This week’s Chicago Reader features an essay I wrote titled “Mother’s Ruin” (gin’s infamous nickname), which addresses the fact that Chicago’s craft-cocktail trends have always been a handful of years behind those of the coastal cities. The thesis is unfortunately pegged to the opening of a great little bar in Logan Square called Scofflaw.
I say “unfortunate” because I like Scofflaw. I’ve been there twice now, and the drinks are solid. But it plays a necessary scapegoat in my argument: Scofflaw calls itself “gin-centric” — a novel concept for Chicago, as we don’t yet have any bars that dare to serve just one spirit — yet it’s not exclusively gin, and doesn’t really offer more gin drinks than the typical bar. Which, for gin-obsessed folks like me, is a bit of a let down for reasons too idiosyncratic for anyone to understand, based on the onslaught of tomato-throwing I’ve seen on the comment boards. And Time Out Chicago, penned by someone who is otherwise a lovely person. And Grub Street. And LTHForum.
For anyone who knows me well or reads this blog, it’s no secret that I am a self-described gin booster. Opposite the all-encompassing home bar in my living room, there is a separate and holy gin bar — an odd little antique curio cabinet emptied of its contents in order to make way for bottles of London dry, Old Tom and Genever, a collection of gin more than two-dozen bottles strong. I put gin on a pedestal, and gin bars, such as New York’s Madam Geneva (which I visited a few years back), are my dream come true.
With the Reader’s Bars Issue on the horizon, I pitched a related essay to the editor, using Scofflaw as a jumping-off point to talk about how and why Chicago has historically not taken as many risks with bar concepts, which is odd given that we have enormous talent in our pool of bartenders and proprietors. I had an engaging sit-down conversation with the bar’s proprietor, and he complimented my questions and answered them thoughtfully, knowing that ultimately, my article hinged on a critique of his concept — a concept I love, and wish was pushed further.
The essay was held a week and ran on its own as a two-page spread, likely drawing much more attention than had it run in the midst of a multi-page roundup of local watering holes. And somehow, my argument — that Chicago needs to take more risks, that local drinkers are ready for headier concepts — has been twisted into the perception that I hate Chicago’s drinking scene and/or want it to be an exact replica of New York City’s.
Which is obviously not true. There is a reason I no longer live in New York. There is a reason I’ve chosen to write about and embrace Chicago’s cocktail scene. There is a reason I will continue to support bars like Scofflaw, even if I’m a little bummed there isn’t a Madam Geneva down the street. And there is a reason that, despite being a bit gunshy after this gincident (amazing noun coined by a friend), I will continue to put my byline out there — even if it brings some assholes out of the woodwork — to promote conversation and, one hopes, foster a more informed and colorful community of spirits patrons in the long run.

Well, I hardly think I was tomato throwing, and I wish you would deal with some of the arguments raised. I guess for me the question remains– why is a gin-only restaurant such a wonderful thing? What would we get out of that that we can’t get if they’re mixing some other stuff too? I guess to me it’s sort of like saying a seafood restaurant is a compromise on what ought to be the purity of an oyster-only one, and that wouldn’t make any sense to me. I figure people who can mix things well can mix more than a single ingredient well. What am I missing?
I mean bar, obviously.
Hi, Mike, & thanks for your comment — it’s a good question.
The short answer, for me, is this: The attraction of a gin-only (or anything-only) bar/lounge/restaurant/etc is that it’s different, and it would be a first for Chicago. I (and others, I think) get excited about different/unique concepts, which is why I’m excited about, say, Paul McGee’s tiki joint opening this summer. (As far as I know, other than Hala Kahiki, we don’t have any tiki bars in Chicago.) I like seeing folks try out new concepts that offer patrons something we haven’t seen before. That’s it.
So if someone critiques your critique he/she is an “asshole”? So your opinions and take on the bar scene in Chicago are the only ones that really matter? As Mike posts above, the critiques levied against you/your essay haven’t been addressed. Why should Chicago be a mini-New York? Does Marseilles try to be Paris? Do we want Berlin to be Munich? New York and the West Coast have both wonderful and awful parts to them. I’ve had plenty of really foul–and always overpriced–meals in New York City. And in Paris. In general, the food is better and cheaper in Chicago (this is not just my opinion–it’s the opinion of many East Coast friends, including New Yorkers). But this story (opinion) doesn’t fit into stereotypes or prejudices, so it’s a much less interesting story to tell or angle to pursue. If you had merely begged for a gin-only bar with reasons we should have one that don’t amount to the fact that Chicago needs to keep up with New York or the West Coast you might have made a compelling argument. But that we should have one because we have an inferior food and drink scene can’t be defended.
Hi A., & thanks for writing.
I’m not sure if you saw all of the related comments (not just on the Reader), but yes: some of them are very assholic — not because they’re in disagreement with me (I am all for healthy debate!), but because of name-calling and/or making judgments about the kind of person I am without having met me personally, etc.
I don’t know if you read my reply to Mike’s comment above, so I’ll clarify for your sake, as well: I never wrote that Chicago should be a “mini-New York,” and I would personally die if Marseilles ever attempted to be Paris. I love both. I love both Chicago and New York, too, for very different reasons. The rationale for my championing a gin-only (or anything-only) bar in the Reader essay is that it’s different; it’s something we/Chicagoans don’t currently have within our reach. But we’re ready for it. That’s the argument. I just returned from LA, which also boasts several spirit-exclusive bars. They’re fun. However, my mentioning this should not be interpreted as somehow suggesting that Chicago should morph into LA. (That would be terrible.) My point, which was apparently lost on a lot of folks, is that Chicago has the prowess to support some of the more challenging concepts that other large cities with diverse drinking populations do, but we aren’t. At least not yet.
[...] the roll-call on who’s weighed in, which has grown even since my own attempt to close the issue was posted last weekend: Time Out Chicago’s dining critic, The Reader’s dining critic, [...]