Compromised food critics

[Jinmyo]

For an excellent example of discloure in a review, read Steve Shaw's current log Days 3-5, April 5-7:, Seagrove Beach, FL.

I met Sandor in the kitchen of Lespinasse restaurant in New York, where I was doing a week-long kitchen stage a couple of years ago. Sandor was doing the same, and we bonded over a baby pig. Ever since our week together, Sandor has e-mailed me persistently and persuasively, demanding that I visit Seagrove Beach and tell the world about the emerging restaurant culture in the area (little does Sandor know I have no such power).

[Wilfrid]

Moreover, Wilfrid's food seems to always be served to him after it has cooled.

Exactly.  That's the key point which I think all these threads should be addressing.        

[ajay]

Steve (Plotnicki),

Let me begin by saying I have the utmost respect for you, and your opinion of food and wine.  I have learned a lot by reading your posts on various boards.  It's just that I feel a bit uncomfortable using people's first names, especially when they are most likely both older and wiser than myself.  Since you stated your preference, I shall honor it hereafter.  As to the tone and tenor of my posts, I do apologize--heartily.  I mean no hostility toward you personally, or your point of view.  I believe it would be absurd to take offense at someone's views as a result of their (or my) economic means, and it certainley not what I was intending to convey.  In fact, I believe in the John Stuart Millesque paean to free speech that permeates your first post on this thread.  In short, I hope to learn much from my continued interactions with you on these various boards, and do apologize again for any implied slight or offense.

Steve, I believe you have made a strong case for your point of view that a restaurant reviewer should strive to report on the perfect aesthetic and nothing else is worthwhile.  However, I don't believe I can accept this limited conception of a restaurant critic's job.

I, like John Witing, am less sanguine about actually encoutering a perfect aesthetic.  When I select a restaurant, I do not go expecting a mediocre experience--I too would not be prepared to shell out big bucks for one.  I expect excellence, and do not like to settle for less.  So, naturally, I'm interested in the best dishes that will be served TO ME.  Perhaps you are charming enough, or your hair style is attractive enough to convince the kitchen to serve you the Kobe beef topped with blowfish, toro, and beluga caviar ;wink; , but I have often been told that such dishes 'are not available.'  I probably couldn't afford them even if they were.  Moreover, I do not think that not having the wherewithal to roder the kobe beef should condemn me to a diet of pastrami sandwiches    

If I am less likely to acheive a perfect aesthetic, I am most interested in the aesthetic that I am likely to encounter when I dine out.  Perhaps the kobe beef restaurant's competitor delivers better treatment to the average diner, it would probably be in my interest to go there.  I do not mean to imply that I am disinterested in kobe beef and blowfish.  If nothing else, I would enjoy such a column for its literary value.  But I maintain that such stories are generally without utility to me.  I think you may have convinced me that after several anonymous visits, perhaps a critic should announce him/herself and allow the kitchen to pull out all of the stops.  I suppose that I may be tempted to ask for some of the dishes said critic encounters, but I would be unlikely to do so in the great majority of my restaurant experiences.

I would agree that you and I read the times in a different way.  I have not been to all of the New York Times three starred restaurants, and nor do I plan to visit them all.  So, in deciding where to go, I am going to do more than look at number of stars, style and recommended dishes.  I thik I'd go even further: even unlimited resources would not be a reason enough for me to check out places where a critic gave a restaurant three stars but also offered a large body of criticism.  A perfect case in point: Chanterelle.  Mr. Grimes left the place with three stars, but also some fairly hostile comments.  I also seem to recall you found the place less than perfect (though with some memorable dishes) in one of your (much missed) dining reports.  I would judge such an uneven place not worth my patronage.  

But I may also visit a less than three star establishment.  For example, in today's restaurant review, Mr. Grimes did not think highly of the Cafe's savory courses but positively gushed over the desserts.  IF I am ever near 86th and 5th, I will probably stop in for an apple strudel.

