Critic sued by Restaurant

[Pan]

Metal! Fortunately, both times, I saw them and didn't injure myself. Had I been injured, I would have sued them.

[Fat Guy]

When I read what you've written - I sense a bit of the conceit of people who live in New York.

Your expectations of restaurants are unrealistic. If there's conceit in explaining that to you, then I plead guilty. The eGullet message boards are full of reports from people -- some of them not even from New York -- who have experienced poor meals at restaurants with two and three Michelin stars. It happens. No amount of not wanting it to happen is going to change reality. A restaurant is a very complex mechanism and the best of them can only reduce the margin for error to a certain level.

I do not think there should be any difference between the way a critic and a knowledgeable consumer eats.

A critic should be a knowledgeable consumer. A critic should try to capture the essence of the consumer's experience. But why on Earth would you say there shouldn't be any difference between the ways in which critics and consumers eat? The dynamic alone creates a difference: consumers rely on critics to help them steer clear of the duds; consumers rely on critics to recommend the best dishes. The critic, in order to fulfill his end of the deal, needs to visit new restaurants -- even the bad ones -- as often as possible and order as much of the range of the menu as possible. The knowledgeable consumer is in it for pleasure, and should avoid bad restaurants and bad dishes. A critic has a duty of critical distance, whereas a consumer has the freedom to get wrapped up emotionally in the experience. Call me conceited -- heck, call everyone in New York conceited -- but I don't think it takes much imagination to see that the role of critic and the role of knowledgeable consumer are and should be quite different.

[Fat Guy]

One thing I'm thinking about is whether posting meal reports on eGullet makes me a reviewer, and I don't think it does, unless I'm thought of as an amateur reviewer, with all the differences that implies vis-a-vis professionals.

I don't know if you're a reviewer or if the meal reports we all post on eGullet are reviews, but I now know we can all get sued in England!

[Pan]

One thing I'm thinking about is whether posting meal reports on eGullet makes me a reviewer, and I don't think it does, unless I'm thought of as an amateur reviewer, with all the differences that implies vis-a-vis professionals.

I don't know if you're a reviewer or if the meal reports we all post on eGullet are reviews, but I now know we can all get sued in England!

Well in that case, I'll never post that all restaurants in England suck!

[Folks, FYI, I've never had the pleasure of going to England. ]

[ExtraMSG]

At other outlets, critics are expected to get most of their meals comped and to cover other expenses themselves.

My reaction is that that's despicable on both counts. Critics depending on getting their meal comped face conflict-of-interest problems in rewieving objectively, restaurants comping them to try to bribe the reviewers are engaging in corruption that ill serves the dining public, and publications not reimbursing heavy expenses that their employees are required to pay also really bothers me.

Would you say the same about book, music, and movie reviewers? I think that's pretty much the norm there from my experience with newspapers and magazines. It really is about the integrity of the reviewer.

[ExtraMSG]

What? Three meals in six years? And the review only based on one of them?

He fucked this restaurant on the basis of one meal? That is completely irresponsible, unprofessional and obnoxious. He may win a lawsuit, but somebody needs to take him out back and explain professional journalism to him -- preferably with the blunt end of a pool cue.

Chad

Well - what do you reckon the number of meals/percentage ought to be?

I don't know about this particular restaurant - but if I'm spending $100-200 for 2 on dinner (without liquor) - don't you think I ought to have a very high percentage chance of getting a really good meal? Like close to 100%?

Everyone says "anyplace can have an off night". But if I'm the person who's out 200 bucks - that doesn't give me much consolation. I expect consistency in restaurants (particularly in those that charge a lot of money for the privilege of dining with them).

Perhaps journalists dining with OPM can afford to eat a half dozen times in an expensive restaurant to determine if they will get one decent meal. As far as I'm concerned - if I spend 200 bucks and it sucks - that restaurant is out of the game.

