Indy.com
Today:
Two for twenty: English Ivy's
Posted: May 07, 2008 in Dining
Tags:
VENUE INFO
Bar food is bar food is bar food, right? Wrong.
Mary and I paid a visit to English Ivy's, which she's been prodding me to do for quite awhile. I guess I didn't believe that a tavern could make me a good lunch.
Although this is a bar, per se, the delicious meals surpass the norm -- without forsaking fried foods for your anti-hangover needs.
The mood
It's a wee bit dark here, even in the daytime. The white twinkle lights disguising the dropped ceiling in the bar area did little to lighten it up, but were an interesting touch in this old-style atmosphere where every surface is made of dark wood.
A heavy, almost gaudy, chandelier hung over a large table in the main dining room, which continued to fill up during out visit.
It was strange for me to be in a bar 1) during lunch (despite what you may think of me) and 2) that was packed during the noon hour.
We chose a "window" table in front of a few teeny diamond-shaped holes in the wall.
Although dark, this place is spotless. I completely expected crumblies behind my seat in front of the wall -- but we were morsel-free.
The food
The substantial menu included a full page of appetizers, followed by sandwiches, salads, fish entrees, steaks and pasta.
And, while many people were already bellying up to the bar, I was back in "diet" mode and trying to be good. So, I chose an orange almond chicken salad ($8.50).
Mary had what I really wanted: a pizza sub ($7.25).
At Mary's suggestion, we ordered up some fried pickles as an appetizer ($5.25). I expected chip form, but they serve up full dill spears here. The spicy remoulade sauce on the side was fantastic.
A short time later, the quiet, attentive server brought our food.
Romaine lettuce made a nice bed for the juicy teriyaki chicken, slivered almonds and mandarin oranges in my salad. It was smaller than I expected, but tasty and very filling.
Mary's pizza on a bun was oozing with cheese and all the toppings. Served with fries, it was a massive lunchtime undertaking, and she left it mostly unfinished. Perhaps it goes down smoother after a few adult beverages?
We sat and chatted for a few minutes, scared of standing and letting the food really settle.
The drinks
Water.
The damage: $22.62
The pickles sent us over budget. Oh, well, the extra calories and bucks were worth it.
English Ivy's
Address: 944 N. Alabama St.
Telephone: (317) 822-5070.
Parking: Lot.
Hours: Monday-Saturday, 11 a.m.-3 a.m.; Sunday, 11.a.m.-12:30.a.m.
I have eaten at this establishment a number of times. The food is very good. But, the dining area tends to be a bit too smokey for my taste. I end up smelling like the Marlboro Man when I leave. Too bad for the non-smokers.
how does this twit review this restaurant and not once mention it's a gay bar?
how does this twit review this restaurant and not once mention it's a gay bar?
I do not think it necessary to mention outright - the food is still the same. Albeit, it is tagged as gay friendly here and is mentioned as gay friendly in the bar profile as well. Thanks for reading!
Yours truly,
Twit
when i was having dinner there 2 saturdays ago the waiter asked the couple at the table next to us "have you ever been f----- so hard it was like being punched?" Maybe the conservative, Jesus-loving grannies in Indiana might like a heads up that sort of dinner time chit chat is not uncommon there.
Yeah, I don't understand why that information would be pertinent. If there were Gay Cuisine, I could see the need to point it out. But I've never heard anyone answer the question "What do you feel like eating tonight?" with the answer, "I really have an urge for some Gay."
And if someone who would be uncomfortable in a place like that were to end up there because of this review, well, that would just be funny.
Yeah, I don't understand why that information would be pertinent. If there were Gay Cuisine, ...
Oh, it's important. Gay people will love the food, but it won't taste as good if you're straight. Or something.
I think as long as there's no actual sex going on there, I don't think journalistically speaking there's any reason for labelling something as "a gay bar." Really, at what point is something a gay bar? Does there have to be a certain percentage of gay people there? Maybe it should say on the sign outside to prevent confusion.
Isn't this supposed to be ultimately about the food? Personally I don't hang out in "gay friendly" establishments on purpose (I'm one of those wacky conservatives) but if the food and service is decent who cares?
when i was having dinner there 2 saturdays ago the waiter asked the couple at ...
No one likes an eavesdropper.
I don't know, I kinda see both sides. While I don't know how any establishment gets labeled as a "gay" bar or if they even want to be labeled as that, it seems like more of a comfort issue. Some people don't like restaurants that allow smoking, so it's nice to mention that a bar might be smoky or smoke free, and in the same respect, some people don't like to be the only straight person in the bar...it might make them feel uncomfortable...similar to how someone who doesn't smoke might feel if they were surrounded by smokers.
