Restaurant criticism

[Jonathan Day]

Topic proposed by Robert Brown

The most influential restaurant ratings, the Guide Michelin stars, have existed since 1933. Self-contained, stand-alone, dedicated and regularly appearing restaurant reviews are, in the USA, only about 50 years old, even though restaurants as we would think of them today first appeared over 200 years ago.

That, in and of itself, hints at the fact that restaurant reviews could be contrivances, created to help fill editorial holes, attract advertising, and target a certain kind of reader. Unlike reviewers of stationary targets such as books, paintings, and buildings, or those of so-called high performing arts such as music, theatre, and opera, the restaurant critic must deal with a cultural manifestation that is, by its very nature, the proverbial greased pig of the critical world.

What makes reviewing a restaurant frustrating, if not fruitless, is that it is a moving target subject to the vagaries of a restaurant being a business as much as means of creative expression; of being subject to large fluctuations and degrees of talent, training, and execution; and the preferences, prejudices, and priorities of the reviewer himself or herself. Everything considered, then, do you believe that restaurants are intrinsically well suited to being reviewed or criticized? That such reviews have been only since, or because of, the post World-War II prosperity of the Western world, mean that they are, like reviews of automobiles, sit-coms, or bottled waters, not much more than a manifestation of rampant consumerism?

It could also be interesting to devote some of the discussion to whether restaurant reviews can be viewed as fine journalism to the point that restaurant criticism written by one person can, or could ever, rise to the durability and quality of, say, James Agee or Pauline Kael in film criticism, or Grantland Rice or Red Smith in sports writing.

[ngatti]

That, in and of itself, hints at the fact that restaurant reviews could be contrivances, created to help fill editorial holes, attract advertising, and target a certain kind of reader. Unlike reviewers of stationary targets such as books, paintings, and buildings, or those of so-called high performing arts such as music, theatre, and opera, the restaurant critic must deal with a cultural manifestation that is, by its very nature, the proverbial greased pig of the critical world...

What makes reviewing a restaurant frustrating, if not fruitless, is that it is a moving target subject to the vagaries of a restaurant being a business as much as means of creative expression; of being subject to large fluctuations and degrees of talent, training, and execution; and the preferences, prejudices, and priorities of the reviewer himself or herself. Everything considered, then, do you believe that restaurants are intrinsically well suited to being reviewed or criticized? That such reviews have been only since, or because of, the post World-War II prosperity of the Western world, mean that they are, like reviews of automobiles, sit-coms, or bottled waters, not much more than a manifestation of rampant consumerism?

I start by referencing Robert Browns analogy of chefs to couturiers and by extrapolation, restaurants to the great houses of fashion, with, of course all of the industry breadth that lies underneath this statement. Could not restaurant criticism be placed in the same category as criticism of haute couture, haute coiffure, and perhaps interior decorating? It seems that the evolutionary dynamic, the "greased pig" aspect is similar in all of these fields.

While restaurant criticsm, as it appears in printed form in a newspaper could be an editorial policy contrivance, the criticism in and of itself may not necessarilly be so. Certainly there must be a significant number of publishers and editors who view the very idea of a restaurant review as just so much fluff to as you say, "attract advertising" etc...

The nascent general rise in interest in restaurants and all things culinary, though perhaps too broad a subject for this topic, seems to get seriously rolling in the early eighties. I make an assumption that the subject is a worthy one for excellent and in depth critical analysis, but I might ask; has the quality and relevancy of the writing kept up with the nations overwhelming interest in the subject? I get a feeling (and it is only that), that with the American consumers (not a pro argument validating the rampant rise in *culinary* consumerism) interest in all things culinary, that there is a rush to fill a void of food writing with anything that meets a minimum subject requirement (i.e. it's about food and it's spelled correctly). In my opinion, this doesn't disqualify the subject from sincere attempts at high level criticism. Perhaps the subject (food and restaurants) hasn't been part of the critical conciousness long enough to have developed a canon.

Nick

[macrosan]

My perceptions of newspaper critiques of restaurants derive only from the UK marketplace, which I suspect may be very different from that in the USA. The UK has a much more recently established popular interest in dining out, and the quality of restaurants in the UK is, I think, widely acknowledged to have made huge advances only in the last twenty years. So I suspect that restaurant critiques in the USA have established a much more mature position than those in the UK. As is the case in so many other fields, it is likely that what the USA offers today is what the UK will offer in ten to fifteen years.

