158 replies to this topic

[Jinmyo]

Uh. The constitution? Generally good as long as I go for walkies, thanks.

[lizziee]

As for Cabrales, I'll take care of her. I need to take her to dinner at Gagnaire and explain it to her  .

Steve P -- Err, you might be beaten to that by another eGulleteer who is assisting in my "rehabilitation". My condition is, I believe, incurable and perfect for me.

I think it is impossible to change the bias one has towards food or a particular restaurant, but I think it is important for anyone, be it a professional critic or an amateur, but knowledgeable diner, to honestly take into account one's biases and then try to assess a restaurant on what the chef is trying to achieve. I prefer Gagnaire to Ducasse, because I enjoy the cerebral aspects of Gagnaire's cuisine. Ducasse's emphasis is not the cerebral, but the integrity of the ingredient, perfectly prepared. My expectations at Ducasse and Gagnaire are very different and I think it unfair to use my personal preferences as a basis to downgrade one over the other.

Cabrales, I fear that the only way you will like Gagnaire is if he cooked in the style you enjoyed. But then, you would not be eating Gagnaire's food.

[Steve Plotnicki]

Cabrales - Well the issue isn't whether it is perfect for you, the issue is whether your palate is complete in it's understanding of haute cuisine. I'm going to have to eat in both Arpege and Gagnaire 3-4 times each in a short period of time and do an in-depth analysis of each place.

Liziee - To me you just said that Gagniare is good and Ducasse is......

[lizziee]

Steve,

To fill in the blank - I say that Ducasse is a perfect 3 * dining experience and anyone would find their expectations met. His goals for the diner, the way I view what Ducasse is "trying to say", is perfectly met. I would not hesitate to suggest Ducasse, but I would also clue someone in about what to expect.

[lizziee]

Now, to the implied question. What I expect from a reviewer is to "clue me in," and "what to expect." The reason I made the trek to El Bulli 2 years ago was from a review in AMEX that described "inventive, creative" cuisine. It was for that one reason I was intrigued and built a trip around getting there. If on getting there, I asked where is the --------- on the menu, then, it's as if I didn't use the review at all. For example, when you read a description of a hotel, you decide if the fit is right for you. I think, given that you are comparing 3* to 3*, there is a different fit for each person.

[Steve Klc]

Deacon--why get so disproportionately hung up on the analogy? Isn't there a chance you misinterpreted Shaw's attempt to avoid the discussion of the analogy in order to get back to the real discussion?

I think these recent excellent posts by Lizziee go a long way toward explaining the thought process behind what Shaw meant when he drew an analogy to the Constitution and how the Supreme Court justices have to put their personal, subjective feelings and preferences aside in order to evaluate the task at hand fairly and properly by working within the Constitution, and yes, even bending it to their needs.

Lizziee wrote "I think it is important for anyone, be it a professional critic or an amateur, but knowledgeable diner, to honestly take into account one's biases and then try to assess a restaurant on what the chef is trying to achieve. I prefer Gagnaire to Ducasse, because I enjoy the cerebral aspects of Gagnaire's cuisine. Ducasse's emphasis is not the cerebral, but the integrity of the ingredient, perfectly prepared. My expectations at Ducasse and Gagnaire are very different and I think it unfair to use my personal preferences as a basis to downgrade one over the other."

But each experience takes place within the longstanding, codified arena of fine dining which Michelin and Gault-Millau popularized and which the chefs themselves have built upon for hundreds of years, built upon what has come before and which knowledgeable diners and reviewers have to be aware of or they are simply not knowledgeable. It is not subjective and can't be merely explained away as subjective preference without the recognition of this over-riding achievement, this over-riding record. This collective history is the restaurant reviewer's "Constitution" if you will. It may not be a single or concise document but it does exist nonetheless. Ignore it at your peril and risk marginalization.

Shaw urges reviewers and diners to be as "completely unbiased and objective about the job" as possible. So does Lizziee and so do I.

You say "But you introduce a completely separate aspect of the equation when you begin talking about absolutes, as with the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court does not deal with matters of personal taste. Your argument is really about the Constitution being the law of the land, as if there were one standard of good food handed down on stone tablets from On High."

No Deacon--the justices of the supreme court deal with personal taste all the time--and have to put their subjective, emotional, personal feelings and tastes aside each day--they have to ignore whether they are Catholic or catholic or Protestant personally--ignore whether they are subjectively against abortion for instance and assess whatever abortion issue presents itself as a matter of law--as a matter of how it fits within the longstanding legal framework which they themselves have helped to build up with their decisions but the framework and precedents existed long before. So to with restaurant reviewers and writers assessing the achievement of the current crop of chefs and restauranteurs.