But it's a slippery slope, you can't go labeling things without some repercussions. I personally couldn't care less, but I can understand why that might be information some people would like beforehand.
I don't know, I kinda see both sides. While I don't know how any establishment ...
That's where Kate labelling it "gay friendly" would help out in that area. We can go on and on about being "PC" or about being fair, but I will give you the fact remains that some people are very uncomfortable in an environment like that, and to each his own.
But Kate's responsibility as the author of the piece is to tell you how her experience was at the place within the constraints of the "Two for Twenty" framework rather than provide a demographic breakdown.
I personally think that she did more than she needed to in order to satisfy the demands of the piece and her responsibility to the readers. I certainly don't think she deserved the "twit" that xanax lobbed at her.
Ultimately it's the consumers responsibility to research an establishment they choose to visit. Placing blame on someone who chooses to share their views because they didn't give enough information is wrong. Personal responsibility is a diminishing trait and xanax is just another example of those who are unable to forego excuses and take the blame where it's due.
Man kate, why don't I ever get to go to the fun gay places? Boo. I always get pizza.
That's where Kate labelling it "gay friendly" would help out in that area. We can ...
I don't feel she deserved the rude remark either, it was pretty uncalled for.
Oh, it's important. Gay people will love the food, but it won't taste as good ...
then how come when Taffy reviewed "Varsity" a few months back during a story on karaoke places in the city he referenced it as a gay bar? Was he not being correct "journalistically" based on your standards?
Oh, it's important. Gay people will love the food, but it won't taste as good ...
also another note, the print version of the review isn't "tagged" gay friendly
KATE RETURNS TO THE CONVERSATION!
Xanax: There are zero tags in print because...that makes no sense. We tag things here so they're easily searchable through the site.
And, yes, Taffy's one-sentence mention of the nightlife at Varsity Lounge did mention it is known as a gay bar. In my opinion, the nighttime crowd differs from a lunchtime crowd.
Joe: You're my twit-defending hero.
Good chat guys!
but joe's defense of you was predicated on the premise that it wasn't "journalistically" appropriate to mention it was a gay bar in a food review-- so why is it appropriate to mention it in a review of karaoke bars?
and considering the tagging issue-- my original point is that I would gather a majority of people (myself included) first saw the Ivy's review in the paper, not online, so what use is the tagging?
A restaurant reviewer has a responsibility to inform the reader about a restaurant's food, service, atmosphere and anything else that seems significant. There's no reason to tiptoe around any of those topics, including comment on the typical clientele. If a restaurant draws a particular crowd, that's pertinent information a reader can use. Whether a place attracts business suits, factory types, ladies who lunch, Colts fans, moms with kids, retirees, college kids, it's relevant information. So tell readers that. It's not offensive to say that a restaurant is popular among the gay community, just as there's nothing wrong with saying that a place is popular with political types or with artists or bikers or whomever. And if a place attracts one type of customer at lunch but a different type at dinner, that's relevant information too -- information that helps a reader make an informed decision about where to go.
A restaurant reviewer has a responsibility to inform the reader about a restaurant's food, service, ...
Where would you draw the line though? How many subjects is a reviewer responsible to cover? Would they have to warn us if there were a large number of obese people that frequented a restaurant for luch. Some people may choose to avoid seeing obese people. Perhaps they should say if a restaurant's clientele are mostly white so that non-white readers can decide if they would feel comfortable there. The whole thing seems insane. People need to take personal responsibility for the choices they make. If a reviewer chooses to share information, then they should be thanked and not criticized. It's impossible to determine what each and every reader may or may not find relevant.
but joe's defense of you was predicated on the premise that it wasn't "journalistically" appropriate ...
Actually I said it wasn't journalistically necessary, which is an important disctinction. To say it isn't "appropriate" suggests it would be wrong to do it. To say it's not "necessary" just states it's not needed.
Taffy made that decision in his review and that's fine, but Kate obviously didn't see the need for it. I don't specifically recall Taffy's review of that bar, so I don't want to comment specifically on it. I'm sure he handled it appropriately.
Kate obviously didn't think it necessary enough to mention in the article, so she didn't, and I don't have a problem with it. Furthermore, you could argue that "2 for $20" isn't technically a review, given the gimmick of being a story about feeding two people lunch for under $20. While there are aspects of its quality discussed, there are other things going on there too.
But either way, I agree with others who don't believe it appropriate to be called a name simply because she left out a detail that she deemed unnecessary to her piece.
EDIT: Here is the actual sentence I wrote: "I don't think journalistically speaking there's any reason for labelling something as "a gay bar."
So I didn't use the word "necessary," but I think that's definitely the connotation there. I certainly didn't say "appropriate," just for full disclosure.