Critical Reviews

[Carrot Top]

Can anyone tell me of a specific instance in which they were certain that a critical review impacted the food or service of the restaurant reviewed?

I ask not with my ex-chef's hat on but with my diner's hat on.

[nibor]

S. Irene Virbila of the Los Angeles Times wrote a scathing review of Aubergine, a retooled version of what had previously been one of Orange County’s best restaurants:

http://www.calendarlive.com/dining/cl-fo-r...-headlines-food

If there was ever a case where the owners should have reacted to a critical review, this would have been it. Does anyone know if they made any changes? I have not been around but think they ended up going out of business about six months later.

[SundaySous]

I so wish I could find the article from the Chicago Reader by some some University Professor that slighted Charlie Trotter's in Chicago. From what I remember this couple decide to splurge after receiving $400 for having something of theirs published somewhere, (they never mentioned what).

The Chicago Reader comes out on Thursday, (officially Friday) by Saturday no less than 17 staff members were fired.

My take on the article was two people who wanted to absolve there "hippie" souls for actually going out to dine well. That and getting published in the Chicago Reader.

I've never dined at Charlie's, I probably never will but I can't help but think that article impacted the service.

*always waited for the Chicago Reader and or the authors to respond to what happened, have never seen anything from either...they must have found the 17 better jobs growing organic sea urchins or something*

[TAPrice]

Can anyone tell me of a specific instance in which they were certain that a critical review impacted the food or service of the restaurant reviewed?

←

When I was as critic for the alt-weekly in New Orleans, I wrote a review of a slightly upscale sandwich shop. It was a very mixed review.

A few months later, a friend stopped in there for some take-out and mentioned that he knew me. The owner had made changes based on what I wrote and insisted that my friend deliver a sandwich to me so that I could taste the difference.

Honestly, I was surprised. Only a small example, but you asked for a specific instance.

[Carrot Top]

Eh. Big or small doesn't matter in the least bit to me, Todd. I'm sort of questioning processes that affect quality in an overall sense in the public places we eat, in my mind, to try to sort out what counts, what matters, or if indeed there is anything that does that can be pinned down. *

That must have felt great.

Do you know how the shop developed afterwards? Was the improvement consistent or did things slip after a while again?

* In terms of having long-term or lasting effects upon reaching excellence, that is.

Edited September 2, 2007 by Carrot Top (log)

[Carrot Top]

Here's what I mean. I live in a small (very small) city, a college town. Most everyone here is very well educated, the income level is not low. There are lots of restaurants of all sorts.

Now I am not talking about "taste" or preference I am talking about quality. That is measureable to some extent, even given variations of style levels.

In the past several weeks I've been to a new restaurant (now open three months) that lots of lots of money has been dumped into for an upscale look and dining experience and had ridiculously poor service and been served a rotten french fry to boot.

Then I went to a new barbecue place (now open six months). The one mention of it I saw in the press fawned over how wonderful it was to have it as a new addition to the dining scene (whatever that is, I say, snotty ex-New Yorker to the core). I was really excited to go try it too, and I did, and got (for my own personal dining pleasure) served a rack of ribs that was steamed with no outstanding features, rather less in fact, limp french fries, and baked beans that appeared as if the original batch made did not last through service so they dumped in some kidney beans to stretch it. The soda was even watery.

Today I went out to get a salad - a grilled Asian chicken salad. It was okay for the price but for any price I really do not expect to find bad lettuce, rotten lettuce, limp yellow sickening-tasting lettuce.

Other recent experiences have involved Asian food that turned out to be murky sauce with some overcooked veggies and a few tiny chunks of meat here and there and a "fine dining" place where the food that was designed to be placed on the plate instead was lumped on the plate like a bad-looking sloppy joe with worn-out garnishes. Then there was the upscale burger served close to closing time that was completely raw with french fries cooked in bad oil to savor alongside it.

All these things are manageable. This is not a question of taste. It is a question of performance.

It seems to me (and I am not the only person I hear groaning about "no place good to eat" here) that the level of dining in many places is not only mediocre but just plain bad. It is appallingly stupid in my opinion, for there are things that could be done both BOH and FOH to correct these lacks (or really, not lacks but crimes against nature and humanity ).

Why don't they do it? Why does this continue?

How does one get excellence in the dining experience? One can demand it as an individual but if there is not a culture of demanding it will it happen?

As someone who is accustomed to be the one providing the food and service my feelings about criticism is of course mixed to say the least. I tend to pull for the restaurant.

