Are critics looking at the whole picture?

[Marylisa L.]

Well, I think we all at least agree on something.. that yes, produce off the plant, ripe, is tastier--be it bananas, tomatoes, peppers..

And, in terms of using out-of-state/country produce to satisfy needs and wants? Well, it appears to be an individual preference for each of us and we'll eat accordingly. I know what my guests like and want... and you all know what you like to eat. It wasn't my review- I was just curious as to whether critics are taking in more than just the food..

[chefzadi]

In answer to the question-

I actually prefer to read reviews that offer as little personal preferences about food as possible. Everybody's palate is different. Reviewers also get spread too thin sometimes, they are expected to review cuisines that they are not familiar with. The types of reviews I enjoy provide alot of physical descriptions. Parking situation, decor, service, menus, presentation, etc... So that I can make up my own mind. I don't like Indian food, so it would unfair for me to review an Indian restaurant by saying I disliked the dishes. I could though comment on the types of the ingredients, the methods of preparation, whether or not it was freshly made, etc... I think it's absolutely neccessary for the review to take the restaurant's context into consideration. You can't criticize a small operation that can only charge $7.95 for half roast (even whole for that matter) chicken for not using Volaille de Bresse.

Edited February 3, 2005 by chefzadi (log)

[Daniel Rogov]

May I remind us that we often tend to use the word "criticism" only in its negative sense that is to say the act of finding fault or expressing censure or disapproval. That is, however, not the role of the professional critic. It his his/her obligation to be a critic in the sense of making judgements,both positive and negative, and analyzing the comparative worth of whatever it is that is being judged. Keep in mind that the true "boss" of the critic is not his/her editor or publisher. It is the public, and it is entirely to that public that the critic owes his/her fidelity.

It should be obvious to all critics that neighborhood eateries are not to be judged on the same basis as prestigious restaurants. The critic who does not do that is, simply stated, an ass. On the other hand, even the simplest of eateries must meet certain standards and it is those standards on which all criticism should be based.

It should be equally obvoius to all that critics are no-one's enemies. Nor are they trying to sell newspapers. They are simply trying to present the world as they perceive it. Hopefully, the critic in question is well enough trained, experienced and informed to accomplish that with fairness.