Restaurant Reviews

[MaxH]

try reading the smaller town or community papers where the reviewers are seemingly all either shills for the local food scene/advertisers or pseudo gourmets

Yes: in extreme cases, dilettante dining critics (DDCs) can even be a public hazard. I cited at least one debacle earlier here. Note also Carroll's Law (below).

As for the legion of online critics -- I'd be happy if they just got their facts straight. Working at Blue Hill ... was a real eye-opener. ... Most were so far off base it was ridiculous -- and not in their opinions, but their descriptions of the food.

Let me add something, based on watching this from the Internet (by direct connection) most of the last 30 years.* Some years into the history of popular discussion fora, some contributors began labeling their informal comments "reviews" (I think I have the exact date). Others reserved that phrase mostly for professionals.

--

Carroll's Law is named for a newspaper columnist who edited a regional magazine in the 1970s and described a deluge of unsolicited applications from people offering themselves as restaurant critics, with notions of their qualifications (and expected perks). He concluded basically everyone alive assumes themselves qualified as a professional restaurant critic. The validity of this observation is demonstrated regularly in the aforementioned small publications, not to speak of the Internet.

*By official pronouncement, the name moved from ARPAnet to Internet in 1980. January, I think.

[Matthew Lewin]

The remarks from people who have done the job mean someting. From those that haven't, it seems easy to put the genre down. I look at it as ean evolution. Things must change and adapt if they are to remain.

I agree that there are some reviewers who really aren't good, but then overall I think newspapers and even some magazines don't have the qualtiy of writing that once was either.

Does that make sense?

←

I don't know. That's like saying you can't criticize the President of the United States or the presidency unless you've been the President of the United States.

←

Hey, yeah. Or the same with being a chef.

←

I had a great reply here but then I clicked and something went awry!

Rats!

First, I think we all can critisize the President because he is a public servant who has taken an oath to protect and preserve....do you feel protected?

And I agree. Plenty of reviewers are poor writers and don't know what they are talking about, but then television writing has suffered also. Major mags aren't what they used to be. either.

Hell, nothing seems to be. But to say the genre is dead is a bit of an exagerration.

Reviewing is hard work if you really care. Bad reviewers don't really care and papers are advertiser driven. Put it all together and you've got sucky reviews.

←

As someone who runs a restaurant review website (specialising in restaurants in North London, UK – www.matthews-table.com) I can only say that there are hundreds of people who like my full length reviews enough to pay me £20 a year ($40) for the privilege. Since my revenue comes from subscribers, I don't have to sell space to restaurants, and so I can be completely independent. But, when you come down to it, I think the main role of a reviewer is to give the reader some idea about whether he or she might enjoy the restaurant. And you don't have to agree with the critic! I used to read one critic's reviews assiduously because even though I disagreed with every word he said, he was at least consistent – so I KNEW that if he liked a restaurant, I wouldn't. Finally: good, entertaining writing is all.

Matthew Lewin

[Timothy Burke]

The forced bon mot .  The cute alliterative phrase.  The revealing anecdote, usually involving a server's ignorance or snobbery, or an ill-prepared morsel of fish.  The family tree of the owner and chef.  The "on the one hand, on the other hand," formulaic attempts at fair and balanced reporting. 

←

Oww, they say the truth hurts.

On the other hand...remember we small town reviewers (Leicester is about size of Cincinatti) are not writing for egulleters who read every review going or, when they are not out snifffing napkins, spend half their time on the internet reading about food. Of course there are many lightly disguised advertorials, but those who are writing genuinely independent reviews are writing for people looking for a diverting five minutes with the newspaper on their way in to or home from work. Who may only eat out rarely and don't want to make mistake when they do. Who like the idea of eating out but may not be able to and actually enjoy it vicariously. Who are not so jaded as you with those precious few adjectives we have our disposal. I think we maybe still have a function there.

[Endy']

while I can perhaps see their appeal to the broader readership, I think reviews that are distilled into a score or star-rating are worse than useless.

I can certainly do without all the extraneous adjectives. But when someone loves a restaurant, I need to know if they mean "the food was just alright, but it was great for celeb-spotting and they make a great martini" (couldn't care), or "it's a hole in the wall and the wine list sucks, but the kitchen is putting out some absolute gems" (sign me up). I can't get that without a few paragraphs. I don't need blow-by-blow food porn or exhaustive lists of ingredients, but WHY they'd give it 4 stars is infinitely more valuable than that they did or did not.

then again, I'm also mystified that someone would go see a movie on the basis of its receiving x stars or y thumbs up, but evidently people do. Maybe a subset of restaurant reviews needs to move out of newspapers and morph into a niche in dedicated publications. Meanwhile, a less detailed listing with contact info and star ratings, for those who just want to find a safe, on-budget restaurant on Valentine's Day (that's not meant to sound condesceding; I think such a list would be legitimately and genuinely useful).