Deacon, you go on to say "As I said, we're dealing here with esthetics, not ethics."
Again, no--we’re dealing with both aesthetics and ethics and also with professionalism, awareness, knowledge, fairness and experience--in both the Supreme Court justice and the critic or knowledgeable diner writing up a review of an experience or determing a "best restaurant" list rather than merely a list of subjective favorites.

Granted, “the constitution says whatever the supreme court says it does” but that is until the other branches of government decide to change it and sell the change to the public. This is what I suspect Shaw didn't see as a productive path to go down, not out of condescension but because who really wants to go down that path on a food site? There are parallels to this in food media and if you insist I'll go down that road with you but again, it's off point and you risk getting even further distracted and Bourdain-like.

You go on to state Shaw's "argument seems to be that the rules for effective restaurant criticism are as absolute as the US Constitution." Again, I don't think so--just that Shaw recognizes the criteria for evaluating the best restaurants as opposed to one’s subjectively favorite restaurants has existed for hundreds of years--as have the criteria for defining excellence of a chef's achievement--and that that excellence and achievement is not inherently subjective.

It's much harder to determine "best" for both Supreme Court justice and restaurant critic.

There is an immutable baseline--it’s called the 500 years of culinary history and man’s achievement in fine dining which has reached it's apex in the 3 star Michelin restaurants in Paris and around the world, the US restaurants everyone knows are the best like the French Laundry and the "eight best" in NYC like Ducasse, Daniel, Le Bernardin, et al--of which Blue Hill does not belong, yet. (I've never been there yet I can say definitively it is not one of the 8 best restaurants in NYC yet just. Whether it's top 15, top 30, I can't say until I eat there. How can I do that? Because there are at least 8 restaurants in NYC offering near flawless consummate achievements in technique, presentation, service, quality of ingredients, creativity, ambience night in and night out--delivering what the chef is trying to achieve against this historical standard of achievment--that's how. The small, personal nature, minor flaws and service mis-steps which have been reported mitigate against Blue Hill being included in this group of "best" just yet, regardless of whether one is pre-disposed to subjectively appreciate dining in this style.)
You may have one underwhelming meal at the French Laundry but still have to conclude it is one of the very few, very "best" restaurants in the US. If you didn't, you would be suspect or marginalized, just like a certain justice or two on the Supreme Court.

Yes there are sudden punctuations--the sudden emergence of an Adria or a Gagnaire which upsets the canon--but the really knowledgeable, really trusted sources find a way to deal with these and frame them in the context of what has come before--and this exists outside what one's subjective response is.

Back to the analogy--Don't forget the only way the justices got nominated and approved to the supreme court in the first place is that they’ve proved their grasp of the laws that have been set down--their facility with the baseline, the canon--and so, too, a diner or restaurant critic has to demonstrate their knowledge of the culinary canon, their awareness, open mind and sense of appreciation beyond their own subjective preferences to earn the respect of others as a reliable gauge, a reliable source of something other than just personal feelings and reportage. In short, a proven authority.

You go on with “Even granting that the Constitution were infallible and immutable, which it isn't, that still has really no bearing on restaurant criticism. There is no Constitution of How to Cook, and no panel of nine grand poo-bahs interpreting it.’

and

“Restaurant critics get their jobs in a variety of ways, some of which have little to do with formal training in cooking. What's the analogy, the James Beard Awards? If anything, the analogy should be drawn to other areas of criticism, like painting, film, photography, etc.”

Well, you're right of course, but that doesn't get you very far. All you've demonstrated is why restaurant criticism and acquiring culinary awareness and appreciation is so difficult. I'm afraid forming an opinion of Roe v. Wade is comparable to forming an opinion of a particular Dover sole dish--and for either opinion to be valuable is can't rely solely or even mostly on subjective personal feelings.

Neither culinary nor legal achievement exists in a vacuum or a narrow, subjective frame of reference.

[lizziee]

Steve,

Excellent, well-thought out post.

Steve says:
"Because there are at least 8 restaurants in NYC offering near flawless consummate achievements in technique, presentation, service, quality of ingredients, creativity, ambience night in and night out--delivering what the chef is trying to achieve against this historical standard of achievment--that's how." The crucial part of this statement is "delivering what the chef is trying to achieve against this historical standard of achievement." Subjectively, I might not "like" the achievement, but as a critic or knowledgeable diner, I have to put personal preference aside and judge a chef on what he wants to "say." My expectations for a critic is to let me know what the chef tried to achieve, how well it was accomplished and how well it was delivered. With this knowledge in hand, I can then decide if this is a restaurant I would enjoy or just as soon avoid. I think that is where subjective evaluation comes into play - the decision to go or not.

