This is adorable. Also obnoxious, condescending, silly—and thoroughly New York. Several Times food critics slummed it up by going to national, big-box restaurant chains in the suburbs to see how the people live and if an Awesome Blossom measures up to the duck confit at Le Bernardin.
Déjà Vu Dining
The whole endeavor reeks of snobbery—that these connoisseurs would deign to eat at Chili’s and Olive Garden, which of course they don’t do in their real lives. Still, this deconstruction of middle-class eateries as if they are exotic is somewhat amusing.
The motif seems to be “nice surprise” that the food is edible, or that interesting microbrews are available, or that other customers (plebeians) are not total morons. One reviewer mentions that the interior of Red Lobster is “unexpectedly sophisticated.” And while one critiques the “much-handled, rather sticky menus,” another sums up the experience for all of them: “I expected the service and food to be terrible. They were not.”
Only one reviewer went so far as to make some not-so-subtly classist remarks about the diners’ “cholesterol-imperiled hearts” and their being dressed “in their best jeans and T-shirts.” Another put forth that “one does not need to know the difference between Bondi Beach and Beulah Bondi”—as, ostensibly, a city sophisticate would—to understand that Outback Steakhouse has an Australian theme. Oh, well, how generous of you. Most of the reviewers, though, are polite enough to focus solely on the food, which they are shocked to find not all that bad and sometimes even pretty good.
Yet there’s no getting away from the larger conceit. Says one critic, “I can see why people who like knowing exactly what to expect enjoy going to Applebee’s.” Read: people who aren’t as worldly and urbane as Manhattanites, poor things.
The whole endeavor reeks of snobbery—that these connoisseurs would deign to eat at Chili’s and Olive Garden, which of course they don’t do in their real lives. Still, this deconstruction of middle-class eateries as if they are exotic is somewhat amusing.
The motif seems to be “nice surprise” that the food is edible, or that interesting microbrews are available, or that other customers (plebeians) are not total morons. One reviewer mentions that the interior of Red Lobster is “unexpectedly sophisticated.” And while one critiques the “much-handled, rather sticky menus,” another sums up the experience for all of them: “I expected the service and food to be terrible. They were not.”
Only one reviewer went so far as to make some not-so-subtly classist remarks about the diners’ “cholesterol-imperiled hearts” and their being dressed “in their best jeans and T-shirts.” Another put forth that “one does not need to know the difference between Bondi Beach and Beulah Bondi”—as, ostensibly, a city sophisticate would—to understand that Outback Steakhouse has an Australian theme. Oh, well, how generous of you. Most of the reviewers, though, are polite enough to focus solely on the food, which they are shocked to find not all that bad and sometimes even pretty good.
Yet there’s no getting away from the larger conceit. Says one critic, “I can see why people who like knowing exactly what to expect enjoy going to Applebee’s.” Read: people who aren’t as worldly and urbane as Manhattanites, poor things.
17 comments:
People like that pretty much piss me off. I personally know people who would never lower themselves to eat at a chain restaurant. First of all in many places including where I live, there are not many other options.
I had dinner at Red Lobster for the first time in years just a week or two ago, and it was great. Good food and a delicious, huge, tropical rum cocktail.
Yes I also eat at "cool" restaurants in Portland when I am in town, but there is nothing wrong with either.
I am a very casual guy and refuse to go anywhere to eat that has a dress code or anything approaching it.
Making yourself feel superior by bragging about where you eat or where you don't is just lame. Also, paying extra to eat just to be "sophisticated" is laughable and ridiculous.
Eat, enjoy, live, and leave the hoity-toity aspirations for someone more insecure.
Thanks for bringing this up Carolyn.
Truth is, I crave a heaping plate of enchiladas from Chevy's once in a while. And while I also enjoy eating at (for example) a nice boutique Thai restaurant, that's not something I crave. Only the chain restaurants get my salivary glands pumping before I even smell the food. Maybe it's because they focus on cooking instead of flattering the customers.
I will say that I've had a massive hankering for Red Lobster for about four years now. The only one in the city is in Times Square and mobbed by tourists. But someday-- someday!--I will wait the 65 minutes and get to partake of yummy cheese biscuits and shrimp-stuffed lobster tail. Mmm...
People like that are sad, and inevitably, they miss so much of the good stuff in the real world.
I agree, Valerie. There's something wrong with people who take pride in having tasted every kind of pricey and exotic food under the sun, but who don't know what it's like to visit an Olive Garden. And they look down at other people for being inexperienced!
I'm sorry. I mostly fall into the snobby category that you all appear to hate so much.
That's not to say I haven't eaten corporate food--I have, and obviously, some of it's okay: I enjoy Arby's and Popeye's.
Actually, Portland has a local fast-food chain that's pretty cool called Burgerville. It's cheap and has drive-thoughs like regular fast food, but it's local, and has special offerings depending on what's in season locally. They always use Tillamook cheese, for example.
But cooking is a big passion for me, so if I'm going to go out to eat, I want it to be BETTER and more thrilling than something I would make at home. And I just enjoy it more when I know that they used fresh, local ingredients as much as possible, and took lots of time, care, and effort in the preparation, rather than just defrosting something that was shipped in from Kansas and dumping it in a deep fryer.
