Restaurant reviews

[macrosan]

Hi Conrad

You obviously missed the major discussion around this topic. Click here to go Compromised Food Critics in the General Forum. It starts off on a different slant from your question, but read on.....

[conrad]

Many thanks Macrosan. (Only just joined today.)

[Tonyfinch]

I have made bookings at several restaurants as a direct result of favourable reviews,normally by Meades or Maschler. Five that spring to mind recently are Club Gascon,Tentazione, Foliage, Neat and Embassy.

Of those I thought the only real wrong'un was Neat,now no more of course.

[Andy Lynes]

Annual guides are just that, annual and out of date the second they are sent to the printers. I read many press reviews and will and definately influenced by what they say. A recent example was Orrery, which recieved very positive reviews from the likes of Matthew Fort and Fay Maschler. I compared these to the printed guides before making a booking, so the two go hand in hand. Maschler especially is absolutely invaluable for keeping up with the numerous new openings in London.

[Steve Plotnicki]

Conrad-I think your question needs to be parsed into people who really care about food and as a result are among the initial wave of customers who try a place and the second wave who eat on a more casual basis and go later on. For the first tranch, those reviews are the prime movers. If the New York Times gives any new place three stars, it's a given that I will immediately try and book a table. For two stars the text needs to reveal individual dishes I might find interesting before I will bother. But the second tranch of people are what I would describe as being motivated by word of mouth. They eat out less often, and when they do, the threshold of positive information a place needs to merit a booking is much higher than mine. In those instances, I believe that newspaper reviews are just one component of their choice. They want first hand experience from people who have dined there before they lay down their hard earned, and not often spent money.

[cabrales]

conrad -- I use newspaper restaurant reviews and Web-based reviews (including eGullet write-ups) with some frequency. In my mind, they supplement guide books and fulfill significant functions of which guide books may be incapable:

(1) Timeliness of Reviews. This has been discussed by others in this thread.

For example, Hiramatsu, Paris was not even included in the Gault-Millau Guide for 2002. To take London examples, I'm not sure many guide books include locanda locatelli (I haven't checked specifically, though).  Similarly, when the Gordon Ramsay-supervised restaurant opens at The Connaught later this year or when Sketch opens (expected shortly still?) with Pierre Gagnaire's involvement, there would be some multi-month period during which it would not be included in guide books. This generally happened with places like Nahm, Mju, Providores Tapas and Grill, the now defunct Conrad Gallagher, etc.  I don't know whether Neat at OXO made it into a significant percentage of the guide books for one edition, but people relying solely on guide books may not have eaten at that uneven restaurant. The restaurant had a beautiful view, particularly if one were seated at certain tables, and, while offering uneven food, had a very good smoked foie gras appetizer.  A final example is timely coverage by restaurant reviews of changes to restaurants. This weekend's Giles Coren column addressed the imminent redecoration of The Connaught, and its coming under Gordon Ramsay direction.  Such news would not be timely captured in an annual guide.

An added source of value from the presumably recent nature of a restaurant reviewer's visit is that one may have a better sense of the dishes available recently at the restaurant. If I read a review and a described dish is enticing, in general I have a better chance of being able to sample it than if I utilized a guide book.  

(2) Level of detail/Flexibility of format. Even taking the case of the typical AA Gill or Giles Coren review (when over 1/2 of the discussion might be on matters arguably non-food-related, although some connection is attempted to be established with the food), there is more detail than certain guide books (e.g., Zagat, Michelin Red Guide).  

For example, Michelin Red Guide France only contains 2-3 sentences of description (leaving aside the inclusion of certain tasty dishes) on each restaurant, and spends at least 50% of that space describing the decor.  While Gault-Millau and certain other guides provide more description, a restaurant review can furnish a general "feel" for the restaurant's atmosphere and service, and could, under certain circumstances, provide greater detail on the cuisine offered.  

In other words, there is a more flexible format with respect to content in a restaurant review. Because guide books are supposed to provide the same general format for different restaurant entries, there may be inherent constraints in how much weight or discussion is allocated to different parts of the restaurant experience in a guide book.  Indeed, certain guide books mandate specific weight to specific factors in computing an overall quantitative assessment of a restaurant.  Certain reviewers might do that too (incl., apparently, Giles Coren), but others do not.