On an entirely different note, may I ask you to recount your salmon experience at Daniel?  This story sounds instructive and perhaps entertaining.  I'm also curious: have you ever sent back a dish you were less than satisfied with at a Michelin three star restaurat?  If so, I would really appreciate the story.

[Mebutter]

AJay writes: "I think you may have convinced me that after several anonymous visits, perhaps a critic should announce him/herself and allow the kitchen to pull out all of the stops."

This is a very bad idea. Everyone staffer in the place would immediately begin memorizing the critic's features and description. I went to a restaurant once for a wedding anniversary party - I wasn't "working."

Unbeknownst to me, the couple were great buddies with the restaurant owner. I kept thinking the lady simply thought I was sexy because of the way she kept staring at me. Then I learned who she was and realized she knew who I was. I couldn't get out of there fast enough.

Even if the revealed critic can eat dinner and be stared at at the same time, you've got to think of the ramifications. What happens when the staff moves on? They'll certainly tell their new co-workers and old friends (that happened to me when one smart waitress figured out who I was after the review was published. She told a friend at another restaurant who told the owner ...and you know how that ended up.)

One critic I know stopped wearing red glasses because that got around and that's how people began to id her. Also chefs and owners will get calls from their friends asking for the i.d.

Ajay also says:

" I suppose that I may be tempted to ask for some of the dishes said critic encounters, but I would be unlikely to do so in the great majority of my restaurant experiences."

You can and should ask for dishes served to a reviewer.

Lots of my readers clip out the reviews and carry them into the restaurant. They point to it and say that's what they want. And woe to the restaurant that has taken some prized morsel off the menu.

I went to the Ranch House on a trip to California a few years ago. I never said who I was but mentioned I had learned about them from the Saveur cover story. The kitchen sent out a complimentary sample of the spring pea soup (prominently featured in the story) for our table to sample. CLearly, there had been a lot of requests for it because of that story.

So, go ahead. After all, it's your money and the restaurant should be able to comply.

[Andy Lynes]

For an excellent example of discloure in a review, read Steve Shaw's current log.

It's the stuff he doesn't disclose that worries me

[Jinmyo]

For an excellent example of discloure in a review, read Steve Shaw's current log.

It's the stuff he doesn't disclose that worries me

That's for the protection of our delicate sensibilities, Andy.

[cabrales]

people want a review to be representative of the average meal served at a place. Personally I can never understand this sentiment. I want a review to showcase a place AT IT'S BEST. And that is because when I go to a place, I want to know how to get them to perform for me AT THEIR MAXIMUM LEVEL. Why would anyone want the average experience if they can acquire the knowledge of how to get the best experience?  :confused:

Steve P -- I agree that it is appropriate (not necessary, but preferable) for a reviewer to experience a restaurant at its best. However, you suggest that the resulting review might empower you with information enabling you to get the restaurant to perform for you at the maximum level. How specifically have you used information in a review to that end?  

ajay -- Part of the reason that I find reviews describing maximum performance useful is that it might help me select restaurants to visit to determine, for myself, whether that restaurant is capable of rendering "art" experiences for me. Given the difficulty for almost every restaurant to even approach that level when it is performing at its max, a review based only on the "average" experience would not be irrelevant (it would be background information), but it wouldn't be particularly interesting (as Steve P has noted).

Where my views differ from Steve's is on the role of a review based on max performance in enabling me to improve the restaurant's performance for me. For me, the max performance review helps me identify/confirm the restaurants I might choose to visit. However, once that is done, I am not sure how the contents of such a review would help eek out superior performance. For example, one could imagine Diner X seeking to impress upon a restaurant that he understands it by using observations on the chef's cuisine drawn from a review. That would appear to be a relatively futile execise because the review is public information, and regurgitation or massaging of information from the review would not be particularly interesting to the restaurant.

I believe I frequently obtain maximum level (or close) performance from restaurants in France and the UK. Granted, almost all restaurants, even when they perform at their max, cannot achieve artistry. I'm not sure demanding max performance (unclear what "demanding" it means) is the best way to get it.