But with what I am seeing time and time again out here, I can not continue to pull for the restaurants, for I am utterly disgusted.

Then I look at the reviews of places in local papers and have to wonder if the editorial goal is to print things that are more community-boosting rah rah's rather than to print things that might hint that things are not as fine and lovely as one might wish them to look.

Then I think about if there were actual critical reviews about these things (if someone dared to write in that manner, and if the editors decided to publish it) would it after all make any difference? Or is this performance at this level something innate to our culture anywhere except big cities?

I really am very cranky about all this.

[Carrot Top]

Let me expand upon this a bit further. Yes, I know I am ranting.

I will now expand this down a notch to a trip we just took to Burger King, because my daughter wanted fast food. I placed the order, we drove up to pick it up, and the guy said "Anything else?" I said, yes, some ketchup please. He said, it's in the bag.

Of course it was not in the bag. Why did I expect it to be? I've ranted on before about fast food drive throughs where nine out of ten orders are wrong in some way, some how. The counter-argument presented to me was that I should not expect the idiots (it may have been phrased in a more kindly manner but I am not feeling kindly) who work at fast food places to know how to do their job right. I should expect things to be wrong and accept it. Sort of a joy of idiocy concept.

So we drove back around and waited there at the window. He was mopping the floor and of course kept mopping the floor for two minutes till he decided it was clean enough to pay attention to the customers. I said "There's no ketchup in the bag." He said, "I know. If you had shown me the bag, I would have known." I said, "But you said there was some in the bag." He said, "I needed the bag back so I could get ketchup for you." I said, "Why?" He said, "Because I have to walk all the way over across the counter to get ketchup, and I have to put it in the bag." I said, "Can't you just walk over there and grab some packets in your bare hands?"

That obviously was something he had never thought of or heard of, but he did it. Walking about five feet, he grabbed some ketchup and finally carried it all the way back and handed it to me.

Fast food place or not. This is, too often, the level of thinking that I see going into the most simple tasks in the most basic (though not always inexpensive) places to eat.

I don't think it has to do with anything except people not respecting their jobs. Therefore not respecting themselves. Therefore not respecting the people they serve. Therefore creating a culture of crap.

Ho ho ho. Let's see what happens next time I dare try to eat somewhere. Maybe Remy from Rattatouille left a dropping or two in the soup?

Nah. He's animated.

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

My point being, would the shame of ongoing media exposure as a standard that reamed this sort of thing alter anything? Or do people who perform like this simply have no shame as long as they can stay in business?

[TAPrice]

Eh. Big or small doesn't matter in the least bit to me, Todd. I'm sort of questioning processes that affect quality in an overall sense in the public places we eat, in my mind, to try to sort out what counts, what matters, or if indeed there is anything that does that can be pinned down. *

That must have felt great. 

Do you know how the shop developed afterwards? Was the improvement consistent or did things slip after a while again?

←

This was a few months before Katrina and it never reopened after the storm. No way to know the long-term effect.

[Carrot Top]

This was a few months before Katrina and it never reopened after the storm. No way to know the long-term effect.

←

Tell you what, though. I'd bet you that when New Orleans dining culture comes back in full swing again that it will again be one of the most respected in the country, just as it was before.

Why? Because the culture and the people there expect it.

I'd say that if I'm wrong I'd eat my hat but that might be more rewarding than eating some of the things I've had to eat here lately.

Edited September 3, 2007 by Carrot Top (log)

[Carrot Top]

Okay. One last thing to say then I promise to quiet down.

This just came to mind and it shows how really sad this boondocks dining thing can be.

My daughter's birthday was the other day. I asked her where she wanted to go for her birthday dinner "out". We went through a list of a number of places - the most "upscale" ones first (which are not really upscale but moderate, they are just the most upscale thing around here) then working our way down through others that we had enjoyed once or twice.

Each place was vetoed after thinking of them in specifics, for each one of them had shown such inconsistency (ranging from a decent meal one night to something very strange several weeks later) that none of them are really worth trusting for any occassion of importance, to our minds.

Now granted I can be picky and have things to compare these places to. But this is a fifteen year old kid who has not been to any temples of gastonomy in her lifetime yet.

The easiest answer to this is that this is a college town and based on that, this is what you get.

I have to live here (or at least, I am living here). That answer is no longer good enough for me.