[MaxH]

... Meanwhile, a less detailed listing with contact info and star ratings, for those who just want to find a safe, on-budget restaurant on Valentine's Day...

←

It seems to've worked for wine.

[rconnelly]

In spite of all the discussion here, I'll bet the restaurant review is one of - if not the first - columns read in any paper.

[Busboy]

In spite of all the discussion here, I'll bet the restaurant review is one of - if not the first - columns read in any paper.

←

Even I read them. Though, within minutes I have forgotten everything but a few key points: stars, wine list, maybe a standout them or dish or two and, generally, whether it lodges in the "we should check this out" portion of the brain or is erased from the hard drive.

In rereading the thread I did fail to mention a couple of things that I think good restaurant critics do well and I thought I throw those in as long as I'm throwing stones.

First, I appreciate critics who take the time to root out the new, obscure and bizarre. The ones that cruise the strip malls, bad neighborhoods and ethnic communities to root out a spot that most people don't have the time (even if they have the inclination) to find on their own.

Second, one thing I will pay attention to in a restaurant review is how to eat cuisine with which I am unfamiliar. What to mix with what at a Korean restaurant, for example, or how to order an omokase, or even just a little background on where Oaxacan cooking comes from (this is why I want to free critics from the drudgery of the weekly report). Things that will help me and other readers for a long time, rather than a short-term comment on the state of one restaurants clams casino.

Third, I appreciate that critics play an important role in the restaurant market. Everyone knows some restaurant for another that got an "unfair" review and went out of business soon after, but good critics also recognize talent when they see it and by getting word out, help rectify what my old econ professors would call a market failure: good decisions cannot be made without good information. If I don't know that Chef A is cooking like gangbusters in a small restaurant near Dupont Circle, I can't make the ideal dinner decision and he can't reap the rewards he deserves. I think critics have made many more restaurant fortunes than they've broken (when did Thomas Keller go from regional genius to national brand? Arguably, When Ruth Reichl wrote that the French Laundry was "the most exciting place to eat in the United States."

So, I'm not hating on the critics themselves, just the format into which they find themselves crammed.

******

On a related subject, what I truly find bizarre is people who can't seem to eat at a restaurant unless they've memorized at least two reviews, viewed the website and asked for advice on eGullet. Have they no sense of adventure? Don't they trust themselves? Of course, I'm a technophobe who prefers dead reckoning to GPS devices (which is likely related to my original post) but still....

[phaelon56]

On a related subject, what I truly find bizarre is people who can't seem to eat at a restaurant unless they've memorized at least two reviews, viewed the website and asked for advice on eGullet.  Have they no sense of adventure?  Don't they trust themselves? Of course, I'm a technophobe who prefers dead reckoning to GPS devices (which is likely related to my original post) but still....

←

I recognize that there's some mildly sarcastic humor in those remarks but it is important to recognize that many people - most likely including a large number whon read and post in eGullet - have limitations on how often they get to enjoy higher end fine dining. It may be geographic location, time constraints due to family obligations, budgetary challenges or perhaps a combination of the above.

For example... someone save up the hard earned ducats for a trip to NYC. They're paying airfare, exorbitant hotel prices, perhaps taking in a Broadway show or two and also planning to dine at a few good restaurants. If it was me (and at times it has been although NYC was not the city I visited) I'd research the heck out of the big budget splurge meal. I wouldn't go so far as "memorizing" reviews but I would do diligent research. Why not improve your chances of having a transcendant culinary experience when you rarely have the opportunity to do so?

That said... when it comes to all the other meals (apart from the splurge meal) - that's where my sense of adventure kicks in. Few things, including spectacular haute cuisine meals, satisfy me as much as wandering around in a new city to window shop menus and try out a place I know absolutely nothing about. And those often end up being among my most memorable meals.

My two most satisfying meals in recent years:

1) My "pre-5Oth birthday" dinner a year or so ago at Corduroy in Washington DC - researched the heck out of where to eat and I was rewarded in a big way.

2) Lunch at a no-name hole-in-the-wall dim sum place in Chinatown San Franciso a few months ago. We stumbled upon the place and stopped in on impulse.

[Carrot Top]

In spite of all the discussion here, I'll bet the restaurant review is one of - if not the first - columns read in any paper.

←

Heh. You just made me realize that (though I am not someone that is a restaurant hound searching for somewhere to eat by reviewer direction) the restaurant review in our local paper might actually be the most entertaining writing going on in the entire paper.

