Bruni and Beyond: NYC Reviewing (2006)

[Sneakeater]

People DEFINITELY griped about Honmura An getting three stars. (It's still one of my favorite places, but I see their point.) Ruth Reichl was constantly criticized for what her critics viewed as her overrating Asian places. Bryan Miller caused a stir by going public with that criticism, in fact.

I think someone pointed out in some thread here that there WAS a Chinese four-star back in the day (Claiborne or Sheraton). I can't remember what it was.

[Sneakeater]

SEARCH RESULTS:

Shun Lee Dynasty, certainly.

Did Uncle Tai's have four stars?

[Nathan]

well, obviously, the star system survived.

[rich]

well, obviously, the star system survived.

←

Too bad.

[Sneakeater]

well, obviously, the star system survived.

←

Too bad.

←

Ditto.

[Sneakeater]

well, obviously, the star system survived.

←

Yeah, but, to be fair, Shun Lee Dynasty was a very different kind of restaurant from Sweet & Tasty.

[Nathan]

true. I imagine that massively overpriced mediocre Cantonese with snooty waitstaff and suburban Greek-diner style plush decor is quite a bit different than Spicy and Tasty.

Edited November 29, 2006 by Nathan (log)

[oakapple]

well, obviously, the star system survived.

←

Too bad.

←

Ditto.

←

This argument always comes down to the unproven assertion that the stars confuse people, even though the purportedly confused people don't really exist. In fact, the system has survived for the very good reason that this thread illustrates: the ratings provoke interest and discussion, which is a boon to everyone concerned. Edited November 29, 2006 by oakapple (log)

[Sneakeater]

true. I imagine that massively overpriced mediocre Cantonese with snooty waitstaff and suburban Greek-diner style plush decor  is quite a bit different than Spicy and Tasty.

←

Actually, in its hayday Shun Lee (reputedly) served superb up-to-the-minute Sechuan (before that region's cusine became a cliche) with top-notch ingredients.

Edited November 29, 2006 by Sneakeater (log)

[Nathan]

ah. I'm only conversant with the modern Shun Lee. I found myself very confused as to why I was paying these prices for corner takeout food. but then, I was also the youngest person in the room by 30 years.

agree with oakapple's last post by the way.

[Sneakeater]

Ya know, when I go to LCB Brasserie, I'm usually the youngest person in the room by 30 years (except for whomever I'm taking) -- and I still think the food is kind of great.

Edited November 29, 2006 by Sneakeater (log)

[rich]

well, obviously, the star system survived.

←

Too bad.

←

Ditto.

←

This argument always comes down to the unproven assertion that the stars confuse people, even though the purportedly confused people don't really exist. In fact, the system has survived for the very good reason that this thread illustrates: the ratings provoke interest and discussion, which is a boon to everyone concerned.

←

I agree Marc, that the stars provoke interest and discussion (at least among the foodies like us), all we need to do is note how many looks and posts this thread has received.

But I always thought the primary purpose of the star system was an attempt to intelligently rank restaurants for the general public through a specific criteria. By that measure, I don't think it's successful as it currently exists.

If I'm wrong and it's primary purpose was to evoke debate and commentary among the foodies, then yes, I think it's overwhemingly successful.

Edited November 29, 2006 by rich (log)

[rich]

Ya know, when I go to LCB Brasserie, I'm usually the youngest person in the room by 50 years (except for whomever I'm taking) -- and I still think the food is kind of great.

←

How many 120 year olds go out to dinner?

[Sneakeater]

I'll say this once more:

The Times doesn't "star" movies.

The Times doesn't "star" theatrical productions.

The Times doesn't "star" concerts and operas.

The Times doesn't "star" dance performances.

The Times doesn't "star" books.

Out of all the things it reviews -- and note that most of the above-mentioned things are recurring events, not one-offs -- the only class the Times "stars" is restaurants.

I'm sure the star system started as an attempt to ape (or to be more charitable, adapt) the Michelin system. I still think it's a reductive consumer-oriented obstacle to any kind of serious criticism. Serious criticism -- unlike "reviews" -- doesn't have stars. Maybe reviews are all the Times aspires to for restaurants. But I don't see why food should be treated as something less worthy of serious appraisal than performing arts. And I don't see why people who read boards like this should support this kind of insulting second-class treatment.