It is interesting to observe that many food writers have established a format which depends more on the creation of witty, entertaining prose than on culinary content. I always use AA Gill in the Independent Magazine as my prime example of this oeuvre. Gill is indeed a witty writer, and it may be that he possesses a good level of knowledge about matters culinary, but his typical restaurant review rarely spends more than a couple of paragraphs out of twenty giving any “hard” information on the restaurant he is (allegedly) reviewing. Perhaps this is primarily because readers of newspapers consider food to be a trivial subject, not really worthy of serious discussion. Food seems to be viewed as merely a vehicle for letting loose the literary talents of those who cannot find an outlet in the old media of magazines such as Punch, or Men Only, most of which have, of course, now disappeared.

I suspect that travel writing used to be like this. Clive James used to write a travel column in national UK newspapers, and his “Postcard from …” series established him as a brilliant and popular writer. In fact, most of his writing was more entertaining than informative. James was highly skilled at observing local culture and custom, and at lampooning the people in the countries he visited, and he successfully transmitted an accurate “feel” for the people and the places he was describing. But no-one could decide on whether or not to take a holiday in Paris, or Hong Kong, or Australia based on the information that James provided. Nor was that James’ intention.

Over recent years, that type of travel writing in newspapers seems to have been largely subsumed by more straightforward information-based reporting. A glance at the UK Sunday newspapers will demonstrate immediately that travel has become big (advertising) business. Every week brings reports on holiday destinations around the world, supporting pages of advertising at the ratio of maybe three advertising pages to every page of reports. The reports themselves are detailed, researched accounts of everything from inoculation requirements to seasonal mean temperatures, and they are mostly written in an unfussy, dry journalistic style.

Perhaps food writing is lagging ten years behind travel. I cannot agree with the proposition that newspapers are artificially foisting restaurant reviews on the public in order to support current advertising revenues. My guess is that revenues from this source are tiny. It would be interesting to hear from insiders what the real numbers are. It may well be that newspapers are trying to expand restaurant advertising revenue, and that what they are doing is trying to attract the public to read their “soft copy” reviews with a view to creating a dynamic of increasing advertising matched by hardening reviews. That seems a perfectly valid marketing approach to me.

There is often a tendency for people to think of newspapers as exercising “mind control” over the population. Some believe that the newspapers adopt a position, disseminate propaganda, and persuade the public to their point of view. I do not subscribe to this view. It is true that newspapers provide many people with their main source of factual information, although television is increasingly usurping this role. But I am certain that newspapers follow public opinion, they do not form it. Newspapers can indeed act as the centre for public rallying cries, and can harden their readers’ views on opinions they already hold, but they will only create or change opinion through the facts they present.

In the context of restaurant critiques, newspapers will present their readers with the material that the editors believe their readers desire. They will not, and should not, attempt to bludgeon their readers into reading serious hard reviews, but as soon as they detect that an important segment of their readership is ready for such a change, then they will make that change. Of course, they will be taking a risk in any such move because their perception of public opinion is limited, but publishers and editors are in the business for risk.

It seems that in the UK restaurant critics of the style and stature of Fay Maschler, writers of compelling information-based reviews upon which readers can make serious judgement, can be counted on one hand.

I understand that there are scores of critics of that quality in the USA, and I would guess that there are correspondingly high numbers in other countries (such as France) with a long-established restaurant industry. Perhaps we just need time.

[Tonyfinch]

It could also be interesting to devote some of the discussion to whether restaurant reviews can be viewed as fine journalism to the point that restaurant criticism written by one person can, or could ever, rise to the durability and quality of, say, James Agee or Pauline Kael in film criticism, or Grantland Rice or Red Smith in sports writing.

Well as has been pointed out elsewhere there is food writing and there is restaurant reviewing. The job of the reviewer is not the same as that of a critic. The reviewer starts from the basis that you have not been to the restaurant and that its his/her job to tell you what it's like and enable you to decide whether or not you wish to go. This cannot make for "great journalism".

