Is Dining Out at a Restaurant a Special Occasion?

[Chris Amirault]

In "A Celebration Unto Itself," the NYT's Alex Witchel ruminates on the celebratory nature of dining out, prompted by the oft-heard reservationist query, “Is this a special occasion? Are you celebrating something?”

“Well,” I answered slowly. “Isn’t any night you go to a restaurant a special occasion?” ...

I began to focus on this particular question. These days, dinner for four at a good restaurant, in any major city, is not an endeavor to be taken lightly. Four cocktails, four appetizers, four entrees, one or two bottles of wine — depending on the crowd — and, potentially, four desserts and four coffees. You’re looking at spending anywhere from $500 to $700. That seems pretty special to me.

Reflecting on a fine arctic char that couldn't be prepared at home, he writes,

And, by the way, isn’t that what you go to a restaurant for? Isn’t that the special occasion, to eat something so transcendently wonderful you can’t wait to share it with people you love? There’s no cake or candle I can think of to adequately celebrate that.

I think that Witchel just skims the surface of an interesting question. For some Society members, eating out at a nice restaurant is a routine part of their week, and only a trip to Per Se or el Bulli is a special occasion. For me, eating out happens precisely once a week, according to our budget, and as the cook in the house I can say that it's always a special occasion. Of course, for many, dining out at a sit-down restaurant is a very rare occurrence.

What's your take?

[Chris Hennes]

I eat out at least once a week, but it's generally on a grad student budget in central Pennsylvania, i.e. I spend more time than I care to admit at the bar of the local Olive Garden (stop snickering! ). I would definitely never qualify any of those as a "special occasion" regardless of how much I was spending that night. On the other hand, I travel to Philadelphia six times per year and try to eat at someplace interesting, nice, perhaps a bit more "special." For me, those are special occasions, even if there is no actual event to go with them, beyond the meal. Nevertheless, I always answer "no" when the waitstaff asks. It especially amuses me to do this when I have ordered a bottle of champagne or the like---it seems to confuse them .

[Nathan]

its awfully context-dependent...

here in Manhattan, with the size of most people's kitchens, combined with most people working 50-80 hour work weeks, eating out (or getting delivery) for most (or for many people, all) meals is pretty much standard...its the most efficient use of time. plus, it's a pretty large component of most social lives (including non-foodies). since most people here don't have families and are single, cooking can be a pretty solitary endeavour (and thus also cost-ineffective). I know numerous people here whose refrigerators only contain beer and condiments (and most of them are female).

when I lived elsewhere, the calculus was often different.

Edited January 30, 2008 by Nathan (log)

[Busboy]

If I find myself going home after work to shave and contemplate changing (or wearing) a tie...

If I'm savoring a cocktail while the waiter waits to bring the menu -- no rush, you know -- and ordering for my wife from the menu when it arrives (we do hold some of the old traditions; she is allowed to pay the check, however )...

If I'm "dining" and not eating; if the big event of the night is the meal and not the movie or the deal or the dishes I don't have to wash...

If I make my children change out of their sneakers...

If I don't check the time because there's nowhere better to be...

If I'm worried that the wine is good enough to match the food...

Then it must be a special occasion.

[Sneakeater]

Not that this is particularly responsive, but I was surprised she was surprised to have been asked that question at the Palm West. That Theater District branch of the Palm is just the kind of place that isn't much frequented by locals and so would be more likely to be a "special occassion" place for its patrons, many if not most of them travelling in to the City for a night on the town.

On the main theme, there are people to whom going to the opera is a special occassion. They probably don't really focus much on the performance, but rather are impressed by the "occassion" as a whole. There are also people like me who go to the opera at least once a month. To us, it's just something we do. (And obviously we're there to see the particular performance, not just to be in an opera house.)

Same thing with dining out in a restaurant.

(To me, cooking dinner at home is a special occassion.)

Edited January 30, 2008 by Sneakeater (log)

[Nathan]

agreed on all of the above.

[Daniel Rogov]

Tell me if I'm wrong:

"Eating out" is a convenience, rarely taken seriously by either the place to which you go to dine or by yourself. Like all other animals, we eat to survive. If the food and experience turns out to be pleasant, that's fine. If not, no big deal.

"Dining out" should always be a special experience. We dine not merely to satisfy our hunger and thirst but in order to celebrate our senses and our sensuality.

Edited January 30, 2008 by Daniel Rogov (log)

[Chris Amirault]

(To me, cooking dinner at home is a special occassion.)

←

And for me, not cooking dinner at home is a special occasion.

Tell me if I'm wrong:

"Eating out" is a convenience, rarely taken seriously by either the place to which you go to dine or by yourself.  Like all other animals, we eat to survive.  If the food and experience turns out to be pleasant, that's fine.  If not, no big deal. 

