Bruni and Beyond: NYC Reviewing (2007)

[oakapple]

all true.

so how does this make Bruni's review of Ssam Bar a "polemic" against formal dining?

Well, I'm not sure what you mean. You said "all true," so apparently I've convinced you that Bruni isn't favorably disposed to traditional "luxury" dining, and that hostility was on display in the Ssam review.

The Ssam review wasn't written primarily to launch an assault on fine dining. He started that assault the day he arrived, and this was merely the latest installment. What's noteworthy is that those comments were totally unnecessary. It's possible to write a glowing review of Ssam Bar without denigrating other categories of restaurants; others have done it.

The trouble is that high-end restaurants are a big part of his job; indeed, the main part of it. I'm sure there is a whole category of diners for whom Ssam Bar is as close to "fine dining" as they ever get, or want to get. But those diners shouldn't be the principal restaurant critic of the New York Times.

edit: of course, Bruni has never referred to Daniel as "stratospherically priced"...so there's a strawman component to your post.  indeed, he might very well refer to it as "fairly-priced" if asked.

←

Bruni referred to a whole category of restaurants, not one in particular. If Daniel isn't in that category, I don't know what is. I simply chose Daniel as an example, because he has commented on it before.

I am guessing he didn't mean "bad, overpriced restaurants." To say that Ssam Bar is better than The Russian Tea Room or Ninja would be a fairly empty statement.

Edited February 26, 2007 by oakapple (log)

[H. du Bois]

They're just tryin' to be friendly

So come and watch them sing and play

Cuz they're the young generation

And they've got something to say.

[Nathan]

all true.

so how does this make Bruni's review of Ssam Bar a "polemic" against formal dining?

Well, I'm not sure what you mean. You said "all true," so apparently I've convinced you that Bruni isn't favorably disposed to traditional "luxury" dining, and that hostility was on display in the Ssam review.

The Ssam review wasn't written primarily to launch an assault on fine dining. He started that assault the day he arrived, and this was merely the latest installment. What's noteworthy is that those comments were totally unnecessary. It's possible to write a glowing review of Ssam Bar without denigrating other categories of restaurants; others have done it.

The trouble is that high-end restaurants are a big part of his job; indeed, the main part of it. I'm sure there is a whole category of diners for whom Ssam Bar is as close to "fine dining" as they ever get, or want to get. But those diners shouldn't be the principal restaurant critic of the New York Times.

edit: of course, Bruni has never referred to Daniel as "stratospherically priced"...so there's a strawman component to your post.  indeed, he might very well refer to it as "fairly-priced" if asked.

←

Bruni referred to a whole category of restaurants, not one in particular. If Daniel isn't in that category, I don't know what is. I simply chose Daniel as an example, because he has commented on it before.

I am guessing he didn't mean "bad, overpriced restaurants." To say that Ssam Bar is better than The Russian Tea Room or Ninja would be a fairly empty statement.

←

Funny...I thought that mediocre, overly formal, overpriced restaurants is exactly what he meant.

That Bruni is hostile to some formal restaurants is manifestly true (just as he is to some "casual" restaurants....i.e. Freeman's). Nowhere have you produced any evidence that he is opposed to formal or "luxury" restaurants as a category. You keep inserting words into his mouth. The fact that Bruni thinks that some restaurants are "stuffy" or "stratospherically overpriced" is obvious...nowhere has he said that all luxe establishments are so...indeed, he obviously does not think so since he has given some of them four stars. I'd rather work with the facts on the page, not some analysis of Bruni's psyche.

Please produce evident that Bruni was referring to the entire category of formal or luxe restaurants. You made the claim. Back it.

Edited February 26, 2007 by Nathan (log)

[Nathan]

The Ssam review wasn't written primarily to launch an assault on fine dining. He started that assault the day he arrived, and this was merely the latest installment. What's noteworthy is that those comments were totally unnecessary. It's possible to write a glowing review of Ssam Bar without denigrating other categories of restaurants; others have done it.

