Restaurant reviews

[Jon Tseng]

Right. Getting a bit bored of talking about the skeletons in hestons garde-manger. lets get this long-await restaurant review thread off to a start (Jay, are you out there). A somewhat random brain dump, in no particular order:

i) National newspaper resto reviews are overwhelming in London. I would say over 95% (three cheers for Fay in Sainsbury Magazine). Does this mean that

a) 95% of the best new rest. are in London?

b) 95% of the most noteworthy new restos are in london?

c) 95% of the critics are based in london?

d) 95% of the restaurants with the best prs are in london.

You may ask the audience, go 50:50 phone a restauarant pr. HINT I suspect answer a) is total bollox...

ii) Having recently read the dornenberg-page book on restaurant critics it is clear there is a remarkable disparity between the depth of the reviews in the UK. things like actually visiting a restaurant more than once, or ruth reichl making notes about 'go back and recheck xx sauce next time' marks out the striking gap between the depth of reviewing on this side of the atlantic.

This saddens me, not only for the simple reasons that people could do so much more, but for the more important reason that given the influence rest. review have over whether a new rest. is successful or not, it seems particularly unfair that all the hard work the staff put in (not to mention investment) can come to rest on Anton writing two lines about the food and wittering on for another four paragraphs of densely-spaced palatino about his shooting trip that weekend. I see a couple of reasons for this state of affairs:

a) as Jay has said, people don't wanna read it; newspapers have to print what they vox populi want. unfortunately completely true.  arse.  but i would also note the US market (esp. new york) has shown it is possible to cultivate a commercial audience for in-depth reviews.

b) more importantly, there is an attitude that restaurant reviews should be a creative piece more akin to a column (ie main point is its fun to read) rather than a critical review a la arts reviews (main point to engage in serious criticism, but also be fun to read).  therefore aa gill is far more interested in writing ostensibly readible waffle (to be polite) than (somewhat perversely) actually writing about the food on the plate.

The fact that rest. reviews are seen as column rather than serious criticism is, IMHO, the main thing holding them back.  I haven't got a clue how to change this, I can only note that the US model i) shows it is possible to write in-depth, but commercial reviews ii) highlights how much more could be done with a restaurant review than is at the moment.

have waffled too long too late. anyone else have comments?

J

[Fat Guy]

Regarding the New York versus London restaurant reviewer comparison: I'd say that while the New York reviewers tend to be more food-savvy (or at least they devote more page space to in-depth food discussion), the London reviewers tend to be better writers. And when I say the New York reviewers go more in-depth, I don't mean to say they're in-depth enough. But I guess we New Yorkers should count our blessings!

[robert brown]

Steven, the only NY reviewers I read are you and Grimes. Who else would you include besides Gael Greene? Do you count Asimov, Underground Gourmet, and the occasional articles by Apple, Trillin,etc. Also regular magazine guys like Gold. I think we need to diffentiate between restaurant reviewers and essayist or gastronomic writers. How do you break it down? See you on the NY restaurant review thread later today.

(Edited by robert brown at 11:09 am on Oct. 20, 2001)

[Fat Guy]

What, you think I go to bed so early?

I break it down the same way you do. There are restaurant reviews and there are food articles. Sometimes a food article touches on restaurants, but it's not a review. Calvin Trillin, Alan Richman, and Jeffrey Steingarten are examples of individuals who primarily produce this sort of non-review food writing. That's quite aside from the whole area of writing about cooking. And there is a category of restaurant reporting, such as what often appears in the New York Times under Amanda Hesser's byline: Trend reports, chef profiles, behind-the-scenes stuff, etc. That is not to say the same individual can't produce more than one species of food writing. Even William Grimes occasionally writes a non-review article for the Times, and Frank Prial and Marian Burros write the occasional review when Mr. Grimes is on vacation, or when the Times is between reviewers.

