182 replies to this topic

[ajay]

The other thing that motivates readers to demand anonymity etc. is that they want to insure that the reviewer ate the same meal they were going to be served. Diners are always suspect that they are being "ripped off" and served the sludge while good old Patricia was served the good stuff.



There is another aspect to this issue that is lurking beneath the surface, which is the fact that people want a review to be representative of the average meal served at a place. Personally I can never understand this sentiment. I want a review to showcase a place AT IT'S BEST. And that is because when I go to a place, I want to know how to get them to perform for me AT THEIR MAXIMUM LEVEL. Why would anyone want the average experience if they can acquire the knowledge of how to get the best experience?  :confused: Yet. that's what people seem to be fighting for.

Let me begin by saying that this is my first expereicne using the quote function, so I apologize in advance if it didn't turn out the way i had hoped.



I am one of those diner who demands anonymity from critics.  I don't have the wherewithal to ever become a "friend of the restaurant," or a regular.  But, I have a great fondness for and a deep interest in fine dining.

It is an incontrevertible fact that not only critics but also friends of the restaurant and 'regulars' receive better treatment in terms of service, and often certain items that not on the menu.  I don't think that it is a difficult or far-fetched assumption that these are the areas where the kitchen really shines, or else that the ingredients used are particularly interesting/unusual.

Moreover, one of the problems all restaurants face is consistency.  The many boards and threads of egullet testify to the fact that restaurants offer divergent experiences on different days.  I demand anonymity on the part of the critc so that I may understand the range of a particular restaurant's consistency.  That is, how low can the experience get for the average diner in terms of food and service, but also, what is the best that an average diner can expect.  

take the case of Arpege.  Mr. Plotnicki wrote an extremeley articulate and impassioned review of a meal he consumed with a regular there.  His dishes sound excellent and perfectly prepared, hence his wonderful review.  The experiences of many, including the fat guy, and regrettably myself seem like they occured at an entirely different restaurant.  The food I ate at Arpege did not seem carefully prepared, the service was surly, and in the case of a couple of dishes, i was convinced the ingredients were less than first rate.  Of these three criticisms, I believe that a critic would have the opportunity to speak only to the third--maybe.  I would not be surprised if a non-anonymous critic had a dish with less than first rate ingredients substiuted for a different, better one.  Some of this behaviour cannot be avoided, but I still want the critic to comment on the experience as I am likely to find it, not the experience the restaurant is capable of.

What I'm trying to say is that it doens't particularly matter to me what culinary heights Dider Elena and Alain Ducasse can take Mr. Grimes to in the chef's dining room.  If they can provide Mr. Grimes the greatst meal of his life back there great.  What I'm interested in as a connsumer of reviews is what kind of experience they are likely to provide ME.  As an ancilliary point (and I think egullet, rather than a review is an excellent source of this info) is what can I do to ensure I have the best possible experience at a given restaurant.

Mr. Plotnicki's confusion confuses me.  He states that he "wants to know how to get them [the restaurant] to perfom for me AT THEIR MAXIMUM LEVEL."  However, it has been my distinct impression that no restaurant has performed for me at its maximum level.  Many times, I have been satisfied, witht he level the restaurant performs at.  In some cases, notably at Troisgros, I've been impressed at the level of the restaurant's performance.  However, at no time has a restaurant ever produced a meal that I believe reflects its maximum level.  Thus, I am not particularly interested in what that level is.  I am interested in the level I am likely to expereince, and for that reason, to help me decide how to allocate my limiting dinning resources, I would like critics to focus on this level as well.  Moreover, I don't know of many critics, aside from the fat guy, who devote any amount of their columns to addressing the question of how to get the restaurant to perfom at its maximum level

Take the example of Le Cirque.  Ruth Reichel demoted the place because she felt such a disparity in the treatment of special guests and the rest of the diners.  WHen such information is ignored in a review, and i go to a restaurant in ignorance of said information, I feel that I have been done a disservice.

As to the question of feeling like I'm being served "sludge," while other diners were served the good stuff, I've often felt acutley aware of this.  Recently, at Arpege, the table next to us received about three additional courses that were not on the menu.  One of the dishes they ordered was the same as mine, and I noticed that it had been garnished more extensively. Being an American in France, I expected that locals may well receive special treatment.  I am not sure that there is anything particularly wrong with this.  However, what irked me was that my meal reached an unacceptably low level.  

Mr. Plotnicki's solution is essentially "vote with your feet;" if you disagree with a review, simply stop trusting the reviewer.  I think this puts too great an affirmative obligation on me, while not demanding enough of the reviewer.  The reason I turn to reviews in the first place is that I cannot afford to try every establishment or bottle 3-4 times and reach my own conclusions.  So, I have to trust the reviewer to steer me to a location that in his/her objective judgement will produce an excellent expereince for ME.  Moreover, in many cases, there is such a paucity of intelligent, knowledgeble that one's options really boil down to biased reviewers, or none at all.  neither option is particularly attractive.  thus, I believe reviewers should change their style.  

Let me add that I don't believe my expectations to be unreasonable, or demand a close relationship with the chef.  As far as I know, most reviewers visit a restaurant more than once, usually three to four times.  I always assumed that this number is sufficient.  I agree with Mebutter's assertion that any necesarry research can be done without meeting a chef.

I'm sure that there many levels people can disagree with me, but i believie my position is sound and defensible.  I concede that there is no such thing as complete objectivity in any beat of journalism.  That does not mean, however, that reviewers should have complete liscence to ignore the experience that an average diner is likely to have.  The fact that a reviewer may be recognized does not mean that anonymity is impossible, or indeed undesirable.  Nor do i believe disclosure is the antidote to any review, though I certainly prefer that disclosure be made as applicable.  In short, I agree witht he proposition that there are compromised food critics, and I would like to see standards of professional ethics imposed on them.

ajay

[Wilfrid]

Some good points there, Ajay.  Perhaps it should be recognized that different readers want different things from the journalists they read.  A Plotnicki, for example, might want to read about everything of which a restaurant is capable.  An Ajay might want to learn what he personally can expect the restaurant to provide.  I think both demands are perfectly reasonable, and the consequence may be that Plotnicki and Ajay read different critics.  Or maybe not.

