The New York Times reviews Locol?


Exactly. And it has I am sure. Just as taking a deuce on the well-known nuclear waste site known as Guy Fieri’s American Bar & Grill did. But what a profoundly useless endeavor. I waste time on this site. Wells wastes his time for a living.


seems a little harsh. he’s got bills to pay, etc.


I see both sides of this. Is LocoL fair game? Absolutely. If you’re going to be in the restaurant industry, you’re fair game.

On the other side, Wells’ review of ABG shows that he’s looking at low-hanging fruit to sell newspapers. I would venture to guess that most people who care enough to read his reviews probably wouldn’t go out of their way to dine at ABG in the first place, but it makes for an entertaining read and sells papers.

Yeah, but reviews like this make him seem a bit like an ambulance chaser, IMNSHO.

At the end of the day: was the review necessary? No. Did Wells have every right to write it? You betcha. Ambulance chasers gotta eat, too.


Perhaps you’re right. He wastes his time with some of his columns.


i really don’t understand the analogy between writing for a newspaper and being an “ambulance chaser.”

and edit:
i don’t think it’s appropriate for anyone other than pete wells and his employers to say whether or not he’s wasting his time.
you don’t like what he writes, i get it.
but to call it a waste of HIS time; i don’t think that’s for you (or i, or anyone) to say.


I never said it was a waste of time, nor did I say I didn’t like it. I said he has every right to write it, and I found his review of ABG entertaining enough, I guess.

As far as the ambulance chasing analogy, I see both as making a lesser effort to make a living.

Writing a bad review of and taking (warranted) shots at ABG is easier than writing a review on a better restaurant of which people have different opinions (I doubt that there was much argument among his readership that ABG is garbage). Just like chasing ambulances is probably an easier way of getting clients than building a legitimate reputation.


yes, don’t read it if you don’t like it. he’ll still be in a job for now.

and it’s a job. many of our jobs or careers are a waste of time, no ?

he might have seen it as a thrill: go to Oakland, write on Locol, and visit few other restaurants when it town. for a future Oakland review. but i don’t know.


Now I think you are the one overstepping a bit.

First, just to be precise, I don’t mind what he writes, generally. I do question what he chooses to write about on occasion.

Second, I can certainly say I think his efforts in many of his reviews are a waste of time. I did walk back my harsh statement because I think you were right to say that was going too far. However, I’m entitled to the position that he wastes his time and effort with these types of reviews. He, of course, is entitled to show me his fatter bank account. If LocoL is fair game to be criticized because it is a for-profit restaurant, Wells’ writing and choices are fair game to be criticized because it is for a for-profit newspaper. And I do hold the NYT editorial staff to blame, too. Just a crappy pitch/assignment to begin with.

I will say I’m appreciative of the civil disagreement that can happen on these boards. I really enjoy reading through everyone’s perspectives.


Wells’s review of Guy Fieri’s place was hilarious.

Jonathan Gold’s 101 list blurb about Locol gave me no sense of the food.


I agree with both statements.


If someone paid you what he’s being paid to go to fancy dinners, you wouldn’t be tempted?

I thought most people’s fondest wish was to find a way to make living while doing whatever the hell you want. Sounds like he just won.


Maybe. Jonathan Gold seems to have that same type of job and he’s never indulged in those kinds of pieces. I think a lot of people in the field of criticism avoid negative reviews that are not really needed by their readership.
I agree, it’s a plum job, though.


I would


Also, we’ve seen Jonathan Gold’s pictures and he looks to be the jolly fellow. I don’t think he has a mean spirited bone within him, which is a good thing. He’s like a low-key Huell Howerino at times.


And now i’d like to try Locol.

I just wish he want to the original one in Watts.

And reviewed that location.

  1. i was combining two responses in one post. sorry for the confusion.
  2. i completely disagree with your analogy still. what’s “easier” to write
    is the writer’s decision, not the reader’s.


So is the attorney’s decision on how to build a practice. The attorney decides which is easier; chasing ambulances, or doing something else.


No worries on combining replies.

I’m not looking to get into it on the analogy. If you disagree, that’s fine. Feel free to disregard it.


i don’t dispute you are entitled to criticise wells’ writing as you see fit. i DO dispute
your entitlement, so to speak, to say he’s wasting HIS time.
you can say he’s wasting YOUR time, and i can respect that.
politely,civilly, however, i do not think you can judge whether or not he’s wasting HIS time. his
time is his own.

i guess if i’m picking nits, you can say if he’s trying to convince you of something, or writing something
for you you’re not interested in, then, indeed, he would be wasting his time – with YOU.
but, one more time, i can’t get behind YOU saying he’s wasting HIS time writing something.

a quick edit:
i don’t mean to imply you CAN’T say something. i’m not trying to impinge your free speech rights in this case.


yeah, but, you don’t get to say what’s easier for someone else, do you? that doesn’t
seem right to me.

i mean, if we’re judging jobs by this criteria, ambulance chasing/newspaper writing/coal mining/goalkeeper
for real madrid/ ne other job are all the same.

also, let’s not forget, not everyone chooses a job/assignment on how “easy” it is.

at the end of the day, (correct me if i’m misinterpreting you here. i don’t mean to) you think
writing a negative review of a certain kind of restaurant is like ambulance chasing.
i don’t, and, respectfully, politely, you haven’t convinced me to change my mind.
it’s just…an opinion, one you are certainly entitled to. i just don’t get it, and that’s fine.


Fair enough. Agree to disagree. Part of what I like about this board is that it encourages people to think. As long as it’s done respectfully (which you have), I have no problem with people disagreeing with me. It makes the world a more interesting place.