Overused restaurant reviewer words & metaphors

[Rachel Perlow]

Report. I like that.

[Fat Guy]

I don't particularly mind it if people on a message board want to call their reports reviews, if they contain the critical elements of a review (which many do). What really annoys me is when people refer to the snippets in Zagat as "reviews."

[tommy]

What really annoys me is when people refer to the snippets in Zagat as "reviews."

that just pains my soul.

[Malawry]

I find Zagat mostly useless. Chiefly because no review or report of a restaurant should put descriptive words and phrases in quotes. Gah!

[tommy]

. Chiefly because no review or report of a restaurant should put descriptive words and phrases in quotes. Gah!

even if they are quotes?

[=Mark]

Just out of curiousity, how would you describe something that is fried perfectly and doesn't have that soggy greasy look that poorly fried foods can have, without calling it greaseless?

How about "fried perfectly?"  Or would that violate Fat Guy's prohibition...

[Lesley C]

I disagree with you Steven about perfect. I have had a perfect crème caramel and a perfect beurre blanc. I wonder, though, if the reader understands the word perfect or if it's one of those cheffy terms. Watch any cooking show and you'll hear perfect time and time again. Nigella says her stuff is perfect, Martha says her stuff is perfect, Bobby Flay says his stuff is perfect -- now that is barf-making.

I think the overused words are tender (meat) and flavourful (everything). I should know, I overuse them every day. Oh, and then there's “delicious” (or, God forbid, “tasty”).

[mamster]

Likewise, instead of saying "greaseless," it's better to say something like, "The great irony of deep-fat frying is that, when done right, it hardly seems as though your food was completely submerged in scalding, bubbling grease just a few moments ago."

Sure, you can say that the first time, but what about the next time?  I'm sure you can catch me saying "greaseless," and here's why:  I write a couple of reviews a month and have reason to believe most of my readers are regulars.  My word count limit is severe.  And though I try to avoid it, a lot of the places I review are typical:  neighborhood Thai place, bar and grill, cheap sushi, etc.  In this context, people want to know whether the onion rings are greasy (as in soggy) or not.

I guess this is a form of laziness, since I should always strive for new observations and new ways to make old observations, but sometimes I'm convinced that what people really want out of a certain review is for me to say:  "This is a good Thai place.  It is located in Magnolia.  The phad thai is good.  The spring rolls are crisp and not greasy.  The coconut ice cream is too grainy.  I also recommend dishes X, Y, and Z."  I hate turning those in, and believe me, I do blame myself, but not a hundred percent.  Other times, I get to write about someplace really weird, and then I have a lot more fun and the writing is better.

Maybe my observation should go like this:  some places, because they have unique qualities, deserve reviews.  Other places, which may be just as good or better but are more generic, deserve notices but not reviews.  At my paper, at least, we don't have any way of making that distinction, so you end up with recycled phrases for recycled restaurants.  Excuses, excuses.

Incidentally, I just searched my site and the Seattle Times, and there is no record of my saying "greaseless" or "greaselessly"--yay!

[Jim Dixon]

I really hate it when reviewers write:

"The dish worked..."

or some variant.

I avoid "savory" although I've probably used it before, and I had to toss out my favorite bit of alliteration (describing oysters as "briny bivalves") after my neighbor pointed out that I'd used it in two separate mini-reviews appearing in the same restaurant guide last year.

And this from a post on Chowhound (and I didn't copy the posters name, so I can't give him credit, but it's worth going over and looking for...in General, I think):

-Strike all adjectives from your copy, then restore only the ones you absolutely need.

                       

-Begin a list of banned verbs: Nestled. Spiked. Perched (when used with "atop"). Add to the list with examples from critics you hate.

And like anybody who writes about food, I'm guilty of evoking Proust. Here's my most recent offense, which may not have been as bad as some of my earlier ones (thankfully forgotten):

Food's power to evoke memories is undisputed. Nearly everyone eats something occasionally that brings to mind their grandmother's kitchen, the first time they planted a garden, or a particularly disastrous date. But the flip side of Proust's madeleine is the recollection of food itself. I may not remember the kids I played with in grade school or much about family vacations to Arizona, but I can remember what I ate.

Jim

[Fat Guy]

I'm proud to say my site is also free of "greaseless." Much to my surprise and chagrin, however, there are 16 uses of "perfect" and at least 3 of those are totally horrid (some of the others are less awful though still bad, such as when I say something is "perfectly acceptable but . . .").

Lesley, whether something is perfect or not -- and I don't doubt your ability to declare perfection in creme brulee -- the term is so overused and watered down as to be useless as a communicative tool. Just because you only use the term when it's true doesn't mean any of your readers will realize that you only say perfect when you mean it. (I think that's just a variation of the point you made.) Those with no standards have deprived us of a legitimate way to use the term. As a result, in restaurant reviews perfect means very good.

