it's a well written review.

Well written and good are two entirely different things. I agree, you don't have to try everything. But, an unwillingness to try things, as a food critic, my reaction frankly, is WTF are you doing? You don't have to LIKE everything - but you do have to know how it is supposed to taste (yeah, subjective to a degree) to tell me if the preparation at X resto is up to snuff. To me it's kinda like a chef who refuses to taste their own food - I don't trust them. A resto critic has to taste - or at least be willing to taste - everything. What the f*ck is wrong with cockscombs? Sure, we're not used to eating them. The same could be said for sushi 20 years ago. Whaddabout tongue? Lotsa people think that's icky. (Losers!! - if it's done correctly).

I have not read the impugned review. But I would have thought a reviewer's obligation would be to educate me about the lesser known dishes and specialities of a resto that promotes and specializes in those kind of dishes.

Long story short - of course our history and likes and dislikes will influence us-reviewers or not. But if you are a reviewer, at the end of the day, I want you to be able to say " this rendition of the icky bits of a sheep prepared in a Tuscan style" are better than some other place across town doing the same and Why. (I'm less interested in the why, but if it connects to the flavours on the plate - fill me in!). And to do that, you have to at least taste the dish in question and know how it is supposed to taste. You are NOT required to like the dish. If you're not prepared to do that (taste & compare and contrast with the ideal or original), then I'm not sure what value you provide as a reviewer, other than filling column inches.

As for the general attitude of squeamishness, again I reject it completely but think it's within the legitimate spectrum of opinion.

Obviously, I disagree

Cheers,

Geoff Ruby

PS None of this is to infer Ms. Burros is not an effective resto reviewer. I have not yet read the review. (I'll be back in a couple days). But I do think, if you are a reviewer, you've gotta be willing to not only try it all, but figure out, recognize, and articulate, why resto X's nasty bits done up in a nice cream sauce are better than resto Y's. Otherwise you might as well tell me why the Swiss Chalet down the road is better than the KFC in Columbus. Ok. Sleep now. Sorry if this is incoherent> I hope this thread continues for a while as it raises interesting issues.

A reply to Fatguy's post. We, um, disagree on a few things, I think.

Tiredness overcomes me, but I think this thread touches directly on the question what is/should be the role of the restaurant critic. I hope an intersting dialog develops.

[Fat Guy]

I have not read the impugned review.

I'll be interested to hear your comments once you have read it.

[bourdain]

I should point out that I enjoy Marion Burros' writing--and don't really hold her responsible for what I found offensive about the Casa Mono review. I agree with the general thrust of the review (and the number of stars awarded). And I credit her with being upfront and honest about her likes and dislikes.

My gripe is that when assigning a writer to review a Batali restaurant (an important review, yes?) the first question asked of the potential revewer should have been: "Do you like tripe and head cheese and guts and oily little fishes?" For Chrissakes, this stuff is CENTRAL to Batali's whole world view! He's been New York's principal proponent/advocate of this kind of less-accessible traditional fare. Guts and hooves and ears are a UNIFYING theme in most of his restaurants--and if one single factor distinguishes Batali from othe "celebrity" chefs, it's that he has to an evangelical degree, used that celebrity to seduce/coerce/cajole American diners into eating what was once, for many, unthinkable. When he opened Babbo, Batali, exploiting his celebrity, could very easily have chosen the path of least resistance, given the public what conventional wisdom dictates they "want", and served up overpriced but accessible linguine pommodoro and upscale/expensive versions of familiar fare. Risk free--and more profitable. Instead he chose another, nobler route--and had the balls, instead, to indulge his true passions. To assign a reviewer who is indifferent--or hostile--to both Batali's raison d'etre--and to much of traditional Spanish fare is contemptuous of both the chef--and readers.

The article described a room--without mentioning or describing the 6 ton elephant standing in the center (beyond a mention that it smelled like elephant in there--and that the author didn't particularly think she wanted to encounter any pachyderms).