The critic assumes you and he are equals engaged in a discussion to which you come with foreknowledge of the subject. A great book about Hitchcock will assume that you've seen Hitchcock's films and that you're prepared to explore with the critic all their artistic aspects. This can lead to in-depth and profound analysis which can indeed be "great" if the critic is a "great" one.

Some restaurant reviewers aspire to greatness. Jonathan Meades in the UK Times used to try to incorporate aspects of culture, history, politics, sociology etc. into his reviews. Trouble was if all you wanted to know as whether you could get stuffed and pissed for not much money then wading through his reviews could be a bit of a tall order.

I think there's a place for a "great" book about restaurants and their relevance to all aspects of life over the last couple of hundred years. Does anyone know one?

[britcook]

There has to be a place for fine journalism in restaurant reviews, even though the product reviewed is by its very nature more ephemeral than anything else subject to regular review. Not only transient but intensely personal because only the reviewer eats that particular meal, other diners may eat what purports to be the same meal but because of the nature of the ingredients and the cooking process those meals will not be identical. At least with a performance or piece of art everybody sees the same thing even if they interpret it differently, with food you don't have that certainty. The best food writing from, for example, Elizabeth David transcends time and place and is as enjoyable to read now as it was when written decades ago. That said I have not yet come across a restaurant critic who is consistently able to write elegantly AND give one a full sense of that particular restaurant visit, with an objective view of the food and their subjective reactions to it. Some, and AA Gill has been mentioned far too frequently, try to develop a personal style but this tends to interfere with their objectivity and to most people gets in the way of the basic point of a review, which is to inform the reader whether or not the place is worth a visit.

But just because it has not been done yet, does not mean that it will not in the future, and we can all live in hope.

[Steve Klc]

Tony asks "I think there's a place for a "great" book about restaurants and their relevance to all aspects of life over the last couple of hundred years. Does anyone know one?"

I think the better question might be--is anyone on the scene capable of writing such a great book that we'd accept in terms of scholarship, wit and palate? I think not. Who has shown the writing talent, the depth of palate, an open critical mind, the awareness and appreciation of culinary history, the passion for exploring ideas involving the relevance of restaurants, chefs and food, the media savvy, the global experience of dining at both the high and low end in so many countries and cultures--to write knowledgably of restaurants and relevance from Careme to Escoffier to Point to Bocuse to Robuchon to Ducasse to Gagnaire to Barbot to, well, you get the point. And that's just France and just at the elitist level.

We can't even agree on what makes the best food writing or reviewing--take the objectivity in a review Britcook writes about--I'd be much more comfortable with blatant subjectivity and open expression of bias, of ideas, of direct assessment rather than this all-too-often anonymous contrived faux objectivity. Give me passion, persuade me in an opinion piece--for me, when it comes to food writing or reviewing--great, interesting and profound are not necessarily the terms I want to use to describe what is being labelled "restaurant criticism."

With that I keep coming back to Nick's excellent question--"has the quality and relevancy of the writing kept up with the nations overwhelming interest in the subject?" I say no. What say you? And if so, what's holding it back?

[ngatti]

macrosan said:

It is interesting to observe that many food writers have established a format which depends more on the creation of witty, entertaining prose than on culinary content

Ah, but as with genius and madness, the line between 'wit' and 'twit' can be a fine one and writers should tread these borders lightly.

Perhaps this is primarily because readers of newspapers consider food to be a trivial subject, not really worthy of serious discussion.

As my wife and several others never tire of saying to me : "Nick, it's just food."

Macrosan, I tend to agree that much restaurant reviewing is ultimately bound up with the marketing constraints of a particular newspaper. An audience is identified and part of the editors job may be an attempt to reconcile the review with the audience.

I point out the constraint of having to convey a fair amount of *hard* information within a few column inches. To attempt to, at the same time, communicate feelings and impressions that would primarily be useful to a reader may also be viewed as a constraint. So might one posit that there is a at least a substantive difference between newspaper and magazine restaurant reviews. My context is limited to New York, so as a specific example I might offer comparison between, say, The New York Times and Gourmet magazine (inches versus pages).

Qualitatively speaking, sure, I think that writing reviews for newspapers would be much more difficult than for other venues/media. I think (again my NYC centrism) that William Grimes and before him Ruth Reichel and Bryan Miller were very very good. The writing, on occasions transcending the subject. So while one may chastise these writers for perceived 'wrongheaded' opinions, the reviews as writing exist independently as good examples of good, shall we say, restaurant review writing.

