Mebutter

I don't think the restaurant reviewing media defines the industry as a gang of frauds. But I am very, very nervous when anyone suggests the media can and should operate "synergistically" with an industry, be it restaurants, movie companies, Wall Street or the Republicans. Not that it can't be done or hasn't been done correctly before, but should it? A lot of people care an awful lot about what the media does or doesn't do - even the Catholic catechism pays attention to how the media should behave - yet I keep wondering deep down why there's so much interest? Could it be that synergy between two "powerful institutions" can lead to submission of one to the other? I don't mean to get all heavy and dramatic on you all, but every time this restaurant critic thread arises there seems to be so much outrage and frustration and if-you-can-do-it-why-can't-I batted about. It seems to be rooted in so much more than anonymity.

I think it depends on what you and your column is all about. If it is me, Bill Daley REVIEWER! (ta-da! imagine sound effects here), relating tales of my glam life eating and drinking with the swells of the food world at a level far above you, the great unwashed but clearly in awe of me reader, ok then. Let's be elitist - there's room for that. But if you want to be a serious, respected reviewer who writes for and serves the people who keep you in paychecks - the reader - you do all you can to blend in, be Bill Daley AVERAGE JOE, so you can scope the place out and give them a word picture of what they, too, will likely experience at a restaurant. And you can't do that or do that well if you're known. Being made is a really sinister thing, I think. Sure, you notice it if it happens once or twice but what if it happens all the time either because you the reviewer don't care or you've been sloppy and not switched out credit cards or taken along foodie friends. After a while that special treatment can seem "normal" and that's where much danger lies. Because, again, you ain't getting what everyone else gets. And, some undeserving chef gets a three star review and your readers get burnt when they show up and get one star food. That's letting the reader down.

I can' t tell you how many chefs called me up the morning after the review to say how surprised they were. I didn't think you'd be in for a couple of more months! Or, I didn;t think you'd come on a weekday or whatever... Did this magazine you worked for tell the steakhouses you were coming and representing the magazine? If they did, I bet you got the best.... Bill Daley Chicago Tribune

Wow. Spectacular name-drop. Is there a sub-text to that somewhere on eGullet? (I'm sorry, I havent had much chance to look today.) I don't think its false pretenses. When a staffer is rude or clueless or otherwise unhelpful to me it's me as a customer not me as the reviewer and that means he or she can be rude/clueless/unhelpful to any customer as well. The only thing different is that I never complained face-to-face to the management, like most customers, I just complained in print.

Oh God, here we go again with the SPJ ethics code! Steven, my head is spinning with all sorts of dark, deja vu thoughts as you swing into this line of reasoning yet again. I still say SPJ wasn't thinking about the situations restaurant reviewers find themselves in when they wrote the code. I think they were thinking about reporters posing as insurance salesmen or cops or god knows what to pull stories out of hapless interviewees who might not be willing to talk on the record to a newspaper. You know, the "Front Page" scenario from the 20's and 30's. Anonymity is important. But Michael Bauer of the San Francisco Chronicle is right when he says anonymity shouldn't be more important than knowledge - of the food and of restaurants. Which means, I guess, that a "made" reviewer with smarts is better than a clueless unknown. Yet I think anonymity has its purposes, particularly for reviewers who want to dine in a situation as closely aligned to that the "ordinary" diner receives. When I was a restaurant critic and was found out the food was a notch or two better, the service was sterling, the whole experience was more magical - and more unreal. To go in as myself, as Bill Daley REVIEWER, is not to experience what the diner gets. (In fact, it can get pretty fawning and smarmy. That's not why I became a food writer.) There has been plenty written in e-Gullet before on whether that's important. Are readers better served by a reviewer who can parse the inner thoughts of a chef by years of face-to-face interaction? Some e-Gulleteers say yes. I still think the consumer aspect is more important, even if that means a disguise. Great USA Today story. Bill Daley Chicago Tribune

Yes, this is all wonderful stuff. thank you all for replying. I was sort of bummed the system was down over the weekend (although the new incarnation seems very exciting) so i could read/comment/question some of the postings. one thing I'll need is real names/towns for people I'm quoting but I'll pm for that. I am amused to be called "the" Bill Daley given Chicago is the city where "that" Bill Daley is so prominent, along with the rest of his family. The good thing about being a Daley in Chicago is no one asks how you spell the name.

