Daniel Rogov

I think questions can be reduced to one, that being: What is it that qualifies a person to be a professional critic worth taking seriously. The restaurant critic first of all has to love dining out and he/she has to love it with a passion. One cannot have any validity whatever as a critic if one hates or has a grudge against restaurants. The critic has to be the ultimate optimist, thinking as he/she enters a restaurant for the first time that this may be the best meal of the day, the week, the month….perhaps even the decade. Honest critics have to understand that what they live for is the day that their criticisms will be entirely positive. In a phrase, critics can gain no joy from killing a restaurant. The professional critic needs a vast amount of experience in dining. An equally vast experience in travel is almost as indispensable. The critic need not be a chef but must have a thorough understanding of what happens in the kitchen. Critics should know their sauces and their classic dishes as well as chefs in order to judge whether they meet or do not meet measurable standards. The critic should in many ways (and with apologies, I forget who originally said this) "understand the magical transformation between an egg and a soufflé" They should know the limits of combinations and methods that work well or do not, of new and perhaps bold styles of cookery. The professional critic will ideally have three or four eyes but seeing as how this might be awkward, should use his/her two eyes carefully, not only to see what is happening on the plates but all around with regard to the service, the ambiance, the décor, the other clients. The critic should have measurable and agreed upon standards and must abide by them. Personal taste has no place in criticism (unless one is using the nouveau journalism style of writing). The critic may not like liver but should be able to say whether the liver on his companion's plate is a good cut, done as it should be, etc. The critic (whether of restaurants, wine, the arts) should have a consistency in style. It is not important that readers agree or disagree with the critic but that they know his/her style well enough that it gives them directions in their own decision making process (to dine or not to dine…..to try this dish or that…) The critic has to maintain a certain professional distance from those he/she is criticizing. That is to say, one can like even admire chefs or restaurateurs but one cannot be "buddies" with them as that makes objectivity very, very difficult. Even though the critic owes no fealty to restaurants, he/she must be fair to them. Critics should write in the style and tone fitting the newspaper/magazine and thus the the audience for whom they are working. The critic's loyalty is not to a newspaper, a magazine, an editor or a publisher. And it is not to restaurants. The critic owes loyalty only to his/her readers. That of course implies a strong sense of ethics, but on that we could open 245 new threads. Let it simply be said that critics should be held to a higher set of ethical standards than those keeping blogs or posting on internet sites. Critics should avoid being overly wordy so on that happy note, I'm going to post this not-so-short note.

Keren, Hi….. Agreed that both Curnonsky (no need to separate the letters) and Grimod were writers of the highest caliber, the second having co-authered and written more than eighty books but both during their time were far more famed for their restaurant criticisms than for their culinary writings. Excerpts from my little book "With the emergence of modern restaurants in the post revolutionary period, Reynière became the first person to fill the role of restaurant critic and thus he is remembered today as the father of modern food criticsm. Between 1803 and 1812, he published a periodical, l'Almanach des Gourmands, in which he evaluated cafés and restaurants, offering opinions and detailing prices and addresses. He gathered a jury of tasters that awarded certificates to various chefs and restaurants, and also published their judgments in the almanac. Its annual editions constituted a valuable part of every gastronome's library until the famous gourmet was accused of "interested partiality." It turned out that Grimod was not above accepting the occasional bribe. Although this forced him to cease publication of the periodical he lost none of his popularity". ++++ As a critic, Curnonsky was so feared that some restaurateurs considered a negative review from him reason enough to close their doors permanently. At the height of his career no less than eighty French restaurants held a table free every night just in case he showed up. He himself always stayed true to his principles. Upon being offered an enormous lifetime income simply for stating that margarine was as good as butter, he ceremoniously tore the check in half, stating that "nothing can ever replace butter."

Indeed yes.....there are eight statues of Grimod de la Reyniere throughout France and one of Curnonsky in the city of Orleans.

No less complex than the "tirangle test" is the professional's need to "double up" wines at a blind tasting. What this means is that at least one wine in every tasting is presented in two glasses, each with a different number, so that the taster cannot have any clue as to which wine he/she is tasting twice. At the end of the tasting, after notes and scores have been assigned, to discover which of the wines was doubled, to check your notes one against the other. A certain amount of leeway is allowable of course. Wine tasters are not machines. But over that amount, leeway is not tolerable. In my own case, when I do my tastings wines are always doubled up and if my tasting notes vary dramatically or if the scores are more than two points apart the notes of that entire tasting are discarded, for this proves that either my concentration was not intense enough, my mood odd enough, or some physiological aspect influenced my tastings that day to the point where they are not reliable. Fun? No way. Does it happen often? Thank heavens, not!!!!!