Tonyfinch said:

Well as has been pointed out elsewhere there is food writing and there is restaurant reviewing. The job of the reviewer is not the same as that of a critic. The reviewer starts from the basis that you have not been to the restaurant and that its his/her job to tell you what it's like and enable you to decide whether or not you wish to go. This cannot make for "great journalism".

But can the two be bound together? Can a review, as you put it, rise to the level of extraordinary food writing? These are the questions posed in this topic, no?

Some restaurant reviewers aspire to greatness. Jonathan Meades in the UK Times used to try to incorporate aspects of culture, history, politics, sociology etc. into his reviews. Trouble was if all you wanted to know as whether you could get stuffed and pissed for not much money then wading through his reviews could be a bit of a tall order.

Isn't that what the sidebar or Zagat Guide is for? I'm not familiar with Meades, but it strikes me that this may be the start. Here may be the distinction. Subject to, and incumbent upon an individual newspaper. Pedantry aside, all of what you mention could be part of a 'review' . If one must 'wade through' it because of the wealth (tedium?) of all the extraneous information, then it is, perhaps, the writer/editors fault.

I think there's a place for a "great" book about restaurants and their relevance to all aspects of life over the last couple of hundred years. Does anyone know one?

The time does appear ripe.

Britcook said:

the basic point of a review, which is to inform the reader whether or not the place is worth a visit.

Yes, first and foremost.

And as with any performer the writer plays to an audience. When one dismisses the audience for the sake of art...well...Can one dismiss an aspect that is so tightly bound with it for the sake of a higher form of said art? I don't think restaurant reviewing can exist in a vacuum. It is essential for a critic (or artist/performer) who aspires to a greater form/level within their art to nurture, coax, and educate, in order to bring the audience along with them.

We can't even agree on what makes the best food writing or reviewing--take the objectivity in a review Britcook writes about--I'd be much more comfortable with blatant subjectivity and open expression of bias, of ideas, of direct assessment rather than this all-too-often anonymous contrived faux objectivity. Give me passion, persuade me in an opinion piece--for me, when it comes to food writing or reviewing--great, interesting and profound are not necessarily the terms I want to use to describe what is being labelled "restaurant criticism."

So perhaps, great food criticism and great food writing are inextricably tied together with the writer. Maybe the culinary canon is still in its early developmental stage. Analagous to chess we await our culinary Paul Morphy and the attendent flood of ideas. I pray it doesn't take as long. Perhaps the rise of internet publishing will speed it along.

Nick

[Jonathan Day]

There are two interesting themes here:

• Food writing as serious literature
  and
  Restaurant reviewing as serious literature.
  

I suspect that these are more related than they may seem.

On the first, there is relatively little food writing that most readers would view as important in its own right, i.e. simply as writing. Hence the constant mention of MFK Fisher and Elizabeth David and one or two others....but the list is not a long one.

Conversely, food and eating don't appear all that often in mainstream literature. I'm re-reading James's The Europeans. Clothing, language, mannerisms, sensibilities all make the Europeans in the novel different to their American hosts. But food and wine are never mentioned, even though most people who cross the Atlantic find these the most salient differences between the US and Europe. I wonder if this is because eating and drinking were seen as somehow too tied up with bodily functions, in the same way that mainstream literature doesn't say much about bathroom habits.

On the second, what criteria do most newspaper editors apply in deciding who should review restaurants? My guess is that the restaurant 'beat' is not considered a choice or high profile assignment.

[msp]

Nick writes "while restaurant criticism, as it appears in printed form in a newspaper could be an editorial policy contrivance" ..."a signifigant number of publishers and editors who view the very idea of a restaurant review as just so much fluff to, as you say, attract advertising"

A restaurant review attracts advertising in a very dangerous way. In a newspaper with any pride and ethics, there is a seperation of editorial and advertising which does not allow reviewers to be influenced by advertising dollars. A reviewer may ooze superlatives over a tiny restaurant, or sharpen her teeth on the backside of a 200-seat mess hall that runs a full page every Friday. Is this a wise investment for the publisher? The only way reviews generally attract advertising dollars is if they attract readers. Advertisers want to be where the readers (with the right demographics) are, plain and simple.

macrosan writes: "writers who have established a format which depends more on the creation of witty entertaining prose than on culinary content"..."But his typical restaurant review rarely spends more than a couple of paragraphs out of twenty giving any hard information on the restaurant he is allegedly reviewing". "Perhaps this is because readers...consider food to be a trivial subject, not really worthy of serious discussion"

Youch! And shame on this writer...A review should inform readers, tell them what to expect when they dine at the restaurant. At least, that is true here, where people read reviews partly for their entertainment value, but mostly to be informed about what it is like to dine at the restaurant being critiqued.