"Dining out" should always be a special experience.  We dine not merely to satisfy our hunger and thirst but in order to celebrate our senses and our sensuality.

←

That makes good sense until you take into account the challenges of cooking at home for a family. If I'm cooking at home on a workday, that means I get home around 5:45p (or a bit later if I stop at a store), usually with two kids in tow, and try to juggle them, the dog, and dinner preparation to have comestibles on the table by 7:00 or, latest, 7:30. (One kid is three, and if she isn't fed in time, watch out.) I very rarely serve anything that I didn't make, so unless there's decent leftovers in the fridge, it's a crazed hour or two.

So, eating out is a special occasion because it ain't that.

[Ndy]

Tell me if I'm wrong:

"Eating out" is a convenience, rarely taken seriously by either the place to which you go to dine or by yourself.  Like all other animals, we eat to survive.  If the food and experience turns out to be pleasant, that's fine.  If not, no big deal. 

"Dining out" should always be a special experience.  We dine not merely to satisfy our hunger and thirst but in order to celebrate our senses and our sensuality.

←

Agreed. Very insightful.

[Sneakeater]

Tell me if I'm wrong:

"Eating out" is a convenience, rarely taken seriously by either the place to which you go to dine or by yourself.  Like all other animals, we eat to survive.  If the food and experience turns out to be pleasant, that's fine.  If not, no big deal. 

"Dining out" should always be a special experience.  We dine not merely to satisfy our hunger and thirst but in order to celebrate our senses and our sensuality.

←

Except that I -- and here in New York I'm hardly exceptional -- end up "celebrating my senses and sensuality" by having a very good restaurant cook dinner for me many nights a week.

You don't HAVE to eat swill that neither you nor its preparer cares about, just because you don't feel like cooking.

But that doesn't make it a "special occassion."

[Nathan]

Tell me if I'm wrong:

"Eating out" is a convenience, rarely taken seriously by either the place to which you go to dine or by yourself.  Like all other animals, we eat to survive.  If the food and experience turns out to be pleasant, that's fine.  If not, no big deal. 

"Dining out" should always be a special experience.  We dine not merely to satisfy our hunger and thirst but in order to celebrate our senses and our sensuality.

←

Except that I -- and here in New York I'm hardly exceptional -- end up "celebrating my senses and sensuality" by having a very good restaurant cook dinner for me many nights a week.

You don't HAVE to eat swill that neither you nor its preparer cares about, just because you don't feel like cooking.

But that doesn't make it a "special occassion."

←

true, although it is a function of a. discretionary income and b. critical restaurant mass (although if one lived next door to sripaphai...neither of those need necessarily apply....)

[Sneakeater]

Oh absolutely.

Although this thread did start as a reaction to a piece in the NEW YORK Times.

(And Mr. Rogov lives in a city that doesn't want for critical mass or discretionary income either.)

[Katie Meadow]

The people I know who have kids spend the late afternoon and evening scrambling, juggling, carting equipment of various kinds from one activity to another. Sometimes a pizza comes home with, but usually one person cooks while the other helps with homework or gives a bath to someone--IF it's a two-parent household. Maybe you go out on the weekend for modestly priced Vietnamese, but even so, going out is at least a little special.

My in-laws have a very different life. They have two high-power jobs, no kids. They eat out in their expensive neighborhood all the time. Nothing special, it's just what they do.

How can a discussion like this avoid the main topic, which is economics? We no longer have a kid at home, but keeping her in college doesn't allow us to eat out very often. I cook. Just about every night. So, my perspective is that going out is a special occasion because it's not a typical one. And in addition, maybe because money is tight, I hate the idea of spending it on mediocre food, or anything that I could do better. So I would rather scrounge for leftovers or eat an omelet and save my dining-out dollars for something really good less frequently. That's a personal decision, but absolutely informed by my lack of funds.

That said, for a restaurant to ask,"Is this a special occasion?" seems downright weird. As far as I'm concerned, any restaurant worth its salt (usually far too much salt) should consider that its job is to make my occasion special. Awright, I'm unrealistic, I know, but I'm more than a little sick of restaurants with a "We're so great" attitude. Bring me my dinner and let me decide if it's special, how that? Yow, I sound cranky. Love Alex Witchell, though.

[Chris Hennes]

That said, for a restaurant to ask,"Is this a special occasion?" seems downright weird. As far as I'm concerned, any restaurant worth its salt (usually far too much salt) should consider that its job is to make my occasion special.