Mamster, if an adjective is necessary, non-greasy or not greasy would be preferable to greaseless, since when referring to fried foods the former can be true and the latter can't. Incidentally, were I in charge of the dictionaries, the definition of greaseless would be its common usage in the engineering context: A greaseless engine is one that does not require added lubrication; it's not a non-greasy engine.

[jhlurie]

What isn't being said here is that what constitutes "good writing" isn't the same in all environments.

Good writing is neither long nor short.  It can't get bogged down in details, but it also can't take shortcuts.  It has to be specific, but it also has to be transcendent.  It should reflect a high education, but shouldn't rely on four syllable words.

I could go on all day.  Writing is contradiction.

For the purpose of something like a food review we want to see the type of prose described by Steven precisely because food is such a sensual experience.  It's not as much a matter of good writing as it is a matter of good food writing.  But if you go overboard, it becomes "purple prose".

for example:

"I was in heaven!  The delightful sensation of eating egg rolls at China Palace is still fresh and vivid in my mind.  An explosion of flavor fills your mouth as you break the wrapper with your teeth.  The filling inside is a delight of different flavors and aromas, which dance joyfully in-between your cheeks."

For me that kind of language is a bit over the top.

[Fat Guy]

Please tell me I didn't write that.

[jhlurie]

You didn't write that.

[Roger McShane]

Steven.

I just love 'adjectives are crutches'!!!!!

What a perfectly sublime way of describing them!

[Fat Guy]

Greaseless, too.

[Wilfrid]

My favorite line by Mr Shaw, and I swear I am quoting this from memory, was about the plating of some food at Bid "which made for some interesting different forkfuls, depending on your angle of attack".  Did I get that right?  I now mutter that to myself whenever I sit down to dinner.  

[Lesley C]

What about grease-free?

Steven you're right about perfect. When I'm really desperate I'll use "textbook perfect." Of course that sucks but I'd rather descibe the creme caramel as textbook perfect than silky or very good. Actually, when I use perfect I don't mean very good, I mean that it's technically 100% correct. There is such a thing as perfection in cooking, I believe.

There's a famous French food writer here in Montreal who writes, " the creme caramel was a real creme caramel," or the tarte Tatin was a real tarte Tatin." She has been writing for about 20 years and it shows. T I R E D.

[Fat Guy]

Wilfrid, I think it would have been better the way you wrote it, especially the word "attack," which I should have used. What I said was:

The braised shoulder -- just bordering on collapse -- straddles the ratatouille and cheese mixture, making for some fascinating forkfuls depending on your angle of approach.

But let's not say what we like about my writing, because then I have to accept the flipside when somebody goes through my corpus and finds all my worst sentences and posts them here. Tommy, behave.

[mamster]

My non-greasy engine is now bordering on collapse, let me tell you.

This has little to do with this thread, but Lesley's talk of the perfect creme brulee reminds me that I have had the opposite of the perfect creme brulee:  the absolute worst thing that is still recognizable as creme brulee.  It was amazing.  And it was served as part of a dessert sampler, and one of the other desserts was much worse.  This came at the end of an unremarkable but often enjoyable meal, and then suddenly we were slapped with these loathsome desserts.  It was a good laugh, and later I got some ice cream.

And, dammit, I've used "worked" many times.  I'll have to nip that one.

[Jinmyo]

Just out of curiousity, how would you describe something that is fried perfectly and doesn't have that soggy greasy look that poorly fried foods can have, without calling it greaseless?

Also, please give me another word besides sublime to describe that feeling I get when eating something really, really good?

"Lightly fried, cooked to perfection."

[mrshugget]

Oh, you lot. You have forgotten about 'and the meat simply fell off the bone', always written as if this was the highest culinary achievement imaginable. Or the basic lesson in English composition - compare and contrast - which reviwers are mad about because it is something solid to seize upon and sounds vaguely knowledgeable. Let us never, never forget how the sharpness of the lemon pointed up the sweet richness of the pork. Or how the chilli undertow of the sauce anchored down the lightness of the scallops. Triple barfo.

[Holly Moore]

Overused Phrase:  "Dining Companion"

Worst Substitution:  "Table Mate"

I tell people I stopped writing my column when I ran out of synonyms for "tasty"

And I must confess that I never reviewed a Chinese restaurant without labeling at least one dish, "Inscrutable."

I, too, checked my website.  Nary one "Greaseless" on some 250 pages."

[mamster]

I thought of another one:  pedestrian.  I am seriously guilty of running this one into the ground, which is apt, since I don't own a car.

[tommy]

words i'd like to see a lot less of in restaurant reviews:  "By Steven Shaw."

there, got my morning venom out of the way.

[Fat Guy]

Review = An in-depth critical evaluation of a restaurant

Report = A more casual, off-the-cuff discussion of a meal

Blurt = What Tommy does