[Steve Plotnicki]

Cabrales-How else would you know about off-menu dishes in advance of eating there? When you walk into a restaurant, they present you with a menu. And unless somebody tells you about things that aren't printed on the menu, whether voluntarily or not, how would you know to order them?  Whether I get the information from a reviewer, or a friend, makes no difference. I just want the info.

Three years ago I went to San Sebastian and had dinner at Arzak. In advance of going, I spoke with a good friend of mine, who happens to be expert in wine about going there. He told me that they had 1958 Marquis de Riscal Rioja Gran Reserva there for not much money. When I got to the restaurant, the sommelier gave me the wine list. I looked it over and the '58 Riscal wasn't anywhere in sight. So I called the sommelier over and said to him that a friend told me it's on the list. Does he have any in his cellar that maybe isn't on the list. Well he hemmed and he hawed but I was held my ground, insisting that he answer the question, yes or no? After a good 60 seconds of him trying to convince me not to push it, he shrugged, turned around and gave me a different wine list. This one had bottles of rioja going back to the 20's. And the bottle I wanted, which is probably the best bottle of rioja ever produced was $45. Well cutting to the end of the story, the wine was more than fantastic, and since then I've bought near 2 cases at auction.

Now you tell me, how would someone who was treated to the "average" experience know to tell me about that bottle?

It's the same thing with Ajay's experience at Arpege. If I was the regular there instead of the person I dined with, and Ajay told the captain at the beginning of the meal that he had heard from me about these special surprise menus and he wanted the same treatment, he would have left smiling instead of unhappy.

So if you don't know, how are you supposed to ask for it?

Ajay-Fine. No offense taken. Sometimes inference and subtlety don't come cross on the Internet.

In addition to some of the other aspects of 3 star dining I've been pontificating on, I think that my view of 3 star restaurants changed when I decided to allow them to serve me whatever they wanted to serve. Now I understand that this isn't affordable to everyone but, my advice to anyone who is on a limited budget is to eat less three star meals, but make the one you eat be an over the top experience.

If I can ascribe a value to this concept it would be like this. The surprise menu at at a place like Arpege for 300 euros is usually more than twice as good as the set menu for 150 euros. And I think there is a fundamental reason for this. If you go to Arpege and eat off the menu, the egg with maple syrup, the lobster in sauternes, etc., the kitchen makes those dishes all of the time. It's not fresh for them, nor challenging enough in the way you want them to be if you are looking for cutting edge. But if you ask them to make a surprise menu, my experience is that they usually (not always, sometimes it's a dud,) rise to the occasion. And I can assure you, that by ordering in this fashion, and asking to speak to the chef at some point in the meal so you can personally kiss his ass and tell him his roasted turnip tasted like god picked it that morning, you will be treated like a first class citizen, instead of merely American riff-raff who wants a 3 star meal when they are in Paris.

My salmon at Daniel was overcooked, three times before they got it rght. As an aside, many chefs seem to have a problem knowing what raw salmon means. More than half of the time it is overcooked and I send it back for a new one. Then the next one comes out almost raw, and it goes back for a bit more fire. Fo some reason, there is no consensus among chefs as to what "rare" salmon means. As for sending back my food in a 3 star, well I can think of 3 out of 4 dinners sending their food back in Pyramide last May. It's only a two star, but it has the pretensions of a 3 star.

[cabrales]

. . . . And unless somebody tells you about things that aren't printed on the menu, whether voluntarily or not, how would you know to order them?  Whether I get the information from a reviewer, or a friend, makes no difference. I just want the info. So if you don't know, how are you supposed to ask for it?

. . . .

As for sending back my food in a 3 star, well I can think of 3 out of 4 dinners sending their food back in Pyramide last May. It's only a two star, but it has the pretensions of a 3 star.