I'm flattered to hear you consider me a restaurant reviewer, though my reviews are sporadic and erratic. My orientation is definitely shifting away from that, although I still enjoy writing about my meals and I intend always to write some reviews. But there are quite a few real reviewers in this market, meaning ones who write on a weekly or monthly basis and conform to at least some standards of professional journalism. Each of the major papers has at least one reviewer covering the fine dining beat (Times/Grimes, Observer/Hodgson, Post/Cuozzo, etc.) and most have a second reviewer covering less expensive restaurants. Then there's New York Magazine (Gael Greene is retired; the reviews are now written by Hal Rubenstein and Adam Platt), Gourmet (as you point out), and some of the off-beat publications like the Village Voice and New York Press, which occasionally produce some interesting reviews. There have at various times been online reviewers writing full-length reviews (Sidewalk, CitySearch, etc.), though these all seem to have evaporated or at least to be on hold. And there are occasional reviews on independent Web sites. None of these fall into the Apple/Trillin/essay category.

I don't consider any of the New York reviewers to be great writers, though. William Grimes is the only one I'd say is even an exceptionally talented writer (exceptionally talented being a notch lower than great), one who occasionally produces a great piece but usually doesn't. I'd characterize most of the others as just plain good writers, and a couple as idiots. Whereas I think many of the Brits can really write. A.A. Gill strikes me as a great writer, which is to say I don't expect I could ever write that well on a consistent basis. But I'm not sure he knows the first thing about food, or even cares. Most every restaurant review I've ever seen out of the UK (this is admittedly a small universe of data) has been similarly uninterested in food. Conversely, most of the New York food writers are pretty well steeped in the local restaurant culture and make a point of speaking seriously about food. They may not be all that well traveled, but they try. Most of them, anyway.

Since we're straying geographically anyway, maybe someone who speaks real French (as opposed to my menu-French) can tell us what restaurant reviews in France are like. Or is Michelin so dominant that restaurant reviews aren't a significant media force?

Canada has some good reviewers, by the way. Given the population of Canada -- I think it was forty-two people at last count -- it's amazing how many respectable restaurant reviews get published there. And they seem to be on the whole even more food-oriented in their reviews than the New York reviewers.

The rest of the United States outside New York, I don't want to talk about. Actually there are isolated good reviewers here and there, but they're mostly in cities that don't deserve them.

[jayrayner]

I think this is going to be a long one.

Yes, too many national newspaper reviews are in London. I have an explanation (though not an excuse) for my record: when I was offered the job it was on the understanding, from both sides, that I would continue to contribute to other parts of the paper. I was, in short, to remain a feature writer/ invetsigative reporter and that I have done. Most of the other national restaurant critics do only that or one other thing. It was understood that this would not be the case with me, and that was accepted, by the paper if not by the readers.

I've just checked back and my record is so-so. In the past six months just under 40% of my reviews have been out of London, up from 30% in the previous six months. Some of those came from Scotland but, other than that, there was a depressing lack of any coverage from north of Birmingham to berwick. So, while I don't think I'm doing badly, there's a long way to go. (I could post the list of restaurants I've done in the past year if anybody's interested.)

But, to the other points you raise: are 95% of the best new restaurants in london? No. I'd guess it was around 80%. Maybe 75% at a push. Seriously.

Are all the best restaurant PRs in London? As far as I'm concerned there is only one good restaurant PR, but we won't go into that. Certainly the London operations are far better at keeping me posted. The balance in my propoganda pile is about 80% London, 20% others. When I want to decide where to go in London, I open the window and listen to the buzz from the streets; when I'm trying to decide where to go outside London, I pick up the guide books.

Re restaurant critics, I suspect most of us do live in London. The only one I know who doesn't is Matthew Fort, who now lives in Gloucestershire. But even he sees fit to come back to the capital an awful a lot. (THough he is also very good at reporting the rest of the country. I guess he scores about 50 - 50.)