Mr P., music criticism has been only one of the ways in which have responded to the siren call of the muse*.  I suspect a lot of other things have contributed to screwing me up, and I look forward to slowly laying out my droll and idiosyncratic worldview for your edification over the months and years to come.  

*This was a conscious mish mosh of classical references, just in case anyone thinks I am not paying attention.

[Lord Michael Lewis]

If the funtion of the critic/reviewer is to inform (and it may well not be) then the critic should be above reproach. Spending 50 to 100GBP a head on the spurious recommendation of a professional is not remedied by voting with your feet, it's far too late and expensive for that.

There are critics, Fay Maschler is one, who, whilst maintaining close ties with industry professionials, manage to maintain their integrity.

And then there are the arse lickers.

[Mebutter]

Steve P writes: "I keep asking the people who disagree with me the same question and it doesn't get answered. If a restaurant reviewer had a relationship with a chef, and/or was a known personality around town so that restaurant personel recognized them, how would that in and of itself taint their review and opinion."
Let me try to take a stab at it once again. It's like a man who is asked by his lover to evaluate the lover's technique. Now, if the lover is a 4-star in every sense imaginable, it's probably very easy to rely. But if the lover has some weak spots, is deficient in one or more techniques, the challenge grows. Will the man be brutally honest or will he perhaps couch his words or gloss over faults? If the man wants the lover to be around in the morning, he'll likely choose the second route. So it is when you ask a restaurant reviewer to evaluate a restaurant where he has a relationship with the chef or owner.
It would take a bigger person than me, or most others, to be totally honest. The friendship/relationship poses a challenge to the critic's ability to work unhindered.
As for being known, we can argue back and forth about whether the restaurant can truly "cover up" its sins. But the restaurant sure going to try - from cooking two versions of the reviewer's order and making sure the best goes out, to devoting one server exclusively to that table, to giving the critic a great seat.
There is also an emotional toll, I suspect, to being known and catered to. It's like Katharine Hepburn said about fame - it can make you crazy if you're not careful. Over time, over years of being wined and dined and fawned over, your expectations surely change and surely so does your professional judgement.
Everyone I talk to at my office about this developing thread said the same thing: You have to be vigilant, you have to stay aware of what you're doing or else the other stuff - the freebies, the junkets, the attitude - can slowly creep over you and render the readers a disservice.
SteveP also said, "And the people who support those rules act as if the integrity that someone acquires from following these prescribed set of rules insures anyone of anything."
I certainly don't think that and hope I haven't given that impression. I can't help but recall the original subject of this thread was "compromised" reviewers. So, that's what I've been focusing on. Certainly, palate, training, writing ability, perception all play into a review and should be taken into consideration in assessing a reviewers craft.
What's most important depends on the beholder, I guess. I'd take a humble house soundly constructed over a designer showcase built on a flawed foundation. For me, that foundation is journalistic ethics.
And, I don't think circulation size should affect ethics, either.
P.S. Bravo to Ajay for saying: "What I'm interested in as a connsumer of reviews is what kind of experience they are likely to provide ME." That's what it's all about, relating to all the Me's out there.
P.P.S. I wish I could figure out how the quote function works.

[macrosan]

Ajay, I sympathise with your desire to have a reviewer give you an accurate estimate of what you can expect to experience, but I do think you ask for too much.

First, as you suggest in your post, restaurant performance varies from day to day, from time to time, from table to table, and from dish to dish. To give a realistic prognosis, a reviewer would have to try a restaurant maybe ten or a dozen times. The only place you'll get that range of coverage is here at eGullet.

Second, taste is such a subjective sense that the chances of you receiving the same sensory perception as a reviewer are pretty slim.

In my view, all a reviewer can achieve is to give a general sense of level of quality, style, menu, cost, service and ambience of a restaurant at one snapshot in time. Then a regular follower of that reviewer, one who has generally found he empathises with that reviewer, can have some level of expectation that he may enjoy a meal at a recommended establishment. And that's the most you can hope for.

I'll repeat what I said in my earlier post. People who can't afford to make a mistake in dining out should not rely on a review to give them any guarantee of success. Simply because the cycle of read review/try/asess review/formulate view of reviewer, then repeating that whole cycle several times, is just not possible for someone with such limited funds.

Certainly you are likely to do better by reading what people here at eGullet have to say. That's like chatting to a circle of friends, whose general judgement you come to trust, and using their recommendations.

But you seem to be suggesting, Ajay, that you can expect by right something from a restaurant reviewer that you cannot get in any other buying decision. For example, do you expect as much from testers of cars in motoring magazines. If you do, then you will be sadly disappointed if you try them !!!!

[Steve Klc]

Macrosan, ajay doesn't ask for too much.  what he asks for is reasonable and he didn't seem to me to be asking for a guarantee.  I guess I disagree with you in that you feel you can't really expect much of a reviewer--whereas I think a diner can reasonably expect alot.

Bill, your passage:

"You have to be vigilant, you have to stay aware of what you're doing or else the other stuff - the freebies, the junkets, the attitude - can slowly creep over you and render the readers a disservice."

Well said.  However, I'd go one better--you'd do your subjects a disservice, too--the small chef-owned restaurateur struggling to compete with the larger chain operations, the ethnic restaurant just doing what they known how to do with little comprehension of English, the new restaurant opened by novices, the sous chef just out on his own--they are entitled to "feel" like they are going to get a fair shake regardless of whether they shell out the bucks for a connected publicist or have contacts in the media.  That doing good interesting work across many culinary disciplines and price points can be enough.

I expect a restaurant critic to be able to draw those distinctions fairly and well.

Perhaps it is naive or an illusion, but the anonymous newspaper restaurant critic--freed simply to do his or her job for a limited time irrespective of undue influence, preferential service, the collusion of chef and industry friendships and private dinners with the chef is the only way to serve both readers and subject.  And term limits augur against reviewer "attitude creep."

Macrosan, it is precisely because so much of the restaurant experience can be ethereal--can be altered if known--unlike an assembly line product like a car--that a critic should be anonymous.  That snapshot in time has to be assessed in real time for a normal person over several visits (not 10), and not as a known, pampered foodie--even, Steve P.--if the resulting review nails what the experience would likely have been for a normal person or an anonymous reviewer.  (What a diner should expect--or be conditioned to expect--from reading a restaurant critic is a separate issue; no one loses anything when a critic has to be above reproach for both his/her readers and subjects, the restaurants themselves.)