←

The last time I was asked was at Suzanna Foo in Philly, just before dessert came out. On this particular occasion we actually were celebrating an upcoming anniversary to, which I copped to when asked. The dessert plates came out with "Happy Anniversary" written in chocolate sauce at the rim. Kinda tacky, in my opinion. Good thing the rest of the meal was excellent.

I think going out can be a special occasion, but I am resistant to the idea that anytime we go out it is one. Yes, for some people that is the case, but for others it is not. Is it really so common that the restaurants feel the need to ask? And really, the restaurant isn't asking you if this is a special treat, anyway: they are really asking "is is your birthday?" or some such. So they can write it on the bloody plates...

[Nathan]

fwiw, even when dinner is a "special occasion" ... I never ever ever tell the restaurant. why? cause it marks you as an "amateur diner"...someone who only eats out on special occasions...unfair I know...but that's kind of the way they see it...at places like JG or Per Se, probably half their business is composed of "special occasion" diners...i.e. people who won't be regulars...you always want to be seen as a potential regular.

[Nathan]

How can a discussion like this avoid the main topic, which is economics?

←

I don't think we did at all! We said that it's "context-dependent"....in Manhattan it's actually cheaper to eat out than eat at home. that's the honest truth. we don't have kids, we work insane hours, our kitchens aren't designed for actual cooking, and groceries are insanely expensive...so even non-foodies eat out every night (or order delivery)....I was flabbergasted by this when I lived here.....(its actually really only the serious foodies who cook)

[markk]

Having had a few (minor, assuredly) health scares (and not even being that old) has given me a new perspective - every day is a special occasion! So by default, going out to eat with my s.o. is a special occasion. Yeah, we do it way more than we stay in, but as I say, I have learned to take nothing for granted, so when the reservationist asks me "is this a special occasion" I say "yes". Sometimes they don"t ask more, but if they do, I say I'm "celebrating being alive".

Oh, I know it's so that they can have the waiter wish us whatever the appropriate thing is, or send over something, depending on the level of the restaurant, but I really do think not only of going out to eat, but of getting up in the morning, as a special occasion.

I remember once being asked that by the reservationist at a relatively fancy place in Miami Beach when I made the reservation, who pressed me for the detail, and since it was the truth, I said that it was our 30th anniversary. I wouldn't normally have volunteered that, but she asked.

And at the end of the meal, they indeed brought over a dessert with a candle and sang "Happy Anniversary" to us. In that we were two guys dining together, doing that based on a reservationist's notation was, I thought, a very courageous thing on their part.

Edited January 31, 2008 by markk (log)

[Fat Guy]

Reflecting on a fine arctic char that couldn't be prepared at home, he writes,

←

Minor clarification: Alex Witchel is a she, and is the wife of New York Times op-ed columnist Frank Rich.

[Chris Amirault]

Thanks Steven.

How can a discussion like this avoid the main topic, which is economics?

←

I don't think we did at all!

←

I certainly didn't: budgetary constraints are the only reason we don't eat out three or four times a week. I'd expect that, if we did so, we'd certainly find the more routine experience less special.

[helenjp]

Was the question out of place? Probably any time I book a restaurant rather than taking my chances, it's a special occasion - pampering visiting relatives, showing respect to the aged and ornery, celebrating family successes (this is Asia, a birthday isn't a good enough reason, essentially an exam needs to be involved!), or taking tourists or expat Japanese out for a particular delicacy.

Certainly, many people budget for meals at a good restaurant, and it's a regular "leisure activity". I grew up thinking that eating at a new restaurant was a good enough reason to make the 45 minute trip into town.

However, my husband doesn't feel that way at all. As a guest, he feels constrained by formal dining, and weighed down by obligations and bad memories. There is no point arguing that we could eat exponentially better by spending 500 yen more per head at a small resaurant than we do at a chain restaurant - he just doesn't enjoy it, so we rarely do so.

As a host, his pleasure comes from his guests' enjoyment (that is, he only invites people to a restaurant when he knows that it's a treat they would enjoy more than a gift or some other kind of outing). So for him, "special occasion" hospitality is a bigger part of restaurant dining than spectacular food.

[Toliver]

I started a similar eGullet topic once called "The Eating Out Generation, What used to be special, isn't anymore."

I had a conversation with my mom once where she said she couldn't ever recall a time where eating out was such an "everyday" thing as it has become today. It used to be a special treat usually reserved for special times...a graduation, a birthday, etc. We did dress up for it and it was a big deal.

Times have changed, to say the least. Is this because there are so many more restaurants these days? Has it become cheaper to eat out so it doesn't have to be a special occasion anymore? Or do we have more disposable income than our parents did?

I agree with the suggestion that you dress up when "dining out". That's more upscale and special as opposed to "Oh, we're just going to Chili's."

