When discussing this play, you need to be cautious not to imply that it's an accurate depiction of autism. Mark Haddon admits to knowing nothing about the condition, and many autistics hate his story for spreading misleading stereotypes about it. The best thing I've ever read on this situation was a review written by Elizabeth Bartmess for the blog Disability in the Kidlit. You can find other autistic opinions at goo.gl/6Z3Xzf, which I swear isn't a press release, or at least not a professionally written one.
First comment sounds like Crawford wrote it.
Best ending should have been:
Aurora got really hurt by projectile (in movie it hit her arm). It should have done massive damage to body causing fatal bleeding.
Jim hurt by that plasma going through the tunnel but he is ok.
Aurora saves him like she did but after catching him and pulling him close to her, goes unconscious due to blood loss. She is near death.
Jim carries her to healing chamber. Puts her inside. Computer informs 100% chance to save Aurora.
Camera should be on Jim's face before he presses O.K. button to start healing.
His face expression should be like he discovered something ( the option to put Aurora to sleep). His eye become a little watery, we hear beep to start the procedure. The screen goes dark.
She wakes up, image is blurry. She sees a man(looks like Jim), she smiles. Vision clears. The man in front of her is not Jim. Her smile disappears. She cries. Jim is long gone
I'd keep an eye on the Facebook page and expect to see events there as they finish reshuffling, but if they come out with a new website, we'll update.
sorry i missed these events. how do I find out about future ones? Web link is dead. FB/Twitter links appear dormant.
The critic sounds like a self-absorbed adolescent. Why would she publish a non-review? Only to prove that a chef doesn't respect her opinion? Or is it an attention getting piece? Seems unprofessional. Maybe after 10,000 hours of training she will be a better reviewer.
I easily believe Crawford would. There's a lot of ego needed to achieve the self-aggrandizement required at those levels. Those various awards are all about it. Bragging rights brings bucks. Let's not pretend this isn't a straight-up capitalist system here: that kind of talk is what bosses do to their employees to get them to buy into loyalty that won't ever be returned.
but i'm not gonna lie, that incessant trailer gets me every time... smh.
Also, Crawford's letter posted on his site is spot on. Too many bums want to write about food but have no qualifications to do so. These aren't the seasoned vets who did these reviews professionally and did their homework, these are bloggers who want to be a big fish in a small pond.
It's quite possible that all the hit pieces Grayson Currin did on behalf of the Indy is what will do you in when it comes to reviewing places in the future. It is Crawford's right to decline your seating, you weren't there just to eat like other guests. Buck up already.
Cheers to Scott Crawford! Food reviews in general are out of control and have lost their way as a means to give any inkling of what the restaurant is actually like.
Thanks to @JK 2 for the links. After reading the original article and his response to this one, it's pretty clear why it went down this way. He objected to her previous review and didn't want to subject himself to it again. Whether or not he has a right to do that, or if it was in poor taste to do so, is up to the opinion of the readers.
Let us hope the restaurant isn't as poorly conceived as this ill-fated "review". The reviewer here is more melodramatic than a kitchen full of Anthony Bourdains on drugs, but with far less eloquence.
I spent some time looking into this and decided to share some insight since most of the comments seem to be based only on the Indy spin and really only part of the story. As it turns out, the whole theme of the article is just silly, attention grabbing BS. The writer knew exactly why Crawford chose not to be reviewed by her. You see, Crawford sent a very professional letter to her editor long before this article was written explaining his choice. The readers and commenters have been a bit duped here. After reading comments on other forums and social media, it appears Crawford is not the only chef in the area food scene questioning the writers qualifications. He is just the only one to say "no thank you". Although, I have a feeling she will hear that much more often going forward.
Now lets get real for a minute on some of these comments. I saw things like "flash in the pan, mediocre, lazy, food fraud etc. It would seem that some 1 post wonders might have a vendetta here? Does anyone actually believe that those are words that describe a chef with a 20 plus year career, three mobil 5 star achievements, four James Beard nominations and hundreds of articles and accolades? Someone with an axe to grind also made the irresponsible and inaccurate statement that Crawford doesn't care about the community. Guess what folks, while that commenter was busy being a keyboard crusader, Crawford spent his time prepping for a charity event that he is involved in tomorrow. Yep, the same weekend that some anonymous poster called him names, he donated his time, resources and day off to his community. I'm all for reading different opinions but uninformed comments are irresponsible and the name calling comments are clearly personal, opportunistic and ridiculous.
