Grimes Hates Waiters

[Fat Guy]

Newsflash: Waiters talk more than they used to.

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/01/16/dining/16NOTE.html

[robert brown]

Judging from this, Grimes is a better social critic than a restaurant one. He failed to mention that it is his media buddies, as much as anyone, that got us to the state of affairs about which he complains.

[Steve Klc]

I'd suggest if critics and food writers did a better job covering the restaurant scene and chefs and exploring the context behind what is current--more reportage as "journalists" rather than Mr. Latte and "what's hot"--waiters wouldn't have to be so effusive and diners awareness would have already reached a critical mass--rather than just been piqued and confused.

Plus, I like enthusiastic, effusive waiters--especially if that enthusiasm extends throughout the meal with attentive service.  If one views servers as a conduit to and from the chef, frankly, I see that communication as a good thing.

[Fat Guy]

I'm not sure what his politics are. I'm assuming that, like virtually everyone else at the Times, he's staunchly left-liberal. That would certainly give him less right to complain about the therapeutic culture than it would libertarian-conservatives like me.

But I wonder if there isn't a more offensive point to be made here, that he may be afraid to make: A waiter needs to know his place. (I'll explain later how this is not as offensive as it sounds.)

A communicative waiter is neither good nor bad. It is the content of what he says and his comportment that matter.

Grimes makes a distinction between the talkative waiters of today and the unforthcoming waiters of the past. I'm not sure that is a valid distinction. Good waiters have always been more than happy to engage their customers at any level. The difference in my mind between good and bad waiter communication is that good waiter communication takes its cues from the customer. It is non-intrusive.

I'm actually glad there is an overall trend towards more information. Cuisine is becoming more diverse and complex. Menus cannot, by the very nature of things, be self-explanatory now that they almost universally depart from the standard French and Continental-influenced-American repertoire dishes. A restaurant serving a cuisine that has never before been seen in New York has no choice but to explain itself in one way or another.

I know plenty of waiters who are better educated, more food-knowledgeable, smarter, and more affluent than the overwhelming majority of their customers. The thing is, a waiter doesn't always have to show all his cards. If the customers are clearly foodies (and I'd say Grimes in not, in his heart, a foodie but is rather a foodie by profession), and if they are obviously interested in learning as much about the cuisine and the restaurant as possible, the waiter should have all the facts at the ready. If you're waiting on a couple on a date, and it's clear all they want is to be fed and left alone, it's not necessary to conduct a seminar. It's all about judgment. Good waiters have it, and bad waiters don't.

Ultimately, if I had one piece of advice to give to any waiter, it would be to always remember that you are a servant. That means you are there to serve. If people express a clear desire to engage you beyond the simple exchange of order, food, and check, you should rise to the occasion. If not, you should maintain a respectful distance. There's nothing wrong with being a servant. A lawyer is a servant too, as is anybody else with clients or customers. Once you make your peace with that state of affairs, you can be a really good waiter.

That being said, it's not fair to a waiter to give a signal and then slam him for following that signal. If you don't want to hear certain information, you should make that clear -- you shouldn't invite the conversation and then complain about it. I have no problem with ridiculing a waiter who forces conversation, but I don't think it's right to indicate a willingness to socialize when it's not genuine -- at least not if you're planning to editorialize against it in the New York Times.

When I said "newsflash" in my post above, I did so sarcastically, because of course the whole phenomenon of heavily interactive waiters is so old it has become cliche. The "My name is Bruce and I'll be your waiter" thing is now decades old. I'm not at all convinced that the phenomenon Grimes discusses has anything at all to do with the lengthening and shortening of menu descriptions, as he seems to believe it does.

Let us also not forget that this is America in the 21st Century. We have no caste system here. When a waiter pretends to be a servant, he is doing just that: Pretending. He is not born into servitude, nor in most fine restaurants is he limited by his skills to being a waiter. He could probably do any number of things. This is not how it always was, and is certainly not how it was in the Europe from which we inherited our service traditions. So there is a sense in which today waiters and customers must, by the very nature of things, relate in a new way. It would at this point in time be unacceptable to call a waiter, of any skin color, "boy," or to ask him to "fetch," something. At the same time, you see customers and waiters interacting socially outside the workplace. This makes sense, as they are increasingly likely to be socioeconomically compatible. So I don't think it will ever be possible to have old-style service again. It doesn't even exist in France anymore. And this isn't France. We've spent the past several years developing our own service traditions, thanks to Danny Meyer and other like-minded individuals. Contemporary American service must be examined on its own merits, not by comparison to feudalism.