The only category mentioned was "stuffy" and "overpriced"...without specific examples...a category which is prima facie worth denigrating. I do find it interesting that you automatically assumed that Daniel fit in this category. Personally, I was thinking Cafe des Artistes.

Anyway, I'm gathering from the above that you are withdrawing your characterization of Bruni's review as a "polemic"

[Sneakeater]

You have to admit that giving three stars to The Bar Room at The Modern but only two stars to The Modern raises some flags.

It seems self-evident to me that Bruni is a tough grader for "haute" restaurants and an easy grader for casual restaurants. In that context, it seems easy to read the language under discussion in the Ssam review as an attack (of some sort) on fine dining.

It doesn't bother me as much as others.

Edited February 26, 2007 by Sneakeater (log)

[oakapple]

Funny...I thought that mediocre, overly formal, overpriced restaurants is exactly what he meant.

Bruni would have to be an idiot to say that. While I disagree with his taste on some matters, I think he chooses his words carefully. To say that a good casual restaurant is better than a bad formal one is an empty statement, and Bruni doesn't waste words.

Remember, he cast this in light of a supposed "new generation" of diners. Could he be saying that past generations were happy with mediocre formal restaurants? I don't think so.

indeed, he obviously does not think so since he has given some of them four stars.

←

As I said before, he has to give four stars to somebody.

When he reviewed Per Se, do you know what finally persuaded him to award four stars? It was the vegetable tasting — probably Per Se's least often ordered menu option.

He also called Per Se "preening" and "peacock-vain." And he complained of "moments too intent on culinary adventure or too highfalutin in its presentation and descriptions of dishes." Where, exactly, would "culinary adventure" and "highfalutin" presentation be appropriate — indeed expected — if not here?

[Nathan]

put differently, of course Bruni prefers casual dining. he's in touch with the contemporary zeitgeist in that respect. I don't see the problem (his culinary acumen is a separate issue).

but the fact of the matter is that he has handed out four and three stars to a number of haute, luxury restaurants. it's not like he gave four stars to Ssam Bar and two to Per Se. (you might be able to make the argument that he is more demanding of luxe establishments than casual ones -- which I think is true and even defensible on value grounds -- but that's not the argument you've been making.)

but you haven't produced evidence that he has a blanket antipathy to formal dining. Bruni said that there is a category of diners who don't like stuffy and overpriced restaurants. nowhere does he say that all formal restaurants are stuffy and overpriced.

[Nathan]

You have to admit that giving three stars to The Bar Room at The Modern but only two stars to The Modern raises some flags.

It seems self-evident to me that Bruni is a tough grader for "haute" restaurants and an easy grader for casual restaurants.  In that context, it seems easy to read the language under discussion in the Ssam review as an attack (of some sort) on fine dining.

It doesn't bother me as much as others.

←

of course, I know of some pretty experienced (and not necessarily young) diners who prefer the Bar Room to The Modern proper. people have been saying the same thing about the Tavern Room at GT for years.

I agree with your grading comment...see above.

Edited February 26, 2007 by Nathan (log)

[Nathan]

Remember, he cast this in light of a supposed "new generation" of diners. Could he be saying that past generations were happy with mediocre formal restaurants? I don't think so.

He also called Per Se "preening" and "peacock-vain." And he complained of "moments too intent on culinary adventure or too highfalutin in its presentation and descriptions of dishes." Where, exactly, would "culinary adventure" and "highfalutin" presentation be appropriate — indeed expected — if not here?

←

1. I don't know if he was saying that...if he was, I think he's absolutely right. The current 20-40 generation of foodies is probably the most knowledgeable and demanding one in history. Considering what we're exposed to how could we not be? (that there are individuals with amazing lifelong stores of culinary knowledge is obvious -- think Wells or Richman.)