Steve -- The examples you provide are of things that certain diners who know and who are not professional critics have some chance of getting. To the extent a professional alerts diners to these beneficial items in a review, that's great. I think what ajay might be saying is that there is special treatment, including possibly special dishes, to which only critics would have access, by reason of their potential to influence regular diners. To the extent that a critic describes a dish that is just not available to other diners, a diner's ability to use the information to get the same treatment is mooted. If Patricia Wells got special dishes from Robuchon, I doubt that a diner (even knowing what those dishes were) would have been able to demand them and get them prepared in the same way.

Now, an unavailability of dishes wouldn't bother me, because I am interested in knowing of what a kitchen is capable. If a kitchen is capable, it has a chance of providing an "art" meal and I am interested in investigating it (even if the meal I receive is not the same as the critic's).

ajay -- I have only sent food back at a two-star restaurant, Michel Rostang. Our dining party had ordered the all-truffle menu. One of the dishes ordered by some in the party was a foie gras galette, laced with artichokes in a work-intensive "checkerboard" motif. When this dish was tasted, it was discovered that the foie gras had spoiled, because it had a distinctive sour edge (that no verjus or similar ingredient could have replicated). The dining party members who tasted this initially were extremely knowledgeable with respect to food. I tasted a nibble, and agreed.

We beckoned Rostang's blonde, stylish daughter to our table, handed her the two flawed dishes, and asked her to have the kitchen taste the foie gras. She returned a couple of minutes later, quite embarassed, and said that the dishes would be replaced with the alterantive item for that stage of the truffle tasting menu (it was artichoke soup with truffle and some non-Serrano Spanish ham).  We handled the matter decisively, but without making too much commotion.

Imagine our surprise when, two dishes later, we thought we discovered spoiled foie gras again in a sauce for a dish. We were shocked that, upon our alerting the kitchen that there were problems with foie gras, the kitchen had not tasted every item (including pre-made sauces) that included foie gras. This time, we said nothing because it would have likely been unduly embarassing for the restaurant. Service flaws peppered the meal, leaving the spoiled foie gras matter aside.

At L'Ambroisie, I have been part of a dining party that did not send food back, but that complained about the overcooking of fish.  I thought that the fish was overcooked, but did not complain. Another member of my dining party, who was quite young, motioned the maitre d' to our table and proceeded to indicate how disappointed he was with the cooking of the dish. The maitre d' listened, whisked the dishes away (we were done anyhow), and came back within 3-5 minutes. The kitchen sampled the fish and it had not been overdone, he informed us in a neutral voice. The other members of my dining party were so angry that they declined dessert and coffee. I insisted on a verbena infusion so that we would not be leaving too hastily, and tipped the maitre d' generously. Due to the tipping, I don't think I was tainted by this episode, from a future dining opportunity perspective.  

[Steve Plotnicki]

"To the extent that a critic describes a dish that is just not available to other diners, a diner's ability to use the information to get the same treatment is mooted. If Patricia Wells got special dishes from Robuchon, I doubt that a diner (even knowing what those dishes were) would have been able to demand them and get them prepared in the same way."

Cabrales-I don't agree with this. It is rare that I know about a special dish in a restaurant where they won't make it if I ask for it. They mightnot have the ingredients on hand, or there might not be sufficient prep time. But it is my experience that if a restaurant has a certain dish in their repetoire, they will gladly make it for anyone who asked. And in my wine story, Arzak obviously keeps a reserve wine list that you have to ask for. Forcefully too. How would one know to ask for it if they didn't offer it up voluntarily to an anonynous critic?

[cabrales]

Steve P -- Do you tend to ask for special dishes by name at restaurants, even if they are not on the menu? How else have you used information from a review?  

[ajay]

Steve,

A surprise menu was out of the question at L'arpege.  Just as we were seated, (directly across from the entrance), the table next to us, towards whom, as I have previously mentioned, the captain was quite obsequious, began to smoke.  All of the members of my dining party have allergies to smoke, and so we were not prepared to deal with a full 7-8 course degustation.  