But the casual dining experience has impacted the fine dining experience. There's the instance of a fine dining restaurant in San Diego that once had a dress code. A Mover & Shaker in the city wanted to dine there but wasn't wearing the proper attire. He told the restaurant he wasn't going to change clothes and wanted them to seat him so he and his party could dine there. That was the last day of the dress code at that restaurant.

edited for clarification

Edited January 31, 2008 by Toliver (log)

[weinoo]

How can a discussion like this avoid the main topic, which is economics?

←

I don't think we did at all! We said that it's "context-dependent"....in Manhattan it's actually cheaper to eat out than eat at home. that's the honest truth. we don't have kids, we work insane hours, our kitchens aren't designed for actual cooking, and groceries are insanely expensive...so even non-foodies eat out every night (or order delivery)....I was flabbergasted by this when I lived here.....(its actually really only the serious foodies who cook)

←

Some of our kitchens are indeed designed for cooking, groceries, imo, aren't that much more expensive than anywhere else, and I don't work insane hours. So I hardly think it's 100% fair to generalize about all Manhattanites in that way. There may even be a few with kids. Not us, however. That said, we probably eat out or order in a minimum of 4 nights a week, though we have grown tired of our order in options. Some weeks that may be 6 nights, some weeks 3.

On the other hand, I guess I'm a "serious foodie," and I do actually shop, cook and enjoy it - most of the time better than what I might be getting by ordering in or going out. I especially enjoy cooking and not having to go out on a Saturday night for dinner, because it's such a pain in the ass. Friday's no treat either, but it's a good night for cocktails and local sushi - a special occasion in our book. And our sushi place is only a few blocks from both D & C and PDT .

My main issue with the article, however, is that I can't remember the last time a reservationist asked me if "dinner was a special occasion?" Doesn't happen to me.

[Fat Guy]

It's amazing to me that Alex Witchel would question the notion that there's such a thing as a special occasion at a restaurant -- almost as amazing to me as the New York Times's decision to give a platform in the dining section to someone who doesn't seem to know very much about dining.

It's self-evident that massive numbers of people dine out when it is a special occasion, and when it isn't. Alex Witchel is the only person I've ever heard question this notion. Even at the most expensive restaurants, there are plenty of people who dine at those places once, twice, even three or more times a week. No, not every one of those meals is a special occasion.

It's true that there are some people for whom every meal out at a nice restaurant is by definition a special occasion, simply by virtue of the infrequency of it. But it strains credibility for Alex Witchel to imply that she's such a person. People who dine out all the time and write a New York Times dining section column about it don't get to cry about how little they get to dine out.

I have a kid, and I go out a lot less now than I used to. We go to a "nice" restaurant maybe once every other week, and to "home meal replacement" restaurants on several other nights (New Yorkers, by the way, at least according to the Zagat statistics, eat fewer meals out per week than residents of several other cities). Obviously "home meal replacement" isn't a special occasion. But even when we go out for nicer meals it's clear that there are levels of specialness.

For example we've been to Gramercy Tavern several times lately. Sometimes it's just a regular meal. Yes, in the reductionist sense, a regular meal at Gramercy Tavern is special for us. But that's not the same as going for someone's birthday. Everybody except Alex Witchel seems to understand intuitively that a birthday is a special occasion and just going out is not. Going out is still special, sure, but it's not a special occasion as such.

I also agree wholeheartedly with Chris Hennes: reservationists and servers are trained to ask that question because, if it's a birthday or an anniversary, they want to do something special for you like write it on a dessert plate. That's not an insult. It's called customer service.

All in all I think Alex Witchel uses a lot of words to make a simplistic point that also happens to be wrong.

[markk]

I had a conversation with my mom once where she said she couldn't ever recall a time where eating out was such an "everyday" thing as it has become today. It used to be a special treat usually reserved for special times...a graduation, a birthday, etc. We did dress up for it and it was a big deal.

Times have changed, to say the least. Is this because there are so many more restaurants these days? Has it become cheaper to eat out so it doesn't have to be a special occasion anymore? Or do we have more disposable income than our parents did?

For me, it was the opposite growing up in the 50's and 60's. My mom was a horrible cook and my dad loved to eat, so we ate out as often as possible, which averaged to 3 nights a week, more if he could get home from work early enough that she hadn't started cooking. So for me, restaurant dining wasn't "special occasion", it was a regular part of the rotation.

[Nathan]

the "dressing up" thing is pretty context-dependent too.

in my context, I dress up to "go out" on Thursday, Friday and Saturday (and often on other days too)...plus I'm often eating out straight from the office. so I'm "dressed up" anyway ... but not specifically for dinner...except insofar as dinner is part of a night out.