And so to the content of those reviews. I am pleased to see Steven's comments about the british being better writers because I think it's true. However I do bow before the quality of US journalism generally. It is, for the most part much, much better, if somewhat duller. There are a number of reasons for this. The first is economies of scale. A succesful publication in the US has a readership in proprtion to the country's population. It's much much bigger which means that when a publication is succseful it is much more profitable. The New York Times, the Washington POst et al have more money to play with and can give their writers more time. THat means more detailed work, more trips to restaurants and - because they don't give a toss whether their publications are well designed or not - generally more space.

There is also a more wide ranging issue to do with the level of intellectual debate in the US. I hope we won't get diverted down this route because I really don't wnat to get us off the subject but... In Britain we receive a charicatured view of the US, culled from the coasts which doesn't really reflect the literacy of the nation as a whole. Springer and OPrah, Hollywood trash and the National Enquirer are only a part of the story. For the most part the US is far more willing to read serious, lenghty stuff than we are here. We have two or three political magazines, selling no more than 40- 50,000 each. they have the New Yorker, selling a million, Harpers, Atlantic Monthly, New Republic and on and on. They are prepared to read 10,000 to 15,000 word peices of journalism. in Britain that sort of stuff does not exist, sadly. I wish that it did as I'm paid by the word.

All that said I am not a massive fan of the US approach to restaurants. Most punters do a restaurant in one hit and the restaurant has the responsibility to get it right in one hit. I think it's fair for a critic to approach it in the same way. On the 'why can't food be taken as seriously as art' question, I think they appeal to different types of readers. the people who read the art columns in newspapers tend to be specifically interested in art. the people who read restaurant columns sometimes go out to dinner. that argument will never satisfy those who contribute to this site but, based on my post bag/email inbox, I think it's true.

As I've said before my job is to sell newspaper and the way to do that is by writing an interesting column. I think it should always be about restaurants (unlike, say, AA Gill who can sometimes whitter on about something else entirely for 1450 words.) When deciding where to go I don't generally look for the most interesting or new restaurant. I look for the subject which will make the best column; that will sometimes (even often) be the most interesting or new restaurant.

Hope this makes some sense

[Fat Guy]

Jay, I would be interested in seeing that list of restaurants you've reviewed, provided it is not a huge imposition on your time to generate it. Also, are all those reviews available online somewhere in an archive?

The only thing I'd add to your comparison of UK and US journalism in general, with which I quite agree, is that the US media is full of Brits, Aussies, South Africans, and other current and former British subjects, and is therefore strongly influenced by them. They probably come here seeking the greener journalistic pastures you describe.

But that is journalism in general. What of food journalism specifically? You've provided a demographic and economic analysis, which I think explains part of the situation. But another thing it is necessary to discuss is the general state of the restaurant industry and the culinary culture in the UK. It was not long ago that the UK was universally and justifiably derided as just about the worst place in the world to eat. Though London is now in the midst of something of a restaurant renaissance, and though there are by all accounts excellent restaurants popping up in various places around the UK, the fact remains that the contemporary cuisine business is still quite young, and the culinary culture (or, rather, any culinary culture independent from France) is at an early stage in its evolution. The US is also relatively young when it comes to contemporary fine dining, but it is I think a lot farther along the curve than the UK.

The UK however is far ahead of the US in terms of use of the English language, like by maybe a thousand years or so. Those two factors combine, I think, to explain why UK food writing in general is better written but displays less knowledge about and interest in food than food writing here in the US.

[robert brown]

Here's something I hope Jay or Stephen will tackle. Why aren't there any (or very few) women restaurant reviewers in the UK? Here in the US we have had several stylish ones such as Ruth Reichl, Gael Green, Mimi Sherton, Moira Hodgson and others. I could also bring up the question of do women have more sensitive palates than men. ( I recall that Michel Lorain's wife once beat out a group of male chefs and winemakers in a wine identification contest) and why restaurant reviewing is a male bastion in the UK. Yet, the opposite may be true in the wine field in that two of the best known writers/tasters in the UK are women: Jancis Robinson (who, if you ever noticed on the drive out to JFK, has a highway named after her) and Serena Sutcliffe. Go figure.