Moreover, though we had all agreed to spend lavishly in France, we all felt that 300 Euros for the printed tasting menu was excessive.  (Gagnaire's menu was 143 Euros and the Troisgros menu was 180).  There being three of us, we decided to order al la carte.  My point is that if a review is excessivley slanted toward the strange, extraordinary and maginficent, as is likely to occurr where a critic is recognized, they will be no help to diners situated as we were.  I dare say that the majority of diners in a particular establishment on a given night will be be looking for advice on how to maximize their ordering strategy without having to specially instruct the waitstaff and the kitchen.  It is intereting to note that L'Arpege turned out to be our most expensive dining experience in France, despite the fact that we did not ask for surprise menus [this was even though we spent less on wine at L'Arpege than at any other restaurant].

In New York, however, I am less inclined to request special menus.  This is for two reasons: one, I can't afford them and two, I sense that it isn't simply enought to request them when one arrives, but rather one must be a friend of the restaurant, or have a VIP make the reservation for you.  

Now, your suggestion of reducing the number of fine dining experiences I have is a viable option.  But, I'm afraid, that it would leave me eating pastrami a bit too often for my taste !  Therefore, I am willing to go to a place, and not demand cutting edge treatment.  Naturally, the egulleteer inside of me would prefer such treatment, but all to often, in New York, despite asking for such treatment, I am dissappointed anyway.  Thus, when I read the New York Times, or other publication, I would like some advice on how to maximize the experience I am likely to encounter.

Perhaps this is eccentric and idiosyncratic, but it is nevertheless what I expect.  I will say that this exchange has helped me to better understand what Steve desires from a restaurant critic, and I agree that such information can certainley be useful.  I just think that such information is not demanded by the majority of any critic's readership, and said critic should take this into account in approaching and writing his/her review.

Cabrales,

We felt like sending a dish back at Gagnaire, but decided against it.  I think our standards for sending a dish back are as rigorous as those you seem to have adopted.  However, on my return to France (when I will hopefully have a better command of at least restaurant Fench), I hope to be a bit more assertive.

We felt that the turbot they served us at Gagnaire was oversalted in the extreme, but as were already having communication problems with the waitstaff, we decided to let it slide.  

PS Steve, I would be greatful if you could post your tasting notes [including the world famous Plotnicki point system] on the '58 Marquis de Riscal Rioja Gran Reserva.  I doubt that I will get my hands on the stuff anytime soon, but I am intruiged.  And who knows, if I can find it anywhere near

$45, I would probably bite!

[Steve Plotnicki]

"Now, your suggestion of reducing the number of fine dining experiences I have is a viable option.  But, I'm afraid, that it would leave me eating pastrami a bit too often for my taste"

Ajay-There are two issues here. Part of the problem, and it goes to the original point, is that the basic meal you get at most top restaurants these days is mediocre. In my estimation, more than 2/3 of the meals I have in top places are medicore beyond belief. And to me, the standard used by critics in general perpetuates that mediocrity. But in their defense (the critics and the customers,) my standards are much higher than theirs.

But part of the reason my standards are so high is that I have been fortunate to have had a number of special menus that allowed me to recalibrate my palate. Which brings me back to your quote. Because if you had a few special meals under your belt, you would gladly eat more pastrami because a mediocre three star meal (like you experienced at Apege) wouldn't satisfy you.

As for the Rioja, I put together a tastiong of old Riojas I had accumulated over the years and I am posting a link to the tasting notes. Hope you enjoy them.

                           

 Rioja Tasting

[cabrales]

"Now, your suggestion of reducing the number of fine dining experiences I have is a viable option.  But, I'm afraid, that it would leave me eating pastrami a bit too often for my taste"

. . . the basic meal you get at most top restaurants these days is mediocre. In my estimation, more than 2/3 of the meals I have in top places are medicore beyond belief. . . . Because if you had a few special meals under your belt, you would gladly eat more pastrami . . . .