(3) Inclusion of Pictures. While some pictures included in restaurant review columns (e.g., Giles Coren or A A Gill's appearances) are not at all helpful, others are quite informative of what a diner can expect from a restaurant. These are typically pictures of the dining room itself.  For example, this weekend's Gill column featured the Clerkenwell Dining Room. I have seen pictures of locanda locatelli's space that are quite informative as well. Jay Rayner's column this weekend had a descriptive picture of an Asian bouillabaisse-type dish. Guide books do not generally furnish pictures (except for, for example, Relais & Chateaux).

[conrad]

I suppose what I'm getting at is the degree to which restaurant reviewing in the UK has become an extension of the writer's personality. Nobody wants to read bland journalism of course, but what we are being treated to now is a kind of digest of the critic's personal life.

The type of the British restaurant writer now is a male 40-something of more or less obnoxious rightwing political proclivities, and with an unshakable belief in the readers' bottomless fascination with not just him but his nearest and dearest as well. Guess who this was yesterday: 'I can still recall the names of literally dozens of exotic dancers my father has been moved to recall by desserts of the blancmange family'. Added to this is a spurious literary veneer, with references to the likes of Rabelais and (perennially) Proust larded on to invite the impression that the writer could be doing something with more intellectual prowess, such as composing a critical essay perhaps, than just stuffing himself on expenses and then telling us about it week after week.

It was in the early 1990s that reviewing started getting contracted out to media 'characters' (if that's the right word for Michael Winner), novelists, diarists and so forth on the questionable basis that, since anybody could eat in a restaurant, anybody could therefore write about it. One poor old soul who'd recently been ditched from writing a very refined column in a consumer magazine protested to the commissioning editor that he lived in a house, so perhaps he could be the architecture correspondent, but the point was lost on her.

[macrosan]

First things first. Welcome , Conrad, I hope you enjoy it here  

I've always said of AA Gill that he's a terrific writer with little understanding of food. Yesterday in the Sunday Times he wrote a long piece on how he enjoys going on holiday to sunny, exotic lands. Then in the last 20 lines told us that this was meant to be a review of the Clerkenwell Dining Room, but he couldn't think of much to say about it, and gave it three stars.

At least that was honest  

[Tonyfinch]

I take a less benign view, Macrosan. Gill is being paid to write about restaurants. He is not being paid to write about how much he enjoys going to sunny exotic countries. We ALL enjoy going to sunny exotic countries. So what? Gill is a narcissistic bore who honestly believes his own life is more interesting than the restaurants he writes about.Well it may be to him and his mother but its not to me. If he really can't find anything interesting or informative to say about one restaurant a week then he should pack up reviewing and stick to the day job (whatever that is).

So there!

[Andy Lynes]

Did you see the Meades interview in Restaurant? In it, he admits to having become jaded towrards the end of his reviewing career. I think we can safely say the same about Gill. I saw yesterdays piece and was appalled (well, not appalled as such but within the context of how entertaining/informative/worth reading any bit of writing should be it was dreadful).

[Lesley C]

I think Gill IS being paid to write about his personal life (or anything else he cares to ramble on about), not necessarily about restaurants. Also, it's wrong to assume he knows little about food. Gill knows plenty about food. Just read his early columns. He's obviously bored with the gig.

Didn't he try to quit about two years ago?

Now, could someone explain the Spectator’s restaurant reviewer, Deborah Ross, to me? She obviously doesn’t give a stuff about food. That column is sheer dreck.

[Steve Plotnicki]

"That column is sheer dreck."

Leslie-That's because it is a lifestyle magazine. Not really a food and wine magazine.

Conrad-First, there is a thread on the General board about Amanda Hesser of the Times and how her weekly column in the food section is more about her personal life than food. Secondly, I think that most criticism is really about editorial slant. People listen to critics like Hesser or Gill because they relate to their lifestyle and/or sensibilities. In my own instance, I would much prfer to read Calvin Trillin write about eating in New Orleans even if his knowledge of food isn't all that good. But what he does do well is capture the spirit of New Orleans, and why we go there in the first place.