This information won't be read if not presented in an appealing way-- well-written, engaging style matters, but so does substance.

In the context of restaurant critiques, newspapers will present their readers with the material that the editors believe their readers desire. They will not, and should not, attempt to bludgeon their readers into reading serious hard reviews, but as soon as they detect that an important segment of their readership is ready for such a change, then they will make that change.

Here, here! Newspapers are in the business to inform readers. The content is best delivered in a style and format accessible to that publication's readers. I won't write in Spanish to a French audience any more than and I would give in-depth anthropological context to each dish I try when writing for a small local paper with readers who want to know if the place gives good portions for the money. Is it my job to raise the barre on their expectations? I think I can inform them, in context, of what might be out there, and how a particular restaurant compares.

Nick wrote: "...a substantive difference between newspaper and magazine restaurant reviews. My context is limited to New York, so as a specific example I might offer comparison between, say, The New York Times and Gourmet magazine (inches versus pages). Qualitatively speaking, sure, I think that writing reviews for newspapers would be much more difficult than for other venues/media.

A newspaper, no matter how broadly read, is by its nature a local creature. The reviews help local readers decide where to spend dining dollars. A magazine like Gourmet, on the other hand, may be read all over the world. The write-ups on restaurants are more to inform readers about exciting innovations, or the best of the best. Magazine reviews tend to not critique the good and the bad-- they tell readers who care about dining about interesting or high profile restaurants. Gourmet and other publications like it won't waste their space and your time telling you, a reader in South Africa, about a restaurant you won't bother visiting in Cincinatti. Wht would be the point? The Cincinatti paper, on the other hand, tells locals about this restaurant which they may pass on the way home from work, or hear from friends is decent. And Gourmet will certainly tell you about THE place in Cincinatti to go for chili.

I don't think restaurant reviewing can exist in a vacuum. It is essential for a critic (or artist/performer) who aspires to a greater form/level within their art to nurture, coax, and educate, in order to bring the audience along with them.

Right, our job is to present information and report on experience in a palatable, accesible way. How many poeple will suffer through a thousand poorly strung words? Again, the review must be written in the readers language.

On the second, what criteria do most newspaper editors apply in deciding who should review restaurants? My guess is that the restaurant 'beat' is not considered a choice or high profile assignment.

First : what criteria? That varies by newspaper and by market. In most-- not all-- cases, a reviewer will be chosen for a combination of writing ability and some level of knowledge and/or interest about food. The budget of the publication and the readership help determine the qualifications for the job.Some editors feel a reviewer should first be a writer and second have rudimentary culinary knowledge; others feel subject matter expertise comes first, and basic writing skills will be improved through good editing. Both approaches could be argued until the cows come home.

The restaurant beat not choice or high profile? That depends who you ask. A hard core crime reporter in a big city may look down his nose at the "fluff" of dining reviews, or may envy the attention and dining budget of the reviewer. Reviewers take a lot of flack, because everyone eats and everyone-- including the publisher, the publisher's cousin's best friend, and the features editor-- eats. And they all have an opinion about restaurants. Theirs may not be an informed opinion, but God help you if you disagree with the publisher's spouse! As a reviewer, you must stand fast and steady against the barrage of opinion opposing yours, and have the confidence to assert, unmoving, your beliefs. As a reviewer, I believe you must be willing to resign if your opinion is not honored in favor of the publisher's spouse, but you must also earn the respect of staff above and below you in the paper for opinion based on fact and knowledge. And, of course, you must engage readers. They may disagree with you, but they read you and refer to your reviews. Hopefully, there is a core constinuency that tends to agree with you.

