pen is mighter than the sword

[Jeffy Boy]

sigh...

Guess I'll look for real discussion elsewhere.

later, "ace"!

Not.

[jersey13]

sigh...

Guess I'll look for real discussion elsewhere.

later, "ace"!

Not.

But for pure entertainment.... you know where to look!

[beaucher]

To all the chefs here who are so worried about restaurant critics. And to the others.

I have read this long thread with interest. And I am about to respond. As a critic. But first I must say, and this thought has fed my writing carreer since it began 12 years ago, and my restaurant career when I had one (I was a waiter and a Maitre d'hotel for more than 15 years, here, in France and in Sydney, Australia, at the same time as I was a student), that there is such a thing as objectivity. It's never total of course, and there a many elements which are subjective - as semiology teaches us, you can never completely erase yourself - but there are such things as measurable, objectified qualities and faults in a restaurant. The fact that many of you think that a critic can destroy a reputation or at least seriously injure one, ignores the fact that ultimately, the restaurant is responsible for its success or its failure. Even in a city like New York, famous for its dependance on critics, one of the most famous of all once told me she never made or broke a place. She witnesses. Albeit in an informed manner. And that is often where chefs and restaurateurs, are at a fault when discussing the "power" of a critic, they do not always recognize that a "good" critic does his homework. Has to. That is, he reads, he researches, he tests, often more than once, he makes sure he can substantiate his findings, his comments (but he may make mistakes as well, on that we agree, the difference being that a mistake cannot be tolerated for long in this very specific buziness). However, many of you also forget that a critic is before all a communicator. A journalist. Someone who reports - albeit critically - but repports nevertheless.

I hear some of you saying "the restaurateurs are trying to make an honest living, ta,ta,ta. Invest a lot of money, ta,ta,ta.". I'l speak for myself but frankly, this is irrelevant to me. What counts is the customer, what they should get, how much they should pay, what they should expect for that, and if the experience as a whole is worthy. The restaurateurs investment might as well be dust on my lapels.

Others pointed out that accidents may happen, waiters leaving in the middle of the evening, ok. We know. I know at least, it has happened to me, ask Claude Pelletier, we worked together for many years. But in the final analysis, we can usually tell when an accident happens and it is not in our or the readers interest to focus on that. We focus on technicalities, cooking for cooking's sake, freshness of ingredients (my obsession at any rate) season (as in products in season) and originality. That does not exclude "home style foods" but it somewhat excludes grilled steak. And we write about the experience as a whole.

To conclude this long reply (and I know I haven't adressed everything there is to adress) let me say that restaurant critics are essential in a world where competition is fierce, where quality is often overriden by "form" i.e. flashy places, flashy bras and tits, flashy customers who are only interested in themselves through the eyes of the other customers, and our job is essentially to unmask the fakes, reveal the mediocres, try to understand the vision of the chef and whether or not he is able to incarnate it in his cooking (thats where most fail) and ultimately guide the readers because they cannot go to restaurants as often as we do, and they certainly don't have the budget we have. Our job is also - beleive it or not - to support the "métier". I, and I think all of us in Montreal, are very pro-chef. We respect the peole who take this job seriously, we encourage as much as we can, and we'll be behind them insofar as we work for the same goal. Unfortunately, not all chefs are created equal so my really really final comments would be, keep at it boys. And instead of focusing on your insecurities, do some yoga on your free time. It really helps concentration.

[unreserved]

However, many of you also forget that a critic is before all a communicator. A journalist. Someone who reports - albeit critically - but repports nevertheless.

A food critic expresses an opinion derived from an objective evaluation based on a subjective (but hopefully educated) response to the food. Properly, a journalist should present facts and avoid interpretation or opinion. A food critic is not a journalist. There is nothing wrong with this. I believe it is fair to say that most readers of food reviews are less interested to know the number of carrots served on a plate and more interested to know how they taste.

I believe your final paragraph reveals that you agree with my rough definition. If so, why shouldn’t a food critic’s review play a pivotal role in the success or failure of a restaurant? What is the point in offering a critical analysis, if not to help your reader make a decision in line with your positive or negative opinion? You state that your role as a food critic is to “unmask the fakes, reveal the mediocres, try to understand the vision of the chef and whether or not he is able to incarnate it in his cooking…”. If your readers defer to your expertise, why shouldn't they follow your opinion/recommendation? If I do not respect a writer’s opinion because I believe the writer to be unqualified, I do not read their work. Were you simply being modest?

Finally, if it is not too much trouble, could you define what you mean by supporting the “métier”, what it means to be “pro-chef” and how the “form” of a restaurant can accommodate for this “support”?

[Saucier-80]

The thought that a food critic can make or break a restaurant is unrealistic.Word of mouth is a better barometer for that.

Critics of any industry are usefull in that they try to guide and not influence potential customers as they have nothing to gain with their recommendations.

