Restaurant Reviews

[Carrot Top]

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.”

←

The last two people that quoted me that line ascribed it to Twain and to Benjamin Franklin. Now you say Fitzgerald. Maybe these guys should get together around a dinner table and sort out who *really* said it.

I've decided to go with the quote "When we risk no contradiction, it prompts the tongue to deal in fiction."

By the same author who wrote "Where yet was ever found a mother, who'd give her booby for another?"

John Gay.

But back to boring reviews. Gee, they do seem to happen.

[Busboy]

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.”

←

The last two people that quoted me that line ascribed it to Twain and to Benjamin Franklin. Now you say Fitzgerald. Maybe these guys should get together around a dinner table and sort out who *really* said it.

I've decided to go with the quote "When we risk no contradiction, it prompts the tongue to deal in fiction."

By the same author who wrote "Where yet was ever found a mother, who'd give her booby for another?"

John Gay.

But back to boring reviews. Gee, they do seem to happen.

←

My Oxford Dictionary of Modern Quotations credits Fitzgerald, in an article entitled "The Crack Up" published by Esquire in February, 1936 with the passage: "The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function."

Franklin -- bah! (Twain -- maybe).

Indeed, I have been working shortening my humble reviews posted herein. However, like so many critics, I do so love to hear myself talk that I can hardly stifle the urge to add yet another paragraph. In a life defined by the responsibilities of parenthood, the toil of work and the imposed self-abnegation of a meager income, my time on line becomes the modest self-indulgence that keeps me going.

I also labor under the disability of not being a known quantity. I can summarize my opinion of a restaurant to my wife in two sentences, to a friend in a paragraph, but to strangers stumbling across a web-review who know me not from Adam, I essay to add a little more detail, so they might judgethe insight (or lack thereof) I bring to my views.

****

Being a card-carrying member of the Colbert Nation, and needing something to read on the bus, I picked up GQ the other day and, of course, turned almost immediately to the article on San Francisco's Ferry Building and the "food court" it houses.

Richman is not well-liked on this board, having taken big swings at New Orleans New Orleans (article here) and Las Vegas (article here). But, love him or revile him, he uses his reviews to explore larger issues: has New Orleans cooking been coasting for decades, or can one arbitrarily and successfully transplant a culinary culture into the desert. He's gone beyond the formula to add value that other writers do not.

The Ferry building piece is an affectionate, tongue-in cheek look not so much as individual stalls but at the collision between idealism and commerce. ("[A]n idyllic monument to culinary conscience where all living creatures—those that eat and those that are eaten—are assured of compassionate treatment. The place enlightens. It enthralls. Of particular importance, it nourishes, although patronizing the shops within or the farmers’ market that encircles it twice weekly comes at a price: Should you wish to purchase eggs laid by chickens that dine exclusively on biodynamic cow poop, expect to pay as much as $8 a dozen.")

It's funny, informative makes one want to patronize the place not because this stand or that stand offers excellent breakfast ("The stone-ground grains of my griddle cakes were without peer. I don’t know if they were milled or panned for, like gold.") but because there's something larger and interesting going on.

It also has a nice shout out to an eGullet contributor: "I quickly found the farmers’-market producers I most admired, all Elite Organic: Della Fattoria breads, June Taylor conserves, Rancho Gordo beans."

Not being within the circulation area of the LA Weekly I can't comment in detail on Gold's Pulitzer, but here, too it seems that he is being recognized not for the quality of the reviews but for his tireless legwork in pursuit of the obscure, authentic and eccentric. (Russ may have a more informed opinion here).

In either case, the writers go beyond what is usually found in and required of a restaurant column -- something that is done all too rarely, in my experience.

[Carrot Top]

In either case, the writers go beyond what is usually found in and required of a restaurant column -- something that is done all too rarely, in my experience.

←

Mmm. There is a sense of "I came, I saw, I ate" and there the story ends, in many reviews. Okay, I think to myself, so tell me something new.

But there is a different sense felt, with some writers of reviews. One can imagine that, rather than have their head buried deeply in their plate they lift their eyes and look around. They look out to the horizon. And there they see things that have something to do with what they are putting in their mouth. And then they tell the story.

Sure, the story itself can always be argued with as to whether it fits one's own version of reality. But at least the story is written, is read, is there, rather than just another bite of food.

Food without story. Isn't that really just fodder? Chomp.

But the point Heather mentions about "good writing" matters too. If I have a choice, I'll shop where the style says something different. I'll shop where the lines (the lines of the clothes, of the car, of the sweet red bell pepper) give me a giggly little pinch of visceral pleasure. Same with reading reviews or criticism.

I like to read reviews that one would never, ever, associate with what used to be called "The Women's Page" of a newspaper. The name "Women's Page" . . . it doesn't exist anymore, maybe, but the genre of writings that would be there and named that, does.

And it's all just a bit too damn cozy, with a sense lurking round the edges of horses chewing oats with blinkered eyes, the cold steel bits edging sideways back and forth in their large wet mouths. For my taste, anyway. I understand there are those who like it that way, though.