If you are over forty you are probably wondering what happened to the "fiaschi", the straw baskets that once decorated nearly every bottle of ordinary Chianti. Made by hand by Tuscan women who could turn out about 300 every day, these straw baskets have simply become impractical and too expensive to make for all Chianti bottles. And, as has been pointed out, most Chianti today is bottled in Bordeaux-style bottles. Some wineries do continue with the old fashioned bottles and for the most part they now make their "straw" baskets out of plastic, but like many other wine lovers, I refuse to allow such bottles into my home. The "good old days" have not, however, been totally lost and some of the Chianti wines that are bottled for local drinking are still wrapped in such baskets. These wines, which are never shipped outside of Tuscany, are intentionally made to be as fruity and fresh and possible. Some even have natural, light, champagne-like bubbles which add a most agreeable experience to a young, fresh Chianti. Such wines are worth looking for when next you visit Florence, Sienna or the countryside of Tuscany. Don't plan on bringing those wines home for cellaring however, as they travel badly and will be quite flat by the time they cross a continent or two. And oh yes....Chianti, Chianti Classico, Chianti Ruffina, and Chianti Classico Riserva are a heckuva a lot better than they were in the 1950's and 1960's.

Especially when using Kobe beef, think of the cardinal rule in the making of a fine burger: 20% fat!!!!!!

As to the Saher/Demel argument, I once wrote: "Sacher, a fun-loving man who consumed enormous amounts of his own cakes, weighed well over 120 kilograms. One of the most popular sweets in the world is the cake that carries the name of this great baker, but even today the Viennese love to argue about whether Sacher or one of his competitors, Henrich Demel invented the "Sachertorte". The two became bitter enemies until a court ruled that Sacher had the right to call his cake the "original Sachertorte" and that Demer had to be satisfied by calling his version "genuine Sachertorte".

Well, if others can do it for themselves, why not me? My own "Rogues, Writers and Whores". As reviewed in Publishers Weekly: The title is not the only thing saucy in this rich collection that matches 69 brief, punchy biographies of historical foodies with the recipes for which they are associated. Several of the subjects are, themselves, the essence of sauce. There's Louis de Bachameil, for whom the famous French concoction was named; the mysterious Suzette, she of the flaming crepe; and tart-baker Franz Sacher, "a fun-loving man who consumed enormous amounts of his own pastries." Among the rogues' gallery, Lucrezia Borgia had a leek tart named for her on her wedding day (though the food taster probably had the first bite) and the Marquis de Sade enjoyed not whipped cream but rather, Partridge à la Burgundy, brutally stuffed with grapes, chorizo and prosciutto. Though some concoctions prove complex, the writing throughout is refreshingly free of pretense. Rogov, the wine and restaurant critic for the Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz, includes only three Americans—Hemingway, Alice B. Toklas and A.J. Liebling—who are best known for their overseas exploits. Papa is paired with sautéed goose liver, a favorite Parisian dish. It's duckling for Toklas, and Liebling evidently once gorged on Lobster Quenelles in Shrimp Sauce. Bonus points for the many amusing illustrations by Yael Hershberg, which include Louis XIV confronting a pineapple.

Even today in many parts of France, men and women will make their way to their neighborhood cafe, there to take a place at "the brass" (the bar) to have either a small glass of marc or a glass of white wine, only then to follow that with their first coffee and croissants of the day. As to needing an excuse to drink wine with breakfast.....none needed.

Nothing especially new or exciting here. Literallly hundreds of amphorae have been discovered in Israel, Greece, Turkey, Cyprus and Lebanon, many of which contained wine. What is relatively new and interesting are the DNA tests that are going on to determine from what grapes those wines were made, that in turn being utilized to discover those grapes that may have been indigenous to the Mediterranean Basin as long as 2 - 3,000 years ago.

Miriam, Hi... Transliterating back to Arabic and then Hebrew, I think the following might be possibilities. Akub is Arabic for cardoons (no name in Hebrew....the Arabic is used) Aloosh is Arabic for chicory (olesh in Hebrew)