Edited November 29, 2006 by Sneakeater (log)

[rich]

But I don't see why food should be treated as something less worthy of serious appraisal than performing arts.  And I don't see why people who read boards like this should support this kind of insulting second-class treatment.

←

Absolutely.

I'm canceling my Times subscription until all the stars are eliminated. I'll even print up "extinguish the stars" flyers.

Edited November 29, 2006 by rich (log)

[Sneakeater]

Ya know, when I go to LCB Brasserie, I'm usually the youngest person in the room by 50 years (except for whomever I'm taking) -- and I still think the food is kind of great.

←

How many 120 year olds go out to dinner?

←

Typo. I corrected it to "30". At least at LCB, PLENTY of 80 year olds go out.

[Sneakeater]

NOTE TO EATER:

What's so fucking funny about this thread?

[Nathan]

hee. the problem with Shun Lee isn't the average age of the room. it's the fact that clearly everyone in the room hasn't eaten Chinese anywhere else in the last 50 years.

[Nathan]

I am amused how everytime a mainstream restaurant critic uses the word "chowhounds" people on chowhound.com assume it's a hat tip to them.

the word predates the web forum by 50 years.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/chowhound

and I don't think Bruni needs to peruse the web to find out about Sri or S&T.

Edited November 29, 2006 by Nathan (log)

[Sneakeater]

I do think, though, that when that term is now used, it does have a reference to a particular kind of recreational eating typified by that board.

No one talks about "chowhounds" looking forward to the next iteration of ADNY.

Edited November 29, 2006 by Sneakeater (log)

[Nathan]

the type of eating -- agreed.

as a reference to chowhound.com TM -- not necessarily. it still exists in common parlance independent of the site and general media references to "chowhounds" are just that.

[oakapple]

I do think, though, that when that term is now used, it does have a reference to a particular kind of recreational eating typified by that board.

No one talks about "chowhounds" looking forward to the next iteration of ADNY.

←

SE has it right. Jim Leff may not have invented the word, but in modern parlance it almost always refers to that type of diner.

[oakapple]

NOTE TO EATER:

What's so fucking funny about this thread?

←

Eater likes to laugh at our obsessions, although, to be fair, he has some himself.

[Pan]

I'm not sure that, in principle, there's anything wrong with giving them ten stars. The issue isn't principle, it's the comprehensibility of the system. If the Times wants to define the two-star category to include dives that serve excellent food, more power to them. The problem arises when people expect -- based on long experience -- two stars from the Times to mean one thing but then learn that it means something else.

←

How brightly-lit does it have to be, and how much expensive, classy decor does a place need before you refrain from calling it a "dive"? This is NOT Great NY Noodletown!

Edited November 29, 2006 by Pan (log)

[Fat Guy]

A few points in no particular order:

- Bryan Miller's letter about Ruth Reichl, quoted in Salon, said "How do you think she comes off giving SoHo noodle shops 2 and 3 stars? She has destroyed the system that Craig, Mimi and I upheld."

- As far as I know there's no budgetary constraint that would prevent three reviews, because there already are three reviews: the main review, "$25 and Under," and "Diner's Journal," every week. In addition, there are pieces like Ed Levine's category roundups, which would pretty easily fit into a middle tier review product.

- The confused diner is no straw man; he or she is just not involved here for obvious reasons. And the confusion actually transcends the star system. Unless you're totally explicit about it, masses of people assume that any restaurant being written about in a serious, full-length, featured review is going to be a "nice" restaurant -- and they send you hate mail when they show up at the place and it's a "dive." I have dozens if not hundreds of email messages like this from when I used to write weekly reviews; I'm sure any recent New York Times reviewer has thousands -- Ruth Reichl probably has enough to sink an aircraft carrier. By segregating the reviews into categories, the Times could avoid this problem -- indeed I believe that's part of the reason "$25 and Under" came into being.

- The four-star Chinese restaurants of old offered four-star amenities.