Rome, according to the NYT
I was ready to pounce on this NYT article on Rome, because usually they are just so way off. But it wasn't half bad.
Maybe because I had just been to the Galleria Borghese for the first time, and was floored by the Bernini sculptures. Maybe because he mentioned pizza bianca (beware those with high blood pressure...) and certain "off the beaten track" places. But, no, I think it's because he might just have understood that Rome is magic(al).
But as with most of the Rome I've read about in the NYT, it simply gets the prices wrong. Is it because they are catering to people who actually like to spend money, or think that spending money = quality?
Here's what he says about one restaurant:
"it’s hard to spend more than 50 euros a person, including wine, for a meal worth more than that."
50 euros??? Are you kidding me?
I just had a 3 course meal (home-made pasta mind you), with lots of wine, and even an amaro, and it was damn good, for the price of 18 euros. Yes 18. Where did this guy go eat? The same restaurant Tom Cruise goes to when he's in town?? Sheesh.
Then there's this:
"In a city where clubbing isn’t really the way to go, you can use darkness and midnight ramblings as a solution to midday crowds."
This is half right. Rome at night is definitely the way to go. Practically every single monument is lit up (not just the few he mentions), and lots of them are actually more beautiful at night. But what does he mean by "clubbing isn't really the way to go"? For a tourist? Maybe, but there certainly is a night life!
In any event, take what you read in the NYT (any publication actually) with a grain of salt. Yes, even this "publication"...
Maybe because I had just been to the Galleria Borghese for the first time, and was floored by the Bernini sculptures. Maybe because he mentioned pizza bianca (beware those with high blood pressure...) and certain "off the beaten track" places. But, no, I think it's because he might just have understood that Rome is magic(al).
But as with most of the Rome I've read about in the NYT, it simply gets the prices wrong. Is it because they are catering to people who actually like to spend money, or think that spending money = quality?
Here's what he says about one restaurant:
"it’s hard to spend more than 50 euros a person, including wine, for a meal worth more than that."
50 euros??? Are you kidding me?
I just had a 3 course meal (home-made pasta mind you), with lots of wine, and even an amaro, and it was damn good, for the price of 18 euros. Yes 18. Where did this guy go eat? The same restaurant Tom Cruise goes to when he's in town?? Sheesh.
Then there's this:
"In a city where clubbing isn’t really the way to go, you can use darkness and midnight ramblings as a solution to midday crowds."
This is half right. Rome at night is definitely the way to go. Practically every single monument is lit up (not just the few he mentions), and lots of them are actually more beautiful at night. But what does he mean by "clubbing isn't really the way to go"? For a tourist? Maybe, but there certainly is a night life!
In any event, take what you read in the NYT (any publication actually) with a grain of salt. Yes, even this "publication"...
posted by donatoroma at 9:24 AM
1 Comments:
Nice entry - and I agree. On the odd occasion that a dinner would come to 50 Euro, generally the food isn't as good as it would have been at 18E/person! Like you said, some just go out looking to overspend :)
Post a Comment
<< Home