2. Your criticism of Bruni's Per Se remarks is valid. Of course, it also runs counter to your general argument. The interesting thing about Bruni is that his culinary tastes (with the exception of Asian cuisines) are fundamentally conservative. He didn't get Alinea or Gilt and didn't like the more avant garde aspects of Per Se. (I do think that a lot of people find those menu descriptions to be too precious.)

[rich]

If the stars are ignored and the reviews stand on merit, then this conversation is moot.

I know Marc, you think the stars are important because it's a way to rank things (and we as a society like to rank - just look at basketball and football polls). But at this stage of the game (2007) do we really need anyone to tell us this place gets three, the one down the block is two and the one around the corner is 2 3/4?

It's all so subjective. Write the review, let the people read it and enjoy the food. What more does anyone really need? The theater isn't ranked by stars, it just creates them. Let restaurants do the same.

Edited February 26, 2007 by rich (log)

[Nathan]

[When he reviewed Per Se, do you know what finally persuaded him to award four stars? It was the vegetable tasting — probably Per Se's least often ordered menu option.

I recall the review perfectly well. What Bruni said was essentially that Keller's and Benno's ability to somehow make even a vegetarian menu great was the truest demonstration of his skill. Indeed, Chang couldn't do that!

[Nathan]

If the stars are ignored and the reviews stand on merit, then this conversation is moot.

I know Marc, you think the stars are important because it's a way to rank things (and we as a society like to rank - just look at basketball and football polls). But at this stage of the game (2007) do we really need anyone to tell us this place gets three, the one down the block is two and the one around the corner is 2 3/4?

It's all so subjective. Write the review, let the people read it and enjoy the food. What more does anyone really need? The theater isn't ranked by stars, they just create them. Let restaurants do the same.

←

I'm all for dumping the stars and following the same format as the other Times' reviews. A written review and the addition or non-addition of a "Critic's pick" signifier.

[Sneakeater]

If the stars are ignored and the reviews stand on merit, then this conversation is moot.

I know Marc, you think the stars are important because it's a way to rank things (and we as a society like to rank - just look at basketball and football polls). But at this stage of the game (2007) do we really need anyone to tell us this place gets three, the one down the block is two and the one around the corner is 2 3/4?

It's all so subjective. Write the review, let the people read it and enjoy the food. What more does anyone really need? The theater isn't ranked by stars, they just create them. Let restaurants do the same.

←

I have to say "DITTO" or some such to this only because rich and I have to support each other on this quixotic quest.

Edited February 26, 2007 by Sneakeater (log)

[Fat Guy]

I don't think Bruni was aggressively condemning fine dining in that review. I think he probably thinks he likes fine dining well enough.

The problem is that having Bruni as the fine dining critic is like hiring an opera critic who prefers Broadway musicals -- and then letting that person review Broadway musicals and talk about how much better the young people like them than opera. I mean, operas are so long, they require an understanding of a foreign language, they're very complex and usually heavy, and all those fat people in costumes acting badly -- sheesh, of course Broadway shows are better. Such a person, with a little training, could certainly identify better and worse operas and offer some appropriate praise for the better ones. But it would be empty.

I don't disagree with Bruni about the trend. I don't even disagree that fine dining is in retreat. I just think he isn't well suited to the job he has, because he doesn't have an appreciation (and hasn't been able to develop one) for the subject area in which he's really supposed to be writing.

[oakapple]

put differently, of course Bruni prefers casual dining.  he's in touch with the contemporary zeitgeist in that respect.  I don't see the problem (his culinary acumen is a separate issue). 

I am not convinced that that zeitgeist even exists. But let's suppose for argument's sake that it does.

There is, nevertheless, a pretty healthy market for traditional luxury restaurants. You don't want a critic who visits those restaurants merely as a duty, while really preferring to be somewhere else.

but the fact of the matter is that he has handed out four and three stars to a number of haute, luxury restaurants.

←

Here's a statistic for you: How many three or four-star ratings has Bruni awarded to "traditional" non-Italian luxury restaurants that opened in NYC after he took the job? Answer: exactly one: Country.