[conrad]

I suppose what we're saying in that case is that we don't expect restaurant critics to be particularly knowledgeable about food. They are not, in that sense, food writers. We just expect them to give a roughly accurate of what they ate and how much it cost, but that the bulk of the column will be composed of strenuously jocose observations about how alienating it all is. Coren again, or rather his dear old dad, last Saturday, contemplating the roast trolley at the Connaught:

'It looks like the glimpse of road-death you get over the heads of the paramedics from the top deck of a passing bus.'

Do we believe this was actually said at the time? Did he say it to the waiters, or just to little Giles? Is it an enlightening metaphor, or just a cheap shot? And do we really believe that le vieux Coren is actually familiar with the term 'paramedics'? None of it matters. It's all in the name of knockabout comedy.

[Tonyfinch]

Well of course it doesn't matter on one level but it matters on others.Restaurants are highly competitive businesses and good/bad publicity in the national press can make all the difference to tight profit margins,thereby affecting jobs and livelihoods etc.

Also,why should restaurant reviewers be more flippant about their work than theatre,film or music reviewers? Of course you will learn something about the author through the review,but to make yourself the subject of the review and the restaurant an afterthought as practised by Gill ,Nick Foulkes and latterly (though not always) by Meades is nothing more than arrogant narcissism and implies contempt for the job and does a disservice to restautateurs and customers alike.

[Steve Plotnicki]

Conrad-You have opened up a new flank in this discussion. There was a discussion similar to this on a wine chat room I frequent that is populated with many professional wine writers. The conclusion the lay people reached was that critics tended to be "critical" of things. The bad they reported on outweighed the good by a large percentage. The critics on the board defended their actions by simply saying that this is what critics do. "Our job is to be critical" they said. But then some smart person came along and said that most people who become critics are frustrated because they have failed at their chosen vocation and have ended up as critics. They then proceeded to name countless food writers, music writers, etc. who fit the description. And it was all too true. It just crystalized in everone's mind.

Even though that might be the case, it seems odd that the public that reads newspapers or magazines would want to read a slew of negative comments about restaurants. But if you look at their penchant for negatitvity as being inclined to root against people and things posh, it sort of makes sense. If you are truly middle, middle class, reading silly things about a place like The Square only reinforces the fact that you weren't going in the first place.

Then there are those who are going to go. That minute percentage of the population that might ever set foot in the place. But even among that peer group, there is class infighting. There are those who yearn for places like The Square in order to be upwardly mobile, and there are those who want to dimiss it in order to establish rhetorical class superiority. Just like your little story of what happened with the trolly at the Connaught. In my not so humble opinion, this is why the quality of the writers, no, I don't mean to say that. I'm certain that given different circumstances people would write well. Let me leave it as saying, why the output seems so poor in many instances.

As an aside, I happen to think that I have named a few of the reasons why the people who frequent this board have been exiled here. I think to a writer, nobody here stresses the negative and we all stress the positive (this wasn't always true but the few who were inclined otherwise are being force-fed   ) But I think many here would agree, that our penchant is for hearing about places that we would all want to eventually experience and our attention span for what can be described as a poor experience is limited. We all want to eat. Not just read.

[cabrales]

The bad they reported on outweighed the good by a large percentage. . . .

I think to a writer, nobody here stresses the negative and we all stress the positive (this wasn't always true but the few who were inclined otherwise are being force-fed   )

Steve P -- Thanks for an interesting post.  On discussing negative aspects of a restaurant, I probably provide such discussion on the board more than some. I'm not posting now out of defensiveness, but out of a desire to highlight the potential value, in my mind at least, of hearing negative comments about *specific* aspects of a restaurant experience.

