AA Gill and Co

[bobbins]

cockroft wants to be 'mini meades, he just doesn't have the talent , and they are/were full of shit, and nobody does or will miss them. (apart from trattoria,huddersfield,we know why-don't we robert).

[Conor]

sorry for my ignorance, i've been following these threads but who is "cockcroft"? And also who is "Robert"

Maybe i'm being stupid but i seem to have missed a trick!

[Andy Lynes]

Robert Cockcroft is the restaurant critic of the Yorkshire Post. What I'm not clear about is who "they" are/were and where they might have gone to.

[Jamsie]

Please find below my handy cut out and keep survey of critics i read/have read:

Gill - Tit. Not worth reading

Fort - Good

Maschler - Good

Winner - Tit. Not worth reading

Moir - Good, if a bit irritating

Coren - Tit. Sometimes worth reading

Rayner - Good, sometimes very funny (opinion not swayed fact he posts here)

Young - Tit. Worth giving a shoeing.

Edited March 26, 2004 by Jamsie (log)

[MobyP]

Mighty Marina "she'll do you for starters" O'Laughlin - definitely worth reading.

[jayrayner]

Deep breath time.

Whenever I'm asked what the job of a restaurant critic is, I say exactly what Basildog says: to sell newspapers. By saying that, I'm stating what our job isn't. It isn't to serve the restaurant industry. They can read caterer or restaurant magazine for that. Nor, frankly, is it to serve the type of people who populate this board. People with a highly developed interest in restaurants are never likely to be satisfied with the kind of criticism published in national papers. (It's the same with classicla music or art; you should hear what the buffs say about national newspaper critics in those disciplines.) With the best will in the world the type of restaurant write ups here, while fascinating to us, would be as mogadon to the majority of the general readership.

On the other hand I would hope that people here would take the fact that I and Circeplum hang out on egullet as an indication of the level of our interest. I don't loiter about egullet for my health. I do so because I'm tragically interested in restaurants.

Does my definition of the job mean therefore, that a restaurant column can be a long drawn out tea time of the soul for the critic? Personally, I hope not. Within the definition I've given there's good and bad. I regard my job (and forgive me if this seems a bit willow-the-wisp) as being about communicating the pleasure of a particular type of experience: going out to eat. That means finding common ground, rather than occupying the high ground; talking about the food, obviously, but finding a way to do so that is neither repetitive nor glib. (I always say that writing one restaurant column is a piece of piss; writing the 234th is the real problem). And it has to be entertaining. If it ain't, it's a waste of ink and paper.

I think Gill, as quoted by Bourdain, is spot on. I wouldn't expect the likes of disgusted to agree. On the other hand, if we were such pariahs for the restaurant industry why do I have a propoganda pile of press releases a foot and a half high at my side? For what it's worth, five years in the job as taught me that an up review can do a restaurant serious good; a bad review makes no difference whatsoever.

[MobyP]

Please find below my handy cut out and keep survey of critics i read/have read:

Gill - Tit. Not worth reading

Grant - Good

Maschler - Good

Winner - Tit. Not worth reading

Moir - Good, if a bit irritating

Coren - Tit. Sometimes worth reading

Rayner - Good, sometimes very funny (opinion not swayed fact he posts here)

Young - Tit. Worth giving a shoeing.

If you could attach photographs, that would be worth millions.

I regard my job (and forgive me if this seems a bit willow-the-wisp) as being about communicating the pleasure of a particular type of experience: going out to eat.

That's the one. What he said.

[Andy Lynes]

Jay, whilst I broadly agree with all the points you make, what frustrates me as an interested reader is the glib way in which the subject is treated. I don't think Anthony Holden would get away with talking about the problems he is having with the fast spin cycle of his washing machine for 3 paragraphs before launching into his review of Samson et Dalila, yet it appears that it is acceptable, even expected, for that sort of thing to appear in a restaurant critic's column.

Yes, make it interesting, entertaining. Yes, make it about "communicating the pleasure of a particular type of experience: going out to eat" but for heaven's sake make it about the bloody restaurant. John Lanchester, during his stint as Observer critic, did so quite brilliantly in my opinion. Currently the likes of Matthew Fort and Fay Maschler still lead the pack by quite some margin. They prove that there is nothing to be lost and everything to be gained by according restaurants and the people who work in them the respect they deserve.

[Andy Lynes]

Grant - Good

Sorry, who?

[Matthew Grant]

That'll be me

[Jamsie]

Grant - Good

Sorry, who?

Sorry meant Fort

it was early

Edited March 26, 2004 by Jamsie (log)

[Basildog]

On the other hand, if we were such pariahs for the restaurant industry why do I have a propoganda pile of press releases a foot and a half high at my side?

cos' many resturants now feel they have to play the game of PR, high profile chef, get the critics in, get the awards, hell maybe even a slot with Richard and Judy, blah de blah bollocks.Restaurants have a shorter life span these days, they don't evolve as much as they used to.It's a shame, but a fact of life i guess.

(Note to self..don't send jay press release about our new venture )

[Andy Lynes]

(Note to self..don't send jay press release about our new venture )

Oh, you little tease, he'll be begging for a copy now.