He has done a fairly good job of recognizing new-paradigm restaurants such as BLT Fish, Perry St., L'Atelier, Bar Room, and so forth. I don't have a fundamental problem with those ratings, except that they're practically the only thing he recognizes, unless it's Italian.

but you haven't produced evidence that he has a blanket antipathy to formal dining.

Finding Bruni quotes like the ones I've given is like shooting fish in a barrel. I've already shown you three; I could find 10 more. But if the first 3 didn't persuade you, the other 10 won't either. When this type of criticism takes such a prominent place in his oeuvre, it's hard to believe he's not trying to make a point.

Your criticism of Bruni's Per Se remarks is valid. Of course, it also runs counter to your general argument.

My general argument is that, even when he awards three or four stars to such a restaurant, he doesn't accept it on its own terms. He adds things like "vain," "preening," "highfalutin," etc. — all adjectives one wouldn't normally use to describe an enjoyable experience. Edited February 26, 2007 by oakapple (log)

[Nathan]

Here's a statistic for you: How many three or four-star ratings has Bruni awarded to "traditional" non-Italian luxury restaurants that opened in NYC after he took the job? Answer: exactly one: Country.

lol...based upon the restaurants that you're excluding from that definition (Robuchon, Per Se, Masa, Perry Street) as well as your arbitrary exclusion of completely revamped existing restaurants (Picholine, Eleven Madison Park)...it's clear that only three "traditional" non-Italian luxury restaurants have opened during Bruni's tenure: Country, Russian Tea Room and Gordon Ramsay. (you don't get to exclude the foregoing and then not also exclude Gilt and The Modern.) so he's batting 33%. so you're proving what exactly? a sample has to have more than three members to have statistical significance you know....and it's not like the Russian Tea Room really counts.

Edited February 26, 2007 by Nathan (log)

[oakapple]

Here's a statistic for you: How many three or four-star ratings has Bruni awarded to "traditional" non-Italian luxury restaurants that opened in NYC after he took the job? Answer: exactly one: Country.

lol...based upon the restaurants that you're excluding from that definition (Robuchon, Per Se, Masa, Perry Street) as well as your arbitrary exclusion of completely revamped existing restaurants (Picholine, Eleven Madison Park)...it's clear that only three "traditional" non-Italian luxury restaurants have opened during Bruni's tenure: Country, Russian Tea Room and Gordon Ramsay. (you don't get to exclude the foregoing and then not also exclude Gilt and The Modern.) so he's batting 33%. so you're proving what exactly? a sample has to have more than three members to have statistical significance you know....and it's not like the Russian Tea Room really counts.

←

Okay, I thought it was obvious, so I'll explain it in more detail. In the first place, Masa and Per Se opened before he took the job. Eleven Madison Park wasn't "totally revamped"; they just changed the chef. Picholine re-decorated, while the chef stayed the same.

Bruni's ratings of previously existing restaurants are of course valid. But any re-review is necessarily a reaction to previous opinion. Whether it's a promotion (The Red Cat, Eleven Madison Park), a demotion (Bouley, Vong), or a re-affirmation (Picholine, Jean Georges), you are explaining why the restaurant is better than, worse than, or as good as it was before. Reacting to a previously existing rating is different than evaluating a restaurant de novo, with no previous benchmark to refer to.

As I mentioned upthread, I have no methdological objection to the ratings given Perry St. or L'Atelier Joel Robuchon. However, they happen to be exemplars of the fairly casual approach that Bruni clearly prefers.

As far as I can count, the traditional non-Italian luxury restaurants that opened during his tenure are: Gordon Ramsay, Country, The Modern, Gilt, Le Cirque, Russian Tea Room, V Steakhouse. By "traditional luxury," I am referring to the style of service — in his words, stuffy, highfalutin, effete — not the cuisine. Only one of these got three stars.