All subjects have the right to expect to be fairly evaluated not only in their inital newspaper review but also afterward in that critic's "Best of" guides or "Favorites" lists--which end up being a record or collection of snapshots over time.  Note that certain reviewers have moved away from star rankings and some observeable criteria--and moved away from a discussion of what or who is the best but rather who are their "favorites?"  Not the same really--again subtext, sorry Bill--championed historically by the Washington Post group.  That's another thread, too.

There is so much to go around for all the non-anonymous celebrity food writers or personalities that asking this one person per newspaper (in major and medium cities) to be anonymous and to toe a different ethical line is reasonable and he/she would surely not be missed from the junkets and the schmooze-fests. I feel completely differently about glossy magazine food writers and media--and much closer to Macrosan and Steve P. I don't see a contradiction in this either--perhaps others will.  For me the newspaper beat is not the magazine beat.

Let's use a hypothetical example--again involving Steve Shaw were he to become the NY Times restaurant critic.  What's wrong with him recusing himself were he asked to "review" a new Kunz restaurant--a chef Shaw has written often about and knows personally?  Steve P. would say that's ridiculous, that Shaw should review it even if he's friends with Kunz and his review might even be better for it.  Should Shaw recuse himself?

[Jinmyo]

Should Shaw recuse himself?

I don't think so. Mentioning his acquaintance and previous knowledge at the outset, he could then provide insight into how this new venture compares to others. He would be bringing more information to the review and thus provide a much fuller array of information to the reader.

[Steve Plotnicki]

ajay-You have made me even more confused. You said,

"but I still want the critic to comment on the experience as I am likely to find it, not the experience the restaurant is capable of."

Huh? The experience you are likely to find is the one that you ask for. If you do not have someone who discloses a special experience to you (whether it be friend, captain or reviewer,) how would you know to ask for it? :confused: In fact your "ordinary" experience at Arpege happened to you because that is the one you asked for. It might never had happened had you read my review before you ate there and asked them to provide you with a different experience.

Mebutter-You are still are saying that having a conflict is inherently bad. But that flies in the face of my experience that biased information IS BETTER than non-biased information. :confused:

[ajay]

Mr. Plotnicki,

As it happens, I did read your review before I went to Arpege.  I did my best to engage the captain in a meaningful  conversation about Mr. Passard's style of cooking.  He, however, was more interested in being obsequious to the adjoining table of Frenchmen.  I made eye contact, said merci, and did everything I could to convey my interest in and love of food.  However, my experience was extremeley disappointing.

I do not understand how I could have 'asked' for a better expereince.  Are you saying that everyone who ever receives bad treatment in a restaurant does so because he doesn't 'ask' for something better?  

Even without Mr. Plotnicki's review, I would have thought the restaurant is capable of better.  Certainley, one shouldn't have to 'ask' a restaurant to use excellent ingredients!

I simply don't understand how knowing Mssrs. Ducasse and Elena CAN produce a meal that drives Mr. Grimes to new hieghts of culinary transendence will help me 'ask' for a better experience.  All that I can do is convey to the captain my desires, likes and dislikes, listen to to his advice, listen to the views I've gathered, including those of Mr. Grimes, and then hope that the kithcen delivers.

I can only 'ask' that the kitchen do its best.  I can do more.  this is what I did at L'Arpege, but what I received was substandard.

A critic reporting on such an experience is much more important to me than knowing the heights a restaurant can take him/her to. Note this is especially true since I can't probably can't afford to let the chef take me to new heights.

Mr. Plotnicki also seems to suggest that critics provide informaiton that allow an 'average' customer to maximize thier experience.  However, aside from brief discussions of reccomended dishes in their reviews, critics do not offer advice on how to maximize one's experience at a given restaurant. [N.B. Mr. Shaw is a welcome departure from this school of criticism].  Perhaps Mr. Plotnicki reads better reviews than I do.

Macrosan,

I am a consumer of restaurant reviews.  I don't expect anything of them by right, but I believe I have a legitimate expectations that they provide me the service that I pay for.

I agree that a critic necessarily provides only a "snapshot" of a restaurant experience.  But a restaurant reviewed by a legitimate reviewer is usually visited often enough to give an anonymous critic a sense of a restaurant's ragne of consistency.  I believe that in the case of most publications this is three to four visits.  I also assume that more visits are used if they are deemed necessary.  Profesisonal critics, please correct me if i am laboring under mistaken assumptions.  What I expect of a critc's snapshot is a description, and evaluation of the experience that I, as an AVERAGE diner, am likely to receive, assuming I 'ask' for the best experience.

[Mebutter]

Macrosan says: "In my view, all a reviewer can achieve is to give a general sense of level of quality, style, menu, cost, service and ambience of a restaurant at one snapshot in time. Then a regular follower of that reviewer, one who has generally found he empathises with that reviewer, can have some level of expectation that he may enjoy a meal at a recommended establishment. And that's the most you can hope for."
This is absolutely right-on. Hopefully a restaurant will respond/improve based on a review...

Steve KLC writes: "However, I'd go one better--you'd do your subjects a disservice, too--the small chef-owned restaurateur struggling to compete with the larger chain operations, the ethnic restaurant just doing what they known how to do with little comprehension of English, the new restaurant opened by novices, the sous chef just out on his own--they are entitled to "feel" like they are going to get a fair shake regardless of whether they shell out the bucks for a connected publicist or have contacts in the media.  That doing good interesting work across many culinary disciplines and price points can be enough."
I try to take this all into account when i review. I look at what the restaurant is trying to deliver, price, ambiance, food quality, service. Naturally, the cheaper and more casual the restaurant the more slack they get. I also love it when a restaurant dares to experiment, break out of the mold. I'm so tired of tiramisu and portobello mushrooms.
As for talking about the Washington Post Group, Steve, don't apologize. It's not like I'm on the payroll or vacation with these folks. Just keep saying what you want to say. (Who knows, they may be out there listening.)
As for Shaw recusing himself, I'd need to know more before venturing an opinion. If they were bosom buddies, godfathers to each others kids (or dogs), I'd probably have more problems than an acquaintanceship. That acquaintanceship should, in my opinion, be disclosed in any review so the reader can weigh it or ignore it as they will.