Steve says,"Yes there are sudden punctuations--the sudden emergence of an Adria or a Gagnaire which upsets the canon--but the really knowledgeable, really trusted sources find a way to deal with these and frame them in the context of what has come before--and this exists outside what one's subjective response is." I think this is the crux for the serious diner. Steve P. put it more succinctly,"Well the issue isn't whether it is perfect for you, the issue is whether your palate is complete in it's understanding of haute cuisine" or understanding of what Adria and/or Gagnaire want you to experience. Whether my preference is for the cerebral or the purity of the ingredient or the subtle mixing of flavors or the innovative and unexpected is unimportant. My judgement must put aside personal preference and focus on the success of the stated goal.

[cabrales]

Because there are at least 8 restaurants in NYC offering **near flawless consummate** achievements in technique, presentation, service, quality of ingredients, creativity, ambience night in and night out--delivering what the chef is trying to achieve against this historical standard of achievment--that's how.

Steve Klc -- That's high praise for eight restaurants in NY. How would you see those NY restaurants relative to, say, restaurants in France, and what are the eight NY restaurants to which you refer?

[Steve Klc]

Off the cuff Cab, I suspect if we hashed out the merits of each, NYC would lag behind but I'm not confident enough to predict without engaging others and going through the process first. I will of course decline and deflect politely as Shaw and Bux and Plotnicki and countless others have for the moment re: the particular 8.

And here I was worrying the lawyers and political scientists of the bunch were going to jump down my throat as a liberal arts major with the temerity to even attempt to interpret the jurisprudence of Mssr. Shaw! Thank you Cab for letting me off that hook--on which you most certainly could skewer me--but I think your larger point is a valid thread worth pursuing on its own merits--narrowly defined as a comparison of the most elite expressions, the most total experiences, the very "best" of NYC versus the very best of Paris or all of France. No Adria, no London wannabees, no French Laundry--even though many would certainly include those on any best of the world list. Just New York and Paris (or all of France) and only at the higher end. Several people here have been hinting at and dodging around this since the "NYC 8 best" popped up yesterday.

And let's try to put ourselves in the mindset that Shaw and Lizziee and Plotnicki have advocated--though there is not complete agreement with the feasibility or reward of this approach. I'm game--though we'd have to try to define the parameters in the ways Shaw and Plotnicki have started to in posts from yesterday or we'll be lost before we begin.

[cabrales]

A comparison of NY vs. Paris might be unduly restrictive. French Laundry would, as you note be a significant omission. Furthermore, exclusion of non-Parisian areas of France would exclude a great restaurant like Troisgros. US vs. France might be more appropriate. I don't want to touch that topic, though, although I believe France would unequivocally be preferable

[Fat Guy]

France would certainly be preferable for French food.

[Deacon]

Deacon--why get so disproportionately hung up on the analogy? Isn't there a chance you misinterpreted Shaw's attempt to avoid the discussion of the analogy in order to get back to the real discussion?

Oh, absolutely. I took awhile to make my point, but I wasn't arguing as some sort of Constitutional authority. I didn't want to get sidetracked either, I just thought that the analogy could've been tighter.

I appreciate your moderate tone, Steve, and the fact that you addressed my rant point-by-point and at length. (I really think there ought to be a smilie for "sarcasm"--it's very difficult to tell when someone's being sarcastic in print sometimes, without a whole lot of context.)

I was shocked and hurt that Shaw replied in the way he did, actually. I really did offer my comments in all humility--but I was at the same time aware that I was as entitled to venture an opinion as anyone else. I suppose my reaction was outraged because, although I'm relatively new at recreational eating, I expect my opinion (and all opinions here) to be respected rather than summarily dismissed. I've always looked up to S. Shaw, I like his site and his reviews. But I guess perhaps I was looking too hard for a crumb of approval from the sensei. When you look forward, eventually, to maybe a "good job" or "nice post" and what you get instead, after 70 posts, is "I'd tell you why you're wrong, but honestly I don't have time; go 'way, boy, you bother me," well, I suppose I was rather disappointed and disillusioned. It's not quite what I had expected from him.

I suppose I struck a nerve. I didn't make my original comment as a personal attack.