I would like a show of hands here. Who has spent more than $100 of his/her own money on a meal for 2 that sucked - and then returned to the same place 1 or more times to make sure that his/her initial impression of the place was correct. Robyn

A good friend of mine that I go on food trips with occasionally recently returned to Gary Danko despite having had dissatisfactory service there on our trip. He even returned on his honeymoon because he had heard so many good things he wanted to give them another chance. The second visit was much better.

One thing to consider is that a lot of quality restaurants will really feel ashamed if have a bad experience. If you tell them, they'll often try to make it up to you, comping you stuff, or even a whole other meal. The very top restaurants try very hard to make sure that every diner comes away pleased.

But it is definitely true that every place has an off night. I've experienced it with places that are the favorite restaurant of people whose opinions I respect. Hell, I've sat at the same table with people who loved their meal, while I despised mine, but it wasn't that they couldn't recognize a bad meal, it was just that either I got unlucky or they got lucky (eg, dishes that matched the palate, etc). Look through reports on places like The French Laundry, Charlie Trotter's, and Le Bernadin and I'm sure you'll find plenty of legitimate complaints.

[Mabelline]

As a child, I was told "don't believe anything you hear, and only half of what you see," and that has pretty well helped me along. I view A.A.Gill as a 'personality' who is trying to come across as an acerbic cross of Oscar Wilde and Ab Fab. When someone is that vitriolic in their outright condemnation of a place with vastly different reviews from other less 'motivated' places, I cast a jaundiced eye. After all verbal volleyball is the main pastime with a lot of the tabloid writers, no? It is not fun, amuuussswiiinngg, or informative about a particular place. They MAY have a bad day; understood- but a machinegun job out of pure hedonistic preening is something most people will take for what it is---plain old bull****.

[Pan]

My reaction is that that's despicable on both counts. Critics depending on getting their meal comped face conflict-of-interest problems in rewieving objectively, restaurants comping them to try to bribe the reviewers are engaging in corruption that ill serves the dining public, and publications not reimbursing heavy expenses that their employees are required to pay also really bothers me.

Would you say the same about book, music, and movie reviewers? I think that's pretty much the norm there from my experience with newspapers and magazines.

Good point. Thought there is one level of insulation: The author him-/herself isn't giving away the book, CD, or screener to you. Furthermore, I don't think it's a universal practice for restaurants to comp the meals of critics, whereas giving free review copies is a pretty universal practice. And it's a hell of a lot less work to copy a CD than to make a complete meal.

[Chad]

In reality, unfortunately, most newspaper critics are barely well financed enough to pay for one meal at a restaurant. At some of the smaller outlets, the critics are essentially hobbyists who get a small subsidy to dine out once a week. At other outlets, critics are expected to get most of their meals comped and to cover other expenses themselves. Only at a very few of the most financially and critically robust journals are critics able to spend the 3 or 4 grand a week that it costs to take 4-6 people to a restaurant 3-5 times every week (not to mention the restaurants that are visited but ultimately not reviewed).

So, there is little question that many critics can, will, and have no choice but to base reviews on a single visit. We can complain about it, but not realistically.

However, this reviewer works for the Sunday Telegraph -- a pretty big newspaper. A quick check of circulation figures shows that the Sunday Telegraph delivers nearly 711,000 papers every Sunday, slightly lower than the NYT's million or so, but still significant. They can afford to have a reviewer visit a restaurant multiple times.

You have a point about smaller newspapers. The Wichita Eagle, for instance, delivers about 100,000 Sunday papers. Not huge by any stretch of the imagination. And their budget probably doesn't allow for several visists to the same restaurant. But you also don't see the level of invective that you might in a larger paper. Why? Too small a sample size to be that abusive.

In everything I've read from big-name restuarant reviewers, they visit a restaurant a minimum of three times. And that's for a good review. For a bad one they'll go back four or five times just to make sure that they can back up their negative comments. It's simply a credibility issue.

For this asshole to rake a restaurant over the coals on the basis of one meal is irresponsible at best. In truth, he wasn't reviewing a particular restuarant, any restuarant would have done. The meal was simply a vehicle for him to show off his nasty wit. That's fine if you're reading a column for its entertainment value but completely useless if you actually want solid information about the restaurant.