If one has meaningful standards, there must be many restaurants that do not meet them. I try to write up an experience at a less ambitious restaurant differently than I would, say, a three-star (and a assessment that a meal was "very good" or "average" would mean somewhat different things depending on context).  However, even if a restaurant presents itself as being at a certain level, the weaknesses in, as well as the favorable aspects of, a meal experience should be vetted. Part of the reason I believe negative comments are helpful is that diners have subjective preferences, and a write-up that gushes and tells me how wonderful an experience was (without details and without mention of the less desirable aspects of the same experience) is not going to be as informative.

I wouldn't go so far as to say that negatives should be highlighted, but neither should positives be showcased.  And when one has a meal that one perceives as having no negatives, one's unequivocal endorsement of the restaurant and the meal would become more meaningful to others in this community who have seen a pattern of tempered reactions to other restaurants.  That's, of course, only my own take on things.  

[Tonyfinch]

We seem to be using the words "critic","reviewer" and "writer" interchangeably,when in fact they mean different things.

Literature ,film,theatre criticism has a long and honourable history with many critics regarded as experts in their fields able to analyse trends, interptet meanings,draw out patterns and generally enlighten the audience and give them a better understanding of the 'product'. These were not regarded as people who had failed as artists themselves. Andrew Sarris, for example,while he was film critic on The Village Voice in the 60s built on some work begun in Europe and revolutionised the way we regard Hollywood films by promulgating the "auteur theory" and establishing a cinema of directors,rather than stars.Nowadays directors are household names. However he never made a film in his life (to my knowledge) but was no less respected for that.

Restaurant reviewers are not critics in that sense.They go to a restaurant and tell us about it.Judging by what they say we may or may not go. Its a perfectly legitimate job and there's no reason whatsoever why anyone who does it should be able to boil an egg.If their comments are mostly negative it's because of the entrenched journalistic belief that newspapers largely sell on bad news and its believed that writing endless positive reviews is boring- a bit like writing about the planes that don't crash.

But this shouldn't be confused with criticism. To say that the job of a critic is to be critical implies a misunderstanding of the term and of the critic's role.The job of the critic is to be analytical and informative. Do we have these people in the world of food and restaurants?   Anybody?

[Gavin Jones]

The key to the writing seems to me to be whether you end up wanting to eat or eat out - though perhaps not at the restaurant being described.

In other words it is perfectly possible to write in a critical way and still arouse enthusiasm, what is poor is to write so that the reader has their appetite(s) suppressed.

Cabrales appears to do this admirably, even though the tone of her pieces is strongly analytical, I find myself thinking in an involved way about the dishes described.

Certain of the professional reviewers described here do the opposite - they leave me less interested in food (& the restaurant) than I was before I read their pieces. Anerotic gastroporn, if you like.

[macrosan]

I don't really wish to indulge in semantics, but the true meaning of words is, after all, crucial to a discussion.

"Critical" is not a qualitative term meaning "adversely critical". It is an objective term meaning using judgement and evaluation. So you can be critical and conclude something is wonderful.

The misuse of the word to purport bad is the same as to use the word "quality" to qualitatively purport "good quality".

[Steve Plotnicki]

Tony-Well you have put your finger on why food isn't art. Food is consumable goods with a high sense of aesthetics that evolves from a design phase. It's the same with cars, fashion or furniture. And that is why reviewers write from a consumer perspective (see should critics be anonymous thread on General Board,) and not from a purely aesthetic perspective. Sarris could do what he did becase films are permanent. They don't change, only our opinion of them changes. He would never have had the same success as a food writer. I think the exception to the rule are architecture critics. Since the aesthetics are so intertwined with the functionality, their writings usually are joyous exposes on how architecture  changes peoples life for the better. Just read how excited Paul Goldberger in the Times gets when something new and interesting comes along.

I wish more publications adopted this approach for food and wine. And I dare say this at the risk of slapping ourselves on our backs, I think that is the approach we tend to take around here. Except for that critical Cabrales whose expectations are so high that not just any three star restaurant is worthy of her praise.

[conrad]

It would indeed be an odd critic who wasn't prepared to criticise. In the matter of restaurant criticism, the humble hack tends to be bold in doing so because the expenses are being paid the newspaper, and also because the newspaper now feels that its readers want to see blood on the carpet. Whoever said it reinforces the prejudices of people who wouldn't spend their money in the restaurants concerned anyway is about right.