I have no nostalgia for waiters who refuse to provide recommendations and who claim -- despite their clear knowledge to the contrary -- that everything is equally good. That's the surest way to annoy me. I'd much rather get too much information than too little.

[tommy]

i am rarely, if ever, offended or bothered by a waiter's enthusiasm or knee-jerk response of "excellent choice."  i've got far bigger things to be concerned with, such as if *I* am going to say something to offend someone at the table.

after reading that article yesterday, i thought "gee, i guess the Times needed some filler."  that being said, i was a pleasant enough read, and far more interesting that his story about the chicken/rooster/whatever-it-was-that-was-in-his-backyard from a few months ago. ;)

[robert brown]

Speaking of old style service, I miss the old guys at Ratner's who, when they brought your order, left a little daylight between  the top of the table and the bottom of the plate.

To be serious, Steven assessed the situation just about right. The problem is that anything can happen when the service side of what is called"restauration" is no longer a lifetime profession for which one studies formally as one does in Europe. For a while I thought there was talk here of some intensive training in that regard, even if it wasn't a multi-year undertaking. Does, for example, the lack of training in tableside service, particularly carving, influence how chefs in America prepare fowl? One of the main reponsibilities of a waiter or waitress is to facilitate and support the work of the kitchen by, most important, getting the food to the table before the food becomes compromised. Has anybody thought about how the training and the competence of dining room staff and kitchen support staff (sous-chefs, line chefs,etc.) affect what we eat or how food is made? I haven't seen anything on this. I'm sorry if I nudge the topic at hand over to other concerns.

(Edited by robert brown at 12:15 pm on Jan. 17, 2002)

(Edited by robert brown at 12:19 pm on Jan. 17, 2002)

[Pan]

Fat Guy wrote:

"I'm not sure what his politics are. I'm assuming that, like virtually everyone else at the Times, he's staunchly left-liberal."

Oh, you mean like William Safire? :-)

[mamster]

So, while we're on this subject, is it okay to say "waiter" for both men and women who wait on tables?  I hate the term "server," unless we're talking about dishing out web pages, but I don't think either my newspaper's house style or my own allow distinguishing between "waiter" and "waitress." Though, come to think of it, I do like the sound of the term "waitress" and would just go ahead and use that exclusively if I thought I could get away with it.

[Fat Guy]

Pan, Safire is the proverbial exception that proves the rule. That's why he's an op-ed columnist.

Mamster, as far as I'm concerned in the English language you can use the masculine of most things to refer to men and women.

[Rail Paul]

"waitstaff" is often used by persons of the left persuasion to describe persons who assist at the table

I don't know if that means the person for whom the diner waits to take an order, or the person on staff who waits on the wishes of the diner

[Fat Guy]

I know for awhile there was an attempt to popularize "waitron" as the gender-neutral-PC term, but it must have sounded too much like an evil robot.

[Bux]

I wouldn't overlook Tommy's remarks on the subject. The piece wasn't really filler, but it was fluff and we're not so much speaking to the article as around it. Secondly I suspect Tommy's wise to be concerned about putting his foot in his mouth. His insight here, as well as on legal matters, is astounding.

Seriously, Grimes has on numerous occasions expressed contempt for both individual chefs and for the profession. I can't recall him writing about the pleasures of dining out, but I've read his complaints about the duties of his job. This article was one of his funnier ones and it was right on, at least about a segment of the restaurants in NY without real concern for context. Humor, not quality restaurant criticism.

Restaurants, at least some of them, have changed and are changing. Society changes all the time and in post future shock times the change is accelerating. Nothing is what it used to be. In France waiters are younger (or at least I'm older) and they also have more to say to me. Food is creative and you can't go look up Escoffier's recipes. Grimes makes a point that long winded waiters may be the alternative to long winded menus.

Whatever complaints you have with Grimes' buddies in trade, I suggest you start with his editors who are probably also responsible for enouraging the drivel about Mr. Latte.

