I have a one sided feud with Ezra Klein as it relates to food (see here and here and here and here) which can be summed up with the observation that I think he understands nothing about food or cooking or agriculture or anything at all related to eating. Underneath it all, I suspect it is my jealousy that his (I'm sure deserved) platform in political writing lets him babble nonsensically about food.
Anyway, the latest episode is here, wherein I comment on Klein's ridiculous "review" of Per Se.
-----------
I think people’s problem with this review is not that Per Se can’t be criticized or that it can’t have an off night or whatever. Of course, a $275 meal is to be held to the highest standards, and you are free to dislike a Per Se meal.
The problem with this review is that its criticisms aren’t particularly credible. Sentences like the following, for example, do not build confidence: “My cheese course came with cold potatoes and haricot verts that tasted like something you pick up at Whole Foods and bring to a picnic”.
Well, no. There may well have been something to criticize about that dish, but that the garnishes tasted like something from Whole Foods is probably not it. It is no good to say in response that that’s how it tasted *to you*. If so, then you are either wrong, or someone had snuck me into Per Se to cook that night.
Or how about this sentence: “One of my tablemates complained that my dessert tasted like a car air freshener (I didn’t think it quite that bad — but I thought it bad)”. Again – really? That’s just not a plausible description of a Per Se dessert. It’s like someone writing that cutting taxing (sic) always produces more tax revenue and then being puzzled when people disagree.
5/21/2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Except that whether cutting tax rates produces increased revenue is somewhat empirically and objectively observable ("all else being held equal," of course).
It sounds like Ezra should have saved some of this food to be passed around to Per Se lovers so they could explain how he was missing its awesomeness.
I will agree, however, that the air freshener comment didn't belong in a review; his tablemate was clearly trying to be snarky and was not making a serious comment. It's also unclear what Ezra means by "bad" -- not good enough for what it cost, or actively made him want to spit it back out? His review to me fails less because it is inherently incredible, and more because it's not very well written for allowing someone to assess exactly how the meal went. I think he should avoid adjectives and try 1-10 scales instead. Then he can keep the "for $275..." concern on the single metric of Value for Money instead of getting it muddled into everything else.
Post a Comment