[Fat Guy]

Point taken, Vic, but two things bear mentioning/repeating: 1) they don't assign different reviewers to different restaurants; that's just not the system and they aren't going to change it for one restaurant; and 2) Mario isn't nearly so evangelical about beaks and feathers as he used to be; I think he's downright Episcopalian about that stuff now -- he offers it, he likes it, but he no longer seems to think you'll go to hell if you won't eat it.

[bourdain]

Point taken, Vic, but two things bear mentioning/repeating: 1) they don't assign different reviewers to different restaurants; that's just not the system and they aren't going to change it for one restaurant; and 2) Mario isn't nearly so evangelical about beaks and feathers as he used to be; I think he's downright Episcopalian about that stuff now -- he offers it, he likes it, but he no longer seems to think you'll go to hell if you won't eat it.

Uh...Fat Guy. I see no diminuition of Mario's zeal for this kind of stuff. If anything I see an increase. At Mono, he personally pushes the hoof and guts route to customers--insisting that they try the boudin and tripe... and cockscombs . His next place is called the freaking Spotted Pig for Chrissakes--and he mentions (frequently) the St John influence/example. His mania for charcuterie--and homemade head cheese at no less-than 3 of his restaurants (and the Wine and Cheese joint) is fervent and vigorous. Cheeks and meat-from-the-head are constant features and he was serving BRAIN-crusted lamb-chops at LUPA on a recent visit.. I don't see any kind of shrinking away from the theme. It's always been a balance--as risky a one as he feels he can get away with. The priorities, I think, have stayed the same--if not gained in momentum. Who ELSE in NYC would be a better poster boy for offal? Even at Les Halles-with a large French clientele,and all my prostheletizing we can't move anywhere near as much guts and snouts as he does..

See also his cover blurb for the new edition of NOSE TO TAIL. It says something along the lines that eating at St John made him want to burn Babbo to the ground and start over. (He will be hosting an event for Fergus in March in support of both book, author and shared philosophy)

[slkinsey]

...he was serving BRAIN-crusted lamb-chops at LUPA on a recent visit...

Did you have them? That's something I could never resist. Sounds awesome.

[bourdain]

Yes.

Mmmmmm.....brains....

[slkinsey]

It would be fun sometime to do a "fifth quarter" tour of NYC food. Figure out all the places with outstanding guts on the menu.

[Fat Guy]

Uh...Fat Guy. I see no diminuition of Mario's zeal for this kind of stuff. If anything I see an increase.

If that lazy fuck ever comes through with an eGullet Q&A I'll ask him my damn self. Until then, I'll have to take your word for it.

[MiguelCardoso]

This may be extreme, but I cannot respect a critic who doesn't appreciate the value of fried anchovies, whether fresh or preserved. What's not to love about fried anchovies? They are similar to sardines or horse mackerel. Anchovies have been part of Mediterranean cooking for thousands of years. It's part of the old Roman "garum", Italian, Spanish, Portuguese and Provençal cooking (dissolving salted anchovies in olive oil is an integral part of too many elemental dishes to mention), not to mention the even more ancient Asian cuisines, in innumerable fish sauces or even English Worcestershire sauce, anchovy essence or what have you.

For me (I'm Portuguese) it's almost like not appreciating black pepper. I'm hoping she expressed herself too vehemently as I can't really believe it's true. I'm glad we'll have a chance to clear this up in the forthcoming Q&A. But I have to say I fear the worst.

Not liking anchovies is just not on! ;)

[Pan]

This may be extreme, but I cannot respect a critic who doesn't appreciate the value of fried anchovies, whether fresh or preserved.

I don't think that's an extreme position. If you don't respect such critics, you don't respect them. Besides, you expressed your viewpoint eloquently.

[Fat Guy]

What's not to love about fried anchovies? They are similar to sardines or horse mackerel.

There are two ways to read that!