(Edited by robert brown at 11:23 am on Oct. 20, 2001)

[Fat Guy]

As a practical matter, Robert, a super-sensitive palate is not a necessary tool for a restaurant reviewer. It is a necessary tool for a wine expert. It is a very helpful tool for a chef or for someone who develops recipes. But a restaurant reviewer can get by just fine with average tastebuds and an average olfactory bulb. There may have been a time, when all fancy restaurants were the same, when the role of a restaurant reviewer was to taste roasted chickens every day and say so-and-so's roasted chicken is better than this other so-and-so's roasted chicken. But in this day and age the reviewer is mostly oriented towards getting a handle on a restaurant's cuisine in a general way. If there is a dish with a mysterious flavor, the fact checker can find out what caused it. There is no need for guesswork. Not that I'm in favor of all this; it's just the reality of the business.

As a sociological matter, I have some ideas, but first I have to ask: Is it true that there are no female British restaurant reviewers? I'm fairly certain I read a review by one of them a year or so ago, though I can't remember her name or in what newspaper I saw it. Can Jay or another Brit enlighten us?

[Jon Tseng]

erm, seem to remember kathryn flett did some stuff on the guardian before Jay.

And there is her highness Fay Maschler of the Evening Standard.. so I don't think the male/female thing is that bad.

can't add more. have to get to party.

ttfn

j

[Bux]

do women have more sensitive palates than men

It's a story I've probably told too often online, but some years ago, my wife and I spent hours at a table with a artisanal distiller of eaux-de-vie south of Agen, France. He seemed far more interested in our conversation than in selling spirits to us and he was constantly pouring tastes of clear alcohol into fresh glasses while asking us to guess the fruit and to distinguish between several eaux-de-vie in separate glasses. Although too small a group to draw any conclusions with scientific accuracy, my wife beat me hands down. Our host was not surprised. After years of this, he was firmly convinced that women had better taste buds. For what it's worth, his experience was that Belgian women had the finest palate of all.

[Lord Michael Lewis]

Buxbaum strokes my empathy with his comments about Michelin. Yes they get it wrong sometimes, but their inscrutible Opus Dei like operations give their judgements a Papal bullish quality that no other organization comes close to emulating.

But Michelin is a GUIDE, what would interesting to know is what do people think the function of a 'review' should be?

I see no dichotomy between being entertaining and informative, providing the entertainment is always subordinate to the information and the information is filtered through the brain of a credible 'critic' i.e. someone who knows what they're talking about and not just someone who likes to eat out: who doesn't?

Jonathan Meades does it for me in the UK. William Grimes binned his reputaion here with his terrible 1000 word macro review of London, perhaps the most gastronomically 'happening' city in the world today.

(Edited by Lord Michael Lewis at 5:17 pm on Oct. 20, 2001)

[robert brown]

Jon, does one name redress an imbalance? Do you think that's all she wrote? How was the party? At least some people in London are cheery.

[Bux]

Whatever I've said about Michelin was in another thread and I'm not sure others will remember, or have read it. Michelin is a guide and my guess is that many, if not most readers, regard newspaper reviews as a guide in installments. After most NY Times reviewers will have published a year or so's worth of reviews, you can expect to find them for sale as a bound edition. It's usually paperbound, which is less than you can say about Michelin. My 2001 GaultMillau is paperbound and falling apart after only two trips. Of course the NY Times bound edition of reviews is out of date upon publication, but the Michelin and GM are both summarizations of last year's visits as well. One wants to have eaten at a three star restaurant the year before the stars were awarded, not the year the stars appear.