Lets set the record straight, yes I know Chef Crawford and yes I am probably biased, but I do know the real scoop. Crawford is a successful business owner in your community who busted his butt to open his own restaurant, he is an amazing leader and mentor with an incredible team he considers family, he is a culinary artist who cares more about food than any of us will ever understand and he spent 20 years of dedication to building his brand. He has certainly earned the right to say "no thank you" to a food reviewer with questionable tenure from a publication that he doesn't trust to be responsible. In the end Indy just proved him right. They ran a sensationalized victim story with half the facts and allowed irresponsible commenters to go unchecked and unchallenged.
Guy comes across as a bit of a coward to me. If your confident in your skills why would afraid to show them off. If this person gave him a less than flattering review at his previous spot that should be incentive to do better not turn your back and run!
Indy doesn't just review restaurants. They have a prerogative and they get their rocks off by insulting businesses and the people who work in them. I think it's great he chose to not be written up in such a sad publication.
Scott Crawford is a great chef, a thoughtful human & an inspiring leader. Review or no review, Crawford & Son will be a favorite in the Triangle's dining scene for a long time.
A Moveable Feast:
First off, chef Crawford, by law, has the right to refuse service to anyone as his restaurant is on private property. Further, it is his prerogative to decide if he wants to be reviewed or not. Believe it or not, there are some restaurateurs who do not wish to be reviewed: while it has become status quo for journalists to write flowery, Faulkner-esque prose when describing restaurants for their reviews except that they focus less on the culinary side and "show off" their desires to be architects, art historians or psychologists--and in some cases, these self-proclaimed "culinarians" think that because they have been to Paris, or eaten at Alinea (or some Top 50 restaurant of the world list) they are qualified to potentially condemn someone else's livelihood; potentially ruin a man (or woman) and his/her family simply because the brown butter isn't brown enough?! It makes perfect sense that some would NOT want their story told by a person or persons with minimal credentials, a bone to pick or perhaps a conflict of interest (i.e., this business is an advertiser, "...make it glorious.."). Not to mention, that human error happens; Murphy's Law exists; EVERYONE has an off day. Should it it be THAT day when our whole world is exposed to ink, paper and/or keyboard?
Even if that wasn't the case, these reviews should tell the reader what is at the essence of the food experience and not spend the majority of a 1000 words dedicated to the Corinthian vs Doric columns or the post-Renaissance meets Shabby-shic wallpaper or spend an instant using the term "hipster." Who cares about tattoos or presumed egos? i surely don't. I thought we were trying to steer away from labeling and stereotypes.
I like to digress.
So, I will do some more of it. I don't read restaurant reviews. I don't write them either. When I travel, I find friends who live there or have been there and their recommendations are where I eat, where I sleep and where I go for adult beverages. I have never chosen a restaurant because it is the #1 on WELP, scored highly on Urbanspatula, FaceGram or the other social network sites out there.
I prefer reading the classics. My favorite writer is probably Hemingway. Sadly, he is not with us any longer...but that doesn't matter because he wouldn't have written or read restaurant reviews because there is more fun in living: catching fish, running with bulls, drinking Hemingway Daiquiris to spend on such trivial things. I like to think that his "review" would have been simple: he would have been a patron or he would not have.
But what do I know?
I am a little torn here. I think with or without food critics a restaurant will live of die on its own merit. That merit is some combination of food quality, price and ambiance (to me at least). Raleigh has so many options, that if you don't nail down a niche, then you won't survive. So having said all that, I think anyone trying to make a successful go around here almost has to be kind of a jerk. I don't know Scott, but regardless of how put off the critic might feel, I don't think the food critic should overplay her role in the restaurant world, and neither should she lose empathy for the hard work that goes into making these endeavors work. I expect the lynch mob to get me here, but I think AC restaurants are very overrated. The food quality to price ratio is way out of whack. Ashley herself is a wonderful human being and her staff are well trained, so the quality/cost gets swallowed up in hype. Scott pisses off one person, and all of sudden anything he touches is dirty. The Indy, and the Raleigh food scene in general, is the big fraternal circle, that you either get to party with and within, or you are an outcast with no apparent credibility. Empire Eats has been cast out of this circle e.g., after the drunk town stuff went down. Relax folks, and look in the mirror.
So, chef objects to reviewer because a previous review he "feels" the focus was too much on the restaurant and staff and not enough about the food. Hmm. Seems to us like the reviewer has a responsibility to review the restaurant as a whole. If staff dress and behave like Sideshow Bob and the place smells like feet, fish, and ramen then that should be reported to the public. Sounds like chef would be better suited to a food truck rather than a brick and mortar establishment.
Indy Week • 201 W. Main St., Suite 101, Durham, NC 27701 • phone 919-286-1972 • fax 919-286-4274
RSS Feeds | Powered by Foundation