We do not have reviews that are critical for the most part - we have reviews that are guides, speaking of location, history of staff, what's on the menu, and decor. Not even that too much for we have no major "city" paper but rather a section of our own in the larger newspaper of the city that is closest to us.

I don't think being small means being lesser. But this is how it is played out in actuality. No focus on the action equals no performance by the players. The critical eye does not rest here where I live and eat. Only my own does, and those of others who live here. So we gripe, and live with what we are given to eat.

And so it goes.

Having thoroughly exhausted myself, I'll post no more on this but rather wait for the intelligent answer to it all to be given. Would reviews that are criticism, written with a critical eye to quality (not style, goodness knows that would be too much to ask) improve the standards of restaurants in this place?

(Oh. As a P.S., no this is not something I would like to do myself, write critical reviews. So my diatribe is not shaded by that particular thing. )

Edited September 3, 2007 by Carrot Top (log)

[nibor]

All I could think while reading this is that you must live in Princeton NJ.

[Joisey]

Here in Portland there is a place called 10-01 that opened to great fanfare. It got absolutely SCATHING reviews from both the regular paper and the free weekly (the headline said something like "ambiance-10 food-01"). Not long after, the chef was gone and a new guy imported from San Francisco to fix things. It happens.

[edsel]

...

The Chicago Reader comes out on Thursday, (officially Friday) by Saturday no less than 17 staff members were fired.

...

←

That story has to be apocryphal. At best, the bad review may have been a trigger (or excuse) for the firings, if they even happened. Serious, seventeen people lose their jobs over a single one-off review by people who don't even review restaurants for a living? I don't think so...

[Qwerty]

Yeah I thought that seemed like a lot too....I imagine CT employs a LOT of people, but I can't see how you could lose 17 all at once and keep going at the pace they do. Possible, I suppose, but I can't get my mind around it.

[Fat Guy]

There have been occasional high-profile firings of chefs in the wake of New York Times restaurant reviews. I think, however, that it makes the most sense to look at such reviews as markers rather than independent causes. That is to say, such reviews probably derive a lot of their power from the fact that they reflect significant strands of established opinion, and in that regard they can mark the moment at which a restaurant decides to act on the weight of opinion. It's not likely that a restaurant beloved by everybody except one critic would make major changes -- instead, the restaurant would just do its business in the absence of that piece of critical acclaim.

[boneface]

This was a few months before Katrina and it never reopened after the storm. No way to know the long-term effect.

←

Tell you what, though. I'd bet you that when New Orleans dining culture comes back in full swing again that it will again be one of the most respected in the country, just as it was before.

Why? Because the culture and the people there expect it.

I'd say that if I'm wrong I'd eat my hat but that might be more rewarding than eating some of the things I've had to eat here lately.

←

I live down here, and I can say, after dining at one of the Brennan's places recently, good food does not always = good service. The food was ok, but the service was some of the worst I have ever received.

[Duck Fat]

I'm forced to agree with Carrot Top--culturally, standards are pretty low and mediocrity is accepted far too often. Sometimes, people really don't care, from top to bottom.

I was recently at a local restaurant--one trying to be the best restaurant in town, and after a third evening of poor service and average food at top dollar, the owner happened by. He asked me how it was going, so I proceeded to detail all the problems with service and food, etc. When done, he said "I wasn't asking how your night was, I was asking how you were." I was floored. He then told me to call next time, mention my name, and he would make sure I had a good experience. I responded that it shouldn't take a special call to the owner ahead of time in order to get what should be standard procedure. I haven't been back.

My point is that even in a restaurant trying to be the best in town, if the top of the organization doesn't care, no one else will. Contributing to the problem are the newspapers, especially small local rags, that serve up fawning reviews of average places to keep the wheels of commerce moving. These chamber of commerce reviews, as well as fear of alienating anyone, especially in a small town setting, prevent the critical lens from being applied.

There is one solution, because the diner is ultimately at the top of the organization. Speak up--dont' be rude, but report unacceptable food or service every time. I think critical reveiws would help, and if your paper won't write them, or if you really disagree with a review, write one of your own. Better yet, write a letter to the editor of your paper disagreeing with the reviewer, and tell them why. Don't just say "it sucked," instead talk about specifics like the rotten lettuce, etc. Challenge the paper, not just the restaurant, to do a better job.

If everyone stopped giving restaurants of any level a free pass, the culture would begin to change at my fine dining restaurant and Carrot Top's local Burger King. Tell your friends, and tell the owner that you'll be telling your friends.

