I haven't ranted about the TIMES critics in months, so it's time. Today's reviews both stymied me. To keep it short, when a food critic writes something as outright snobby as "Mama [DiSpirito's] meatballs, juicy and mildly spiced, are about as good as meatballs can get, which is not saying a lot . . ." I see red, and I don't mean red sauce. As I once pointed out, Grimes once wrote, in a review of Tamarind, "Indian food needs all the help it can get"--thus dismissing the cuisine of an entire continent. He really should stick to wine and spirits, where he excelled.
On the same page, Asimov showed his new snooty side as well. "I am not actually partial to burritos." Then why write about them OR Chipotle, for God's sake?
I remember a day when TIMES critics conveyed a real lust for food. The anemic, supercilious tone these guys have honed is not, in my considered opinion, appropriate to restaurant reviewing in the TIMES.