By contrast, wine writers (of which I am also one) are stuck up the opposing creek. Their editors won't let them write adverse copy because all that's wanted is lists of recommended bottles. So they are muzzled from the outset, but also disinclined to rock any boats because the feeding and guzzling they do is paid for the trade fronts and PR companies in the form of free lunches and press trips. Very few are prepared to snap at the hand that so generously feeds them. Hence all the rampant corruption.

[Tonyfinch]

Steve, I agree with that distinction between food and art. However there is still a long and honourable history of food writing which analyses and informs similar to the best criticism.  People like Elizabeth David, Paul Levy, Jane Grigson, MRR James ,Julia Child spring to mind.

True these people were not writing about restaurants but there is no reason why a restaurant reviewer could not be more of a critic and approach the job in a dedicated ,rigorous and serious (in the best sense of the word) way. In the UK I think Fay Maschler is the one who comes closest to blurring the distinction between reviewing and criticism.

As for Cabrales, I find her accounts both analytical and informative but I reckon she needs a few nights on Chinese take aways and doner kebabs to re-align her critical faculties .

[robert brown]

First a couple of corrections: Andrew Sarris was the first American critic to bring to American film criticism the concerns and esthetic of the 'Cahiers du Cinema" crowd, several of whom went on to become "Nouvelle Vague" filmmakers (Godard, Truffaut, Chabrol, etc.) Second, Paul Goldberger now writes for "The New Yorker".

One could argue that restaurant criticism as a part of journalism came into existance to fill space and sell advertising. Its nearest cousin is sports broadcasting criticism. I think that both phenomena leave us unfullfilled because they fall short as subjects of meaninful criticism. The question you should ask yourself is would you go to a restaurant with just the bare-bones information as opposed to acting on one detailed review. I view a restaurant review as one opinion that is thrown into a pot with other reviews (and this includes what people write on eGullet.) I then hope that something like a meaningful consesnsus arises so that one can make an educated guess where to have the next meal, or string of meals, out of the "universe" of candidate restaurants.

I would also add that being a practitioner does not necessarily make one a better critic. Lots of, if not most, chefs have bad taste. In fact I would go so far as to say that their choice of restaurants would be less-inspired than most of the people who post here. Good taste and sharp critical faculties are a product of how one grew up, education, native intelligence, and that elusive quality known as "sensibilities".

[Steve Plotnicki]

Conrad-I will tell you what the issue is. Robert Brown put his finger on it when he said that there isn't any real restaurant criticism. Food isn't substantial enough to shoulder the weight of real criticism. We can view a bad film and learn something from it. Even find something good within it. Technique, directing, good acting screenwriting. Many bad films have excellent aspects to them. But a bad dish merely stinks. Less chance for meaningful criticism.

As for your editor wanting a list of the Top 10 wines, I think that's a good thing. Consumers need to know what to do, where to do it and how to do it. Just yesterday I got my new issue of the Wine Advocate in the mail and it had 1999 Northern Rhone wines. Some of the scores were stunners with a few 100 point wines in there. But Clusel-Roch was mired at 88-89 or something like that. That is a story worth telling for the hard core collectors, but one not worth telling at all for the people who just want to know what to buy.

[Tonyfinch]

A bad dish merely stinks but a bad restaurant may have good aspects to it- wine list,decor, service. Even within a meal good and bad may co-exist -starter-yum,dessert-blech.

I suspect many restaurant reviewers,in the UK at least,secretly suspect that the job is not worth doing and is no test of their skills ("everybody eats-what's the big deal"). As a result they cannot bring the right degree of gravitas and conviction to their work and end up prattling on about their families or their holidays or whatever with "oh yeah I suppose I better tell you about this restaurant" tagged on at the end.

Michael Winner can get away with it because no-one takes him seriously and when he can get his tongue out of the orifices of whichever  floozie he's currently with you can see that its planted firmly in his own cheek.

But the others steer an uneasy course between frivolity and vitriol (witness Coren's dad's remark on the other thread re. The Connaught's beef) and end up exposing themselves as charlatan hacks.