Edited May 11, 2007 by Carrot Top (log)

[Pontormo]

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

←

Restaurant critic--not that I know of. However, scroll down to Commissions and Controversies for Rodin's clothed version of a statue of Balzac.

Then, there's Jasper Johns who commented on critics the same way Julia Langbein writes about Frank Bruni: The Critic Smiles.

[MaxH]

Russ Parsons mentioned the review's challenges to the writer, and Charles S. began this thread asking to pare it to the bone.

These are refined considerations, compared to what I and some others have complained about -- gross problems like factual errors that are easy to avoid. (More annoying when a writer waxes poetic while making them.)

[Quot'n attributed to Fitzgerald]

The last two people that quoted me that line ascribed it to Twain and to Benjamin Franklin. Now you say Fitzgerald. Maybe these guys should get together around a dinner table and sort out who *really* said it. 

Not that I actually advocate doing so, but in principle, one step to reducing that problem would be to close Wikipedia. The next would be to shut down the Internet.

Then we would have less of questions formerly answered, mysteries formerly solved, that become "unsolved again." (The relationship of the sandwich to the Earl of Sandwich comes to mind, because I'm hungry.)

[phil_v]

Hello,

Just wanted to agree with a couple of things, and add a couple more points that haven't been made...

Reviews as advice on where to go:

If a meal is going to cost £100+ and a very infreqent event, then I want to be pretty sure that I'm going to like it. So consulting reviews in whatever format is going to be helpful.

Guest reviews on websites like www.london-eating.co.uk are as has been pointed out, generally a bit hit and miss. Yes, you can average out the pros and cons, but it's hard to trust them in a way that you could regularly read a restaurant critic and trust their comments. That's not to say you should take their word as gold and not make a decision on the restaurant yourself, but it is useful in deciding where to go.

The question of a the importance of a critic and their worth is a long-runnning discussion and certainly not limited to restaurant critics, as anyone with a knowledge of the film industry and criticism particularly in the UK will testify. Can critics make or break a restaurant? With small or local restaurants then a review can make a big difference, but I would think that with the development of the media and the status of restaurants in the UK over the years, certain establishments are relatively immune to the critics' knives. In the same way the latest critically-slated blockbuster will continue to do well at the box-office, some of the celebrity chefs will still attract diners, as will any 'attraction' be it the restauranteurs (Chris Corbin & Jeremy King in London for example) or the design (I think the restaurant at Sketch would probably have done ok without Pierre Gagnaire). So yes, maybe the importance of the critic reviewer as opposed to the more standardised rating has been diminished in recent years.

Lastly, and personally, I like reading reviews! I only get to go to a handful of restaurants in London, and very few further afield, but I still enjoy reading about restaurants, particularly if it is a well-written review. Perhaps a more pertinent debate for this list is how much the critics actually write about the restaurant itself, as opposed to say how often they feature their girlfriend in their writings. But that aside, as a 'columnist' in a paper or magazine, the reviews are primarily entertaining. There was a whole debate on here a while back about the Observer Food Magazine, and the same argument applies here - the majority reading aren't 'foodies' or aren't planning to go that restaurant.

On one final note, I'd just like to mention Michael Winner. As most of you will know I'm sure, Winner trades on his particular reputation and probably has more people who dislike him (which even spawned the popular Winner's Letters page) than any other. Personally, I wouldn't want to have dinner with him and would think twice about going to any of the restaurants he reviews regardless of whether he liked them. But his reviews are wonderful reading and I never miss one!

Phil

[Daniel Rogov]

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

←

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

[Carrot Top]

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

←

Interesting, Rogov, that when I think of either of them I think of them as "writers" not critics. And the term "restaurant reviewer" would not even *attempt* the merest nibble at the edge of my mind at the sound of their names.

And you've reminded me (thinking of quote-worthy authors) of two things, both from Anatole France:

"The good critic is one who tells of his mind's adventures among masterpieces."

and

"A tale without love is like beef without mustard: insipid."

Seems to me that both de la Reyniere and Cur non sky were writers whose words were filled with adventures of mind *and* expressions of love, non?

And how often does that happen.

Edited May 26, 2007 by Carrot Top (log)

[Daniel Rogov]

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."

[Carrot Top]

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. 

←

It makes me wonder if there were as many restaurant reviewers around during that time. And I would guess not based upon the different status of restaurants of note at the time and their relative accessibility to the wider public. So either their level of writings should be the milestones to aim for in writing reviews (to my mind) or else the genre itself was broken out of by them, or else the genre itself has changed to be a bird of a different feather, or all of the above.

Each of them did, I believe, what I ask for in a review. "Tell me something I don't know." That is, beyond the price of tea in China as it stands today (to be slightly obscure about it all).

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."

My kind of guy.

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

I'd guess the excerpts posted above are from your new book. I've been looking forward to reading that. 'Cause you're my kind of guy, too.

[Carrot Top]

One of my questions would be about any restaurant review: What does it tell me beyond what I can find from popular opinion on the internet forums?