[beaucher]

Well! Some good point in unreserved response. But I insist, the definition of a journalist is one who writes in a newspaper,collaborates to the writing of a newspaper - we have a convention called language on which we all agree, I don't make those rules you know- one who reports and inform but also interprets the information sometimes (we call him a columnist, a chroniqueur etc... but he still is a journalist). This reminds me of a debate I once had on what constitute an intellectual. One side said that these were the great thinkers of our time and the great writers of our times, period. Oh! the other suggested that anyone earning his living by writing, reading, studying, teaching based on books, or anything to do with the world of ideas (asbract) was one. Can there not be less important intellectuals. Do they all have to be printed, or seen on TV to be real intellectuals? I beleive not. Likewise, there are musicians who are musicians because they play music, not because they made a CD, or play with the OSM. I feel the same about this business of what constitute a journalist. Think for an instant: is the guy writing about sport's result not one, but the guy reporting on Celine Dion's life is? Or are only writers that are concerned with politics or economics part of the lot?

As a member of the press, the media in general, I feel and act like a journalist. I have a creed - truth, sincerity, whatever it may mean across cultures - and I practice it with ethical consideration (i.e. I am very careful when I am writing a review about a place I certainly did not like for instance. I suppose, it is the same for all food critics).

Then again, I am asked why readers would not follow my recommendations, if I put myself in the position of the expert, and I most certainly do? I'll say I am not behind the stove, not with the chef when he buys stuff from suppliers, not in control of quality. Then, He is responsible for the failure or success of his restaurant. He can only blame himself (or the owners if the case may be). Take Toque, they are successfull because they are carefull, sincere, honest and frankly bloody good at pretty much everything they do. Because of this dedication to this "métier", they have had only (with very few exceptions) good reviews. We must be doing something right. Other examples in MTL? Le pied de cochon, almost no bad reviews, Lemeac (at least a couple of month after their opening) and the list goes on. And despite that some of us -Leslie, JP, - don'T always agree on some, we almost universally agree on the tops.

I am pro-chef because I beleive the best restaurants in the world are those owned and operated by chefs. My bias I know, but thats the way I feel about it. And I've seen many good talented men and women, demoralised by unscrupulous owners who had no idea how to run a restaurant. And what it meant to own one. They were only interested in the profit they were to make. Some did. Many failed. These are the impostors. There are many in this city. Of course, there are also exceptions to this. But generally, it is also the case in France and in Italy. I do not know the situation in the USA, but I suspect they may have similar arrangments with chef-owners. I am also pro-chef because I highly respect the job, those who do it, their dedication as I said before, their dedication to pleasure - could there not be a more remarquable endeavor? To give pleasure?

That does not mean all "investors" are crooks, but a few are. And those few are ... spectacular.

[Lesley C]

Hey wait a minute, I never gave Lemeac a good review, still wouldn't. To this day, I have never had a stellar meal there.

Robert you bring up some good points, but there are so many exeptions to the chef-owned restaurant rule that I find myself often being disappointed by some of them in the long run, even at times -- GASP -- Toque! And chef-owned places can be dull, so much emphasis on the food, so little on everything else. I've come more and more to appreciate places like Cavalli, like the Troika, like the old Lychee Supper Club (pre Apollo), and like Rosalie where there is more going on than seasonal ingredients and steallar technique. I'm not saying give me ambiance or get me outta there. But after going to so many restaurants (and God knows you've been to a thousand more than I have), I crave a bit of fun -- at least a bit. In the same way as I would rather watch Nigella Bites than Cook like a Chef.

[feedthegut]

Completely off topic, but Nigella Lawson (I believe that's her name) is one of sexiest women on TV. Her looks and irresistible accent, in addition to her passion for food make her a sex goddess.

[unreserved]

I don’t mean to drag this thread, but I am not sure that the matter should be about chef-ownership as much as chef-direction. Realistically, not many chefs can afford to open a restaurant in the downtown core. Usually, this requires a large investment. This is why most chefs work for other people. The trick is to work for someone that recognises a chef’s talent and respects the fact that a restaurant is, ultimately, only as good as its chef.

This is also a good time to distinguish an “investor” from an entrepreneur. Investors are usually concerned only with profits, whereas entrepreneurs commit to activities they are passionate about as they invest much more than their money. Good entrepreneurs recognise the value of a good chef, but understand that bills need to be paid and money is required to purchase top quality products, which in turn, allows the chef to shine. There are a number of these “collaborations” in Montreal, many of which have resulted in fine restaurants. To disregard these restaurants on the basis of ownership, would be the equivalent of disregarding an entire group of journalists simply because you disagree with the current concentration of newspaper ownership, which includes the paper they write for.

Thank you for making this thread interesting again.

[beaucher]

Unreserved: You are absolutely right about chef-directed, and the distinction one has to make between an entrepreneur (whose goal btw is certainly not the well-being of the profession and artistry or that of humanity fro that matter) and an investor. The difference may be (MAY BE only) that an investor rarely knows about the buziness, knows more about "investment and profit returns". The entrepreneur is marginally more (perhaps) involved. Then again, of the thousands of restaurants I have reviewed and visited here, in the ROC, in the US and in Europe, it was rarely the case (that investors and entrepreneurs took things seriously enough to balance between making money, to allow the place to work effectively and to provide quality and some profitability, and that often means putting some form of "the breaks" on the élan of the chefs, who are, we probably all know this well, a little eccentric and spendthrift)

and most of the entrepreneurs were just investors disguised as philisophically enclined investors. A small difference. That may explain why chefs here in America move so much, their work is rarely recognized to its real value, their pay is pathetic (with few exceptions, until such time they become "stars") and the work is often brutal.