There have been three new Italian or Italian-inspired luxury restaurants during the same period: Alto, Del Posto, and Cru. Two of them got 3 stars.

[Nathan]

Okay, I thought it was obvious, so I'll explain it in more detail. In the first place, Masa and Per Se opened before he took the job. Eleven Madison Park wasn't "totally revamped"; they just changed the chef. Picholine re-decorated, while the chef stayed the same.

Bruni's ratings of previously existing restaurants are of course valid. But any re-review is necessarily a reaction to previous opinion. Whether it's a promotion (The Red Cat, Eleven Madison Park), a demotion (Bouley, Vong), or a re-affirmation (Picholine, Jean Georges), you are explaining why the restaurant is better than, worse than, or as good as it was before. Reacting to a previously existing rating is different than evaluating a restaurant de novo, with no previous benchmark to refer to.

As I mentioned upthread,  I have no methdological objection to the ratings given Perry St. or L'Atelier Joel Robuchon. However, they happen to be exemplars of the fairly casual approach that Bruni clearly prefers.

As far as I can count, the traditional non-Italian luxury restaurants that opened during his tenure are: Gordon Ramsay, Country, The Modern, Gilt, Le Cirque, Russian Tea Room, V Steakhouse. By "traditional luxury," I am referring to the style of service — in his words, stuffy, highfalutin, effete — not the cuisine. Only one of these got three stars.

There have been three new Italian or Italian-inspired luxury restaurants during the same period: Alto, Del Posto, and Cru. Two of them got 3 stars.

←

Your definitions are obvious only to you.

1. what the heck does the fact that Per Se opened before he took the job have to do with anything. he still reviewed Per Se de novo (which apparently is the only review that counts in your book)...

2. on what planet is Gilt a traditional luxury restaurant while Robuchon and Per Se are not? there was nothing traditional about Gilt besides the cost. I don't see your case for The Modern either. As for a fricking steakhouse? that doesn't even pass the smell test. Le Cirque? Um, your own criteria excluded pre-existing and pre-reviewed restaurants.

(oh wait, I see, you want to stick to fancy server-wear...well, actually, a lot more places have opened that fit that definition...begin with Philippe and Frederick's and go from there...heck, maybe Wolfgang's for all I know)

Eleven Madison Park merely changed chefs? um, wtf? seriously. I'd say that a restaurant that changes chefs and serves different food, entirely different food, might well be considered a new restaurant. but maybe that's just the planet I'm on. but I'll tell you what, take Le Cirque off your list and I'll take EMP off mine. sounds even to me.

finally, Cru is Italian inspired? I'd say that it's more Bouley inspired than anything else. so I don't get that exclusion.

of course, it's more likely that the place you meant to say was A Voce. but since you brought it up...add Cru to Country, RTR and GR. in that case, Bruni has given half of those restaurants three stars.

Edited February 26, 2007 by Nathan (log)

[oakapple]

Your definitions are obvious only to you.

However you define it, Bruni clearly just doesn't get a kick out of that kind of restaurant. As FG said, it's like having a guy review opera who really prefers musicals.

1.  what the heck does the fact that Per Se opened before he took the job have to do with anything.  he still reviewed Per Se de novo (which apparently is the only review that counts in your book)...

I drew the line with restaurants that opened after he started. It really doesn't matter if we shift the line. Bruni declared Per Se "preening," "vain," "highfalutin" (none of those being compliments) before bestowing four stars.

2.  on what planet is Gilt a traditional luxury restaurant while Robuchon and Per Se are not?  there was nothing traditional about Gilt besides the cost.  I don't see your case for The Modern either.  As for a fricking steakhouse?  that doesn't even pass the smell test.  Le Cirque?  Um, your own criteria excluded pre-existing and pre-reviewed restaurants.

Bruni's bias is against restaurants that offer traditional luxury service: white tablecloths, fine china and stemware, formal service brigades, knowlegeable sommeliers, etc. Practically every review of such restaurants, even when he does award 3 or 4 stars, evinces hostility to the format.