Getting back to the topic for a moment, I really don't think that there are universal standards of food criticism. On "A Cook's Tour" Anthony Bourdain has sampled food that I wouldn't consider appealing, but that certain people do who live in other cultures with other esthetic standards. I'm sure there are aborigines, or primitive tribes in Borneo or Africa, that might consider grubs to be not only acceptable, but the height of their food culture, a complete, lip-smacking delicacy. I just don't believe that the "standards" are unversal.

As far as Michelin is concerned, with reference to French cuisine as being the wellspring, I'm reminded of the scene in "Amadeus" where Mozart gets exasperated and shouts "The Italians, always the Italians!!!" Not that I hate French cooking--if I could afford it, I'd be off to the French countryside like a shot. It's just that I believe that these "objective" standards are more malleable and culturally determined that the absolutists contend. Once upon a time, Trader Vic's was thought to be the extreme edge of the foreign and exotic. Times change. I wouldn't concede even that preparation is always the determining factor--what about Alice Waters and Chez Panisse, where half the battle is getting your hands on outstandingly good ingredients?

"Top Ten" lists are fun to read and argue over. I think there's more consensus at the top of the scale than at the middle, obviously. Once you start getting below ten, the range of opinion broadens quickly. But just among fifteen people, I don't think you'd get any absolute agreement on the top ten restaurants in the country, or even in New York. There'd be overlap, but not lock-step correspondence. Is that because one person's taste is "better" or "worse" than another's? I don't think so; I prefer to use "broader" and "narrower." Shaw has undoubtedly eaten more widely than I have, which is why I respect his opinion. If Shaw says that Sandor's in Florida is worth trying, or that Thai place in Queens that starts with "Pri," that's good enough for me. But I don't eat with his mouth, I eat with mine. It's a starting point, a good lead. I have the responsibility of forming my own sense of taste, and doing anything less would be slavish and be a surrender to the herd mentality.

I admit that I'm a "youngster" at this, and like any youngster, my attention span is limited. So's my bank account, so I can't do nearly as much travelling and recreational eating as I'd like. But I'm still devoted to the cause.

[Fat Guy]

Deacon, you're making me feel bad about myself. And I really think you misinterpreted my attempt to put the analogy aside and engage you on the subject at hand. I'm no more rude and obnoxious here than I am anywhere else, which is to say if you've been reading my stuff you already know I'm a condescending asshole.

I agree that you won't get absolute lock step agreement. There is room for disagreement within a framework of agreement. The thing is, you need that framework before you can start picking apart its specific components. I mean, if somebody comes up to me on the street and says "French Laundry sucks," I'm going to laugh at that person. I'm going to assume that's a person who just doesn't understand fine dining. But if Steve Klc says to me "French Laundry sucks," I'm going to listen to him very carefully. Because he and I are speaking the same language in general, so we can disagree on the specifics. If you say "French Laundry sucks," well, you're here on eGullet so you're automatically ten levels above the person in the street, so I'll probably want to ask you some more questions about your experience and judgment before I decide which direction the conversation is going.

And in fact French Laundry is a restaurant about which I disagree with the gourmet consensus. I do that occasionally and when I do so I do it very publicly, as I did for about a year with Ducasse's New York place. I'd like to dine at French Laundry about ten times in order to write something really comprehensive about it -- I don't think it's been held up to careful enough scrutiny lately. The consensus is always shifting, but with common assumptions we can strive for it. Restaurant reviews, however, don't usually deal with these consensus issues. They usually hit restaurants early on and try to classify and describe them. They talk about how to get the most out of a given restaurant. They are explanatory as well as judgmental. And in the end, as restaurants mature and become more consistent, you find the critical community falling into a fairly tight cluster of opinions around each key restaurant, with the occasional iconoclast -- who may be right once in awhile -- taking a completely offbeat position

[Deacon]

. . . as restaurants mature and become more consistent, you find the critical community--

--getting hair plugs, buying a red Camaro, and dropping its old restaurants in favor of younger, prettier restaurants. . . .

[Fat Guy]

Now that's the Deacon we know and love.

[jordyn]

This conversation has moved a bit since I last posted, but I wanted to make a few comments before it fades into obscurity. I thought Steve Klc's comments were particularly insightful and racheted this conversation up to another level.

First, I think it's perfectly reasonable to suggest that a general consensus of "the best" restaurants could be produced. Obviously, there will be disagreements here or there, but a group of food-loving people could probably produce such a list that everyone was relatively happy with. Such a process inherently accomodates quirky individual preferences, such as Cabrales' dislike for chocolate, basically by ignoring them in terms of devising an overall mutually agreeable list.