Am I wrong in believing most people read reviews as a guide and for aid in selecting places in which to dine? I believe most people read movie reviews for the same reason. I suspect I may not be wrong if I say most people read most reviews as a guide towards how to spend their time or money. I suspect most people log on to food and restaurant message boards for the same reason. I suspect we do not have a usual cross section here, for which I am pleased. Not that I wish to discourage that sort of Q&A either.

The US doesn't really have a national newspaper. The NY Times is available across the country, but even in the metropolitan NY region the editions vary in what they carry beyond national news. Reviews of NYC restaurants may be replaced by reviews of local restaurants in the suburban editions, if I'm not mistaken.

[jayrayner]

On women reviewers - you're perceiving a gorss imbalance where, in reality it is less pronounced.

So women reviewers:

Fay Maschler      London Evening Standard

Caroline Stacey   Independent

Jan Moir              Telegraph (Took over from Alice Thompason)

Marrion McGillervray (v good)   Financial Times

Kate Flett did indeed do the job on the observer befor eme. Tracey McCloud did or may still do some for the Independent titles.

I'm sure there are others I've forgotten. Hope that helps.  I'm posting my restaurant list separate to this.

[jayrayner]

THis is the list that I keep on my computer for myself. I've not cleaned it up, so forgive typos, unintelligible stuff. It's a date, followed by restaurant name (sometimes in shorthand) followed by place and style. This covers only the last calendar year. (Also does not include two out of London that I did for Waitrose Food illustrated, Champgnon Sauvage and Lords of the Manor)

23/10/00  Edgwaregury  Elstree/Provincial

26/10/00  Six-13  London/Kosher

13/11/00  Rules  London/Game£110

20/11/00  Petit Robert  borugh/french£92

27/11/00  FitzHenry  Edinburgh/bistro £77

28/11/00  Vovlona and Crolla  Edinburgh/Itlaian £30

02/12/00  Castle  Taunton/blah£167

11/12/00  Ubon  Japanese/London

28/12/00  Gastro  London/French

9/1/01  Heathers  Deptford/Vegetarian

15/1/01  Tuscan Steak London/Italian

5/2/01  Trevi  Italian/London

12/2/01  Cigala  Spanish/London

20/2/01  Movenpick  Bleah/London

26/2/01  Kitchen  rotisserie/London

5/3/01  Aurora  bistro/London

15/3/01  Neon  Italian/London

16/3/01  Noto Sushi  Japanese/colindale

26/03/01  Lanesborough  grand/London

30/3/01  Great House  Suffolk/french

8/4/01  Corinthian  weird/Glasgow

9/4/01  Well View  Dumfrieshire/homely

15/4/01  Wlater de cantelupe  Worcester/pub

24/4/01  Cinnamon Club  Indian/London

8/5/01  Connaught  french/London

15/5/01  12th House  bistro/london

22/5/01  Eagle&child  Stow/bistro

29/5/01  Hakassan  chinese/London

3/6/01  Rebato’s  Tapas/London

12/06/01  Neat  grand/london

18/06/01  Black Bull  Thai/Kent

3/7/01  Namh  Thai/London

10/7/01  The Fox  ?/London

15/7/01  Loch Fyne  fish/Hampshire

17/7/01  La Trouvaille  French/London

28/7/01  Walpole Arms  eclectic/Norfolk

3/8/01  Babylon  horrid/london

7/8/01  gallagher  pointless/london

20/8/01  Chruchill Arms  pub/Gloucetsrhire

3/9/01  Hotel du vin   bistro/bristol

5/9/01  Provideores  eclectic/london

12/9/01  Eyre Bros  spanish/London

18/9/01  red house  bistro/hampshire

22/9/01  west street  bistro/Lonodn

08/10/01  Rodos  Greek/London

15/10/01  Pacific Edge  Romford/Urgh

18/10/01  Afghan Kitchen  Afghan/London

* = invoiced

[Fat Guy]

Marrion McGillervray. She's the one I read. Very nice work she does.