As for waiters, enthusiasm should always be a welcome trait for anyone doing a job, and I welcome a conduit for information from the chef, but unbridled effusion needs to be checked. Are we discsussing the article or the state of the service profession?

Call me left-liberal, but the word "servant" needs to be less used in our society, especially as in a "waiter pretending to be a servant." I don't see them doing that. They are not actors, they are men and women doing a real job. Lawyers are not servants, doctors are not servants and the woman who irons my shirts is not my servant. There have always been restaurants where the waiters were professionals and there have always been restaurants where the waiters were actors pretending to be waiters. On this subject and much of what Shaw says in relation to waiters knowing when to interact and how to interact, I am in agreement.

I know plenty of waiters who are better educated, more food-knowledgeable, smarter, and more affluent than the overwhelming majority of their customers. The thing is, a waiter doesn't always have to show all his cards. ... It's all about judgment. Good waiters have it, and bad waiters don't.

At this point Shaw is, in my opinion, on target and I agree wholeheartedly.

Robert brings up one of those chicken and egg things. If food is plated in the kitchen, a waiter doesn't have to know how to carve a chicken or bone a sole and you'll never know if he can, but that sort of service began because a generation of chefs wanted control over the appearance of the plate as hit the table. It did not start out in exasperation of the lack of talent in the font of the house. Now, you may have a generation of waiters who are untrained in a craft they haven't needed. With family style groaning board service in Craft, it's not needed there either.

I would make no assumptions about Grimes' political leanings, but I don't picture him as a liberal. The great midwestern popularism he seemed to support in his USC review might indicate an empathy for their Republican politics, but one would be on a slippery slope to suggest that he's not part of the eastern liberal establishment.

[tommy]

Quote: from Bux on 9:32 pm on Jan. 17, 2002

Secondly I suspect Tommy's wise to be concerned about putting his foot in his mouth. His insight here, as well as on legal matters, is astounding.

for the record, tommy has noted the implied ;) at the end of the above passage.  tommy is in no way offended.  

:(

[Fat Guy]

Bux, now that I know I can get your goat by doing so, I plan to use the term "servant" all the time!

I'm with you: Several of Grimes's pieces have given me an image of him as a grouchy old Republican. But I can't believe that could be true of any Times critic, so I'm just going to assume he's engaging in a bit of intellectual slumming. Indeed, didn't he once write about a dinner party he threw? I'm pretty sure he revealed his orientation therein, when he commented about the unusualness of having a non-leftist guest (I remember the gist of his comments because this is a role I play at Manhattan dinner parties on a regular basis).

As to the point about it being filler, I really don't think so. Grimes is nothing if not serious. I think he believes he was saying something that needed to be said. And I do see some validity to some of his points. But the way he puts it together as a piece of social criticism seems to me completely wrongheaded. As I said, it's not waiters talking per se that's bad -- it's what one says that matters.

The state of the service profession is a worthwhile topic. I tend to think service in America hit a lowpoint in a decade or so ago and has been improving -- with the occasional detour -- ever since. But that would be a new thread.

Training could also be another thread. When I first learned that waiters in France have formal training at service schools, I was impressed. These days, such a thing strikes me as unnecessary. How much does a waiter really need to learn to do the job well? Or, how much does he need to learn in a classroom environment that wouldn't be better taught on the job? Most of it is a matter of experience, not formal education. Those great old waiters were great more because they were old than because they went to a waiter school fifty years ago. Were I to establish a training course for waiters, I couldn't see it being more than a couple of weeks long. A year or more in waiter school seems a bit much.

Is service in France better than service here? That's new thread number three. Somebody please feel free to start all three.

[robert brown]

This August my wife and I ordered a duck with black pepper sauce at Maximin in Vence. The waitress (I use this word because our waitperson was female) brought out the entire duck to a serving table and preceeded to grapple with it much longer and in  more clumsy fashion than a well-trained, experienced person. Now here is an instance where the chef wanted the clients to see the entire duck, which was much better to look at in its perfectly-cooked state and robust appearance. Carving it in the kitchen and bringing it straight to the eaters' table would have made the presentation a mundane, second-rate experience. There are dishes that need this kind of special tableside treatment even if a young waiter or waitress doesn't carve it with aplomb. Maybe this is the exception these days as for reasons that Bux elucidate. However, I bet many a chef who is accomplished or has aspirations would like to have the luxury of choice.