Where that leaves the state of the newspaper, the state of my intellect in general, and the state of our geographic region in some ways is uh . . . dubious, at best.

comment on the state of one restaurants clams casino. 

←

I love that line. As you can see from my post above.

On a related subject, what I truly find bizarre is people who can't seem to eat at a restaurant unless they've memorized at least two reviews, viewed the website and asked for advice on eGullet.  Have they no sense of adventure?  Don't they trust themselves? Of course, I'm a technophobe who prefers dead reckoning to GPS devices (which is likely related to my original post) but still....

The motto for people who act this way is "Better safe than sorry". Life is a scary business. Why risk losing maybe twenty dollars and an hour on an unknown meal in some unknown place? Terrible, terrible. It's nice to think one knows what one is talking about, based on what some other people say. "I'm okay, you're okay, we're all okay." (Insert pleased smile here).

The argument that one might lose a larger sum and more time when dining at a more expensive place is one made, too. My theory has always been "if you can't afford to screw up, don't do it."

Food is a living thing, chefs and people who work at restaurants are living things, and even the best-reviewed restaurant might not give one the buzz one was promised.

...............................................

But anyway. Let me go read the restaurant review (for some place I have no real intention of visiting based upon it) and throw away the rest of the paper.

[ronnie_suburban]

For reference, an excerpt from a recent review by Ms. Connelly:

John's burro was gigante, and the shredded meat was tender and seasoned perfectly. The gooey cheese and lightly spiced enchilada sauce were the perfect foil to the seasoned meat. This was such a big serving that almost half was leftover and enjoyed the next day as a quick lunch.

My relleno also made for a generous portion. The chile was filled with plenty of Monterey jack, covered with a light, eggy batter, then topped with yellow cheese. That may sound like every other relleno in town, but it takes a light hand to make sure that not one flavor or texture dominates the dish. Micha's has it down pat.

My rice was more than acceptable, but we both truly enjoyed the refries. There was definitely a homemade flavor to the creamy and smooth beans. The portion was small, but with such large entrées, you don't need big sides.

Mixed Meals

=R=

[rconnelly]

For reference, an excerpt from a recent review by Ms. Connelly:

John's burro was gigante, and the shredded meat was tender and seasoned perfectly. The gooey cheese and lightly spiced enchilada sauce were the perfect foil to the seasoned meat. This was such a big serving that almost half was leftover and enjoyed the next day as a quick lunch.

My relleno also made for a generous portion. The chile was filled with plenty of Monterey jack, covered with a light, eggy batter, then topped with yellow cheese. That may sound like every other relleno in town, but it takes a light hand to make sure that not one flavor or texture dominates the dish. Micha's has it down pat.

My rice was more than acceptable, but we both truly enjoyed the refries. There was definitely a homemade flavor to the creamy and smooth beans. The portion was small, but with such large entrées, you don't need big sides.

Mixed Meals

=R=

←

Guess my neck is really on the chopping block here.

Just curious as to the why of the posting.

Fire away!

[ronnie_suburban]

For reference, an excerpt from a recent review by Ms. Connelly:

John's burro was gigante, and the shredded meat was tender and seasoned perfectly. The gooey cheese and lightly spiced enchilada sauce were the perfect foil to the seasoned meat. This was such a big serving that almost half was leftover and enjoyed the next day as a quick lunch.

My relleno also made for a generous portion. The chile was filled with plenty of Monterey jack, covered with a light, eggy batter, then topped with yellow cheese. That may sound like every other relleno in town, but it takes a light hand to make sure that not one flavor or texture dominates the dish. Micha's has it down pat.

My rice was more than acceptable, but we both truly enjoyed the refries. There was definitely a homemade flavor to the creamy and smooth beans. The portion was small, but with such large entrées, you don't need big sides.

Mixed Meals

=R=

←

Guess my neck is really on the chopping block here.

Just curious as to the why of the posting.

Fire away!

←

Nah, no chopping block. The discussion made me curious and the review I excerpted above was the most recent review of yours I could find. It's probably more of a tangent than the original topic warranted but still, I figured it was somewhat relevant to the discussion.

=R=

[Tess]

Ms. Connelly, I would find that a useful review if I were considering going to this place. You sample a good number of things, both dine in and take out. Your descriptions are detailed and you don't pull punches when something is bad. Nothing here to discount any of the points you've made above, as far as I can see.

[Carrot Top]

Busboy's original main point (if I am reading it right) is that there is a mediocrity inbred into reviews here in this place and time, often, because of the format set upon them by the standard policies of the newspapers/journals that print reviews (those newspapers/journals having set a recipe upon the idea of "review" in a way).