Steve P writes: "Mebutter-You are still are saying that having a conflict is inherently bad. But that flies in the face of my experience that biased information IS BETTER than non-biased information. "
Well, I can't argue with someone's personal experience. For me, though, it's been my experience that "biased information" - or the perception of such - can be trouble. That is one slippery slope I try to avoid.

Ajay writes: "But a restaurant reviewed by a legitimate reviewer is usually visited often enough to give an anonymous critic a sense of a restaurant's ragne of consistency.  I believe that in the case of most publications this is three to four visits.  I also assume that more visits are used if they are deemed necessary.  Profesisonal critics, please correct me if i am laboring under mistaken assumptions."
Yes and no. The bigger the paper, and the bigger the budget,the more visits you can expect. Most of the big shots have a fulltime critic or critics who do nothing but.
The smaller the paper, the smaller the budget, and, usually, the fewer number of visits. The critic often has other duties or jobs or is freelance.
The association of food journalists guidelines for critics (www.afjonline.com) recommends at least two visits but adds that three is better. At my newspaper, the policy has been two visits (or eight appetizers, eight entrees and eight desserts) per restaurant. Sometimes I'll go a third time if I'm still not sure...Frankly, I'd like to go more often but it's a budget and time thing.

[Steve Plotnicki]

"He, however, was more interested in being obsequious to the adjoining table of Frenchmen."

Ajay-I'm not really sure what your argument is here. I mean I go to restaurants and recieve less than the best food and service all of the time. But my instinct is to try and improve my experience, and I'm not particularly choosy as to how I do that. And quite often, I accomplish it. But for some reason, this is something you seem to be saying you are unable to do.

Maybe you need a new hairdo?

I often find that it is hard to impress on the staff of a  restaurant that you know what you are doing. My meal at L'Ambrosie last May was full of perfunctory treatment. And no matter how hard I tried, I couldn't impress upon Madame or the Sommelier that I knew what I was doing. The end result was that my meal turned out poor. And maybe even if they "got it" and were charming it still wouldn't have been up to standard. But maybe if their attitude towards our table changed, the night would have worked out better for us.
But getting this back to the point, I don't see how I could discern any of that by reading a review. If the review had spoken of surly service, yet still had given it three stars, I would have gone anyway.

[ajay]

Mr. Plotnicki,

What would you have done if a reviewer complained that s/he expereinced surly service at l'Ambroisie (or le cirque, for that matter)?  Would that cause you to reconsider your choice to patronize the establsihment?  Perhaps, if you felt you had the resources to do so, you might check on the veracity of the reviewer's assertion.

For my part, with the number of excellent restaurants to choose from, I would probably avoid a restaurant that receives such comments.  If, however, a reviewer cannot comment accuratley on the level of serivce, or food that I AM likely to recieve, the review has little value TO ME.  Indeed, in my view that is the critic's mission: to describe and evaluate the expereince a literate and involved diner is likely to receive.

I believe that a critic must be anonymous to get a feel for these issues.  Sometimes, the fact that a reviewer is known doesn't detract from the fact that the restaurant provides a great meal with superlative service.  I remember the fat guy's first review of Lespinasse, where he supposedly took "phony trips to the bathroom" to verify the fact that he was in fact receiving the same courses as the other diners.  It's that kind of diligence I expect from a restaurant critic.

Secondly, Mr. Plotnicki, I was gratified to hear that I am not the only one who feels he has left a restaurant a substandard experience.  But if you grant that one can have a bad expereince even though a better one was 'asked' for, I utterly fail to grasp your point.

Unfortunatley, I will not have the opportunity to give L'Arpege another chance in the near future.  In fact, my experience there makes me disinclined to bother, given all of the other excellent restaurants in Paris.  Mr. Plotnicki, I am curious as to how you "improve" your experineces in a restaurant mid-meal.

I suppose that if you're displeased with the wine the sommelier reccomended, and you aceded to his recommendation, you could order another bottle.  If the food you served was less than stellar, you could send it back and perhaps order more.  But one can only do these things if one is prepared to pay for the new dishes or wine as well as the unacceptable ones already presented.  Moreover, in my case, I'm not sure what kind of results this would have had at Arpege.  I'm not sure what would happen if one sent a dish back in a three star restaurant.  Of the many things, I doubt that I would have been taken seriously, but who knows.  In any case, i am very interested to hear your strategies.

Since you fail to see any connection between what happens to either of us at a restaurant and a critic, could you restate for me what exactly your view of a critc's job is.

I've always been quite fond of my hair style, but who knows... perhaps i shouldn't comb it?

[ajay]

Second, taste is such a subjective sense that the chances of you receiving the same sensory perception as a reviewer are pretty slim.

In my view, all a reviewer can achieve is to give a general sense of level of quality, style, menu, cost, service and ambience of a restaurant at one snapshot in time.

Macrosan,

I've been dealing with so many issues that I fear I've been less than clear.  I believe that I've disposed of the by right criticism, and I believe someone else (Mebutter, I think) has already (quite eloquently in my view) dismissed the difference between relying on an automobile review and a restaurant review.  

Naturally, I agree that taste is a subjective sense.  However on things such as freshness and quality of ingredients taste is not an issue.  It is true that if a certain critic likes sweatbreads they may be more likely to give the nod to a dish of sweatbreads than I don't know, a venison preparation.  I accept this, as every consumer of a review must.  However, I do expect the critic to situate both the venison and the sweatbreads in a relative context.  That is to say, if he was more impressed by the sweatbreads (or venison) elsewhere, he should say so.  

Perhaps the critic is more forgiving of high levels of sweatness in his savory dishes (a pet peave of mine).  He and I will likely not prefer to dine at the same restaurants.  however, even here, I would expect the critic to note the difference between sweatness that is done well and materially enhances a dish, and an attempt to sugar up a dish needlessly.  Moreover, if I can't tell that the restaurant uses high levels of sugar in some of its savory courses, the critic has failed.  His responsibility is descriptive as well as critical.  Surely this trend should be mentioned in his review.  So, I'm prepared to concede that taste is subjective, but for the purposes of reading a review, I believe it should not matter.

I also agree that "all a reviewer can acheive is to give a general sense of level of quality, style menu cost and ambience of a restaurant in one snapshot in time."  However, when the critic receives treatment that will never be accorded to me (i.e. by not being anonymous), s/he has failed to provide me with an accurate snapshot.