[Fat Guy]

On a personal note, I have almost completely lost interest in restaurant reviewing per se. Over the past couple of years I've been reorienting myself towards that broader category we're referring to as food writing. I remain, however, extremely interested in and fond of restaurant dining. It's just that I find it more intellectually stimulating to discuss subjects of greater significance than whether the restaurant overcooked my steak on two out of three visits. When I write about restaurants, I prefer to write about them in groups, as parts of trends, or as representative of larger culinary phenomena. Occasionally, still, a restaurant -- and not necessarily a fancy one -- inspires me to write at length about its chef and its cuisine.

I wonder if my views on restaurant reviewing would be different today if I had risen to a higher level within the pecking order of reviewers. I think people often forget that there's a very steep falloff once you get past the paltry handful of media outlets with serious reviewing programs. Much of that falloff has to do with money -- tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars a year need to be expended by a publication if it wants its restaurant reviewer to have an authoritative perspective in a major metropolitan market. That figure doesn't even include the reviewer's compensation, and it's worth noting that for a reviewer to do good weekly reviews it's pretty much essential that he or she dine out five or six nights a week with a few lunches thrown in for good measure. In other words, it's got to be the reviewer's sole and entire professional task.

So quite aside from issues of raw talent or intellect -- neither of which I claim to have in superior measure to, say, William Grimes -- there was no way I could ever compete against the reviewers at the New York Times, Gourmet, and New York Magazine. Whereas, as a generalist food writer, and especially with the Internet as an outlet, I can at least compete on merit by choosing subjects that don't require large expenditures to cover.

I think good writers will, in general, make anything they write good. But most journalists who are given the assignment to review a restaurant are not even given the basic tools (i.e., money) they need to do that job well.

[marcus]

Restaurant reviewing has established itself as a serious activity, and we should move beyond this fog of defensiveness, to view it in and of itself and in equal comparison to its most relevant analogs, which are the performing arts. The similarity is that they are all ephemeral and each performance differs. The reader understands and makes allowances for the fact that their experience will not be exactly the same as the reviewer. In the case of restaurants, there is even additional variabiltiy in performance, from dish to dish, diner to diner and night to night, so the reviewer does need to visit the restaurant multiple times and maintain absolute anonymity, but I do believe that the analogy largely holds.

Restaurant reviewing has achieved respect, interest and credibility in NY, at least, going back to Craig Claiborne. I would assert, but admittedly without any proof, that Grimes' restaurant reviews receive more readership attention than the average review of a play, dance, or opera. I don't subscribe to the view that because something may be temporal it is inherently inferior. In a sense, it is more in tune with the true nature of our existence.

This brings me to what I find to be the interesting distinction in looking at the process of reviewing in general, and that is reactive reviewing versus proactive reviewing.

The vast majority of reviewers are reactive. This includes William Grimes, Patricia Wells and Ben Brantley. They will experience a restaurant or a play and place it in a categorical context, French or Chinese, bistro or haute, regional or eclectic, etc. Focusing on restaurants, their review will generally relate to how a restaurant compares to the model that the reviewer has in mind for its category. Although the reviewer may have some preferences among categories, this is not usually exposed in the review and is generally a minor consideration. I have a lot of sympathy with this approach, as I tend to like all cuisines and am looking for best examples. I have very little interest in attempts to compare the worth of one cuisine versus another, or in culinary relevance.

Proactive reviewing is quite different and involves a reviewer acting as a proselytizer for a particular category. A prominent example in art was Clement Greenburg who was a proponent of abstract expressionism and a strong promoter of Jackson Pollack. There are other examples which are typically associated with avant garde movements. For restaurant movements, the best example that I'm familiar with is the Gault Millau guide's support of nouvelle cuisine during the 1970s. They showed "creative" restaurants in red and seemed to award them a 1-2 point higher food score. The reviews were also geared to hyping their favorite nouvelle cuisine restaurants.

At this point in time, I don't see any proactive reviewing in food or the performing arts. It could be that we are living at a particular time that doesn't favor the avant garde. One could claim that Adria is leading a movement, but he doesn't appear to have found a champion in the media. I do believe that proactive reviewing has a role and I wonder whether others are aware of examples that I have missed.

[Nick]

Rogov has an interesting piece that touches on this discussion in his article Who Criticizes the Critics?