It's too bad there are so many female reviewers in the UK, because I had a number of interesting theories about labor economics that could have explained a disparity. But I guess, as with all things when comparing the US and the UK, the countries are more similar than they are different. I mean, there are differences, to be sure, but they probably wouldn't seem all that significant to the average Indonesian.

Jay, how do I find some of your reviews online? Are they archived, or can I only read the current one?

[yvonne johnson]

The UK Guardian

www.guardian.co.uk

is an excellent site. Registration is very easy--immediate access. Simply search topic/journalist of choice to get archived material

[Andy Lynes]

In case our US cousins don't know, The Observer is the Sunday sister paper of the Guardian and the website covers both publications. You can read Matthew Fort's (he's a man by the way) saturday reviews on the site as well.  

Whilst were talking about The Guardian, although this has absolutely nothing to do with food and I won't do this again I promise, did anyone catch Julie Burchill's idiotic piece on David Beckham http://www.guardian.co.uk/weekend/story/0,...,576319,00.html. She has written a whole book apparently, god help us.

Burchill has been peddling the same old schtick since she joined the NME in the late 70's. It boils down to "you think scenario A is true, but I, because I am so insightful and clever, yet ever so working class and don't you forget it matey, know that scenario B is in fact the case and I will now explain to you why that is."

What she is in fact doing is arguing that black is white in order to generate an article, or in this case a book. It is so obvious a scam that it is not necessary to actually read the peice at all. Just think about the generally accepted view and facts about Beckham, ie great footballer but thick, common, tacky and a publicity seeker, then reverse them (apart from the footballer bit, which is sort of not the point of the article anyway) so that he becomes, intelligent, graceful, dignified and aristocratic.

Yawn. All Burchill really needs to do is announce that she itends to write an article or book, get paid for it, then we can join the dots for ourselves.

Rant over. Back to food. Sorry. Well, we are talking about journalism in a way aren't we.      

[Lord Michael Lewis]

Do you have evidence to support this attack on Ms Burchill?

She's going to be very pissed off when she reads this unless, of course, you provide documentary evidence of your so called A is B or Black is White paradigm.

I hope she doesn't sue you for inverting the rules of rational argument. You'd better find a legal representative, perhaps Fat Bloke from the New York boards can advise you.

I'm going to contact her right away, maybe she'll be my friend.

(Edited by Lord Michael Lewis at 5:08 pm on Oct. 21, 2001)

[Fat Guy]

I'm going to check right now to see if fat-bloke.com is available. :)

[Fat Guy]

Nope. It's taken.

[Jason Perlow]

Alright Michael.. Touche. Its getting way too icy in here.

[Andy Lynes]

Micheal - I'm having difficulty typing this beacuse my sides are aching with laughter.

Julie Burchill lives in Brighton, and my wife bumped into her at Toni and Guy the other day were she was getting a pedicure, so perhaps we could get a message to her. I expect Jay knows her, and most Guardian/Observer journalists are contactable via their website.

I'm sure she will have no problem with the expression of an opinion, I mean, I haven't accused her of plagerism or anything :)

 

[Simon Majumdar]

Way back when, when I worked for Fatty Cheetham at Orion/Weidenfeld & Nicolson. we paid said repulsive journo an inordinate amount of money to write a "new direction" book on Diana.

The only two things I remember ( I was not dealing with her directly ) are

a) She sounds exactly like Minnie Mouse and consequently wanted to have all contact by fax.

b) The book sold miserably.  As we say in the business, it went out in leaps and bounds and came back in skips.

I don't think even this woman would be Michael's friend however, do you?

S

(Edited by Simon Majumdar at 7:16 am on Oct. 22, 2001)

[conrad]

Hi everyone. Just wondered, for a piece I'm writing, whether anybody out there has ever acted on the strength of a restaurant review in the press, and gone and made a booking. I strongly suspect that most restaurant reviews are just read and forgotten about, largely because not everybody lives in London. If you want advice, surely you'd use one of the annual restaurant guides. What is the point of press reviews?