Steve P & ajay -- Perhaps certain of ajay's meals did not suit him, in a sense of subjective match.  That does not equate to saying that a mediocre meal was provided, obviously. Take Holly's experiences at Ferme de Mon Pere, and mine. Or Steve's and my take on Gagnaire. Or Fat Guy's take on ADNY versus my own (I'm willing to further consider on that one).

When I dine, I don't expect amazing meals (in terms of suitability for me) at most restaurants, and I usually don't get meals with which I am subjectively entralled (with certain rare exceptions). But I also believe the restaurants are probably performing at a pretty high level for me, and are making efforts.  The substantive outcome of failing to experience a truly fulfilling meal (in hindsight) at most establishments does not leave me not wanting to (1) try out places to which I have never been, (2) continuing to seek out restaurants that have a greater likelihood of meeting my subjective criteria, (3) enjoy any positive aspects of a dining experience, and (4) evaluate the negative aspects thereof.  I wouldn't say that 2/3 of top restaurants are mediocre, but I would say that top restaurants in France (except for a select handful) are not very fulfilling for me once I've visited them for two times or so. Perhaps, after some years, I will visit a restaurant again. Or if it's along the way to a restaurant in which I remain interested, I would revisit.

If I had to choose between (1) a week of inexpensive meals (I think I would choose eggs in all their forms (once I gain some basic cooking capabilities), Campbell's Soup or some nice blue cheese and crusty bread -- all of which I take in anyhow) and a single meal at a place I adore, and (2) fourteen not-so-great meals, I would choose the former. Hopefully, the day I'll have to make such choices will not arrive.

But I do engage in trade-offs on the dimension of time. For example, I might have a choice between 3 good meals in City A, or incurring the travel time/fatigue to take a single entralling meal in City B and taking the remaining 2 meals in transit or quickly (to maximize rest or to permit work on which I have fallen behind while traveling).  I have made this choice countless times, and it is to always choose the latter (the single great meal). Traveling to another city, even within Europe, is tiring. I try to get rest on trains, and often succeed. It is not unusual for me to take 3-5 hour train rides one-way in search of a meal, and I might do that more than once during a weekend (i.e., go to City B, then City C in France).  

[ChocoKitty]

To add fuel to the fire (I'm sure many of you have already seen this piece): a discussion of Michael Bauer's influence in SF.

http://www.sanfran.com/features/bauer/bauer.html

[Steve Klc]

Choco--thank you so much for the link.  I found the article powerful, issue-laden and revealing of the way games are played both within a newspaper and within the larger world of food. Quite an indictment of a situation which allows a restaurant critic to lose anonymity and consolidate a power base over time, becoming Food section editor and editor of the Sunday magazine as well.

Bauer, who could now be my personal poster boy of ethical lapses coupled with embarrassing appearances of impropriety and layered upon actual conflicts of interest, ties in well with our thread in terms of a critic courting and accepting special attention, developing personal relationships with chefs, getting better meals, recognizably shmoozing at public events.  I love the fact that he is revealed to be the sole "journalist" representing SF on the Beard award panel, too.  Whole else would it be?

The most salient issue of the article, for me, is the question of whether it is possible for one person to have too much power in a given city?

What happens when you not only don't avoid the appearance of impropriety but very publicly flaunt it and consolidate power autonomously over time?  At least in other large, serious food cities one could always point to the fact that the Food section editor was distinct from the restaurant critic.

One could always mitigate the damage done by the restaurant critic with make-up features in the weekly Food section or holiday magazine issues--each would be relatively free to dissent and disagree, to act as a separation of church and state or a system of checks and balances or any other political analogy you'd want to employ.  (Last year, relatively new Washington Post restaurant critic Tom Sietsema dissed chef Susan Lindeborg in a review of her Majestic Cafe, upsetting faithful legions of Lindeborg devotees and probably the entire Post Food section staff.  Numerous positive "makeup" mentions in the Food section and Magazine section followed, culminating with Tom even figuring out a way to include Majestic Cafe as one of his favorites in his Dining Guide.)