He was crying out, in an uncaring world, ( )( ) for the betterment of the species, which would lead to a more interesting world with far far better things to read than currently are tossed at our feet often enough, as reviews.

Inclusion of cultural information. Variance of format. Maybe some history or sociology tossed in here or there. More of the "behind the scenes" of what's on that plate. For food can and does go much further than just the stomach. For those who care to think about these sorts of things.

A friend just wrote me something about writing (which of course reviewing anything is, it is writing).

He said that he hoped that I would find my energies interestingly directed to "streams of thought that will, sometime or another, lend differences to reader's days".

Isn't this what one really hopes for from something read? That the words would be streams of thought that will, sometime or another, lend difference to a readers day?

If a review or any piece of writing does that (in whatsoever way), then to me it is a success. And in thinking back, I can think of pieces of writing that might slip right through me, like a grape popsicle among many grape popsicles. Unless there is something "more", something special, something that sparks that grape popsicle into something somehow more than it really looks like or tastes like, sitting there in its bland white paper wrapper, then that grape popsicle is really not going to lend a hell of a lot of difference to my day.

But then, there are ways of writing of that same grape popsicle that would make it become important, marvellous, mystic, or even just so plain interesting that I could not then stop thinking about it, after reading of it written this way.

So here is to the restaurant review that roars and dances. And shame on any format that disallows them from doing so.

Edited May 4, 2007 by Carrot Top (log)

[ronnie_suburban]

I came across a funny quote from Matthew Fort, which instantly made me think of Busboy's initial lament here:

As a critic, you welcome the rotten restaurant  . . . The accepted vocabulary for accurately describing good food, taste, texture and flavour is pathetically poverty-stricken.  When it comes to indicting bad food, however, suddenly the full panoply of language and literature is at your command.  No comparison is too far-fetched, no metaphor too odious, no comic turn too outrageous.

Maybe what we really need is more negative reviews!

=R=

[Carrot Top]

Maybe what we really need is more negative reviews!

←

Or more people who know how to really write a love letter that'll knock more'n your socks off.

[Endy']

is it more important for a review to be entertaining or useful? (I agree it could do both, but which is more important?)

a review of a bad restaurant tells me where NOT to eat -- 1 of thousands of restaurants. Should I read thousands reviews to narrow down my list? Reading instead a few reviews that tell me where to eat gives me a nice small list to choose from...

[Carrot Top]

Here's something that might have something to say about whether restaurant reviews are boring or pointless:

Jonathan Gold wins Pulitzer Prize

And like many of our best critics, he is a cultural omnivore who can write captivatingly about almost anything. His gift to us is that he chose food.”

Interesting, regardless of what one thinks about the political side of the Pulitzers. Or what one thinks about the political side of anything.

There are some reviews attached to the piece that show the writing that earned the Pulitzer:

Flesh and Bone

all the slightly transgressive sensation of feasting on a part of the animal that nature has so fiercely guarded, without quite the grossness — the charred ends, the charnel-house smell, the random pools of searing, liquid grease

Heh. More than simply adorable.

Now obviously the more pop and sizzle the restaurant has, the more pop and sizzle the reviewer has to work with. And there's a lot more pop in the big cities, for the most part, or nearby any metropolis, except for rare circumstances. I can't think of a restaurant within one hundred miles of my house that would make me want to pop and sizzle, myself.

But that is where art comes in. We work with what we have in life. And make of it what it can be, and make of ourselves what we can be as a result.

It can't be the restaurants faults if the reviews are torpid and lame. It is the restaurants faults if they, themselves, suck. But if a poet can make mystery or marvel of a piece of grass or a cardboard box on a street, then surely a reviewer or critic can make something from words out of even the most yawn-inducing place to eat, something to read that would not be "boring or pointless".

After all, that's the job they chose to do. To give readers knowledge. In an entertaining fashion.

But if it is not done well, and if the reviews do end up seeming boring or pointless, then I would have to say that a guide with stars would do the exact same job for a reader seeking this "knowledge" (which is actually simply educated opinion so one has to trust both the education level of the reviewer specifically pertaining to this field, and also their personal opinions and tastes) and would do it even quicker.

Edited May 8, 2007 by Carrot Top (log)

[Carrot Top]

I'm hoping someone can tell me . . .does anyone know . . . has any statue been erected to a critic yet?

[hjshorter]

while I can perhaps see their appeal to the broader readership, I think reviews that are distilled into a score or star-rating are worse than useless.

Was Charles was advocating those?

