A Contrarian Chowhound Weighs In

Tyler Cowen’s “An Economist Gets Lunch” arrives on the table like a big, unidentifiable, whey-colored casserole. After 75 pages you’re still poking at it, thinking, “What is this thing?” and “Can I order something else?”
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/11/books ... ref=dining

What a lame review - zero substance and virtually all ad hominem.

Here is a much more interesting review in the same paper on the same day.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/11/dining/an-economists-theories-plot-a-course-for-good-food.html?ref=books

I can't really agree. The 2nd review seems to do nothing more than quote or paraphrase Cowen, whose opinions seem to alternate between the highly dubious and unsupported (catering to children's whims caused bad American food) , and the "duh" variety (food that takes longer coming out of the kitchen is more likely to have been cooked to order). For an economist his thinking seems rather arbitrary, judgmental and lacking in rigor. But just like a foodie.

The second article is not a review.

cilantro wrote:The second article is not a review.

Fine. Article. My initial point stands.

mrbarolo wrote:I can't really agree. The 2nd review seems to do nothing more than quote or paraphrase Cowen, whose opinions seem to alternate between the highly dubious and unsupported (catering to children's whims caused bad American food) , and the "duh" variety (food that takes longer coming out of the kitchen is more likely to have been cooked to order). For an economist his thinking seems rather arbitrary, judgmental and lacking in rigor. But just like a foodie.

I have to agree with mrbarolo's assessment. For instance, the notion that one should look for restaurants that have prosperous looking patrons is ridiculous. I think I would look for cab drivers instead. Hey, maybe I can be an economist too.

Are we debating the book or the reviews of the book?

d4v3 wrote:For instance, the notion that one should look for restaurants that have prosperous looking patrons is ridiculous. I think I would look for cab drivers instead.

I think you missed the point of the paragraph. Here is a larger quote (from the article about the book, not the book itself):

Damon Darlin not Tyler Cowen wrote:[The restaurant where the Darlin and Cowen met is] a sports bar, which seems like an unlikely choice, but not to Professor Cowen’s way of thinking. He chose it precisely because it was an unlikely choice. An American sports bar might mean Buffalo wings and cheeseburgers, but an Ethiopian sports bar? “They are making no attempt to appeal to non-Ethiopians,” he said.

How does he know it is good? Ethiopians eat there. It’s crowded. People look prosperous. But the two-page menu offers more clues. A few American items are tucked down in a corner, but other than that it is all Ethiopian. It has Ethiopian breakfast items. The descriptions are sparse, because why would they need explaining to its core audience? There are dishes on the menu that he doesn’t recognize. “That’s always a good sign,” he said.

Darren72 wrote:

d4v3 wrote:For instance, the notion that one should look for restaurants that have prosperous looking patrons is ridiculous. I think I would look for cab drivers instead.

I think you missed the point of the paragraph. Here is a larger quote (from the article about the book, not the book itself):

Damon Darlin not Tyler Cowen wrote:[The restaurant where the Darlin and Cowen met is] a sports bar, which seems like an unlikely choice, but not to Professor Cowen’s way of thinking. He chose it precisely because it was an unlikely choice. An American sports bar might mean Buffalo wings and cheeseburgers, but an Ethiopian sports bar? “They are making no attempt to appeal to non-Ethiopians,” he said.

How does he know it is good? Ethiopians eat there. It’s crowded. People look prosperous. But the two-page menu offers more clues. A few American items are tucked down in a corner, but other than that it is all Ethiopian. It has Ethiopian breakfast items. The descriptions are sparse, because why would they need explaining to its core audience? There are dishes on the menu that he doesn’t recognize. “That’s always a good sign,” he said.

If I missed the point, then the article is poorly written. The article states, "How does he know it is good? Ethiopians eat there. It’s crowded. People look prosperous." It specifically states that one of his reasons for "knowing" it is good is that people look prosperous. How can that be interpreted any other way?

But that is just one example. Many of his other contentions (at least according to the article) have very little or no foundation in reality. For instance, he says to avoid restaurants that have children as patrons. I have eaten at many restaurants that have children as patrons that were just fine. Many good Mexican restaurants often have families dining in them, or even Spacca Napoli on any weekend afternoon. I understand the point he is trying to make, but it is not well substantiated, and is overly generalized.

I've skimmed large sections of the book, and don't feel a strong need to read it closely. The review linked to in the first post seems a little harsh to me, but I generally agree with it. The book seems to be a combination of common sense "duh" observations and crazy speculations asserted as fact, all written with a slightly smug tone.

In many instances he seems to be setting up "foodie" straw men of his own making just so he can feel smart by knocking them down. As both the articles point out he seems preoccupied with "the self-righteousness of locavores and other food snobs" and takes the imagined judgement of his own strawmen far too personally. His conviction that prohibition and catering to children is the main cause of American food becoming bland seems crazy to me. I expect an economist to be able to look at the impact of changes in technology, transportation, marketing, and food safety concerns before blaming it all on kids and the lack of booze. Which, now that I think of it, seems to be a rather hipster attitude

I browsed this thread without reading the articles/reviews linked above so I didn't make the connection when I saw Tyler Cowen's article, "Six Rules for Dining Out" in the May 2012 Atlantic. It was only after seeing this thread again that I connected the dots between this thread and the article. I didn't read the whole thing when I saw it but I read enough to make me think me his 'rules' were about 40% absurd 50% common-sense and 10% interesting and reasonable.

I'm assuming the six rules are representative of his book, so I think the article might be a good way to get a sense of Cowen's arguments, written by him, without having to slog through the whole "big, unidentifiable, whey-colored casserole." You can read the whole article here.