I believe that quality, menu, service and ambienece can all be significantly enhanced for a reviewer, or any particular diner on one evening.  Sure, if all of the stocks are subpar, the jig is up.  But suppose only one stock is bad on a particular night.  the restaurant would simply not serve that dish to a known critic.  The same thing goes with the quality of ingredients.  We've heard from countless post on egullet that meats emerge not cooked to order.  Moreover, Wilfrid's food seems to always be served to him after it has cooled. I doubt that either of these things would happen to known critic.  

Finally, as others have already noted, the ambience of a place is remarkably affected by your table, the service you recieve, and a series of other intangible factors.  Surely, the restaurant can improve this for a known critic.  Someone spoke of ensuring all of the tables around the critic receive excellent service as a tactic some restaurants employ.  

So, while you and I essentially agree on what a critic should provide to us, I believe we part ways over the critic's methodology.

[Steve Plotnicki]

Ajay-First of all, I do not understand why you keep calling me Mr. Plotnicki? Everyone here calls me Steve. In fact, that is what I post under. Do you have a problem with me? Your posts have an edge to them that I would decribe as argumentative and personal. It's as if, because you are of certain economic means, you find it offensive for me to state my opinion that I want a reviewer to offer up the best, and most in detail report of a restaurant. Let me say that when I used to be in a different financial position, I still felt the same way about it. I always thought that "voting with my feet" was the right thing to do. Even when I couldn't afford to do it. In fact, I'll go even further. I would rather read about a perfect aesthetic that I couldn't afford than to experience a mediocre aesthetic I could. I have absolutely zero motivation to experience the latter. I'd rather eat a pastrami sandwich.

So I think that looking at a restaurant review as a consumer guide is a waste of time. When I get the Times each Wednesday there are only three things I want to know. How many stars, what type of food, and are there any special dishes?  Anything less than three stars better have a good story attached to it. But anything that does get three stars is almost a no-brainer that I will go at some point, REGARDLESS OF THE DETAILS.  

As for three star restaurants, I have no problem sending a dish back. In fact there is a famous story of my sending back my salmon three times at the original Daniel. As for wine, in NYC I almost always bring my own. And in Europe, I go in expecting to be ripped off. But I hardly ever let the sommelier choose for me. And quite often, I find that their knowledge of wine isn't any better than mine. In fact, I find that quite often I am more knowledgable.

As for a critics job, what I want them to do is to ferret out the best information. I want to know about a dish that is so volcanic that it explodes in my mouth. And I do not care if that dish is on, off, or atop the menu. And if it isn't written about, how would I know to ask for it? And if a reviewer wasn't offered the dish because they were anonymous, how would I get the information about it?

[John Whiting]

Steve, you demand a lot more of a meal than I do -- something wonderful every time! -- but I like your attitude. I'm content with quiet simple pleasures, providing that they're actually pleasurable. Once in a while I have an experience such as I've had twice in a few months at l'Astrance, where the food, the ambience and the companionship -- to describe it as service is to denigrate it -- all come together. I've mentioned on another thread somewhere my experience of a menu degustation together with a chamber music concert, organized and cooked by a chef who had already at that point become a friend.

These things happen once in a while. I don't go deliberately searching for them, and so I'm content to let my most common culinary pleasure be puting something together out of what was in the fridge and the larder that makes my wife smile.

[Jinmyo]

For an excellent example of discloure in a review, read Steve Shaw's current log Days 3-5, April 5-7:, Seagrove Beach, FL.

I met Sandor in the kitchen of Lespinasse restaurant in New York, where I was doing a week-long kitchen stage a couple of years ago. Sandor was doing the same, and we bonded over a baby pig. Ever since our week together, Sandor has e-mailed me persistently and persuasively, demanding that I visit Seagrove Beach and tell the world about the emerging restaurant culture in the area (little does Sandor know I have no such power).

[Wilfrid]

Moreover, Wilfrid's food seems to always be served to him after it has cooled.

Exactly.  That's the key point which I think all these threads should be addressing.        

[ajay]

Steve (Plotnicki),

Let me begin by saying I have the utmost respect for you, and your opinion of food and wine.  I have learned a lot by reading your posts on various boards.  It's just that I feel a bit uncomfortable using people's first names, especially when they are most likely both older and wiser than myself.  Since you stated your preference, I shall honor it hereafter.  As to the tone and tenor of my posts, I do apologize--heartily.  I mean no hostility toward you personally, or your point of view.  I believe it would be absurd to take offense at someone's views as a result of their (or my) economic means, and it certainley not what I was intending to convey.  In fact, I believe in the John Stuart Millesque paean to free speech that permeates your first post on this thread.  In short, I hope to learn much from my continued interactions with you on these various boards, and do apologize again for any implied slight or offense.

Steve, I believe you have made a strong case for your point of view that a restaurant reviewer should strive to report on the perfect aesthetic and nothing else is worthwhile.  However, I don't believe I can accept this limited conception of a restaurant critic's job.

I, like John Witing, am less sanguine about actually encoutering a perfect aesthetic.  When I select a restaurant, I do not go expecting a mediocre experience--I too would not be prepared to shell out big bucks for one.  I expect excellence, and do not like to settle for less.  So, naturally, I'm interested in the best dishes that will be served TO ME.  Perhaps you are charming enough, or your hair style is attractive enough to convince the kitchen to serve you the Kobe beef topped with blowfish, toro, and beluga caviar ;wink; , but I have often been told that such dishes 'are not available.'  I probably couldn't afford them even if they were.  Moreover, I do not think that not having the wherewithal to roder the kobe beef should condemn me to a diet of pastrami sandwiches    

If I am less likely to acheive a perfect aesthetic, I am most interested in the aesthetic that I am likely to encounter when I dine out.  Perhaps the kobe beef restaurant's competitor delivers better treatment to the average diner, it would probably be in my interest to go there.  I do not mean to imply that I am disinterested in kobe beef and blowfish.  If nothing else, I would enjoy such a column for its literary value.  But I maintain that such stories are generally without utility to me.  I think you may have convinced me that after several anonymous visits, perhaps a critic should announce him/herself and allow the kitchen to pull out all of the stops.  I suppose that I may be tempted to ask for some of the dishes said critic encounters, but I would be unlikely to do so in the great majority of my restaurant experiences.