One does hate to be a fuss-budget but we seem to have forgotten that there are major differences between what some are referring to as "bottled water" and "mineral or spring water". Indeed bottled water can come from any source whatever, including if you like, the sewers or taps of Paris. Mineral water or spring water on the other hand comes from natural sources and whatever minerals in there are natural (unless otherwise specificallyl stated on the bottle and then I agree are a waste of money). True, many people cannot tell the difference between different spring waters but many of those same people cannot tell the difference between a Cabernet Sauvignon, a Merlot or a Zinfandel. That does not mean there are not differences. I have taken part in quite a few tastings of well known waters with professional wine critics on the panels and the differences have been remarkable and consistently noted. I agree that having a mineral water "menu" is a bad joke, but offering one, two or three kinds of mineral waters, especially in cities where the tap water is not particularly tasty adds to the pleasure of one's meal. Whether one prefers this or that still or sparkling mineral water (and yes, many sparkling waters have CO2 added) is a matter of personal taste, much as is whether one prefers a heavy or a medium-bodied wine, a highly or softly tannic wine, or, on a perhaps more banal level, grapefruit or orange juice. I wonder why people say that it is more natural to serve mineral water in Europe. The drinking water in most European cities is no less palatable than it is in most American cities. People in Europe drink mineral water not as a sign of status but because they enjoy it. Me- with a French meal, I prefer Badoit; with Pizza, San Benedetto; for every day drinking (I live in Israel) May Eden. And when in Vienna, nothing but the tap water for it is among the most tasty waters of the world. And oh yes...when in Parisian cafes, invariably Perrier because it makes me think of Ernest Hemingway. I remain, ye faithful curmudgeon

Absolutely permitted, even in the very finest of restaurants. Among other things permitted with fingers are asparagus, crostini, chicken wings, marrow bones, but in the case of meats only on the conditions that the majority of meat has been eaten previously with knife and fork and that it is done with a minimum of noise.

And what no-one until now has mentionned.....in your free hours, spend as much of your time and money as is possible in dining out at a large variety of restaurants in order to see what others are doing, to determine your own tastes, to develop in a way a personal repertoire and will one day lead to a personal philosophy of what you would want in your own kitchen.

Let's put it this way: If this is a second, third or even fourth wine of Chateau d'Yquem, I am the reincarnation of Thomas Jefferson. I have not tasted wines under this label but the ad offends me by what I perceive as its out-and-out vulgarity. I don't want wine merchants hinting and winking. I think clients are entitled to more realistic facts. Perhaps worth trying a 375 ml. bottle just to see what the wine is all about and then deciding whether you want more. If you do follow-up, let us know. Curioser and curiosier.....

From the point of view of the critic, to taste broadly enough and on several occasions in order to give potential clients a fair set of expectations. From the point of view of the client aforewarned and with that set of expectations, no reason to be unhappy as long as those expectations are met. After all, the client chose to go there with what we can think of as advance informed consent From the point of view of the client who simply wanders in with no knowledge aforehand, same possibilities in any place on the planet. Imagine, for example, the Martian who visits our little planet, has his or her first burger at Peter Luger, likes it and then, seeing that they offer burgers at McDonald's wanders in there.....

Just spotted this thread.....only a few words to add: (a) Any person who performs an act in public is validly open to criticism (b) Because criticism itself is a public act, no-one is more open to criticism than the critic © The critic who thinks he/she will escape without being criticized is a fool (d) The wise critic, like the wise chef, winemaker, conductor, playwright, etc knows how to learn from intelligent criticism and knows equally how to put the silliness aside (e) Alas, putting the silliness aside is not always easy. With apologies to Mr. Freud, even critics (like psychoanalysts) have egos.

Holly, Hi... You say that not writing about a restaurant could be interpreted as synonymous with writing a negative view. Alas, not true, for despite our ability to publish weekly columns that still leaves a lot of good restaurants that might never be reviewed and thus interpreted by our silence as a place worthy only of a negative criticism. In cities such as London, New York, Paris and others there are literally thousands of restaurants. Even by dining out twice daily (and that would be a terrible chore no matter how much one adores dining out) one could never get to visit, yet alone occasionally return to all of those restaurants. A related part of the problem is that readers do want to be given clues about those restaurants that are not judged by the critic as up to par. Take the hypothetical case of a well known chef who opens a restaurant and fails; or of a restaurant that has been good, even excellent and then falls off in quality. Few critics worth their proverbial salt enjoy writing negative reviews. It is, however, a necessary part of criticism if we are to fully serve our readers. One possible solution - in the magazine section of my own newspapers (HaAretz and the Israeli edition of the International Herald Tribune) I am alloted four pages every week for a series of what i would call mini-crits of those restaurants throughout the country that I recommend. In such cases one can assume that a lack of mention means either that I have not visited a restaurant or that I do not recommend it.