I can certainly do without all the extraneous adjectives.  But when someone loves a restaurant, I need to know if they mean "the food was just alright, but it was great for celeb-spotting and they make a great martini" (couldn't care), or "it's a hole in the wall and the wine list sucks, but the kitchen is putting out some absolute gems" (sign me up).  I can't get that without a few paragraphs.

Sure you can. You just demonstrated how to do it. That's precisely what I like to know, along with the address, phone number, and any notable specials.

[Carrot Top]

Give me a Michelin guide.  A couple of stars, or a smiling Bibendum (aka "The Michelin Man") or maybe some pocket chnage in the margin next to the restaurant.  A little dog if dogs are allowed, a bunch of grapes if the wine list is distinguished. One sentence about the ambiance, another about the chef's specialties.  After reading restaurant reviews faithfully for 30 years, that's about all I need, certainly all I want.

[ . . .]

As for me: "Two stars, sleek modern decore, specializes in fish with excellent vegetarian options," is about all I need.

←

while I can perhaps see their appeal to the broader readership, I think reviews that are distilled into a score or star-rating are worse than useless.

Was Charles was advocating those?

←

It sounded rather close to it, to me. Stars plus minimum verbiage, anyway.

But I'm not sure if I believe he really meant what he wrote.

[Busboy]

Give me a Michelin guide.  A couple of stars, or a smiling Bibendum (aka "The Michelin Man") or maybe some pocket change in the margin next to the restaurant.  A little dog if dogs are allowed, a bunch of grapes if the wine list is distinguished. One sentence about the ambiance, another about the chef's specialties.  After reading restaurant reviews faithfully for 30 years, that's about all I need, certainly all I want.

[ . . .]

As for me: "Two stars, sleek modern decor, specializes in fish with excellent vegetarian options," is about all I need.

←

while I can perhaps see their appeal to the broader readership, I think reviews that are distilled into a score or star-rating are worse than useless.

Was Charles was advocating those?

←

It sounded rather close to it, to me. Stars plus minimum verbiage, anyway.

←

I have an extremely close relationship with my Guide Michelin, save for the occasional accusing glare it shoots me from her resting place on the cookbook shelf, when I haven't carried her off to France and paid her proper attention, in too many months.

The Red Guide is ruthless, illuminating, consistent and a firm believer that brevity is the soul of wit. It neatly sidesteps the cult of the critic by not naming them (no statues for these anonymous toilers). As it concerns only restaurants, one needn't worry that an establishment is recommended based on the quality of its celebrity guest or the taste of its cutting edge martinis. It delivers addresses, credit card and phone numbers; marks those places offering significant wine lists, patio seating and bargain menus and tells you whether to wear a jacket; and points you generally in the right direction as far as the food. It does not micromanage your dinner. It is not perfect, but offers a great deal of information, in a space less than the size of this post. And all of France, plus hotels, in one relatively portable book. What more do I need?

I also like the little Cliff's Notes summaries at the end of Bruni's NYT reviews.

So, more than stars, less than art.

But I'm not sure if I believe he really meant what he wrote.  :raz:

Trolling? Moi ?

[Carrot Top]

Trolling?  Moi ?

←

Nay, Sir Charles. U Troll Non.

It was just that I happened to remember this from several days ago, which I enjoyed at the time.

No one ate the grasshoppers. Despite the 10 or so tequila selections nobody crawled deep enough into the anejos or patrons to order flamin cheese with insedts on the side.

But that was on Friday and of course we know one must believe Ten Impossible Things Before Breakfast each Friday, (and on Mondays and Wednesdays, too, for those of us who are so inclined) so I am assuming that your charming review simply was part of a Friday morning madness.

Michelin never need know of this.

[hjshorter]

If you think he's wordy here...

Is the issue that the review form itself is boring (or trite), or is it that so many reviewers are poor writers? I'm inclined to suspect the latter.

(Trolling? Moi?)

[Busboy]

Trolling?  Moi ?

←

Nay, Sir Charles. U Troll Non.

It was just that I happened to remember this from several days ago, which I enjoyed at the time.

No one ate the grasshoppers. Despite the 10 or so tequila selections nobody crawled deep enough into the anejos or patrons to order flamin cheese with insedts on the side.

But that was on Friday and of course we know one must believe Ten Impossible Things Before Breakfast each Friday, (and on Mondays and Wednesdays, too, for those of us who are so inclined) so I am assuming that your charming review simply was part of a Friday morning madness.

Michelin never need know of this.

←

As Fitzgerald -- a concise little scribbler himself -- once said: “the true test of a first-rate mind is the ability to hold two contradictory ideas at the same time.”