Hi Bux, nice to hear from you! I think you're hitting it on the head when you talk about looking at leftovers not as leftovers but part of an on-going dinner plan. Have you always been this way? Or did so particular incident, a book, a tv show, whatever set you on this frugal way? And is it a difficult mindset to get into??? Bill

Thanks for the very quick reply, I appreciate it. Do you find yourself planning your grocery shopping so you have "extra" to turn into leftovers? Do you remember what got you onto the frittata track? Did you learn this from a family member or friend? Did you see it on tv or read in a book? Tell me more! All the best, Bill

My good friend Kathy O'Connell, a columnist at the Meriden Record-Journal, wrote this about Julia. I thought her piece was so good it needed to be read by others. I asked her if she's let me reprint it here. She said yes, and so here it is..... "Spatulas. Mom never uses them; instead she resorts to "turners," those nasty, melt-prone things you can pick up for 99 cents. I've had my little gaggle of spatulas for a decade at least. They are top-drawer. Like my knives, they will last, if not forever, a very, very, very long time. And all because Julia Child made comprehensible what my restaurant pro father could not get through to our mother: Cheap tools cost you in the long run. Mrs. Child — I never addressed her any other way — died Friday, two days shy of her 92nd birthday, six of Daddy's. Her death after a very rich life made front pages everywhere, as she so deeply deserved. Much was made of how she demystified classic French cooking for thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, of imagination-starved home cooks. But that's not quite it. What was most enthralling about Julia Child was her enthusiasm. It was learned, but matter of fact; it was slightly elitist while being fiercely inclusionary. Not for her the nonsensical stuff about gourmet goodies such as hand-rubbed wildebeest filets with a coulis of organic sour cherries. Those are foodies. They give the modest gastronomes Mrs. Child so thrillingly cultivated a bad name. Julia Child was not about art or fashion. She was about food. We all have to eat it. Why not make it fun on a whole bunch of different levels? Despite her training at Le Cordon Bleu in Paris — which, in the '40s at least — catered to those with money; she knew what "haute cuisine" really meant — she made the intimidating accessible. I interviewed her three times in 23 years. She never sighed at boring questions or those that had been asked too often. In fact, she would turn on the interviewer with wicked glee to ask if he or she had eaten this or that. If he or she said no, her inevitable response, in that signature flutey voice was, "Well! You must, then!" Food faddists annoyed the Dickens, and perhaps the Thackeray, Wharton and Brontes out of her. When fat — all fat, any fat — was viewed as horrible a dozen years ago, she stood her ground. Fat has its merits, as do all other foods, as long as you don't overdo it. I listened with delight at a public TV event as she explained to some skinny West Hartford type who seemed to be 35 going on 60 that she needed a little bit of butter, or olive oil, or cream, or all three, every day, otherwise her skin would dry out and her hair would get brittle. Julia knew, and like Jacques Pepin — equally knowledgeable, gracious and accessible, and whose grief must be formidable, since he admired her so — she was a phenomenally gifted teacher. Her approach to cooking was in my mind while I was reading Michael Ruhlman's deeply enlightening "The Soul of a Chef," about the rigorous process to become a certified master chef. Why must they do this? I kept asking. Someone eating, unless he's a caricature of a gastronome, is not going to care if your julienne of leek is absolutely uniform. But Julia knew. If you learn the rules, no matter how ridiculous you think they are, then you are at measured liberty to break them. That philosophy made her the perfect hybrid of chef and cook, which is why, I suspect, so many took her into their homes and hearts with such enthusiasm. Heck, she was even game enough to take part in a fast-food french-fry test, and pronounced McDonald's very, very good. She also explained that it's just as easy to make your own burgers at home instead of schlepping up to a drive-in window. It could be said she saw the sharing of food not just as sustenance, but also as a social sacrament. Since she spent a big chunk of the 1940s in the foreign service, where she met her husband, Paul, she lived through shortages and all other sorts of events that make it very hard to turn food into something to be revered as a class thing. It's about socialization, sharing, agape. Julia McWilliams Child knew better than to associate good food with social standing or economic oomph. It's what in your heart, not just your stomach. She knew. She knew. And shared it, without fear or favor."

