s. irene whatever
- kevin May 16, 2001 10:18 PM
what is with the restaurant critic for the LA Times, either she's reviewing restaurants in Las Vegas or as far as NYC, last time I checked these 2 cities were not included as part of the greater Los Angeles county area. Also, she writes pointless articles on what she finds to be annoying restaurant service. am i completely wrong in saying she doesn't follow the job description. and who finds her articles at all useful.
Don't be so tough on her, she is getting better. Last week she reviewed a restaurant in Montecito. That is much closer to LA than New York or Las Vegas. Seriously, we do need a change of food critic. How many times do we have to hear that Truffle Oil ruined a dish or that a dessert was cloying. Maybe Angela Pettera would be up to the job. She is also a bit snooty now that I think of it. She was the only person at The Times that I have e-mailed that never responded. I have e-mailed many people at the paper who have all been very gracious and helpful.
I am experiencing a bit of deja vu today what with the Lily's review below and this thought on LA Times food critic. You might want to check a thread from a few weeks back re-la times food critic. I share your opinion that the times could use a more chowhoundish reviewer.
Personally, I enjoy her reviews. I like the fact she occasionally writes reviews of restaurants in other cities that people from LA could visit. I don't think it's too much to assume Angelenos might go to Vegas, for instance. And I tend to find her reviews quite fair. I particularly like her First Impressions column in the Thursday Calendar section.
Food mecca ten years ago and WHAT now?
Hey, the food hasn't gotten any worse. The focus has shifted, that's all. People are going gaga over Vegas because they FINALLY have some good restaurants; most of which are arms of other established culinary outposts, nothing which has been built from nothing, like out here.
And London, too. Same thing. And San Francisco, which has much less going for it then L.A., foodwise.
Los Angeles is still very much a mecca. If such a thing exists outside of religion.
I brought this topic up a while ago and I'm in complete agreement. Didn't she also write an article a few years back on her excursion to Italy?
If you're going to be a food critic for Los Angeles, please stay in L.A.
I confess I haven't read her reviews lately; they don't hold a candle to when Ruth Reichl wrote the reviews at the LA Times.
But, I don't think it is so wrong to write about places outside the L.A. area, especially if she is writing about places that Angelenos go to often, such as Vegas, San Fran, San Diego, Santa Barbara - all popular weekend destinations. She can give her readers the scoop on what's new in these places, which can be as useful as reviewing the latest over-priced fusion restaurant.
As long as most articles are on the L.A. scene, I see no problem with venturing afield, as long as she writes about places that L.A. folks might reasonably get to. (i.e. St. Louis or Hartford restaurants are not relevant to most readers) After all, most Angelenos are no more likely to eat in Patina, Chinois or Chadwick than they are to try the hot restaurants in other cities.
I don't think the restaurant reviewers job description limits them to just reviewing local establishments. This is the core of their job, but need not be all that they write about. Whether the reviews she does write are interesting or well written is another debate.