Bottom line: Take the time to point things out. People need to be told about problems. Talk to owners, or managers. Not everyone will react well, but not everyone will react poorly, either, and at least they'll know that everything wasn't "fine, thank you," which, by the way, we all seem to say far too often when the waitress reappears mid-meal.

This is very frustrating to me as well. My small town has experienced something of a renaissance in the past 5 years, and the local populace seems to be enthralled with what would be merely average to anyone who has ever eaten in a city, or on the coast. The restauranteurs, though, have more cosmopolitan experience. If they know that not everyone in town thinks that "average" is "terrific," it might influence their behavior. Or, sadly, it might not, in which case, the only solution is to vote with your feet.

[Carrot Top]

Very well put, Duck Fat. The problem here does range, however, from BK's to the most high-end dining (which is self-admittedly or rather self-proposedly a place that tries to do what New York does in terms of high-end or rather how the owners view that which to me seems more like California Pizza Kitchen. Whatever).

I'm all for community-boosting. But when the reality does not match the hype there is a problem. It creates a sort of false smugness among those who live in such a place, matched by a lack of excellence. Smug provincialism shaped as proud sophistication.

I do speak up after I've had several poor experiences in a place where prices are higher rather than lower and do speak up after maybe every twenty poor experiences at a place where prices are lower rather than higher. And like your experience above, where the owner deflected your concerns with an attitude designed to throw it back on you in some way, sometimes lately I've received the same silly defensive chatter in return. At that point, a very large warning buzz goes off in my head, just as if life were a game show, that says "Wrong. Wrong. You Lose." For if management is defensive of its own poor performance (or shows a false smarmy concern that you know is false for "how could they be expected to do any better these things happen you know") it is clear that this is how it is and this is how it will be, whether or not that poor management runs things right into the ground.

The last experience I had at the latest "high-end" restaurant opened here was so poor, and the manager's response so idiotic that I really felt bad for the owner or investors of the place. Because her response was everything they train managers in fine dining venues not to do.

Granted, there are staffing challenges here that do not exist in the same shape as they do in cities. But I don't even see training of staff being done correctly if at all in many of these places.

Letters to the editor concerning reviews? Reviewers get paid to take the sh*t that goes along with their jobs, in real money as well as in the power of the ego-boost of seeing their name as accepted authority. I say let them do it. I do admit to lurking feelings of contempt for the always-glowing parochial reviews that abound, where it seems the most offense taken is that their portion size was not big enough. (Alternately, the most glowing praise often is that there was "a goodly portion" served.)

Here, in a college town, the situation is compounded by the fact that what the money is made off of mostly is liquor. Drinking is revered above dining by college kids (uh, can I call them scholars or are they just "college kids"?) and as long as the drinking scene is one enjoyable, the food falls way way down the list of things Important.

After consideration, I honestly think that provincial parochial dining is just that. Probably always has been but for rare exception. Tied by the apron-strings of village life it will remain a child prouder than it should be, in all but the most rare exceptions.

[Timh]

How about this, we have recieved good reviews from both the public and local food guy. So what does the owner do? He decides to start cutting costs(quality) to maximize profits.

[Carrot Top]

Okay. Trying to pull myself out of my deep depression that has arisen from the fact that it doesn't seem to matter in the least bit where I go in this town or how much money I spend, I can not escape in any consistent way from service performed by those with less adeptness than a kindergartener playing house and food prepared by those lacking both senses of sight and touch, I will say I think you're right, Pontormo, in general.

I was hoping to hear of examples that proved this general rule wrong, but none seem to have come flying in en masse to be posted.

So then. What is the point of critical reviews? If finally, they do not affect the food???? (Those extra question marks were an error but one that I like upon a glance, so they remain. ) Are they all just to be considered personalized guides rather than educated critique that does finally have any real measurable effect upon things? Does it finally come down to their use is as journalism that relies solely upon the personality of the reviewer/critic and how well readers take them to heart and bond with them, feeling validated in their own tastes, no more no less?

How about this, we have recieved good reviews from both the public and local food guy. So what does the owner do? He decides to start cutting costs(quality) to maximize profits.

This makes my tummy hurt, reading this, Tim. And I can only imagine how yours feels.

In cases like this, the restaurant staff usually takes the rap. The public just sees that they can not "cope with this much business".

Edited September 4, 2007 by Carrot Top (log)

[Ted Fairhead]

Then I look at the reviews of places in local papers and have to wonder if the editorial goal is to print things that are more community-boosting rah rah's rather than to print things that might hint that things are not as fine and lovely as one might wish them to look.