Zagat has its uses but I don't think you can develop a "relationship" with a guide like that as you can with a reviewer - whether you agree or disagree with the reviewer. And, yes, there have been some excellent non-anonymous restaurant reviews. There have also been excellent reviews by reviewers who chose anonymity. What it comes down to is the quality of the reviewer - and there are no carbon copies in that line work. I agree the anonymity system can tend toward cloak and dagger but I don't think it dishonest nor do I see it as some cabal or conspiracy that ends up snookering the reader. (I always told readers when I was recognized) Some distance is good i think between reviewed and reviewer and if it takes anonymity - or the artifice of "anonymity" to do it - OK.

The anomymity policy may have "failed" - found Bruni's pix with three computer keystrokes - but it is not nonsensical. We've gone around on this again and again in various threads - and not even the journalists doing the reviewing agree - but I still maintain that anonymity lets a reviewer experience the food and ambience the general public generally gets. And, even if one is discovered - a process I found difficult to detect in Connecticut but easy-as-pie in California - at least the pretense of anonymity may restrain one's hosts from becoming too hospitable. If one wants to walk around eating out as a known entity, OK, but spell it out right at the top: This is My Reviewer's Dinner. That way the general public will know not to expect similar treatment. Reviewing would become pure entertainment then, rather than being considered consumer reporting of a sort. I have to wonder how many newspapers would continue to pay out the considerable expense of dinners, salaries, mileage, etc. for something considered to have little news or consumer value.

Thanks for doing this Marlena! It's nice to see. Hope all is well, Bill Daley

Chart House in Chester is now Sage. Taste of China is not touristy - it was actually below the horizon for a year and then Jacques Pepin stumbled across it. Told everyone. Middletown has the reopened LaBoca but it's derivative and doesn't seem to be as good as the old.

Perhaps it was on account of her role in The Positively True Adventures of the Alleged Texas Cheerleader-Murdering Mom. Naw -- probably because of her role in the revival of "House of Blue Leaves" a few years ago: Bananas Shaughnessy. And Swoozie was so good in that role, too. It was at Lincoln Center in 1986. Christine Baranski was in that production as well. Wasn't her character named Bunny Flingus? (I know this has nothing to do with this thread but Bunny Flingus does sort of rhyme with one of the words Mr. Bourdain used so brilliantly in his wonderful piece on getting published.)

Maggiethecat wrote: "Bill: I have never, ever read a better explanation of "one." Nailed it in one.'' Thank you for the kind words. Suzanne F wrote: "Please note, once again, I am talking only about reviewers as distinct from critics. To me, a critic is an expert deserving of attention for the knowledge she or he imparts on a subject." Why are reviewers distinct from critics? Why can't a reviewer be an expert?

I have nothing against "I" but always remember a lesson taught at J-school by Judith Crist. Before typing the letter I, ask yourself seriously, "Who the hell am I? And why should the reader care?" A useful check, I think. The word that fascinates me is "one," as used by the British Royal family and the aristos. "One feels rather saddened to see the old house go, but what could one do when one's creditors are at the door?" "One" is the etymological equivalent of the latex glove. It keeps one a layer removed. I'm not terribly sold on "we'' although I use it. "We" always makes me think of the editorial "we" as in this is what the newspaper thinks. While San Francisco is a serious food town I don't think the Chronicle as an entity cares whether the salmone tropicale was unbalanced, garish and off-putting. Bill Daley

Try the Copper Beech Inn in Ivoryton, 20 minutes south of Wesleyan on Route 9. Formal American/French - perfect for a celebration. Or, Restaurant du Village, Chester, also down Route 9. Rustic, flavorful Alsatian fare. Other places to consider: Alforno Ristorante and Pizza - Old Saybrook. Great white pizza, pasta, gorgonzola salad. More casual than du Village or Copper Beech, but I've always liked it for multi-generational gatherings. Boom in Westbrook. Clean decor, fresh seafood. Overlooking Pilot's Point Marina. Taste of China, Clinton. Gutsy, for Connecticut, chinese fare. Szechuan specialties are the best. Copy the Asian customers - order what they order. Casual decor. Cafe Routier, Westbrook. Nice dining room. Franco/american fare. Great french fries. Knowing wine list. Have fun, enjoy graduation - watch out for protesters!

