sammy

This is not an accusation, simply a possibility in response to your lack of imagination shown in your post above. Say said literary agent has a better success rate pitching books at a particular publishing house. Said agent's brother is chef at a new restaurant. Prospective author would like to hire said literary agent but agent is too busy and not accepting writers that have not previously had any books published. Prospective author gives agent's brother's restaurant rave review. Connect the dots.

it seems like readers would catch on, and the writer wouldn't have much of a career. it fixes itself in that regard. I hear what you're saying and don't necessarily disagree with the conclusion. But then you are saying that you don't care to distinguish between reviewers you simply don't agree with and those that may employ questionable ethics. Since Chad brought Bayless up, were we peeved at him for simply endorsing a lousy sandwich that we didn't think tasted good? I think the bigger issue was questionable ethics.

it seems like readers would catch on, and the writer wouldn't have much of a career. it fixes itself in that regard. I hear what you're saying and don't necessarily disagree with the conclusion. But then you are saying that you don't care to distinguish between reviewers you simply don't agree with and those that may employ questionable ethics.

But isn't this dilemna overcome when the reader goes to eat the food and then either agrees or disagrees with the writer's assessment, also taking into account how the reader assessed the writer's reviews after eating in other reviewed restaurants?

I think this statement, on its face, is illogical. I think I understand the point. It is not the reviewer who gets to decide if his relationships appear improper, it's the reader. The reviewer or critic may be (as in FG's case) more than willing to slag the food at a restaurant owned by a friend. Unless we know the critic or have followed his reviews for a long time, there's no way to know that that is his MO -- complete honesty at all times. Until we know that, a glowing review of a restaurant can be negated, in the reader's mind, by the later revelation that the reviewer is the chef's brother-in-law or something. An upfront disclosure of the relationship precludes the later (seemingly) damning revelation. Chad Exactly! I think I need to make you my agent!

According to who? The author, the editor, the reader? I think that is a critical question that has gone unanswered. Who is going to admit that what they are writing is not honest?

I think that statement, on its face, is illogical.

What is the downside to disclosing a relationship within a review?

I think this statement, on its face, is illogical. Please explain. Here is real life analogy with a sports broadcaster. In a football game, there were several players penalized for unsportsmanlike conduct. The analyst was all over them for being petty, stupid, not thinking about the team, etc. Then, another player does something equally stupid and the analyst is silent. A few days later, either Bob Raissman in the NY Daily News or Phil Mushnick in the NY Post reports that the analyst and the player who committed the last stupid act have the same agent. How should we now feel about the analyst and his future comments?

Chad, you're right this isn't a referendum on anyone and I think you've framed the issue well. I think food writers or restaurant critics need to disclose relationships they have that may be perceived to sway objectivity, regardless of whether or not they do. It's just cleaner. What is the downside? If you right a review and say it is great and people go and enjoy it, fine. There is nothing wrong with that. If you pan it when it sucks and people don't go, fine. More credit to you. There are probably plenty of critics who say it doesn't matter, they are going to write objectively regardless of the relationship. But I would say that it's not the critic who determines whether or not a relationship effects a review, it is up to the diner.

Maybe it is just really late but I have no idea what that means.

I haven't had bolognese that has met expectations since having lasagne verde at a restaurant in Rome 11 years ago. A few restaurants here have gotten close, but none equal to that lunch I had 11 years ago. It was unbelievably good and I'll remember it forever.

As an example, should a restaurant critic disclose that he has a relationship with a staff member of a restaurant within a review? Should he simply recuse himself? What about a cookbook reviewer? Does the reviewer need to disclose that he/she has the same agent as the cookbook author?

So what do you think?