Further, there are, without a doubt, certain standards and approaches that have been developed for fine dining over a long period of time. These do not cease to be relevant just because someone prefers hamburgers to foie gras. I'm perfectly willing to accept that Fat Guy can tell the difference between good mackrel and bad mackrel, or even that a neophyte such as I can see some interesting and valuable cooking being done at a restaurant that I don't particularly care for.

Beyond this, however, some of the lines that people have been drawing between "subjective" and "objective" become fuzzier. Over time, we build on our base of experience, or decide that some of it wasn't that useful in the first place, and make modifications to our approach. For example, how relevant should the Michelin three-star standard be to evaluating fine dining in America? Certainly you see influences, but given that some (much?) of the Michelin evaluation is based on an approach to service as well as to food, and that even the best American restaurants take a considerably different approach to service. (Fat Guy has argued, I believe, that Gramercy Tavern may be the best restaurant in New York; yet I do not believe that there is any chance it could garner a three-star rating from Michelin, based on service elements alone.) To this point, I think that it is telling that the New York restaurants that Steve Klc points at as being part of the "eight best" are some of the most obviously French in the City.

More importantly, considered from the perspective of an individual assessment, subjective reactions ought to the taste of food ought to play an integral role in evaluating a particular restaurant. This does not imply that a review should not take a variety of other factors into account, such as technique, quality of ingredients, service, and so on, but it does mean that at the end of the day one of the primary reasons that we go to good restaurants (as opposed to spectales like the Russian Tea Room) is to eat good food. And by good, I mean good-tasting. Clever technique is not developed in a vaccuum, and without any particular insight into the psyche of chefs, that the goal of this fancy cooking is to produce appealing cuisine. Similarly, the best mackrel in the world probably doesn't do a whole lot for anyone if served in a nice motor oil glaze. Going too far in trying to separate out reactions to flavor is to miss much of the point of all of this eating in the first place.

Taking this a step further, reviews that do not engage in this sort of reaction to flavor are not as useful as those that do. Fat Guy, you stated that your Tasting Room review was a very good one, while Le Bernadin's was merely average. It is not a huge leap of logic to suggest that one of the reasons the Tasting Room write-up is better than the one on Le Bernadin is that the former engages in a more extensive evaluation of, and reaction to, the taste of the food. As Steve P. pointed out early on in this thread, if a reviewer has particular likes or dislikes, it's important that these aspects of his or her personality comes through in the review, but with such information in hand, the review becomes much more useful if it does contain some of the subjective reactions of the reviewer. Why? Because many of us reading the review will have similar reactions for similar reasons, which is what helps us decide if we're going to like a place.

To return to Fat Guy's Supreme Court analogy, technique is like legal maneuvering, quality service may be great oration, but at the end of the day, if you don't have a substantive argument (in this case great tasting food), the Court's still going to vote you down 9-0.

[Fat Guy]

Well said.

[Jonathan Day]

Neither culinary nor legal achievement exists in a vacuum or a narrow, subjective frame of reference.

Isn't this the way through the interminable arguments about French vs Chinese, objective vs subjective and the like?

The realities we are seeking in restaurant reviews (I was going to say "and Supreme Court debates, but let that pass) are socially constructed. They are neither objective ["belonging not to the consciousness or to the perceiving or thinking subject but to what is presented to this or to the non-ego, external to the mind, real"] nor subjective ["giving prominence to or depending on personal idiosyncrasy or individual point of view"].

There are old and well established traditions of French cuisine, based not on the periodic table of the elements but on thousands of dinners, held over many decades, and many discussions of those dinners. Those traditions give us criteria against which I can evaluate the work of Keller or Vrinat or Senderens. And those traditions change over time; the great dishes we seek today are not those Catherine de Medici enjoyed, nor what Escoffier prepared. But they change slowly enough that we can notice and evaluate the changes, and judge whether an innovator like Passard has made a significant contribution. We can have a reasoned debate, or at least we can try. I can tell you my criteria for a judgement and you can decide whether you accept them.

I assume that a restaurant reviewer is working in this tradition, unless she or he announces otherwise. Didn't this happen some years ago, when Gault and Millau decided that "nouvelle was best"? But at least we knew what they were looking for. Within the broad tradition, a reviewer should follow generally accepted critieria. Someone who hates the taste of crème fraîche should not denounce a restaurant that uses it in the right place, in the right way. Or if the critic does so, she/he ought to explain that this is a result of a personal idiosyncrasy.

