Mon Dieu! All those stereotypically bored and jaded old-timers loaded with dough but devoid of sound bites – c’est affreux! Sounds like Pete might be more comfortable handling the $25 And Under column, where he wouldn’t have to rub up against these offensive rich people who can afford to eat in the restaurants that get the primary reviews in the New York Times. Don’t bother wondering about the food itself – it’s geared to this clientele and therefore only deserving a tasteless one star. “Like the work of the best Upper East Side caterers, most of the cooking at Crown is agreeably dull, with occasional pockets of excellence amid some patches of unalloyed boredom.” Sniff
It’s interesting how racism, disabled-ism, sexism, and genderism are all verboten by the old Gray Lady while ageism, lookism , snobbism and moneyism are perfectly acceptable. I wonder whether Plain Pete has commented on the clientele at younger venues with the same snarky observations. Does he note the affectations of fashion, body piercing, tattoos, breast implants, hair transplants and botox injections so prevalent in the under- 40 crowd of affluent diners? Does it disturb him to eat among the omnipresent blue-nailed, Loboutin shoed, long-haired young ‘uns of Tribeca, Soho and the East Village?
In a previous review of Wong , a $$$ (pricey) Asian restaurant on Cornelia Street, there was nary a morsel of any personal attributes or detriments of the eaters – just raves about the Asian food though the restaurant earned just one measly star more than Crown. Ironically,
photographs accompanying both of these reviews revealed attractive diners who looked interchangeable with each other.
In Pete’s former life before the Times, he worked at Details – a men’s magazine devoted to fashion and lifestyle. Dwelling in the realms of two of journalism’s most fey and least consequential topics, Pete understandably learned how to sharpen his bitchiness towards all acceptable targets of limousine liberals. As a denizen of the upper east side, a neighborhood with a greater distribution of middle class residents than anywhere below 14th street, I take exception to Plain Pete’s gratuitous ad hominem insults directed at patrons who are irrelevant to the skill of the chef, the output of the restaurant’s kitchen and the quality of its service.
Though the Times itself has continued on its downward spiral of biting the hand that feeds it, it should strive not to become a bottom feeder. Pete’s review is an example of a passive-aggressive tantrum suggesting that just as critics try to go undercover, perhaps they should be blindfolded while they are eating.