Of course, the defense for a compromised reviewer, always somewhat lame, is a variant of "the bottom line is the quality of the reviews" and after reading this piece on Bauer, I can't help but feel that defense to be even more self-serving and disingenuous than usual.

We might reasonably disagree about the value of a critic remaining anonymous, about imposing some sort of term limit on the length of a critic's service in the same capacity but would anyone carry the argument even further to say that there isn't any problem with the lead restaurant critic of a newspaper in a large city also serving as Food section editor?

No one person should have such carte blanche.  Is anyone else as ethically and professionally troubled by this as I am?

(Choco:  is his article touting the genius and fame of Waters and Cunningham online as well?)

[Bux]

Steve, I am ethically and professionally troubled, but also inclined to react with caution after reading one side of any story. I suppose the issue goes back to the original post and how much can we really expect from the food media. Within every profession there appears to be an old boys network that works to defend a status quo. I have referred to what I see as a food Mafia. The funny thing is that when I see a reviewer or even a food journalist pulled in from outside the network, I don't see fresh idea as much as I see disrespect for those who have really accomplished something and I see disapssionate writing where I want enthusiasm.

I have great empathy for both ajay and Steve Plotnicki's views. Bill Daley can spell out the reasons why a reviewer should be free of entangled interests, but no one can tell me that one reviewer will necessarily be better than another just because he is without connections to chefs or restaurant owers and managers.

If I eat in a restaurant and love the food without meeeting the chef or ower am I entitled t write a review? If I eat there five times, will I be in a better position to write the review? If I love the food so much and tell that to the chef will it make me more or less capable of writing an honest review. If the chef takes me on a tour of the kitchen will that help or hurt? If as a result of my enthusiasm, the chef buys me a drink or a dessert, will that taint my review? Suppose the relationship goes deeper will that taint my review? If what I see as a natural reaction to a diner's enthusiasm for the food he ate and loved is a reason to recuse myself from writing a review, it almost seems as if reviews have to be written by those who are lukewarm to a restaurant at best and the truth is that although I don't see eye to eye with Steve Plotnicki about not caring what the average diner will see and get, I want my reviews written by someone with passion for the restaurant. It I were an editor with a staff of reviewers, I'd let one of those who was passionate about a restaurant write the review for that restaurant.

Sure I'm playing devil's advocate to an extent and the reasons Bill Daley suggests a reviewer should avoid making friends in the industry are obvious, but in the end impartiality will no more guaranty a better review than you can determine the quality of the food by knowing with whom the chef apprenticed.

The idea of term limits is valid, but I suggest that in NYC, especially in regard to the most sophisticated restaurants, that term is about four months before every maitre d' knows exactly what the NY Times critic looks like. I recall reading Ruth Reichl's last review of Le Cirque. Her claim to have passed incognito was absolutely unbelievable to me.

Why are all the good threads started when I'm away? There are a lot of interesting posts in this thread and I'm reluctant to respond individually to each.

[John Whiting]

Bux puts his finger on a crucial point. I can't think of another area of expertise in which it is demanded that a reviewer, a critic or a commentator not be personally known to his subject. Books are commonly -- and rightly -- reviewed by other authors who are the books' authors' best friends or sworn enemies. In the arts and sciences, a reviewer who hasn't met and formed a relationship with its principal practitioners is likely to be so peripheral to the scene as to be insensitive to its nuances. If you undertake to speak with authority, there is no such thing as too much knowledge; the determining factor is how you use it.

[Andy Lynes]

I want my reviews written by someone with passion for the restaurant. It I were an editor with a staff of reviewers, I'd let one of those who was passionate about a restaurant write the review for that restaurant.

When I used to read the UK weekly music press, a common letter of complaint from readers was "Why did you allow such and such a person to review band A's gig/new album. Everyone knows they hate them and were bound to give them a bad write up". It seems we have a similar situation in restaurant reviewing where you can guess which critic will give which chef a good or bad review.