Then I think about if there were actual critical reviews about these things (if someone dared to write in that manner, and if the editors decided to publish it) would it after all make any difference? Or is this performance at this level something innate to our culture anywhere except big cities?

I really am very cranky about all this.

←

Local papers are a joke as far as writing critical reviews, in my opinion. I think you are right about them being community boosters rather than true critiques. I have lived in all four corners of the U.S. and find that it is a uniform practice. Restaurant reviews by local writers are usually done it seems, mostly by volunteers who are only too happy to spend the paper's money on a free meal. Our little town sounds like yours, Carrot Top. The so-called "high-end" places would be considered mediocre in a larger, more discriminatory market.

Is it the paper's fault or the dining establisment's? I say it is the paper and readers really should write to the editor more often, as they might be more likely to change their practices.

[Carrot Top]

Is it the paper's fault or the dining establisment's? I say it is the paper and readers really should write to the editor more often, as they might be more likely to change their practices.

←

Yet if I put on the hat of newspaper editor or publisher, and look at what the goals of my newspaper are, it is likely that I would see two things: One, that many of these restaurants are advertisers. (And I hear that this is where the money is to be made in this business, it is not from actual subscription income that newspapers survive or thrive.) Two, that in any given geographic area, tourists or people "just driving through" will be likely to bring their bucks to the area that is touted (focus on touted) as being the most charming, entertaining, and full of lovely places to eat. If one local newspaper took to printing critical reviews rather than fawning or gentle ones, it might be that visitors would just take to driving on past the place with the critical reviews and on to the place that had the kinder gentler reviews.

Add to that, that print publications are under all kinds of pressure due to the challenges of online publications which cost the reader nothing, and it looks to me as if it's a lose-lose proposition all around except possibly in terms of quality (and I am not talking taste here, just talking rotten lettuce as opposed to fresh and the verb "to barbecue" not meaning "to steam").

When was it, that moment in history, that small-town and suburban America decided that rotten lettuce was a part of life that had to be endured, and merely pushed to the side of the plate?

When was it, that service performed as if by brain-dead monkeys became acceptable, at any level, even that of fast-food places, as if the people there were somehow born that way therefore the performance was to be accepted as they were "not the highest quality people"?

I don't know.

I don't think fast food employees are untrainable nor do I think that rotten lettuce is unfindable by almost anyone. Given the care.

Edited September 4, 2007 by Carrot Top (log)

[Daniel Rogov]

Perhaps a bit off-topic but to some extent we are talking here about the difference between honest criticism and whoredom. Newspapers, national or local, that allow their critics/critiques to be influenced by advertising policy are cheating their readers and critics who tolerate that are little more than whores.

In honest journalism there is full separation between editorial and advertising. And that, by heaven, is how it should be.

And that's a short but strong rant on my part.

[Carrot Top]

Restaurant reviews by local writers are usually done it seems, mostly by volunteers who are only too happy to spend the paper's money on a free meal.

←

The newspaper here has two food reviewers, both salaried full-time. One comes from a broadcasting background, one from a different staff position on the paper.

Yet if I put on the hat of newspaper editor or publisher, and look at what the goals of my newspaper  are

←

I used the wrong word here. "Goals" should be replaced with "mission". And the mission statements of small-town or smaller-city newspapers might include supporting the growth of the community, and in that statement could be read many things.

In honest journalism there is full separation between editorial and advertising.  And that, by heaven, is how it should be.

←

I still would not be surprised to know for a fact that there are grey areas in some mission statements of newspapers.

And I was, hoping for more commentary on all this from you, Rogov. I asked a lot of questions above.

Of course, it may all be due to the fact that I just started reading a book titled "Born to Kvetch" by Michael Wex (subtitled "Now with more kvetching!") but I'd prefer to think my questions simply valid and true, unaffected by such things.

[Daniel Rogov]

Carrot Top, Hi….

You raise many, many points here. Let me try to respond, in my own curmudgeon-like way to some of those and those in "categories"

Most Restaurants Stink

Agreed, and that because the foods they serve are what most people want. What we are talking about here is not so much a question of absolute quality but of expectations, and when Ms. And Mr. X walk into any restaurant or eatery, they will be satisfied so long as their expectations are met.