I don't really care how you classify Le Cirque. It opened during his tenure, but was a clone of a restaurant that had previously existed. The Russian Tea Room could be classified the same way, if you want.

Whether you liked V Steakhouse or not — and, by the way, I did not — it was quite obviously an attempt to do a 3-star version of a steakhouse, not merely to replicate the Sparks/Keens/Wolfgang's format.

Eleven Madison Park merely changed chefs?

Many restaurants change chefs. All I observed was that a re-review, by its nature, is a reaction (favorably or unfavorably) to a presumed level previously established by others.

finally, Cru is Italian inspired?

←

Per Bruni himself in the Cru review: "Tilting heavily toward Italy, nodding slightly toward Spain...." Edited February 26, 2007 by oakapple (log)

[Nathan]

Bruni is biased against knowledgeable sommeliers?

[robyn]

Let's face it - people who earn millions of dollars a year (whether they're 30 or 50 or 70) - and there are a lot of them in New York -  aren't going to wait in line for an hour for anything.

←

I disagree with pretty much 100% of your post, but perhaps most with this statement. Perhaps you don't deal with any young, wealthy New Yorkers, but I do all the time, and I can assure you that your personal preferences, no matter how strongly held, don't neatly project on to them as a group. Sure, some wealthy people are too impatient to wait for a table -- some poor people are too impatient too. But plenty of millionaires are are just fine with it. We're not talking about standing on line with a black hood and handcuffs on. If you go to Upstairs you can wait in the market or downstairs. You can have a cocktail while you wait. You can talk to the people you came with, or you can flirt with other waiting customers. You can conduct business on your Treo. You can send one person ahead to get on the waiting list and the rest of the group can show up later on. At a lot of places where they make you wait for tables, they'll even take your cell number and call you, so you can go to a nearby bar and hang out. Not to mention, most places have informal ways for regulars to make fake reservations, in other words they'll put you at the front of the line. And even if you wait 30-45 minutes for a table at one of these places you're still in and out in less time than at a fine-dining restaurant. I assure you, there are plenty of millionaires dining at Upstairs. I know one who ate there two days ago -- and she's in her fifties. Plus, plenty of people wait half an hour for tables at fine-dining restaurants where they have reservations -- it happens all the time. People wait.

←

A millionaire - they're a dime a dozen these days - is quite a bit different than the investment banker who's making $5 million a year. I would believe that a person like that had a "fake reservation" - but not that that person would wait on line for an hour under any circumstances. BTW - under the category of "fake reservations" - do you also get situations where the right amount of money in the right hands will take you "to the head of the line"? That seems to work in various restaurants in various parts of the world. Whatever - I'm sure that there is an updated version of "Fully Committed" lurking there.

For those of you unfamiliar with Fully Committed - it was an off Broadway show about reservations and seating in a very popular restaurant - doesn't sound like much meat for a show - but it was hilarious. Robyn

[Sneakeater]

Believe me, a lot of the younger of those i-banker types are waiting. (I don't think there's too much explicit buying your way to the front, BTW.)

[Sneakeater]

Do you think i-bankers don't wait to get into movies?

Edited February 26, 2007 by Sneakeater (log)

[Nathan]

Let's face it - people who earn millions of dollars a year (whether they're 30 or 50 or 70) - and there are a lot of them in New York -  aren't going to wait in line for an hour for anything.