In the UK, this is partly a result of the London scene being dominated by a few major restauranteurs, so that if you don't like Oliver Payton you give his "latest release" a bad review or if you love Ramsay in general you give his places a good review. Just now it seems that it's ok to like Conran so the Almeida got good reviews.

Fay Maschler was mentioned earlier on this thread. I love reading her stuff and think that she is very reliable, or at least that my opinions concur with hers. However, she has been the Evening Standard reviewer for 30 years, has a daughter who is involved in restaurants which she reviews and has in the last few years buddied up with the likes of Ramsay and Ladenis, both of whom she had upset in the past with her reviews.

Now the reason I know all this is because she writes about it in her weekly column. And I can therefore make allowances for the 1 star she awarded Adam Street, her daughters place (and which Maschler herself was asked to consult on, whether she did officialy or not in the end I'm not sure), or the glowing review she gave Ramsay at Claridges (3 out of 3 stars). For me, this doesn't make her any less interesting to read, but you just have to accept that she must have contacts and friends in the business. After all, she spends about 6 out of 7 days a week in restaurants, how could she not.

[Tonyfinch]

"Why did you allow such and such a person to review band A's gig/new album. Everyone knows they hate them and were bound to give them a bad write up".

Andy,why would anyone "hate" a restaurant in the same way that they might hate a particular band's music? Can you think of a restaurant that other people "love" that you "hate"? Or vice versa? Can anyone? I'm talking about HATE here.

Part of being a Spurs fan is to hate Arsenal,but supporting a football team is an irrational and illogical act (what or who,exactly,are you 'supporting' ?) and a football critic who allows his support for one team to colour all his criticisms is a worthless critic of the wider game.

If you hate the food in a particular restaurant,why should others love it?  Is it to do with the particular type of cuisine ("I love Syrian food."  "Well I hate it")? Or is it to do with differentiated tastes within cuisines?  

I feel passionately that I won't eat in a Gordon Ramsey establishment because I make a personal choice not to eat in restaurants run by chefs who seek publicity through bullying,abusive behaviour. This is a personal decision and any critic or reviewer who decides their likes or dislikes on criteria based on anything other than the food ,service,ambience etc. MUST declare their biases or their reviews become worthless.

[Andy Lynes]

I didn't use the word hate in the context of restaurants, although Simon might well hate a few places.

[Tonyfinch]

What I'm trying to get at is why should we feel passionately about restaurants in the way we might about football teams?

DO people feel passionately,either way,about restaurants? If so,why?

Are there people out there walking about thinking:"You know what? I love Michel Roux but I hate Pierre Koffmann"

Or "I love Pierre Gagnaire but feel passionately indifferent to Alain Ducasse"?

[John Whiting]

I love l'Astrance and I loathe Stringfellows, but I feel equally indifferent to all football teams.

[Tonyfinch]

I love l'Astrance and I loathe Stringfellows,

This is a meaningless comparison. Have you been to Stringfellows? A more interesting comparison might be to say " I love Le Gavroche and I loathe La Tante Claire"

My question is: Why should restaurants have fans? Is a reviewer who is a "fan" a valid reviewer if he has reasons to be a fan ?

[Andy Lynes]

Tony, I think you are correct that a fan of a particular restaurant can't be relied upon to give an objective review, that simply isn't possible, and may explain why Fay Maschler gave Richard Corrigan a 2 star write up recently when so much word of mouth is negative about the place.

But she states in the first paragraph "I love LINDSAY HOUSE, an affection entirely connected to my liking and admiration for its chef/proprietor, wild Irishman Richard Corrigan. ",  so we know where she's coming from right from the off.

Why not be a fan of a restaurant? I'll always stick with somewhere good once I have found it. My wife and I used to to go to a wonderful place in Brighton called La Scala, next to the Royal Theatre in New Road. We ate there rather than nearly anywhere else until it closed sometime in the early nineties. I loved the place in the same way that I hate nearly every other crappy pizza-pasta joint in town.