I would agree that you and I read the times in a different way.  I have not been to all of the New York Times three starred restaurants, and nor do I plan to visit them all.  So, in deciding where to go, I am going to do more than look at number of stars, style and recommended dishes.  I thik I'd go even further: even unlimited resources would not be a reason enough for me to check out places where a critic gave a restaurant three stars but also offered a large body of criticism.  A perfect case in point: Chanterelle.  Mr. Grimes left the place with three stars, but also some fairly hostile comments.  I also seem to recall you found the place less than perfect (though with some memorable dishes) in one of your (much missed) dining reports.  I would judge such an uneven place not worth my patronage.  

But I may also visit a less than three star establishment.  For example, in today's restaurant review, Mr. Grimes did not think highly of the Cafe's savory courses but positively gushed over the desserts.  IF I am ever near 86th and 5th, I will probably stop in for an apple strudel.

On an entirely different note, may I ask you to recount your salmon experience at Daniel?  This story sounds instructive and perhaps entertaining.  I'm also curious: have you ever sent back a dish you were less than satisfied with at a Michelin three star restaurat?  If so, I would really appreciate the story.

[Mebutter]

AJay writes: "I think you may have convinced me that after several anonymous visits, perhaps a critic should announce him/herself and allow the kitchen to pull out all of the stops."

This is a very bad idea. Everyone staffer in the place would immediately begin memorizing the critic's features and description. I went to a restaurant once for a wedding anniversary party - I wasn't "working."
Unbeknownst to me, the couple were great buddies with the restaurant owner. I kept thinking the lady simply thought I was sexy because of the way she kept staring at me. Then I learned who she was and realized she knew who I was. I couldn't get out of there fast enough.
Even if the revealed critic can eat dinner and be stared at at the same time, you've got to think of the ramifications. What happens when the staff moves on? They'll certainly tell their new co-workers and old friends (that happened to me when one smart waitress figured out who I was after the review was published. She told a friend at another restaurant who told the owner ...and you know how that ended up.)
One critic I know stopped wearing red glasses because that got around and that's how people began to id her. Also chefs and owners will get calls from their friends asking for the i.d.

Ajay also says:
" I suppose that I may be tempted to ask for some of the dishes said critic encounters, but I would be unlikely to do so in the great majority of my restaurant experiences."
You can and should ask for dishes served to a reviewer.
Lots of my readers clip out the reviews and carry them into the restaurant. They point to it and say that's what they want. And woe to the restaurant that has taken some prized morsel off the menu.
I went to the Ranch House on a trip to California a few years ago. I never said who I was but mentioned I had learned about them from the Saveur cover story. The kitchen sent out a complimentary sample of the spring pea soup (prominently featured in the story) for our table to sample. CLearly, there had been a lot of requests for it because of that story.
So, go ahead. After all, it's your money and the restaurant should be able to comply.

[Andy Lynes]

For an excellent example of discloure in a review, read Steve Shaw's current log.

It's the stuff he doesn't disclose that worries me

[Jinmyo]

For an excellent example of discloure in a review, read Steve Shaw's current log.

It's the stuff he doesn't disclose that worries me

That's for the protection of our delicate sensibilities, Andy.

[cabrales]

people want a review to be representative of the average meal served at a place. Personally I can never understand this sentiment. I want a review to showcase a place AT IT'S BEST. And that is because when I go to a place, I want to know how to get them to perform for me AT THEIR MAXIMUM LEVEL. Why would anyone want the average experience if they can acquire the knowledge of how to get the best experience?  :confused:

Steve P -- I agree that it is appropriate (not necessary, but preferable) for a reviewer to experience a restaurant at its best. However, you suggest that the resulting review might empower you with information enabling you to get the restaurant to perform for you at the maximum level. How specifically have you used information in a review to that end?  

ajay -- Part of the reason that I find reviews describing maximum performance useful is that it might help me select restaurants to visit to determine, for myself, whether that restaurant is capable of rendering "art" experiences for me. Given the difficulty for almost every restaurant to even approach that level when it is performing at its max, a review based only on the "average" experience would not be irrelevant (it would be background information), but it wouldn't be particularly interesting (as Steve P has noted).

Where my views differ from Steve's is on the role of a review based on max performance in enabling me to improve the restaurant's performance for me. For me, the max performance review helps me identify/confirm the restaurants I might choose to visit. However, once that is done, I am not sure how the contents of such a review would help eek out superior performance. For example, one could imagine Diner X seeking to impress upon a restaurant that he understands it by using observations on the chef's cuisine drawn from a review. That would appear to be a relatively futile execise because the review is public information, and regurgitation or massaging of information from the review would not be particularly interesting to the restaurant.

I believe I frequently obtain maximum level (or close) performance from restaurants in France and the UK. Granted, almost all restaurants, even when they perform at their max, cannot achieve artistry. I'm not sure demanding max performance (unclear what "demanding" it means) is the best way to get it.

[Steve Plotnicki]

Cabrales-How else would you know about off-menu dishes in advance of eating there? When you walk into a restaurant, they present you with a menu. And unless somebody tells you about things that aren't printed on the menu, whether voluntarily or not, how would you know to order them?  Whether I get the information from a reviewer, or a friend, makes no difference. I just want the info.

Three years ago I went to San Sebastian and had dinner at Arzak. In advance of going, I spoke with a good friend of mine, who happens to be expert in wine about going there. He told me that they had 1958 Marquis de Riscal Rioja Gran Reserva there for not much money. When I got to the restaurant, the sommelier gave me the wine list. I looked it over and the '58 Riscal wasn't anywhere in sight. So I called the sommelier over and said to him that a friend told me it's on the list. Does he have any in his cellar that maybe isn't on the list. Well he hemmed and he hawed but I was held my ground, insisting that he answer the question, yes or no? After a good 60 seconds of him trying to convince me not to push it, he shrugged, turned around and gave me a different wine list. This one had bottles of rioja going back to the 20's. And the bottle I wanted, which is probably the best bottle of rioja ever produced was $45. Well cutting to the end of the story, the wine was more than fantastic, and since then I've bought near 2 cases at auction.

Now you tell me, how would someone who was treated to the "average" experience know to tell me about that bottle?
It's the same thing with Ajay's experience at Arpege. If I was the regular there instead of the person I dined with, and Ajay told the captain at the beginning of the meal that he had heard from me about these special surprise menus and he wanted the same treatment, he would have left smiling instead of unhappy.

