CJ trashes Shenanigan's ... still 2 1/2 stars

[Robin Garr]

The CJ passive-aggressively trashes Shenanigans but still can't go below 2 1/2 stars. Hitting the E-stands a day ahead of print again. Trying to be out alongside LEO? Good luck with that.

http://www.courier-journal.com/story/en ... /71722876/

[Robin Garr]

I thought of this earlier today and posted on Facebook. Your thoughts?

I think I've finally figured out why this review is so tone-deaf: It utterly misunderstands the nature of Louisville's own style of ethnicity. Shenanigan's is Irish like Pat's Steakhouse is Irish, or like Check's is German. You don't go there for "ethnic" food. You go there to celebrate our own warm and homey idea of our ancestors' heritage, even though our families have been here since the 1800s or earlier.

Would she go to Check's and trash the place because they don't serve Tafelspitz and Rouladen and Dortmunder hefe-weizen? Mmm ... actually, she might.

I don't really agree with the Facebook post. In a restaurant is going to advertise itself as being a German, Irish or some other ethnic type restaurant it should have a good selection of food items from that country. Obviously the menu should also include other items in most cases so that everyone will find some of the enjoy but a large portion of the menu should be focused on foods or recipes from the country in question. Take a look at the Irish Rover for example, they have a large selection of true Irish foods and that's what I expect. I've never been to Shenanigan's because of the menu probably won't consider going there.

Trust me Mark, there's absolutely no need for you to give it a try. Purely a neighborhood pub, and an average one at that. The kind of place that thinks that green beer once a year makes you an ambassador for the Emerald Isle.

I didn't even know Shenanigan's fell into the 'restaurant' range. I thought it was just a bar or pub.

[Robin Garr]

I didn't even know Shenanigan's fell into the 'restaurant' range. I thought it was just a bar or pub.

They do have food, but yeah, I think of it as something like Gerstle's. I wouldn't normally review it, much less trash it for failing to live up to my expectation of what I thought it should be.

Lately I've been wondering if Nancy has become the new Susan Reigler; there are similarities in their work. But Susan, I think, was rarely mean.

It's a hole-in-the-wall bar that calls itself "Irish" for advertising purposes. Same as (though it is better) O'Shea's, which also has nothing Rover-ish on the menu. I think it's fine to point that out in the review, but no reason for excessive griping. Review the food for what it is.

And the review was probably accurate. Still, given that she does only one a week, I wouldn't have spent the time on what is essentially a bar.

You know, I'm pretty live & let live and I don't pile on about any reviewer as a rule. But there's something of a pattern forming here. The Rumors review comes to mind but I think it goes back to Joe's Older Than Dirt. I have to wonder if she's lived in this town very long as she really doesn't seem to 'get' the concept of local neighborhood hangouts that aren't judged by any community the same way a more destination restaurant is. True, it has Irish in the name but I don't think it's an exaggeration to say you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who's ever heard of the place who thinks it's an Irish restaurant. So when she writes reviews for places like this it makes her look like she just landed in her saucer from Mars and she genuinely doesn't seem to perceive that. The thing all three of these places has in common is, regardless what you expect on your first visit, it becomes immediately obvious that, oh, this is a comfy neighborhood favorite that has found a niche for the locals. To insist regardless of that to review such places differently exhibits what the Brits might call sheer bloody-mindedness. I go down there sometimes when several NFL games are on I want to watch at the same time, have a fried bologna sandwich, some cheap beer and I'm happy as a clam. What mystifies me is if she's not into the little neighborhood hangouts why she bothers to review them. People who go there aren't going to care what a restaurant reviewer has to say about the place. People interested in new restaurants to try aren't going to care about Shenanigan's anyway. So, like the Joe's & Rumors reviews, it's kind of a wasted column for that week. What's next? Will she review the Back Door & complain about the lack of table service? Or that there is, in fact, no back door to the place? Otherwise I don't have any big complaints about her reviews. You sort of get used to a reviewer over time like you do to various friends who tell you about restaurants. You just know how to filter the impression you get in light of what you know about their personalities so no harm, no foul. Some reviewers seem more well rounded in expressing their views than others but I can deal with them all. But to review a neighborhood joint against a non-neighborhood joint criterion makes the reviewer appear ignorant and serves neither the reviewer nor the reader.

Very well worded Lonnie and it really gives a feeling for her reviews, much better than they do for themselves! You hit the nail right on the head with the fact that the type of place she has really dinged are not the kind of places people are going to go to if they are not local to them and thus the review is basically useless.

Shenanigan's? Joe's Older Than Dirt? Has the CJ been taken over by The Onion?

[Robin Garr]

Has the CJ been taken over by The Onion?

No. The Onion makes money, and its editors know what they're doing.

Along the same lines... Does it strike anyone else as somewhat bizarre that--in a foodie city like Louisville--a food critic would take the time and effort to review a place like Joe's Older than Dirt?

[Robin Garr]

Along the same lines... Does it strike anyone else as somewhat bizarre that--in a foodie city like Louisville--a food critic would take the time and effort to review a place like Joe's Older than Dirt?

I'm going to back up and take her side, a little bit, on that one. I like it when a food critic covers the old and the new, the big and the small, the upscale and the down-home. You need to balance it out, though, and it's critical that you bring to each assignment a clear understanding of how it fits in its neibhborhood, its clientele and its cultural setting. I had no problem going to Seviche one week and Mt. Everest View another. But I wouldn't review them in the same way, or trash one for not being the other. (I could go all geek and call it an issue of hermeneutics, but that's not important right now ... )

I've been to Joe's several times and don't have a problem with the restaurant. It's just that it never struck me as a place that someone would actually sit down and seriously review the food.

My point is more that with all of the options around--big/small, trendy/hole-in-the-wall, etc.--there's probably hundreds of places I'd expect to see reviews of before Joe's. My expectation would change a bit if CJ had a team of food critics posting 5 or 10 reviews per week. Not that it's a realistic scenario for them to post such a high number of reviews, but at least then it would make more sense from a volume perspective to review places like Joe's.

[Robin Garr]

... at least then it would make more sense from a volume perspective to review places like Joe's.

I can't disagree with that! I think the last time I reviewed Joe's was when they opened a second location out Preston near Outer Loop. I don't even remember exactly when. Sometie around the 1998-2000 period, maybe? It was new, which made it news, and it actually had better-than-average food. It didn't last long, though ...