The collaborations that work - and I insist, are to my knowledge marginal - are indeed the ones that are the best: Rosalie, Toque, Area, Lemeac, Chevres, Christophe, etc...

I think this makes a restaurant. Not our written records, or us for that matter, which people will soon forget. They won't forget the gastronomic emotions though (good OR bad). I still have in mind a meal I had at Pic, in Valence, in 1986. I can still taste the sauce over the baby eels, somewhere in the back of my mind, can still remember the fish dish very well. Or another amazing meal I had in Hong Kong, a melted pork belly fat (yes!) that was like eating Dulce de leche, only salted. And the "vessie natatoires" of one catalan chef, in last year's fstival (which Leslie disliked intensely) over mashed potatoes, in my mind, a phenomenal discovery.

I am not anti-investors, or anti-entrepreneurs, I don't trust them, thats all. but I do trust sincere chefs. There are many in this town.

[beaucher]

Oh! And Nigella Lawson is also a good "cook". She is a wonderful pedagogue. Can talk about food, the way a sex therapist can actually help you solve some unsolved issues.

[cook-em-all]

This is why most chefs work for other people. The trick is to work for someone that recognises a chef’s talent and respects the fact that a restaurant is, ultimately, only as good as its chef.

The reasons why most chefs, work for other people are varied. First like most people in any industry most people are employees not employers. Chefs also need to learn the business before you could ever dream of opening your own place, so why not learn on someone elses dime. Chefs have enough stress at their daily jobs that the additional pressure of losing your shirt can be too much.

Chefs sometimes have a tendency to get involved with investors, because the lure of a 300 000$ kitchen can be overwhelming. A lot of Chefs don't want to worry about the bottom line, the minute a Chef becomes an owner, in my mind he is now more than a Chef he is a restaraunteur.

The trick is to work for someone that recognises a chef’s talent and respects the fact that a restaurant is, ultimately, only as good as its chef.

It is rare in life that an employer ever truely recognizes the importance of any employee. I believe that a restaurant is only as good as its staff, from the managers right down to the dishwasher, unless you are the soup nazi,- working by your self.

I've always believed people seem to confuse restaurants(which are businesses) with a dinner party. Why is it when a restaraunteur makes a profit he is just in it for the money? Is'nt the point of opening a business to make money. Is it not possible you can love what you do and still be a good businessman.

Finally restaurants should be customer driven- they make it all possible.

Edited January 28, 2004 by cook-em-all (log)

[feedthegut]

Oh! And Nigella Lawson is also a good "cook". She is a wonderful pedagogue. Can talk about food, the way a sex therapist can actually help you solve some unsolved issues.

Wow. I acknowledge that my post was a bit off topic, but to go as far as to imply that I suffer from some deep-rooted psycho-sexual disturbance...that's a little harsh, don't you think?

Then again, you may not be to blame...I've heard that excessive aggression is symptomatic of little man syndrome. Relax.

[beaucher]

To feedthe gut: oups! sorry. You misinterpreted my answer. Reassure yourself, I am neither small nor was attacking anything in you or your potential behaviour. Nor am I aggressive in any way. I should have said : "can help ONE solve....". And what I meant by solving of course had to do with simple, cooking techniques that

Nigella is so good at revealing. Sometimes, they come from other cultures - the techniques - and she is a wonderful technical translator. I am passionately pro-Nigella. And not because of her cleavage.

So once again, sorry for the way I wrote that, I take the blame.

B.

[feedthegut]

Robert,

No harm done. I, too, apologize for the confusion.

Nigella - I'm also a fan of her cooking, but the cleavage is not an unwelcome bonus.

[Saucier-80]

Completely off topic, but Nigella Lawson (I believe that's her name) is one of sexiest women on TV. Her looks and irresistible accent, in addition to her passion for food make her a sex goddess.

Got to agree,she takes the cake.

[beaucher]

Folks,

I should add this. Concerning Nigella, and I know I might be off-topic, so I'l take the opportunity to go back in and bring Nigella with me. Which I am sure, you'l agree with. she is one of those examples, where a person who is not a professionnal, behaves like one, teaches like one, (and better me-thinks) cooks like someone who has a real training, and yet talks and writes about food the way few professionnal can (I have her book "How to eat" in mind). There lies the difference between a chef (who earns his living with cooking, commercially speaking) and a communicator. And Nigella is no chef, but she's a damn good communicator. She does make one, want to close the tv on the hockey game, and put on an apron.

She might also create some fantasies in a few.

I do not think we've come up with anyone llike her in North America.

[davidkemp]

Great site.i find it amusing that a chef or a critic can make or break a restaurant.

People make or break restaurants just like going to see a movie ,you have to decide for yourself .