Chad

[fresco]

I think the "level of invective" has more to do with the different traditions and expectations of journalism in the UK and North America than size.

There is an expectation in the UK that journalists, or at any rate, the ones who have a column, will strive to entertain.

[robyn]

At other outlets, critics are expected to get most of their meals comped and to cover other expenses themselves.

My reaction is that that's despicable on both counts. Critics depending on getting their meal comped face conflict-of-interest problems in rewieving objectively, restaurants comping them to try to bribe the reviewers are engaging in corruption that ill serves the dining public, and publications not reimbursing heavy expenses that their employees are required to pay also really bothers me.

Actually - the way I think it works in most of the US that isn't "really big city" is that the critics spend their own money - but the publications (newspapers and magazines) get advertising dollars from the restaurants and don't want to offend them. At least that's the way it works where I live. There is a magazine called "Jacksonville Magazine". A reader wrote in a while back that it had published a glowing review of a truly terrible restaurant. The magazine responded that what it had published wasn't really supposed to be a "review" . Robyn

[robyn]

Your expectations of restaurants are unrealistic. If there's conceit in explaining that to you, then I plead guilty. The eGullet message boards are full of reports from people -- some of them not even from New York -- who have experienced poor meals at restaurants with two and three Michelin stars. It happens. No amount of not wanting it to happen is going to change reality. A restaurant is a very complex mechanism and the best of them can only reduce the margin for error to a certain level.

I have different expectations of different restaurants. My expectations when I go to my favorite local BBQ joint and spend 6 bucks for lunch are certainly different than those I have when I go to a 3 star Michelin place in Paris - or a supposedly fine restaurant in a large city in the the United States and spend $250+ for dinner. I'm sure that doesn't make me unique.

But I will join Pan (or perhaps he has joined me) in saying that whether we're talking about our favorite local dive - or one of the world's shrines of haute cuisine - it is important for the place to be *consistent*. If I got 2 lousy meals in a row at my local BBQ joint - I wouldn't go back. Why shouldn't a place that has a much larger reputation - and is charging a heck of a lot more - be expected to do better? At a very high end restaurant - I might forgive a dish being "off" on a particular night. A whole meal - no.

A critic should be a knowledgeable consumer. A critic should try to capture the essence of the consumer's experience. But why on Earth would you say there shouldn't be any difference between the ways in which critics and consumers eat? The dynamic alone creates a difference: consumers rely on critics to help them steer clear of the duds; consumers rely on critics to recommend the best dishes. The critic, in order to fulfill his end of the deal, needs to visit new restaurants -- even the bad ones -- as often as possible and order as much of the range of the menu as possible. The knowledgeable consumer is in it for pleasure, and should avoid bad restaurants and bad dishes. A critic has a duty of critical distance, whereas a consumer has the freedom to get wrapped up emotionally in the experience. Call me conceited -- heck, call everyone in New York conceited -- but I don't think it takes much imagination to see that the role of critic and the role of knowledgeable consumer are and should be quite different.

I think that - at best - the critic simply gives ideas to the person who's dining in the restaurant (unless of course - the critic has conveyed the ultimate idea - which is "don't go"). For example - a lot of restaurants have seasonal menus. It's of little use to me that a critic liked this, that and the other thing on the winter menu if I'm dining in the summer. Or if the critic dined there last summer - and this summer's menu is different. Or perhaps the critic thought a particular dish was great - but the night I arrive - there is a new menu the critic has never written about which looks fantastic. All a critic can do is paint broad strokes - and then it is up to the customer to fill in the rest on his/her visit.

I will note parenthetically that the "old" French way of things - i.e., that a particular restaurant got its stars on the basis of perhaps 3 or 4 dishes that it had perfected beyond perfection - has pretty much disappeared today. I will also ask - if a dish in a good restaurant is bad - why the heck doesn't the restaurant take it off the menu?