More than possible. I'd say almost definite. Though Bill is a frequent poster on eGullet and can speak for himself. I meant to isolate his comments so as to point to the propositions for which they stand. And in terms of framing the issue, I agree with Bill entirely that there is a balance (a seemingly unremarkable statement, yet one that is often missing from the self-same discussion). I'm sure he and I would define the right balance differently. He's very much a died-in-the-wool old-school newspaperman, whereas I come from the freewheeling Wild West of new media anarchy. But that just means we draw the line in two different places. Been off the computer for the weekend so I'm sorry to be coming in on this late...There are all sorts of good comments here that I want to re-read before responding but did want to respond to Liza and FG. I was speaking generally about food journalists and no criticism of the particular editor profiled should be implied, nor was I suggesting she hold herself to a higher standard. I don't know her story first-hand so I would not want to make a judgement. As for Steven, many thanks for your kind remarks. I had to laugh when I read "died-in-the-wool old-school newspaperman." I don't know how deliberate the spelling, or the implication, was - but it was a great touch. Thank you for brightening my day. Bill Daley

Try Rain. I really liked it. It is, I think, being overhauled to control the rain droplets running down the walls. (Sounds a bit tacky, I know, but it is rather nice.) I have not been to Todd English's place or Michael Jordan's (the look of MJ is quite nice) but most people I know think Mohegan Sun is more food-forward and dining-aware than Foxwoods. Of course, some of these people think it's best to put a $100 bill into the slot machine to get the machine's "attention" but then they win and I don't. Go figure.

I just might take you up on this...It would be great to meet new faces with an appreciation and/or capacity for eating and drinking. Again, I'd like to thank everyone for their spirited advice and recommendations. This is all very helpful.... Bill Daley p.s. I don't want to trigger another fight but I agree completely about the relative lack of spark in NYC pizza. New Haven pizza totally rules, whether you're talking Pepe's or Sally's or even Jerry's in Middletown with its White Sicilian that has to be ordered 2 hours in advance. And I love Connecticut's pork/beef hotdogs with skins to NYC's brassy beef weiners.

Thanks for your best wishes, Steve KLC, I appreciate it very much. As to your questions: Yes, it's a pre-existing position. I'm the new Robin Davis (a byline Chronicle readers will surely recognize). I think its okay to say "ethic" - but there are other adjectives you could use as well: "cheap eats" "neighborhood" "whatever." The Chronicle has a team of regional reviewers covering the Bay Area. I am one of them. Our leader/captain/head reviewer remains Michael Bauer. I'll miss the Courant, and New England, very much. But the Chronicle's food team is a very talented, friendly bunch and we're talking San Francisco. I couldn't resist...even with the high rents. Bill Daley

"QUOTE (Jason Perlow @ Dec 16 2002, 02:58 PM) fucking crabs and chowder This is a delicacy with which I am not familiar. I have so many questions. " Dave the Cook's turn-of-phrase is one of the reasons I like eGullet so much. You never know what's going to happen next. Thanks for turning a snowy-gray-kid's got a bug-afternoon into something enjoyable. And thanks to all of you for your ideas/suggestions. This is perfect. Bill Daley

Thanks Steven. I'm not sure if it will be sad news for Hartford. I can think of a couple of restaurateurs who will be jumping for joy. Many thanks, also, for the posting about East Buffet on the New England board. It was one of the most memorable places I visited this year. Bill

Yes Jason, I'm going to the Chronicle. I'll be reviewing "ethnic" in the city itself and doing other food writing as well. I'm very excited about it and plan to hit the ground eating. Many thanks for the suggestions and thanks, also, to Dstone001, for the picks. I'm looking forward to trying them all. Bill Daley

I'm moving to San Francisco in January. What restaurant/s would you recommend for my first "official" meal/s as a resident? I'm looking for a restaurant that sort of epitomizes the San Francisco experience...Any suggestions would be appreciated. Bill Daley