Of course the rhetoric of restaurant reviews breaks this rule from time to time, and most reviewers lapse into descriptions of their personal experiences, often as a way of making a point: "delicious", "yummy", "disgusting", "horrid", etc. In the reviews I find most helpful, though, these statements are in the minority. We wouldn't get much out of a review that went something like this: "First we had a lobster consommé. Mmmm! Then we had pigeon breasts in red wine sauce. Yummy! But then they served pig's trotters à l'alsacienne. Yuck!".

My philosophy is too rusty to get the right term for this. I think it is "intersubjectivity" and that the relevant philosophers are people like Husserl and perhaps Gadamer, but I may be wrong here.

This is why attempts to rank radically different cuisines (French, Italian, German, Chinese, etc.) are nonsensical. There is no meta-tradition in which you can evaluate the differring cuisines. Each needs to be taken on its own merits, on its own criteria. (Unless, of course, you believe that All Roads Lead Through France, but let's let that one pass too).

Definitions above are from the Concise Oxford.

[Fat Guy]

Also well said, though I think there is enough commonality and shared history and experience to establish a collective set of criteria for understanding world cuisines. Certainly the comparison across Europe is no trouble at all, and the New World falls into that grouping as well for culinary-evaluation purposes. But I think most gastronomes immediately -- call it instinctively -- grasp that there's something going on with Japanese, Indian, Chinese, and other non-Western cuisines. There has been heavy interaction since the time of Marco Polo. Ingredients are shared; we could make a list of hundreds. The currently recognizable cuisines in all the major culinary nations developed mostly after the dawn of the age of exploration -- and heavily in the past couple of centuries -- so they do not need to be viewed in isolation. Some specific Asian and Indian dishes go back a bit farther, but it doesn't make them out of bounds for analysis because they became part of the amalgam when exploration took hold.

As for objectivity and subjectivity and intersubjectivity and a priori and all that, I do think there are physiological components to taste and I give more credit to "nature" than most philosophers when it comes to discussing the goodness of food. Maybe that's because I know more about food than almost every philosopher, or maybe that's because almost every philosopher knows more than I do about philosophy. Either way, I'm not sure it matters in the end, because whether it's a fundamental truth of the universe or an agreed-upon construct or a little bit of each you still have to live your life as though it's real. Unless you disagree with it, of course.

[Jonathan Day]

Also well said, though I think there is enough commonality and shared history and experience to establish a collective set of criteria for understanding world cuisines. Certainly the comparison across Europe is no trouble at all, and the New World falls into that grouping as well for culinary-evaluation purposes. But I think most gastronomes immediately -- call it instinctively -- grasp that there's something going on with Japanese, Indian, Chinese, and other non-Western cuisines. There has been heavy interaction since the time of Marco Polo. Ingredients are shared; we could make a list of hundreds. The currently recognizable cuisines in all the major culinary nations developed mostly after the dawn of the age of exploration -- and heavily in the past couple of centuries -- so they do not need to be viewed in isolation. Some specific Asian and Indian dishes go back a bit farther, but it doesn't make them out of bounds for analysis because they became part of the amalgam when exploration took hold.

Can't disagree with any of this. At some level the focus on differences becomes silly -- is the cookery of the eastern arrière-pays so different to that of haute Provence that we have to treat them as completely separate? How about Mentonnais vs Ligurian?

Having said this, I think that the differences are worth focusing on and celebrating. I find the conversation about the best of specific regions and (micro)traditions richer and more interesting than generalised comparisons about one culinary tradition vs another.

whether it's a fundamental truth of the universe or an agreed-upon construct or a little bit of each you still have to live your life as though it's real.

For simple verification of this statement, tell any deconstructionist you meet that his fly is open. He will probably look.

[Fat Guy]

Or as my philosophy professor and mentor -- a towering and imposing man -- used to say to his students, "Oh, really, then how about I fucking kill you right now?"

[Deacon]

Or as my philosophy professor and mentor -- a towering and imposing man -- used to say to his students, "Oh, really, then how about I fucking kill you right now?"

You can't beat a death threat for a cogent philosophical argument.

Getting back to the word "marginalizing" for a moment, referring back to the idea of a person with an "idiosyncratic" top ten list. Is a person whose taste doesn't agree with the mainstream ("doesn't like French Laundry," for example) marginalizing HIMSELF--or is he BEING marginalized by the "critical community"? Is marginalizing something you do to yourself, or is it imposed upon you from the outside?

