HOME > Chowhound > Los Angeles Area >
What's your latest food quest?
TELL US

LA Weekly's 99 Essential Restaurants 2013

r
RicRios Mar 1, 2013 08:27 AM

http://www.laweekly.com/2013-02-28/ea...

To me, the epitome of, shall I say, literary douchebaggery in a food-related article are these lines in the Gjelina chapter:

"Among the flowers and leaves and rays of dappled sunlight shining down on the bricks and tables and beautiful people (waiters and customers both)..."

  1. Upload a photo (10 MB limit)
Delete
  1. J.L. Mar 1, 2013 10:59 AM

    Literary douchebaggery, indeed.

    1. n
      ns1 Mar 1, 2013 11:14 AM

      Written with the literary genius of a 13 year old with access to google.

      1. westsidegal Mar 1, 2013 06:26 PM

        thanks for the warning.
        will not read any of the article.
        can't stand that kind of "writing."

        1 Reply
        1. re: westsidegal
          a
          a213b Mar 1, 2013 06:43 PM

          Ugh ... "purple prose".

          Barf.

        2. c
          chrishei Mar 1, 2013 08:40 PM

          To be fair, this list does have its positives. For one, there isn't the need for J. Gold to carry over some of his dated favorites from when the list was first conceived, year-to-year. Also, not the biggest fan of B. Rodell's either so far, but it's not just her contributing. There were a few inspired additions, with the excerpts written by others.

          1. raytamsgv Mar 4, 2013 09:17 AM

            It has some interesting choices, but there isn't much depth or reasoning in the writing.

            1. Servorg Mar 4, 2013 09:21 AM

              I get the impression that folks are holding this compilation of thumbnail sketches to a much higher literary standard than it ought to be..and I thought the choices of restaurants was pretty darn good and well selected in terms of interesting food and general ambiance.

              12 Replies
              1. re: Servorg
                m
                maudies5 Mar 4, 2013 09:28 AM

                +1

                1. re: Servorg
                  Porthos Mar 4, 2013 10:03 AM

                  I agree. Silly prose aside, it's a good list.

                  Only glaring omission is Mori for sushi but otherwise solid list.

                  1. re: Porthos
                    ipsedixit Mar 4, 2013 10:59 AM

                    I think there are more glaring ADmissions than omissions.

                    Savoy? Really? I'm not sure how Hainan Chicken rice is essential to LA, and if it is, why Savoy would be the flag-bearer.

                    Chung King ... I think there are Sichuan restaurants out there that have done laps around this place since Gold first reviewed it some 10+ years ago.

                    Places like Oinkster, Lucques, Jar, LIttle Dom's, etc. are head scratchers. All fine establishments, but not necessarily noteworthy in any respect.

                    1. re: ipsedixit
                      Porthos Mar 4, 2013 11:38 AM

                      Like you've said before, Quint/essential is very different from what is best in LA now or most food worthy.

                      For example, I agree with you regarding Lucques but I can understand it's place from a historical perspective.

                      1. re: ipsedixit
                        e
                        Ernie Mar 4, 2013 11:56 AM

                        Where do you find Hainan chicken rice better than Savoy?

                        1. re: Ernie
                          n
                          ns1 Mar 4, 2013 12:01 PM

                          Why is hainan chicken essential LA?

                          1. re: ns1
                            e
                            Ernie Mar 4, 2013 12:02 PM

                            Ask LA Weekly

                          2. re: Ernie
                            ipsedixit Mar 4, 2013 07:21 PM

                            If you want to stay in the SGV, then down the street at Dong Nguyen. Nha Trang is pretty good too but Dong Nguyen is better.

                        2. re: Porthos
                          c
                          carter Mar 4, 2013 09:01 PM

                          Do you truly feel that Canele, Chung king, Eva, Fred 62, Little Dom's, Pink's, Playa and Tavern belong on this list?
                          Lucques is 10 times better than Tavern, yet another poster felt it not worthy of the list at all.
                          Playa closes Wed. 3/6/13.
                          This list is a sham, and still remains the remnants of the "friends of J. Gold era".

                          1. re: carter
                            ipsedixit Mar 4, 2013 09:05 PM

                            I will defend Pink's.

                            Regardless of what you think of the food, it is part of the celebrity fabric of Los Angeles that makes the city a unique culinary destination.

                            1. re: ipsedixit
                              b
                              bulavinaka Mar 4, 2013 09:34 PM

                              I think you nailed it - not only for Pink's - but for the general intentions of the list, relative to their "essentialness." Chowhounds rightfully judge the merits of places based mostly on their deliciousness. QPR might play into this as well. But this is a narrower perspective IMHO that parallels the list's intentions. For lists like these by J. Gold, or whoever is at the helm of the food column for the LA Weekly at any given time, other factors - not Chowcentric - are often in play as to why a place is considered essential to her or him personally.

                            2. re: carter
                              Porthos Mar 4, 2013 09:47 PM

                              Do you truly feel that Canele, Chung king, Eva, Fred 62, Little Dom's, Pink's, Playa and Tavern belong on this list?
                              =====================
                              Nope.

                              Except Pink's from a historical perspective.

                              The entire list isn't a sham. There are at least as many good selections as there are bad probably more good. Maybe even 66:33 good:bad. It's a good list. Not great or the best but pretty good.

                        Show Hidden Posts