There are a lot of people who post "reviews" of restaurants on the internet each day, all across the world. Many of them have well-educated tastebuds and broad horizons in terms of dining experience to base their (unpaid) reviews on.

Many of them stand on their reputations in terms of the quality and consistency of their offerings.

What is it that the (paid) reviewer has to offer above and beyond these (unpaid) reviewers?

It might be advanced knowledge of some sort that can be shared with the reader.

It might be writing skills, in terms of being either entertaining or just being able to format a review into a "story" that reads really well.

It might be a new way of looking at things. Tying together A and B to create new thoughts about it all.

It just might be style, which is surely worth paying for, as anyone who owns a Ferrari knows.

Those four things make a professional reviewer worth their salt, to my mind. Otherwise, it all can be found in popular opinion on the internet or in a guidebook that has little post-it sort of notes.

[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.

[Fat Guy]

If 99.9% of professional critics -- including the most influential ones (New York Times, New York Magazine, etc.) -- don't meet those standards, maybe it's better just to give the genre a rest.

Also, I must take issue with Mr. Rogov on one statement he makes: "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." I disagree. The critic owes loyalty to nobody. His only loyalty should be to the cause of excellence in cuisine.

[jayrayner]

Maybe the critic should be the person trusted by the editor to write an entertaining column which, in turn, he believes will help sell the most newspapers week in week out.

BUt if you chaps don't like that version we'll stick with Daniel's. I'm sure you'll find it much more convincing.

Edited May 27, 2007 by jayrayner (log)

[Carrot Top]

Maybe the critic should be the person trusted by the editor to write an entertaining column which, in turn, he believes will help sell the most newspapers week in week out.

←

I can see that.

Therefore, how a (paid) review is written is based on the geographic location of the newspaper and knowledge of the most prominent dining culture that exists in that location, based on demographic information and reader response. "What will be entertaining to our usual readership?"

Sadly, in some places, the culture of dining does boil down to "how big will my portion be and how much do I have to pay for it" with no additional information desired that might confuse these two vital issues or waste a reader's valuable time.

And if one does not happen to enjoy that particular outlook on dining, then one is just screwed, in terms of finding a review that does not bore them to tears or ruin their perfectly good haircut by trying to tear it out in a desperate furor of a sense of dying from the blandularity of it all.

God. How morose-making this all is. It's enough to drive a person to find a large cheap portion of something and gobble it down quickly to quell the pain.

Almost, anyway.

Edited May 27, 2007 by Carrot Top (log)

[Daniel Rogov]

If 99.9% of professional critics -- including the most influential ones (New York Times, New York Magazine, etc.) -- don't meet those standards, maybe it's better just to give the genre a rest.

Fat Guy, Hi...

Our first argument in public. How pleasant. I'll have to respond to the above by saying that if most critics don't meet those standards it is not time to give the genre a rest but to find better critics and better editors. Dr. Johnson once remarked that "most journalists have the ethics of monkeys". He was correct in 1871 and he would be correct today. That should not cast the boiling oil on those journalists whose ethics rise above.

I'll also have to take issue with you, as you beforehand did with me on your observation to the effect that:

Also, I must take issue with Mr. Rogov on one statement he makes: "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." I disagree. The critic owes loyalty to nobody. His only loyalty should be to the cause of excellence in cuisine.

←

You may have mis-read me there. By speaking of loyalty to one's readers I meant to imply that the reader is entitled to the "truth" as the critic sees it and that regardless of whether we are talking about a bowl of chili con carne consumed in Terralingua, Texas, a meal consumed at El Bulli or one enjoyed with Joel Robuchon. We are agreed that from the bowl of chili or the burger or the canard a l'orange that excellence is the goal, that at whatever level of expectations we build.

One day I will bore you to tears by summarizing in 30,000 words the little book I am now writing on what I consider our "hypothesis of expectations".

Edited May 27, 2007 by Daniel Rogov (log)

[Fat Guy]

Perhaps it's a semantic dispute, but I don't think the readers are unique in being owed the truth. The truth (or at least a true representation of the critic's beliefs) is also owed to the industry, the newspaper, everybody and everything -- even Jeffrey Chodorow. My concern with the "loyalty to the readers" formulation is that it implies taking sides as between, say, the readers and the restaurant industry. But the critic should be no more on the side of the reader than on the side of restaurants, even assuming it's accurate to say there are sides in such a situation. The critic shouldn't be taking sides except insofar as a given position naturally supports one constituency or another. The sides shouldn't even be a consideration.

[Daniel Rogov]

We are agreed. There should be no "sides" but as the chef cooks for diners, he critic does, after all, write for readers. One assumes that if the critic is worth reading (or if he/she is just a rotten s.o.b. who happens to have a power-base) the trade is also part of that readership.

Indeed the critic and the chef and/or restaurateur are colleagues in that both have the same clients. That is to say, those who may dine at a given establishment are also those who read the critics. The difference comes in that the chef/restaurateur has something to sell and, at least in one major sense, the critic advises on what may or may be worth buying. In this of course the critic must never abuse the status of hoding that earlier referred to power-base.