[Jonathan Day]

I regard my job ... as being about communicating the pleasure of a particular type of experience: going out to eat. That means finding common ground, rather than occupying the high ground; talking about the food, obviously, but finding a way to do so that is neither repetitive nor glib. ... And it has to be entertaining. If it ain't, it's a waste of ink and paper.

I think Gill, as quoted by Bourdain, is spot on.

Agree completely with this. So the question may be, what's the best way to communicate that pleasure? Obviously it isn't through the course-by-course deconstructions of dinners that turn up in these pages.

For me, the communication has to focus on the food, but it needs to be set in a wider context. The opening of Elizabeth David's A Book of Mediterranean Food did this beautifully, and she continued in this vein in French Country Cooking:

France's culinary reputation ... is best appreciated at the riverside inns, in unknown cafés along the banks of the Burgundy canal, patronised by men who sail the great petrol and timber barges to and from Marseille, great eaters and drinkers most of them, in the hospitable farmhouses of the Loire and the Dordogne, of Normandy and the Correze, in sea-port bistros frqueeeented by fishermen, sailors, ship chandlers ...

That was in the 1950s, of course, and it was the opening of a cookbook not a restaurant review. But in a few sentences it set a tone and put the subsequent discussion of the food into a frame; a much more useful way into a communication of pleasure than a discussion of washing machines or whatnot.

[Andy Lynes]

On the other hand, if we were such pariahs for the restaurant industry why do I have a propoganda pile of press releases a foot and a half high at my side?

...because you haven't taken them to the recycling bin yet? (I expect they are next to a 3 foot high pile of empty scotch bottles, am I right?)

[John Whiting]

Elizabeth David's status at the Times was very much that of eighteenth-century musicians in royal courts; i.e., very much below stairs. She was exasperated that the editor never deigned to read her copy, not taking her at all seriously. On one occasion she was invited to put together a little luncheon for the board and took the opportunity of preparing a magnificent spread, complete with a little negro serving boy. History fails to relate whether she made her point.

[John Whiting]

For what it's worth, five years in the job as taught me that an up review can do a restaurant serious good; a bad review makes no difference whatsoever.

From Matthew Fort's slating of 8 over 8 in today's Guardian, giving it 4/20:

I have no doubt that 8 over 8 will continue to flourish, proving once again the ineffectuality of restaurant critics. Heavens to Murgatroyd, as WC Fields put it.

[Jonathan Day]

Does anyone find the numerical or star ratings useful? Would you be more inclined to go to a restaurant because a critic awarded it 9/10, four stars, or whatever?

I use the Michelin star ratings as a broad indicator of the restaurant's reach and ambition, but I have had disappointing meals at three star restos and some superb ones at "bib gourmand" no-star places. How do others use Michelin, Gault Millau, or UK critics' ratings?

[MobyP]

I admit to going to several restaurants becuase of Fort's rating system - I think he gave Thyme 17.5/20, which sent me to the phones, shallow puddle of a gourmand that I am.

[John Whiting]

How do others use Michelin, Gault Millau, or UK critics' ratings?

I prefer restaurant reviews which spend more time in a general evaluation of the ambiance and the cuisine than in a detailed description of dishes which are unlikely to be available by the time I get there. I also like the reviewer to reveal enough of his personality so that I can evaluate his judgements, whether positive or negative.

[Bux]

As fooI use the Michelin star ratings as a broad indicator of the restaurant's reach and ambition, but I have had disappointing meals at three star restos and some superb ones at "bib gourmand" no-star places. How do others use Michelin, Gault Millau, or UK critics' ratings?

As foolishly, apparently, as you do. More shamefully I have even at times consulted a Zagat survey. I find the phone book abslutely clueless. I would love to have a friend of impeccable taste to consult every time I travel or one at home who's been to every restaurant--and in fact, from time to time, that's exactly what I do use when I'm lucky. I'm not 100% sure of getting what I want or deserve, but the odds go up considerably. There are times when a review is well enough written that I can ascertain that this is a restaurant I will enjoy regardless of the stars. At other times, I can guess I will hate the place, but the high rating almost ensures I must go out of curiosity.

I think part of the issue here is how differently does one regard that numbers, ratings and stars at home and when abroad.

[John Whiting]

If I could predict exactly what sort of experience I would have at every new restaurant, I would be condemning myself inexorably to perpetual boredom. Some of my happiest surprises have resulted not just from unexpected excellence, but from the contrast with other experiments that had failed. A mountaintop without its attendant gorges is merely a plateau.

Edited March 28, 2004 by John Whiting (log)

[Bux]

Not only have my happiest surprises come from the unexpected, but excellence has come at the most unexpected places and times. Many of my best food and travel experiences have been unexpected and those wonderful surprises have occurred on the best planned trips, but outside the planned itinerary. My most dreadful meals have also come at unplanned moments. On the whole though, good resources will not so much level out the experiences as raise them immensely.

[John Whiting]

On the whole though, good resources will not so much level out the experiences as raise them immensely.

Objectively true, and I always use whatever resources I have available. Nevertheless, I have an especially soft spot in my heart for a handful of places I found quite by accident.