So if you don't know, how are you supposed to ask for it?

Ajay-Fine. No offense taken. Sometimes inference and subtlety don't come cross on the Internet.

In addition to some of the other aspects of 3 star dining I've been pontificating on, I think that my view of 3 star restaurants changed when I decided to allow them to serve me whatever they wanted to serve. Now I understand that this isn't affordable to everyone but, my advice to anyone who is on a limited budget is to eat less three star meals, but make the one you eat be an over the top experience.

If I can ascribe a value to this concept it would be like this. The surprise menu at at a place like Arpege for 300 euros is usually more than twice as good as the set menu for 150 euros. And I think there is a fundamental reason for this. If you go to Arpege and eat off the menu, the egg with maple syrup, the lobster in sauternes, etc., the kitchen makes those dishes all of the time. It's not fresh for them, nor challenging enough in the way you want them to be if you are looking for cutting edge. But if you ask them to make a surprise menu, my experience is that they usually (not always, sometimes it's a dud,) rise to the occasion. And I can assure you, that by ordering in this fashion, and asking to speak to the chef at some point in the meal so you can personally kiss his ass and tell him his roasted turnip tasted like god picked it that morning, you will be treated like a first class citizen, instead of merely American riff-raff who wants a 3 star meal when they are in Paris.

My salmon at Daniel was overcooked, three times before they got it rght. As an aside, many chefs seem to have a problem knowing what raw salmon means. More than half of the time it is overcooked and I send it back for a new one. Then the next one comes out almost raw, and it goes back for a bit more fire. Fo some reason, there is no consensus among chefs as to what "rare" salmon means. As for sending back my food in a 3 star, well I can think of 3 out of 4 dinners sending their food back in Pyramide last May. It's only a two star, but it has the pretensions of a 3 star.

[cabrales]

. . . . And unless somebody tells you about things that aren't printed on the menu, whether voluntarily or not, how would you know to order them?  Whether I get the information from a reviewer, or a friend, makes no difference. I just want the info. So if you don't know, how are you supposed to ask for it?
. . . .
As for sending back my food in a 3 star, well I can think of 3 out of 4 dinners sending their food back in Pyramide last May. It's only a two star, but it has the pretensions of a 3 star.

Steve -- The examples you provide are of things that certain diners who know and who are not professional critics have some chance of getting. To the extent a professional alerts diners to these beneficial items in a review, that's great. I think what ajay might be saying is that there is special treatment, including possibly special dishes, to which only critics would have access, by reason of their potential to influence regular diners. To the extent that a critic describes a dish that is just not available to other diners, a diner's ability to use the information to get the same treatment is mooted. If Patricia Wells got special dishes from Robuchon, I doubt that a diner (even knowing what those dishes were) would have been able to demand them and get them prepared in the same way.

Now, an unavailability of dishes wouldn't bother me, because I am interested in knowing of what a kitchen is capable. If a kitchen is capable, it has a chance of providing an "art" meal and I am interested in investigating it (even if the meal I receive is not the same as the critic's).

ajay -- I have only sent food back at a two-star restaurant, Michel Rostang. Our dining party had ordered the all-truffle menu. One of the dishes ordered by some in the party was a foie gras galette, laced with artichokes in a work-intensive "checkerboard" motif. When this dish was tasted, it was discovered that the foie gras had spoiled, because it had a distinctive sour edge (that no verjus or similar ingredient could have replicated). The dining party members who tasted this initially were extremely knowledgeable with respect to food. I tasted a nibble, and agreed.

We beckoned Rostang's blonde, stylish daughter to our table, handed her the two flawed dishes, and asked her to have the kitchen taste the foie gras. She returned a couple of minutes later, quite embarassed, and said that the dishes would be replaced with the alterantive item for that stage of the truffle tasting menu (it was artichoke soup with truffle and some non-Serrano Spanish ham).  We handled the matter decisively, but without making too much commotion.

Imagine our surprise when, two dishes later, we thought we discovered spoiled foie gras again in a sauce for a dish. We were shocked that, upon our alerting the kitchen that there were problems with foie gras, the kitchen had not tasted every item (including pre-made sauces) that included foie gras. This time, we said nothing because it would have likely been unduly embarassing for the restaurant. Service flaws peppered the meal, leaving the spoiled foie gras matter aside.


At L'Ambroisie, I have been part of a dining party that did not send food back, but that complained about the overcooking of fish.  I thought that the fish was overcooked, but did not complain. Another member of my dining party, who was quite young, motioned the maitre d' to our table and proceeded to indicate how disappointed he was with the cooking of the dish. The maitre d' listened, whisked the dishes away (we were done anyhow), and came back within 3-5 minutes. The kitchen sampled the fish and it had not been overdone, he informed us in a neutral voice. The other members of my dining party were so angry that they declined dessert and coffee. I insisted on a verbena infusion so that we would not be leaving too hastily, and tipped the maitre d' generously. Due to the tipping, I don't think I was tainted by this episode, from a future dining opportunity perspective.  

[Steve Plotnicki]

"To the extent that a critic describes a dish that is just not available to other diners, a diner's ability to use the information to get the same treatment is mooted. If Patricia Wells got special dishes from Robuchon, I doubt that a diner (even knowing what those dishes were) would have been able to demand them and get them prepared in the same way."

Cabrales-I don't agree with this. It is rare that I know about a special dish in a restaurant where they won't make it if I ask for it. They mightnot have the ingredients on hand, or there might not be sufficient prep time. But it is my experience that if a restaurant has a certain dish in their repetoire, they will gladly make it for anyone who asked. And in my wine story, Arzak obviously keeps a reserve wine list that you have to ask for. Forcefully too. How would one know to ask for it if they didn't offer it up voluntarily to an anonynous critic?

[cabrales]

Steve P -- Do you tend to ask for special dishes by name at restaurants, even if they are not on the menu? How else have you used information from a review?  

[ajay]

Steve,

A surprise menu was out of the question at L'arpege.  Just as we were seated, (directly across from the entrance), the table next to us, towards whom, as I have previously mentioned, the captain was quite obsequious, began to smoke.  All of the members of my dining party have allergies to smoke, and so we were not prepared to deal with a full 7-8 course degustation.  