By the way - I don't see a lot of reviews of really bad restaurants in the major media in the US (there is an occasional bad review of a famous restaurant in the New York Times or Gourmet - like the recent review of Mix in Gourmet). I read a lot. Magazines that have restaurant reviews include Town & Country, Elle, Bazaar, Vogue, etc., etc.. Most of their "reviews" are as "puffy" as the reviews in Jacksonville Magazine. About all I will learn in those reviews is where to go to see and be seen. Robyn

[Fat Guy]

Magazines that have restaurant reviews include Town & Country, Elle, Bazaar, Vogue, etc., etc.

Not every instance of coverage of a restaurant is a review. I don't believe there are restaurant reviews in any of those magazines. Typically, magazines like the ones on that list publish chef profiles, trend reports, "diner's journal"-type meal summaries, and other dining-related pieces, but not reviews.

[robyn]

A good friend of mine that I go on food trips with occasionally recently returned to Gary Danko despite having had dissatisfactory service there on our trip.  He even returned on his honeymoon because he had heard so many good things he wanted to give them another chance.  The second visit was much better.

One thing to consider is that a lot of quality restaurants will really feel ashamed if have a bad experience.  If you tell them, they'll often try to make it up to you, comping you stuff, or even a whole other meal.  The very top restaurants try very hard to make sure that every diner comes away pleased. 

But it is definitely true that every place has an off night.  I've experienced it with places that are the favorite restaurant of people whose opinions I respect.  Hell, I've sat at the same table with people who loved their meal, while I despised mine, but it wasn't that they couldn't recognize a bad meal, it was just that either I got unlucky or they got lucky (eg, dishes that matched the palate, etc).  Look through reports on places like The French Laundry, Charlie Trotter's, and Le Bernadin and I'm sure you'll find plenty of legitimate complaints.

I have had similar experiences. I was comp'd a lunch (one of the best meals I've ever had) at Le Cirque 2000 in New York after complaining about a dreadful dinner at Le Cirque in Las Vegas (don't think I was the only person who's left that restaurant feeling that way). But - when you're a traveler - and you don't get to a particular place all that often - it is frequently hard to accept such "apologies".

By the way - I am going to London in the spring - and one thing this thread made me do was look up the restaurant reviews in the Telegraph. If you think there was a lot of flak over the review of Shepherd's - I can't wait to see the flak over the current review of The Fat Duck (new 3 star Michelin in the UK - only 1 out of 3 in the country). The headline reads: "Jan Moir concludes that while a dying millionaire with no teeth might appreciate Heston Blumenthal's cuisine, she'd rather have a cheese sandwich." I was thinking of trying the Fat Duck - but I may pass in favor of Tom Aikens.

I will note that one thing that goes unwritten in these reviews is that deconstructivism seems to be "in" in many trendy restaurants these days. You either like deconstructivism - or you don't (I can't stand it in other areas - like architecture - and I'm sure I wouldn't be more fond of it in restaurants). Robyn

[ExtraMSG]

At other outlets, critics are expected to get most of their meals comped and to cover other expenses themselves.

My reaction is that that's despicable on both counts. Critics depending on getting their meal comped face conflict-of-interest problems in rewieving objectively, restaurants comping them to try to bribe the reviewers are engaging in corruption that ill serves the dining public, and publications not reimbursing heavy expenses that their employees are required to pay also really bothers me.

Actually - the way I think it works in most of the US that isn't "really big city" is that the critics spend their own money - but the publications (newspapers and magazines) get advertising dollars from the restaurants and don't want to offend them. At least that's the way it works where I live. There is a magazine called "Jacksonville Magazine". A reader wrote in a while back that it had published a glowing review of a truly terrible restaurant. The magazine responded that what it had published wasn't really supposed to be a "review" . Robyn

I know lots of papers that essentially ignore restaurants that don't deserve good reviews. Otherwise they just have recommended restaurants and review those. I think this is especially true in local magazines and tabloid/weeklies. Interestingly, our local weekly, the Willamette Week, which does a better job of dining coverage in Portland than the big daily, The Oregonian, not to long back gave a place a bad review and that restaurant ended up taking out several large ads in a row in the dining section of the paper attacking the reviewer's comments.

btw, what is deconstructionism in food? I'm familiar with it in its origin, language theory and philosophy, and a little bit in art, but not really in food. Given its philosophical meaning, I'm not even sure what it would mean, except as a buzz word.