(Edited by robert brown at 11:10 pm on Jan. 17, 2002)

[Bux]

Tommy, your powers of insight are surpassed only by your sense of humor as far as I can tell.

[Rail Paul]

FWIW,

Mr Latte has now been elevated to the "boyfriend" as of last Sunday's Magazine. Previous episodes have dwelt on his increasing food sophistication

[861728]

As a server, and, coincidentally a graduate student of psychoanalysis, I have a few thoughts about this.

Grimes makes the right point with the wrong analogy.

Therapy, as 'twere, has as a core tenet the idea of "following the contact" which is to say the patient takes the lead and sets the tone for the session and the analyst works in service of the ego. The patient feels he has a twin.

This is the ideal model for waiting tables. I simply follow the guests’ lead in service of the experience. You want an enthusiastic deep well of knowledge, I'll be that. You're on business and want a silent servant, I'll be that. You miss Clinton, so do I, you love W. so do I. To table X we bond over the continued superiority of a true Burgundy, to table Y we gloat over the much better upstart from Oregon.

It is YOUR call on how I can be most valuable to you. (This seems to be lost on Grimes who takes such a passive victimized position)

By letting each guest guide the experience I have cultivated a large corps of regulars who would all describe me in a different way. (The mirroring/twin factor)*

So, in fact, what Grimes wants IS a therapeutic relationship with a server. Grimes is BEGGING to be taken care of and to be understood on his level without having to do any work himself in terms of the communication.

What he describes is the other old-saw analogy of the actor as waiter. The unrequested barrage of information and affirmation does not take the guest into consideration. The waiter has had extensive training that he sees as rehearsal and is ready to give a performance. You are not a guest but an audience. This is what Grimes rightly objects to. Of course this spins another thread about dining out as theatre, which at certain levels it, is.

*This went to the extreme one evening when I served a retired couple who adored the fact that I was a young person passionate about food and wine. The following day while eating my lunch at the 46th street Times Square McDonalds this same couple accosted me. They had seen me in the window and were incensed that I had lied to them about being a gourmet. It was very strange.

[861728]

PS the waiter who told Grimes he had shaken the tree and found three plums.  ... It's obvious to me that this server didn't know his wines.

[Catseye]

from Bux on 9:32 pm on Jan. 17, 2002

I welcome a conduit for information from the chef, but unbridled effusion needs to be checked.

This of Bux' says it all for me.  I know I'm in for the check-signing-exhaustion-phase that Grimes speaks of when my waiter approaches and chirps, "Hi, how are y'all?  My name is Lorne, and I'll be your waitperson today."  Too much information!  Too many questions!  And WAY too much political correctness!

Much of the (as always erudite, graceful and bon-vivantish :)) commentary in this thread is moot in my community, however.   My waitperson is likely to be a female, named Pauline, Kathi or Sue-Beth, with at least two kids, and the baby is sleeping in the kitchen.  She lives in the double-wide next door and is he'ppin out the owner til her old man a) gets in off the road, b) sobers up and goes back on the clock or c) comes to his senses and stops tomcattin' after that no-good golddigger what took him away from his wife and pore lil babies.  Her order-taking pencil sticks up out of her hair.  If she likes you, she will guide you right.  "Oh honey, get the crabcakes.  Daryl cleaned out the deepfryer this mornin'."   Or, "I'd avoid the peach pah.  The mayor said it was a little off, though if you ask me" -- leaning forward confidentially -- "he just plain don't like peaches ever since, well, you know."  Sniff.  

Or if you go to the Amherst Diner, the wait ladies are all over 65, hairnetted and remote.  They don't give a rat's behind what you order, just so long as you do it before their bunions give out.  And don't ask for two veg instead of the mashed and veg unless you want to find a snake in your mailbox.

I have the impression, not for the first time, that my life is in many ways much less complicated than that of the average e-Gulleteer.  

Lastly, Grimes' opening paragraph reminds me of a two-liner I read recently:

Guest:  "Waiter, what do you recommend?"