Moreover, though we had all agreed to spend lavishly in France, we all felt that 300 Euros for the printed tasting menu was excessive.  (Gagnaire's menu was 143 Euros and the Troisgros menu was 180).  There being three of us, we decided to order al la carte.  My point is that if a review is excessivley slanted toward the strange, extraordinary and maginficent, as is likely to occurr where a critic is recognized, they will be no help to diners situated as we were.  I dare say that the majority of diners in a particular establishment on a given night will be be looking for advice on how to maximize their ordering strategy without having to specially instruct the waitstaff and the kitchen.  It is intereting to note that L'Arpege turned out to be our most expensive dining experience in France, despite the fact that we did not ask for surprise menus [this was even though we spent less on wine at L'Arpege than at any other restaurant].

In New York, however, I am less inclined to request special menus.  This is for two reasons: one, I can't afford them and two, I sense that it isn't simply enought to request them when one arrives, but rather one must be a friend of the restaurant, or have a VIP make the reservation for you.  

Now, your suggestion of reducing the number of fine dining experiences I have is a viable option.  But, I'm afraid, that it would leave me eating pastrami a bit too often for my taste !  Therefore, I am willing to go to a place, and not demand cutting edge treatment.  Naturally, the egulleteer inside of me would prefer such treatment, but all to often, in New York, despite asking for such treatment, I am dissappointed anyway.  Thus, when I read the New York Times, or other publication, I would like some advice on how to maximize the experience I am likely to encounter.

Perhaps this is eccentric and idiosyncratic, but it is nevertheless what I expect.  I will say that this exchange has helped me to better understand what Steve desires from a restaurant critic, and I agree that such information can certainley be useful.  I just think that such information is not demanded by the majority of any critic's readership, and said critic should take this into account in approaching and writing his/her review.

Cabrales,

We felt like sending a dish back at Gagnaire, but decided against it.  I think our standards for sending a dish back are as rigorous as those you seem to have adopted.  However, on my return to France (when I will hopefully have a better command of at least restaurant Fench), I hope to be a bit more assertive.

We felt that the turbot they served us at Gagnaire was oversalted in the extreme, but as were already having communication problems with the waitstaff, we decided to let it slide.  

PS Steve, I would be greatful if you could post your tasting notes [including the world famous Plotnicki point system] on the '58 Marquis de Riscal Rioja Gran Reserva.  I doubt that I will get my hands on the stuff anytime soon, but I am intruiged.  And who knows, if I can find it anywhere near
$45, I would probably bite!

[Steve Plotnicki]

"Now, your suggestion of reducing the number of fine dining experiences I have is a viable option.  But, I'm afraid, that it would leave me eating pastrami a bit too often for my taste"

Ajay-There are two issues here. Part of the problem, and it goes to the original point, is that the basic meal you get at most top restaurants these days is mediocre. In my estimation, more than 2/3 of the meals I have in top places are medicore beyond belief. And to me, the standard used by critics in general perpetuates that mediocrity. But in their defense (the critics and the customers,) my standards are much higher than theirs.

But part of the reason my standards are so high is that I have been fortunate to have had a number of special menus that allowed me to recalibrate my palate. Which brings me back to your quote. Because if you had a few special meals under your belt, you would gladly eat more pastrami because a mediocre three star meal (like you experienced at Apege) wouldn't satisfy you.

As for the Rioja, I put together a tastiong of old Riojas I had accumulated over the years and I am posting a link to the tasting notes. Hope you enjoy them.

                           
 Rioja Tasting

[cabrales]

"Now, your suggestion of reducing the number of fine dining experiences I have is a viable option.  But, I'm afraid, that it would leave me eating pastrami a bit too often for my taste"

. . . the basic meal you get at most top restaurants these days is mediocre. In my estimation, more than 2/3 of the meals I have in top places are medicore beyond belief. . . . Because if you had a few special meals under your belt, you would gladly eat more pastrami . . . .

Steve P & ajay -- Perhaps certain of ajay's meals did not suit him, in a sense of subjective match.  That does not equate to saying that a mediocre meal was provided, obviously. Take Holly's experiences at Ferme de Mon Pere, and mine. Or Steve's and my take on Gagnaire. Or Fat Guy's take on ADNY versus my own (I'm willing to further consider on that one).

When I dine, I don't expect amazing meals (in terms of suitability for me) at most restaurants, and I usually don't get meals with which I am subjectively entralled (with certain rare exceptions). But I also believe the restaurants are probably performing at a pretty high level for me, and are making efforts.  The substantive outcome of failing to experience a truly fulfilling meal (in hindsight) at most establishments does not leave me not wanting to (1) try out places to which I have never been, (2) continuing to seek out restaurants that have a greater likelihood of meeting my subjective criteria, (3) enjoy any positive aspects of a dining experience, and (4) evaluate the negative aspects thereof.  I wouldn't say that 2/3 of top restaurants are mediocre, but I would say that top restaurants in France (except for a select handful) are not very fulfilling for me once I've visited them for two times or so. Perhaps, after some years, I will visit a restaurant again. Or if it's along the way to a restaurant in which I remain interested, I would revisit.

If I had to choose between (1) a week of inexpensive meals (I think I would choose eggs in all their forms (once I gain some basic cooking capabilities), Campbell's Soup or some nice blue cheese and crusty bread -- all of which I take in anyhow) and a single meal at a place I adore, and (2) fourteen not-so-great meals, I would choose the former. Hopefully, the day I'll have to make such choices will not arrive.

But I do engage in trade-offs on the dimension of time. For example, I might have a choice between 3 good meals in City A, or incurring the travel time/fatigue to take a single entralling meal in City B and taking the remaining 2 meals in transit or quickly (to maximize rest or to permit work on which I have fallen behind while traveling).  I have made this choice countless times, and it is to always choose the latter (the single great meal). Traveling to another city, even within Europe, is tiring. I try to get rest on trains, and often succeed. It is not unusual for me to take 3-5 hour train rides one-way in search of a meal, and I might do that more than once during a weekend (i.e., go to City B, then City C in France).  

[ChocoKitty]

To add fuel to the fire (I'm sure many of you have already seen this piece): a discussion of Michael Bauer's influence in SF.

http://www.sanfran.c...auer/bauer.html