[clifford]

btw, what is deconstructionism in food? I'm familiar with it in its origin, language theory and philosophy, and a little bit in art, but not really in food. Given its philosophical meaning, I'm not even sure what it would mean, except as a buzz word.

When you order, say, guacomole, and it comes out composed on the plate, rather than mixed, generally with some subtle variation. You see it a lot with Caesar salads/dressings, usually with a unique, whimsical, and often non-sensical twist.

[robyn]

btw, what is deconstructionism in food?  I'm familiar with it in its origin, language theory and philosophy, and a little bit in art, but not really in food.  Given its philosophical meaning, I'm not even sure what it would mean, except as a buzz word.

It's certainly not a "buzz word". Read the Telegraph review of The Fat Duck for a blow by blow description (you have to register to access the site - but it's free). And - if you search for deconstructivist food on the internet - you will find things like the following - from admirers:

"Deconstructivist cooking, pioneered by El Bulli, breaks a familiar dish down into its components, so that you see the original in a new way. Unlike literary or architectural deconstructivism, which usually produces unreadable tomes or uninhabitable buildings, the best deconstructivist cooking is strange but delicious."

Or things like the following - from detractors:

"Imagine a chef who disliked food. Suppose that he had the task of preparing dishes professionally, but that he did so with an unspoken resentment against the entire idea of culinary pleasure and fine dining. Would you want to eat his meals?...

Well, the fact is you don't have to imagine such people. They already exist, and are deeply influential in their respective fields. There are prestigious nouvelle cuisine chefs whose horrid dishes can only be explained by a rage against normal dining...If you think all this is just reactionary exaggeration on my part, consider the following. Trendy chefs often speak disparagingly of "comfort food." By this they mean anything that people might find pleasant and appetizing, as opposed to the bizarre and off-putting slop that is supposed to challenge a diner's tastes..."

It's not really the kind of thing that will ever get to Portland - or Jacksonville (hate to put them in the same breath - because I think Portland is a much much better eating town - my husband and I love to eat in the Pacific Northwest - we'd like to try living there at some time in the future if possible). Robyn

[ExtraMSG]

It's not really the kind of thing that will ever get to Portland - or Jacksonville (hate to put them in the same breath - because I think Portland is a much much better eating town - my husband and I love to eat in the Pacific Northwest - we'd like to try living there at some time in the future if possible). Robyn

No, Portlanders, if anything, are probably in line with the detractors as a population. People here in general like rustic, comfort foods. And even our best places fight against anything architectural or conceptual in their presentations.

I'm familiar with that type of food, but I've just never heard the term used to describe it -- or at least not paid attention when it was. I got burnt out on the term in college when it was quite overused along with "postmodern".

[jayrayner]

I'm probably going to regret this but...

The US and UK newspaper businesses are entirely differenet. How many critics are there in New York, for example, that really count? The NYT guy or gal, the Time Out person, a bit of stuff in the monthlies...

London has eleven people patrolling the waterfront, before we even consider the second division. I suppose, as the Observer guy, I am one of the eleven. THe economics are entirely different. Do not, for a start assume that the Sunday Telegraph's circulation even comes close to producing the economic muscle of the NYT. COmpetition for readers leads to price wars, ditto pulling in the advertisers. So no, budgets on british nationals are nothing like those on the US big boys; they genuinely do not have the cash to do three or four visits to each restaurant reviewed (would that they did), or to pay full time salaraies to enable critics to do that. (I do many other things other than my coumn)

Second point, our job - however much it irritates you folk here - is to sell papers. (I discussed this with Ruth Reichl once, incidentally, and she said the same). British columnists fight for distinctiveness; to be entertaining; to get you buying the paper week after week. For what it's worth in general I would accept that US journalism tends to be more accurate, but British journalism is a hell of a lot more readable.