Waiter:  "I recommend you read the menu, pick something out, and tell me."

I think when all is said and done, that's my kind of waiter.

Cats

[tommy]

Quote: from 861728 on 2:16 pm on Jan. 18, 2002

The following day while eating my lunch at the 46th street Times Square McDonalds

after reading that i stopped reading your post and disregarded everything that you've said up til then and will ever say in your life.  how dare you.

AKA (all kidding aside?) i question your questioning of the "three plum" phrase.  

[861728]

Quote: from tommy on 2:56 pm on Jan. 18, 2002

after reading that i stopped reading your post and disregarded everything that you've said up til then and will ever say in your life.  how dare you.

AKA (all kidding aside?) i question your questioning of the "three plum" phrase.  

It was the delicious extra value meal # 6!

The three plums phrase would have to depend on the affect I suppose. But even if someone has picked 3 sensational bottles what's the point of "quizzing" if not to further refine the selection? Just last night I was able to taste 2 '82 Bordeaux. Both homeruns and worthy of their pedigree and price, both very different in mouthfeel, flavour and finish.

[Andy Lynes]

I had dinner last night at The Clerkenwell in London, and was subjected to a recitation of the entire, though thankfully short, menu by the restaurant manager or  maitre'd or whatever you wish to call the guy that gets to wear the suit.

This was a problem for two reasons. Firstly it was boring, as he wasn't able to add much to the written descriptions apart from a few meaningless adjectives and point out the dishes he claimed to be his favorites but which I suspect they just wanted to shift that night.

Secondly, it raised expectations a notch or two that the food wasn't able to meet. The only other restaurant this has ever happened to me is at Gordon Ramsay, where the charming Jean Claude was able to really bring the menu to life and was fun to listen to.

Service was pretty much silent after this and as a talkative group of 7 we were pretty much left to our own devices. I think this is an example of what Grimes is talking about and I do empathise with his view to a certain extent. I thought it well written and enjoyable to read, and not a spurious idea used simply to generate an article to fill space.

[tommy]

Quote: from 861728 on 3:09 pm on Jan. 18, 2002[brThe three plums phrase would have to depend on the affect I suppose. But even if someone has picked 3 sensational bottles what's the point of "quizzing" if not to further refine the selection?

my interpretation was that the wines were disparate and the waiter was simply pointing that out.  i can certainly see myself saying something similiar if someone inquires of 3 disparate wines.  disparate btwn producers or years, fine, but perhaps they were way way different.  i don't know.  i wouldn't have taken issue with that had i been there.  however, i don't know the whole transaction or the context in which it was stated.  a shortcoming of his article perhaps.

[yvonne johnson]

861728: I think you bring up interesting points, for examples, that the customer should lead and the server follow (you draw positive overlaps with therapy whereas Grimes sees negative links), and that Grimes is asking “to be understood on his level”.

I’m not sure I agree with your assertions that Grimes is unwilling “to do any work himself in terms of the communication” and that Grimes “takes such a passive victimized position”. I wouldn’t consider myself unassertive, but once some waiters start their spiel about the menu, their own lives, their interrogatory questions, I’m at a loss for words, especially if I’m in a group. Who wants to spoil the evening by telling the waiter to just be quiet. You seem to be a sensitive sort picking up what kind of help the customer demands (though I’m not sure why you have to be untrue to yourself in doing so), but many waiters are not. They go on automatic pilot and having to remember all the specials probably reduces the number of brain cells that are free to pick up cues from the customer. Why can’t they read them off? Or better still give us a print out of the specials?

I agree with Andy, too, in that hearing about every ingredient in the dishes is just plain DULL and pointless. Again, no one can remember them, except maybe for the first and last things uttered.

Also, why don’t servers write down our orders and wine selections? I don’t think extra points/tips are given on the basis of good memory. Indeed, when in a large group, and the waiter relies on memory, I get a bit panicky. They’re going to forget something….and sometimes they do.

Lastly, one of the best waiters of late was a man at Craft. His talk was minimal, he took our orders writing them in a little black book and seeing us eat was sufficient evidence for him that we were enjoying the meal. We felt is presence and we could have easily caught his eye at any point, but in this case neither he nor we needed to utter a word. That’s the kind of waiter for me.