Let's say that you and I are walking down the street and for one reason or another choose to enter a branch of McDonalds. No matter what we receive in the way of food we have no right at all to complain, because both of us know exactly what to expect at these branches, that is precisely what we receive, and the choice to enter was ours and ours alone. The food, the service and the price are entirely in line with our expectations. No one's fault but our own whether we love it or hate it. That McDonald's is the world's second largest provider of food (next alone to the United States Armed Forces) is no one's fault except those who patronize McDonald's.

Taking a look at mass-market chain restaurants (even I try such places at times when visiting the USA) – depends on the integrity of the chain. I recall dining in Atlanta, Savannah, Los Angele and Seattle at branches of various steak and beer joints – several of which served up truly excellent steaks (primarily T-bone or Porterhouse in my case), really excellent local beers on tap and offered fine, casual service. I also recall several that served up steaks that would have best been ground into sausage meat and beer that had off aromas and flavors. I do remember checking afterwards and finding that the good were no less profitable or popular than the bad. A conundrum…..

The positive sign, both in the USA, Europe and even tiny little Israel and Lebanon is that many truly fine chefs are shifting to restaurant formats that, while less formal and less "fussy" than their earlier restaurants are serving up fine, more casual food in settings that while highly designed are less pretentious, far less expensive. Instead of being readily available only to those in the top x percent of earners, these are open to a broader audience, and, although great fun are doing marvelously with their dishes.

General Impact of the Critics

The item above, relating to status, formality, expense is a direct response to two factors – economic conditions (people who are tired of being "taken advantage of" and of those critics (present company included) who have been pushing for such a return now for five years. And that true in the USA as well as throughout Europe. It is not that there is no longer a place for the super-prestigious places of the world (e.g. Alain Ducasse's Louix XV in Monte Carlo or Guy Savoy in Paris) but that there is in parallel a place for places such as Ducaee's Spoon or Savoy's Bistro.

Your self-declared "rant" is valid when it comes to small towns. It is not as valid when it comes to the "big cities". The critics who write for many small town newspapers have very little impact indeed – that partly because those newspapers cannot afford professional/full-time critics and partly because such newspapers are overly dependent on and thus cater to local businesses. (As I said earlier – a form of whoredom) National newspapers and major newspapers on the other hand rely more on critics who earn their keep from that profession. Such newspapers can also afford to set aside the need to become whores.

As to the "gray areas" to which you refer – the newspapers for which I have written since I was knee-high to the proverbial grasshopper have had no gray areas. I can tell you with full confidence that if I were to receive a phone call from someone in the advertising section of any of the papers for which I now write even suggesting that I review restaurant x, y or z, within ten minutes that person would be given a warm handshake goodbye as they were fired. The same is true of wineries. I recall once the editor of the newspaper with which I am most closely associated receiving a phone call from the CEO of a major winery informing him in no uncertain terms that "if Daniel Rogov continues to be the wine critic of your paper, we will withdraw all of our advertising". My editor's response was quite simple, informing the executive in question that "it is your privilege to advertise or not advertise wherever you see fit". …. And then thanking him for his call and closing the line.

Specific Impact of Critics

Simple – there are those successful restaurants that simply don't give a good flying foot (how's that for avoiding obscenity) for what the critics write. They're making money hand over fist and why should they care? After all, the people who read restaurant reviews in newspapers don't go to those restaurants in the first place. And then there are those honest restaurateurs who will evalue the critics much as the critics evalue them. Those critics who have earned credibility are listened to, often with great care. Those who have not earned credibility are ignored. Seems fair enough to me.

And then there are the reactions of those restaurateurs who choose to hate the critics. One day I will tell you the stories of (a) how I was chased down Tel Aviv's Yirmiahu Street in broad daylight by a restaurant owner with a U.S. Marine Corps 45 caliber pistol I his hand as he threatened in some weird combination of Hebrew, Arabic, French and English on precisely why he was going to kill me and (b) about the restaurateur in Eilat who put out a contract, not to kill me, but to break both of my arms and legs.

Me…what the heck….I continue to love my profession. Do keep in mind please that restaurateurs/chefs and critics need not be "enemies". In fact, to a great extent, we are colleagues, for we have precisely the same clientele. That is to say, those who eat at their restaurants are those who read us. Of course we have different roles to fill – the restaurant has something to sell; the critic has to decide what is worth buying.

Also to keep in mind. It is not the critic's goal to "change" a restaurant. It is his/her role to inform, to report on the existing status. If changes do occur as the result of a critique that is to the joint credit of the restaurant and the critic.