Okay, on to the key point: dissing a restaurant on one visit. I have no problem with it. A standard good restaurant in Britain now charges 100 pounds sterling , that's $180, for two. $275 won't cause any raised eyebrows. $360 for two is not uncommon. And you know what? At those prices I don't think there are any second chances. Why the fuck should I keep going back and back to see if they can get it right? The readers don't, do they. You aren't allowed an off night at $180. I don't expect anyone here to agree with me but that's the reality.

[Carlovski]

I think we need to make the distinction between a good restaurant having a bad night, a particular dish (Or dishes) being badly prepared, poor service etc, and a bad restaurant.

If you feel you haven't received the sort of meal or service you would expect, then you should complain. Nowhere can get it right 100% of the time (Although at high end places that have been running for a while, they should be getting pretty close).

If they refuse to acknowledge your complaint, then feel free to tell everyone who will listen how bad a place it is (You can tell a lot of people if you write for a national newspaper). If you get a genuine apology (And something knocked of the bill!), I would hope that a responsible reviewer would try and reserve judgement for a second visit, or at least mention the apology in the review.

I know it could be a potential minefield - I can imagine the headline 'Top restaurant critic complains, gets free meal and then gives me terrible review' but I think we should give restaurants every chance.

Two strikes and I think you probably deserve a bad review though.

One other thing though, the wording of that review implied some of the food was actively nasty, not just badly prepared, or not to the reviewers taste, but offensive and inedible. I think that that would be very unlikely, unless there had been a complete cockup in the kitchen.

[robyn]

I'm probably going to regret this but...

Okay, on to the key point: dissing a restaurant on one visit. I have no problem with it. A standard good restaurant in Britain now charges 100 pounds sterling , that's $180, for two. $275 won't cause any raised eyebrows. $360 for two is not uncommon. And you know what? At those prices I don't think there are any second chances. Why the fuck should I keep going back and back to see if they can get it right? The readers don't, do they. You aren't allowed an off night at $180. I don't expect anyone here to agree with me but that's the reality.

Don't regret it. And I agree with you. Some people here talk all high and mighty - but I'd like to hear if one person in this thread has ever spent more than $250 out of his own pocket for a lousy meal - and then returned to the place that served it to give them a second chance.

And no - I don't think restaurant critics should be any different. Even if the critic got one good meal out of two - that's $500+ for one decent meal. I work too hard for my money to piss it away. Robyn

[Andy Lynes]

Second point, our job - however much it irritates you folk here - is to sell papers. (I discussed this with Ruth Reichl once, incidentally, and she said the same). British columnists fight for distinctiveness; to be entertaining; to get you buying the paper week after week.

I for one am bored witless by the "look-at-me-mummy-I-said-the-food-looked-like-doggy-doos" school of British restaurant "criticism". It has well and truely had its day and Matthew Norman et al are flogging a horse killed stone dead by Jonathan Meades' infamous "come shot" remark made in what was virtually his sign off review of Nahm.

For some reason, it was mistakenly taken as a jumping off point rather than a signal that an entirely new approach was desperately needed. Opera, Ballet, Cinema, Theatre and even pop music critics are expected to have some knowledge and love for their chosen fields, so why should things be different for restaurants. To my mind they are no more or less important.

There is a great deal of bad blood between chefs and restauratuers and the food press in the UK, this incident is just the tip of the iceberg. There are a number of reasons for it, but I believe at its core is a lack of mutual respect and trust from which no one benefits.

[ExtraMSG]

If food reviews are more entertainment than journalism in the UK, what do people actually use to find a restaurant besides word of mouth and sites like this? Michelin? Zagat? What?

[jayrayner]

There is a great deal of bad blood between chefs and restauratuers and the food press in the UK, this incident is just the tip of the iceberg.

Sorry Andy, but that's cobblers. What do you base it on exactly? Compared to the stuff between theatre critics and actors/ directors it's nothing.

[Andy Lynes]

I base it on discussions with any number of chefs and restaurant PRs who have many gripes about unlpeasent or inaccurate reviews. If you think your or most of your collegues opinions are respected by the UK restaurant industry, you are sorely mistaken. Here's one chef's opinion.