[Fat Guy]

Is marginalizing something you do to yourself, or is it imposed upon you from the outside?

Yes.

[Steve Plotnicki]

JD - That was very well said. But there is one other aspect that seems to be roaming around out there which we haven't touched on. Not everyone is up to snuff in being able to taste the difference between great food and not great food. Just like not everyone can understand music or foreign films. But the problem is things like food or music etc, we treat them as egalitarian activities so it's very difficult to have a conversation with people when they don't understand what's going on with the food. It's one thing when food is obviously delicious. But not all good food is obvious and it runs the gamut from being purposely cerebral to needing to acquire a taste for it. Wine is something that always raises this type of issue because I've seen people without the experiences of tasting mature wine think some of the greatest bottles in the world are "decrepit." This inconsistancy in experiences makes it difficult to communicate what a restaurant was like and I think it adds an additional task for a reviewer so he can explain it all properly.

[cabrales]

This inconsistancy in experiences makes it difficult to communicate what a restaurant was like and I think it adds an additional task for a reviewer so he can explain it all properly.

Your quote contains the assumption the reviewer can taste the cuisine sufficiently. Is that consistent with your views with respect to most professional US reviewers? How can they taste well if, as discussed under certain threads in the Food Media and News forum, many US food writers may not have had significant restaurant going experience (including within the US)?

[Jonathan Day]

...there is one other aspect that seems to be roaming around out there which we haven't touched on. Not everyone is up to snuff in being able to taste the difference between great food and not great food. Just like not everyone can understand music or foreign films. But the problem is things like food or music etc, we treat them as egalitarian activities so it's very difficult to have a conversation with people when they don't understand what's going on with the food. It's one thing when food is obviously delicious. But not all good food is obvious and it runs the gamut from being purposely cerebral to needing to acquire a taste for it. Wine is something that always raises this type of issue because I've seen people without the experiences of tasting mature wine think some of the greatest bottles in the world are "decrepit." This inconsistancy in experiences makes it difficult to communicate what a restaurant was like and I think it adds an additional task for a reviewer so he can explain it all properly.

There are a number of themes in this thread and in Steve's comment.

First, it's clear that some people have wider experiences of food and spend more time reflecting on and integrating those experiences than others.

So there is more to this pursuit than individual taste. There is mastery, both in the preparation of and appreciation of food. That mastery can take a long time to achieve. I have been "seriously" cooking and eating for around 30 years. Yet the more I learn about food and cookery the more I realise I have yet to learn. That's one reason it is so interesting.

Yet there are individual tastes, and there is a fine line between differences in taste and differences in knowledge. Some very experienced and discriminating diners use a bit more salt than I do. My wife likes roast meats or steaks fairly well cooked, where I prefer most of them very rare. Some people have an intense dislike for offal. My 9 year old daughter believes that the ultimate sauce for pasta is Heinz ketchup.

Somewhere between the salt and the ketchup we cross a line, but it's hard to see exactly where it is.

Tastes can be educated. A good food writer should be able to challenge her readers to stretch their tastes, to try new things, to appreciate differences that they may have missed. To pay more attention to something that can be perfectly mundane. A reviewer should be a guide not just a critic. This takes both the knowledge and experience (and taste memory) to interpret what's going on in restaurants, and the communication skill to bring it to life for readers.

There are different kinds of readers, of course. I expect more from a review in a specialist food magazine than from one in a popular paper. I will have a different conversation with someone who is not all that interested in food and wine than with someone who is.

The reviewer as guide / educator brings up an issue of pedagogy. In my experience it is very difficult to bring people along by pointing out their ignorance or by telling them that they are "wrong". Food, music, literature: almost everything is assumed to be completely relative these days. Whatever the merits of your case, it is easier to progress by persuading and cajoling than by standing on principle.

Years ago I prepared a leg of lamb for a luncheon party. It was incredible lamb: I had carefully selected it, boned it, trimmed off every shred of fell and fat and sinew, and covered it with fresh garlic and herbs. It was roasted perfectly: crusty on the outside, rare on the inside. I can still taste that lamb as I write this. As I served it, one of the guests asked, "Could I have some mint jelly?"

Back then, I snapped "No, of course not," insulting my guest, irritating my wife and casting a pall over an otherwise pleasant event. Today I wouldn't do that; I would apologise -- though I wouldn't offer mint jelly, even if we had it -- and encourage him to try the lamb as it was.