This makes for a great dish to discuss because there are limitless variations with several tasting good. Mine (basically marcella's) is similar to Sam's except for a few differences. I go heavier on the carrots and put in pancetta early on and render the fat before I put in the rest of the meat. I don't put in the parmigiana rinds but I'm definitely going to in the next batch as that sounds like a great idea. I use a whole can of tomatoes but it still doesn't end up too tomatoey because I usually make a pretty big pot of sauce. I can't remember if Marcella calls for tomato paste. I'm with you on the nutmeg and butter. The last important point is to use a wide pasta like tagliatelle or even torn up sheets of lasagne.

White wine and milk. She's also very specific about which goes first. I believe the order is wine then milk then tomatoes but I'll check when I get home tonight. I'll report back. Also, she uses a minimal amount of tomatoes in relation to the meat. It's all about the meat. I think bolognese will be this Sunday's dinner.

Ditto. Marcella's recipe rules. I've tried several others but I now use Marcella's exclusively. The only modification I make is that I cook the sauce a good hour or two longer than she suggests.

Thanks for the reference, Mark. For some strange reason there weren't any eGullet quotes. I imagine it's not their highest priority, but has there been any word from your Berkeley friend or Lawrence Livermore? Alex, I believe the reason there aren't any eGullet quotes has more to do with eGullet's copyright policy than members not willing to be quoted. Yes, you're right. However, my tongue-in-cheek comment referenced Dennis Lynch's (Mr. Wine Clip) perception that he was unfairly and vindictively booted off eGullet. Sorry, I didn't get the "tongue in cheek" aspect of your post. I have no idea whether or not he was unfairly booted off of eGullet but I do think he was treated unfairly and vindictively by several members.

I agree completely except that there are plenty of experienced diners that are a bigger pain in the a.. than many inexperienced diners. They go out at nice restaurants all of the time and are rude at every one of them. They treat the service staff as servants and are demanding to a ridiculous degree. I just don't think it's fair to make the defining line inexperienced vs. experienced.

Exactly! The number of magazines and books are not a determining factor in how the food tastes. The person with all of the magazines may enjoy cooking but does not care enough about the food to understand how to make it taste good.

Please provide some examples of how an inexperienced diner causes restaurant staff to have additional stress? I'm sure this will be enlightening to the inexperienced diners. I can't imagine there are too many inexperienced diners around here. What about all of the members from the midwest?

Just had a thought: Why not have different sections in a restaurant: one for experienced diners and one for those less experienced. Kind of like first class and coach on a plane. That way the inexperienced diners won't compromise the dining experience of the experienced diners. Of course, there will need to be a curtain separating the sections so the inexperienced diners can't see the wonderful treatment being provided to the experienced diners.

Please provide some examples of how an inexperienced diner causes restaurant staff to have additional stress? I'm sure this will be enlightening to the inexperienced diners.

Who cares about interest if the quality isn't better? People in the U.S. will always say they are very interested in food and buy cookbooks, subscribe to magazines and redo their kitchens but then don't do anything with them (not all, but many). Just like I doubt you could extrapolate the number of books sold to literacy rates in countries. I agree with Craig in that in Italy, more people are learning to cook from relatives than from TV or magazines. As people in the U.S. have been more prone to move away from existing family to different parts of the country, there is less opportunity to learn to cook from grandparents, aunts, uncles, etc. I may be incorrect but since Italy is a smaller country and family members stay closer together, there are more opportunities to cook with family members. My mother learned to cook from her mother. My mother now lives in sunny Florida and eats out 5 or 6 nights a week. (no later than 6:00 PM I'll add). It's sad but my daughter can't learn anything cooking related from her. I still don't see what any of this has to do with Italian restaurants in the U.S.

FG, the other cuisines you mentioned, especially French and Japanese, are noted in the U.S. by their creativity, always evolving from what we once knew. Places like Nobu and Bouley and Jean-George were "new" kinds of French and Japanese reataurants serving cutting edge cuisine. Other than Babbo, can you think of an "evolved" italian restaurant? I guess another question is are we looking for Italian restaurants in the U.S. to develop new creative recipes or just do the best thaey can at being authentically Italian?