Anyone who knows me is aware that I have been a slave to the New York Times for my entire adult life. I start my day reading the headlines, still...even though I know that I can see the same information on line. My day would not be complete without finishing the crossword puzzle (with the exception of Saturday's...that one is just cruel). Wednesday is food day...the day we read about the most unique and trendiest foods and restaurants...I love this section of the paper!
Today's restaurant review deserves a critique of its own...as in, how dare he!! "Serving the Stuff of Privilege" may have been on the mark with the opinions about the food, however, the writer Pete Wells left me feeling deeply offended and angry, which may have been his intent all along.
He states, "My servers were solicitous: Was this course, or that one, or that one prepared to your liking? Was the pacing of the meal satisfactory? Could we interest you in a cheese course? Would you like your espresso with dessert, or after?" Then, "My colleague wasn't asked any of those questions."
My irritation with this situation is two-fold. First, can a critic write a fair review when he is so obviously recognized by the restaurant, and second, can we believe what he writes when he was so taken by the "coddling" attention he received?
The food may have, and indeed probably was extraordinary. We can expect that from Daniel Boulud. Sadly, what Mr. Wells has pointed out to me and many other readers is that if you are not one of the privileged, you might as well take your thousand bucks, because dinner for two with wine, tax and gratuity can come to that, will not be the same experience that our critic had.
Feeling disappointed and somewhat duped by the NY Times restaurant reviews now leaves me with a bad taste in my mouth and the question of whether we can believe that we, "the little people" should bother to spend out hard earned money based on known and again, "coddled" critiques.
Comments