Oh boy.....posted earlier before seeing a few more recent posts. I was being Mr Nice Guy when I first posted, suggesting that the obvious solution to critics who have an obvious bias is for their editors to fire them. Then I saw the attackagainst critics in general, the charge of croni-ism in particular and now, no more nice guy. First of all, any person who performs any act in public is open to criticism. That is the nature of being human. If anyone does not like that....don't perform in public! Second. as the chef, the conductor of a symphony orchestra, the director of a film, the author of a book is performing a public act, so is the critic and that means that the critic too is open to criticism. Critics who deny that are simpletons. Third, going on to what seems to be a misunderstanding on the part of some - the critic is nobody's enemy. The critic is fulfilling a social and artistic role no less intricate than that of the act that he/she is criticizing. In a way, an odd way, perhaps, the critic and the chef have not a parasitic relationship but a colleagial one, for they both have the same clients....the people who patronize the chef are those who read the critic. Nor does this mean that criticism is necesssarily a negative term. Criticism is an analysis, hopefully well and intelligently written and good critics, by their nature are optimists, hoping that the meal, the week, the month will come, when all that they can write will be positive. The critic takes on his/her role because of a deep love for the field with which they are involved. That there are incompetent critics in any field is as no less obvious than stating that there are chefs, authors, composers who grind out junk and think what they are turning out is brilliant. That does not mean, nor should it be extended to mean that all chefs or all critics are incompetent. As to the hypotheses that there are not inches in a newspaper or magazine to waste on telling people where not to eat.....that may have been true in the USA until the 1950s. It was never true in Europe. Nor does it have any validity today. On a purely personal basis, I'm all for "good news" and love nothing better than writing a rave review about a restaurant. I gain little pleasure in writing negative or even at times devestating reviews. That, however is what my readers are entitled to. Sheeh....this one did get my goat, didn't it??? By the way...that one of the truly great restaurant critics of the 20th century is a fairly regular poster on EGullet should say something.

Agreed about the carrot! I also think though of oyster bars, knockwurst and bratwurst stands (imbis) in Germany and other countries, New Orleans spiced shrimp, the soups served up in Thai markets, an eclair purchased at a Paris patisserie, fine shwarma or donner kebab; felafel.......and on and on and on........

In all of this let us also remember Gael Greene's dictum to the effect that "In the heart of every gastronoe lies the soul of a fast-food junkie". There may be no real contradiction betwen the fine cut of beef and the Whopper or the Big Mac. All a question of different moods at different moments for different people. And also to keep in mind that "fast food" is not a culprit in any way. If we want to point a finger it should be towards "junk food" and what is "fast" is not necessarily synonymous with "junk".

Perhaps a few hints at http://www.stratsplace.com/rogov/cookbooks_aficianados.html

No problem and no need at all to "sign up". All one has to do is start living that way. One important proviso, however, in addition to being intelligent, the hedonism in question also has to be moral. Surprisingly as it may sound, the concept of "moral hedonism" is not an oxymoron - the two can walk hand in hand quite nicely. In fact, as they do, life feels a heckuva lot better all around. And yes, tastes better too.

At the risk of being one of the "outsiders", may I remind us all of the dictate of Brillat-Savarin to the effect that: "Animals eat, people dine and people of good taste dine well". Indeed we must eat to survive but among the major reasons we dine is in the seeking out of a modicum of pleasure in a world too often too difficult. And, despite the Puritan Ethic, there is nothing whatever wrong with pleasure if it is sought in ways that are moderate, intelligent and informed. I have long grown weary of reading about what foods will be "good for me" or, for that matter what will be "bad for me". I cannot help but think that at least in the First World every person with a normally functioning brain knows basically what is good and bad for them, that especially extending to too much of anything, May I humbly suggest that all such articles, no matter how intelligently or passionately written, belong in the trash and that when it comes to dining, smoking or drinking in moderation (!!!) the only rules that we follow are (a) to honor whatever foodstuffs or beverages that give us pleasure, (b) to set out to enjoy whatever enters our bodies as much as is humanly possible, © to realize that the life well lived is its own justification; and (d) there is no moral or physical wrong to the intelligent creation and consumption of things that add to the pleasure of our lives. My rant for the week, I promise. I am just so sick and tired of hearing others tell me what is and what is not good for me. Why not, as in the film of old, simply walk now to your windows, open them wide and scream out to the world: "I won't take it any more".

Indeed the term couvert originated almost in France and did so almost immediately following the Revolution. At that time many chefs, unemployed because their once royal or monied patrons had encounters with either guillotine or the bankruptcy courts, opened restaurants, those especially in Paris, Lyon and Nice. Because the restaurants also served as cafes and people might come in to spend an hour or more over nothing more than cup of coffee, the law entitled such places to take a "cover charge", a minimum fee for setting the places at the table. Later, in both France and Italy, the couvert or coperto was dropped at cafes and took on a somewhat new meaning in restaurants, a charge being made for each place setting (or couvert) at the table. That charge generally included the place setting, replacement of tablecloths, bread and butter. The charge persists today primarily in restaurants that are hotel-based. The term has come to refer broadly to the number of places taken during a service. It is indeed a back-of-the-house concern, for the bookkeepers always know precisely how many couverts one must "do" in any given meal or day in order to reach the daily/weekly/monthly or annual break-even point.