Some people are afraid of different taste experiences. A relative of mine believes that the best Italian food in the world is served at The Olive Garden, a restaurant chain. She is terrified of some of the dishes I've offered: risotto, pasta with garlic and winter greens, roast rabbit. Especially the latter.

(Incidentally, I believe that one taste experience that is relatively underdeveloped in the broad public is "bitter". I'll bet one reason that many people like the gummy sauces at The Olive Garden is that they are very sweet. John and Karen Hess pointed out this tendency toward oversweetening many years ago in The Taste of America. Some of the most interesting tastes -- truffles, for example -- have bitter overtones. But it takes awhile for most people to get to enjoy them).

If you don't believe that empathy trumps emphasis in educating palates, try raising children. I challenge you to convince a 6 year old that those mushrooms you've just served aren't "yucky".

I remember a French couple living in London who adopted a simple approach: they offered their children adult food and nothing else. If they didn't like it, they went hungry. And because the parents were terrified of their children being culturally assimilated, they prepared very French meals: tripe, brains, cabbage soup, the works.

Their 4 children looked like starving refugees and were perpetually cadging sweets and snacks from neighbours. This "my way or the highway" approach is not one I could adopt with my children, however strong my views on food. I shudder to see my daughter pouring ketchup on her pasta, but I'm not going to forbid it -- though I do take her to restaurants in Italy where ketchup isn't served. Over time she will learn new tastes and perhaps even get interested in food and cooking.

This brings me back to the food writer or restaurant reviewer. Not only does he need an extensive knowledge of food -- both theoretical (history, schools of cooking, science, etc.) and practical (many different restaurants) -- but, unless he is writing for an extremely specialised journal, he also requires the ability to build a bridge to the majority of diners, to tempt a few people out of The Olive Garden and into a more interesting dining room.

[lizziee]

JD,

I think you are absolutely correct that the reviewer is an educator. Unfortunately all reviewers are not created equal. Some reviewer's opinions I trust while others I tend to discount. Maybe, this is a matter of agreeing with those critiques that most mirror my own personal preferences, I hope not. Like you, I have been seriously involved with food and fine dining for over 30 years. I certainly don't consider myself a master or expert, but I do think I can critically assess a restaurant as well as a restaurant review.

What I expect from a good reviewer is to feel as if I had actually eaten there myself. What is the place like, what was the service like, what tastes were particularly enjoyed, what was below par and why, how does the restaurant fit in the culinary world and a host of other answers to help me in my own judgment. I think it is important to remember why we read a review in the first place. For some, it is to experience a restaurant vicariously. However, for me, it is usually to decide whether I want to go there myself. Will a bad review keep me from going? Not necessarily; it depends on the reviewer, how it was reviewed, was I given enough knowledge to make a fair assessment etc.

JD, as for your comments re children see raising food savvy children under general topics http://forums.egulle...6d982f1eb314ecf. You will find much agreement about forcing kids to eat food that they are not ready to try.

[lizziee]

Steve Klc posted in the New Jersey thread a comment about Karla Cook's review of The Frog and the Peach. I think his comments should be added here as they succinctly put into context what a valuable assessment of a restaurant should include:

"Because the review focused on the hash and not any of the flash--again to use your terms, terms I wouldn't use Nick--I don't see where the content of the review or any of the reviewer's opinions point to any road for improvement or put the reader into any context as to why the "very good" ranking was received. Is she really saying to the Frog & Peach (and to her readers)--I really liked the food but you're not delivering on the total goods given your price point, given what is happening at the other restaurants rated "excellent?" .... Does F&P have the panache or the refinement or deliver the goods of other restaurants at that price point, other destination restaurants?
By avoiding the "flash"--what I view instead as mere essential components of any fine dining review--wine, decor, service sensibility, ambiance, professionalism, pacing of the meal--I have no idea what the experience of taking a meal there would be like, nor how it fares in the context of New Jersey fine dining."
.... I still submit this is simply a poor review on its merits, inherently flawed conceptually and structurally, lacking both the nuance and respect a supposed "destination" restaurant should expect from any fine dining reviewer."

I think Steve has summed up in a nutshell, what we expect from a good review - a sense of the experience of the meal, a knowledgeable value judgment re the experience, specific examples to support that judgment and an assessment of the restaurant in the context of other restaurants at that price point.

[lizziee]

I am selfishly putting this in active posts as I hate to see Steve's remarks go unnoticed.

[jordyn]

It's not that they went unnoticed, it's just that there's nothing to say without making his ego too big.