←

I disagree with pretty much 100% of your post, but perhaps most with this statement. Perhaps you don't deal with any young, wealthy New Yorkers, but I do all the time, and I can assure you that your personal preferences, no matter how strongly held, don't neatly project on to them as a group. Sure, some wealthy people are too impatient to wait for a table -- some poor people are too impatient too. But plenty of millionaires are are just fine with it. We're not talking about standing on line with a black hood and handcuffs on. If you go to Upstairs you can wait in the market or downstairs. You can have a cocktail while you wait. You can talk to the people you came with, or you can flirt with other waiting customers. You can conduct business on your Treo. You can send one person ahead to get on the waiting list and the rest of the group can show up later on. At a lot of places where they make you wait for tables, they'll even take your cell number and call you, so you can go to a nearby bar and hang out. Not to mention, most places have informal ways for regulars to make fake reservations, in other words they'll put you at the front of the line. And even if you wait 30-45 minutes for a table at one of these places you're still in and out in less time than at a fine-dining restaurant. I assure you, there are plenty of millionaires dining at Upstairs. I know one who ate there two days ago -- and she's in her fifties. Plus, plenty of people wait half an hour for tables at fine-dining restaurants where they have reservations -- it happens all the time. People wait.

←

A millionaire - they're a dime a dozen these days - is quite a bit different than the investment banker who's making $5 million a year. I would believe that a person like that had a "fake reservation" - but not that that person would wait on line for an hour under any circumstances. BTW - under the category of "fake reservations" - do you also get situations where the right amount of money in the right hands will take you "to the head of the line"? That seems to work in various restaurants in various parts of the world. Whatever - I'm sure that there is an updated version of "Fully Committed" lurking there.

For those of you unfamiliar with Fully Committed - it was an off Broadway show about reservations and seating in a very popular restaurant - doesn't sound like much meat for a show - but it was hilarious. Robyn

←

with all due respect, you have no clue what you're talking about. young i-bankers is exactly what I know...and some of them are waiting for two hours for a table at Little Owl like anyone else (and no amount of money will ever get you to jump the line there...they have too much integrity for that)....or even lining up at Tartine with a bottle of wine just like anyone else.

frankly, I don't think you understand downtown Manhattan at all.

edit: btw, having lived in South Florida, I completely agree that no one making 5 million there would ever wait in line anywhere...but then most people there make L.A. denizens look substantive and cerebral.

Edited February 26, 2007 by Nathan (log)

[robyn]

with all due respect, you have no clue what you're talking about.  young i-bankers is exactly what I know...and some of them are waiting for two hours for a table at Little Owl like anyone else (and no amount of money will ever get you to jump the line there...they have too much integrity for that)....or even lining up at Tartine with a bottle of wine just like anyone else.

frankly, I don't think you understand downtown Manhattan at all.

edit: btw, having lived in South Florida, I completely agree that no one making 5 million there would ever wait in line anywhere...but then most people there make L.A. denizens look substantive and cerebral.

←

Little Owl - Graydon Carter - integrity. What is this - a test of which words don't belong in the group ? You can insult south Florida all you want - I don't live there these days. Haven't for over a decade. (Although I do respect some of the business people I met there during the years I lived there - for reasons having nothing to do with their dining habits - others - of course - were idiots.) As for downtown New York - it got a lot less interesting to me when the artists I knew there made more money on their real estate than they had ever made on their art and moved elsewhere.

FWIW - I guess these same people are the ones fighting over beach and pool chairs at fancy resort hotels (along the lines of the article in this weekend's WSJ). Nathan - I don't mean this as an ad hominem remark - but simply as a question. Don't expect an answer. Just think about it. When you get a little older - and have your lots of money - is this the way you want to live - waiting on line to get into the new hot place and fighting for a chaise near the pool? I personally don't think this is a civilized way to live - or dine. Don't think it now - didn't when I was 25 (when there was a hot disco I wanted to go to when I was 25 - I always figured out who to "grease" to get in - I was never one to wait behind a "velvet rope"). These days - well - if my reservation isn't enough - I'm not willing to go further. It is food for thought.

BTW - what do you think of Frank Bruni's attitudes toward restaurants insofar as they are affected by his friends - his "social crowd" - the people he hangs out with when he dines. Do you think that affects his POV? I do. Combine his friends - and the relatively traditional dining experiences he probably had during his years in Italy - and well - that's what makes Frank Bruni the kind of restaurant "critic" he is. Robyn