NY Times Dining

I enjoy the NYT dining guide, more so for its recipes (check out this week's article and yummy recipes on garlic) than for its restaurant reviews. Why, you might be asking. Who am I to attack the Einsteins of food critics? And before I put my foot in my mouth, I will even admit to thinking of taking a class taught by the esteemed Alan Richman at the French Culinary Institute in the city. This aside, an article this week caught my eye, written by Frank Bruni, and I forced myself to get through it so I could write about it...

I often find myself struggling to finish NYT restaurant reviews and I'm a literate college graduate who loves to read! But seriously, do these authors get paid by the word? I understand there's art behind the madness, and their writing can be whimsical and beautiful, but should the prose to a restaurant piece outweigh and overshadow the restaurant itself and its food?

"But the presentation winds up seeming less theatrical than practical, less like an aquarium of incipient deliciousness than an unadorned aquatic larder, even a floating gallows."

This was one clip from an article on two Chinese restaurants. I understand the practical bit versus the theatrical bit, but is the rest really necessary? Please dear food critic, tell me about the atmosphere, tell me about the food, and tell me about the service, the good the bad the ugly, in plain English, and without a plethora of SAT words. I realize the Times caters to its audience of those who live in intellectual-ville (I'm still in hooville), but is it necessary to describe a restaurant while making the reader feel lingually-challenged at the same time? I read these reviews and constantly feel like I'm being talked down to.

"Chinese has been trading up, ditching its often matter-of-fact trappings ...."

I will end my rant here. Please share your thoughts.