I signed up for Community Supported Agriculture delivery recently, and it's so much fun: I know that everything they send is grown in the northwest, and it helps to support small farms and the local economy, rather than big national companies.
Here are a couple of terms that make me cringe, "foodie" and "nosh".
See, now you're not talking about food, Laura. You're talking about lifestyle, economics, earth friendliness, and morality. The critics at the New York Times are also distracted by issues other than food: ambiance, service, chef's pedigree, and media buzz. So they describe the food at chain restaurants where millions of American eat every day as "surprisingly decent," because they had already ruled out anything that didn't conform to their idea of what food should be. If we're talking about food, how can you dismiss 90% of what people eat before it reaches your tongue? I support your politics, but I can't eat them. At least, not exclusively.
I can see why people who like knowing exactly what to expect enjoy going to Applebee’s.
This was at the end of the very last review, and even though I read Carolyn's commentary first, this line is what stuck in my craw. These writers eat food for a living, which means they clearly care about it. It's an absolute certainty that each of them has a favorite restaurant--where they go to eat, in part, because they like knowing exactly what to expect.
Yay, fun debate!
The thing is, I have food “snob” tendencies, too, if that means appreciating a well-crafted meal made with quality, seasonal ingredients. I used to work for an artisanal bakery selling $9 brioche at farmers’ markets. To anyone who balked at our prices I’d have to explain that we were using the most clear, savory butter from a small dairy our head baker had found in Western Mass. And that our jams cost $6 for a small jar because the apricots were a rare, especially sweet variety called Blenheim that only a handful of farmers are able to grow. The ingredients cost more money, the labor costs more money, hence the product does. But it’s worth it. And no, we don’t have our blueberry-lime muffins right now because it’s June and blueberries aren’t in season until late July.
I would be more of a locavore if I could afford it. I love to cook meals that have exotic flavors or that appear gourmet. I seek out tiny, cheap ethnic restaurants and enjoy epicurean adventure. Yet I see myself as a person in the middle. I resent large chains for their part in the homogenization of American consumer culture and taste. At the same time I understand that they present an affordable, family-friendly option for people who just want a comfortable, fun dinner out, and I don’t look down on them for doing so. My problem with the New York Times story is that they bring an unnecessary condescension to the issue. The very basis is that Times readers find these chains to be beneath them. Which they do. But if that’s the case, then why even bother to write a story about them? Let the middle classes alone to enjoy their restaurants and you can enjoy yours and you can avoid an article like this that only serves to reinforce stereotypes on both sides.
Brian, I see what you're getting at, but I think food [and dining out] really does deal with more than just what you put in your mouth: it's sort of an all-encompassing sensual and mental experience. Tasting something made by a transplant from Syria or Bosnia or wherever gives you not only a taste of their food, but also a little taste of their culture and lifestyle. It's sort of like travelling. And, for example, there's an upscale Thai restaurant here in Portland called Siam Society (I think the NYT has written it up), that honestly, in my opinion is decent, but not great foodwise, at least compared to the little mom and pop shops, but I like going there occasionally as the atmosphere is super cool, and excellent for dates. It's in an old powerstation that's been converted. So yeah, there's lots of factors at play: sometimes you want great food and don't care about ambiance, sometimes you want ambiance and the food comes in second. Obviously, the ideal would be to have everything perfect. And having it locally sourced makes your brain and heart happy.
Tonight, for example, I'm going out for Tapas with a bunch of friends, and the place is perfect: fun atmosphere, great food, within walking distance of my apartment, and the owners are actually Spanish. I always feel completely happy and satisfied in all ways. (Sorry, long-winded.)
Carolyn, I totally agree with and commend everything you said in your most recent comment. I think I'm really going to have to read that article now....
So this is why there is no new post today...
Ha! Eric, no post yet because I'm busy changing every pseudo-Spanish name in a manuscript to an actual Spanish name in each instance. Fun fun fun.
For crying out loud! Food is just food. It is fuel for getting you through the day. Quit all the foolishness about what it all means in the cosmic sense and just eat something without over thinking things.
It's okay--our generation has nothing better to do than overintellectualize everything. :)
Like Steven, I get annoyed at snobbery about chain restaurants--it happened just last week, in fact! I didn't say anything, as much as I wanted to. It's like the clothing snobbery at the beginning of the mass production era ("Oh. My. God. You're wearing clothing off the rack???")
But while I've had a few bad experiences at the chain restaurants, I've had an equal number of bad experiences at so-called "haute cuisine" restaurants. Just because people pay higher prices for "ambience" doesn't necessarily mean they'll get better food. For example, Memphis barbeque is some of the best in the country, yet I challenge anyone to find a Memphis barbeque restaurant with a dress code.
Like the Macy's 4th of July fireworks show or the lighting of the Christmas tree in Rockefeller Center, I might try a haute cuisine place once, just to say I've been there--sometimes I'm even "pleasantly surprised."
Post a Comment