British Restaurant 'Critics'

[Basildog]

"Our critic dines incognito and always pays the bill. Reviews are based on one visit to the restaurant and should therefore be viewed as a snapshot in time. The review is however a fair and accurate reflection of the food and service provided on that day."

Andy, don't you think readers of the critics see the reviews in that way?

PS i would take out the incognito bit

[jamiemaw]

"Our critic dines incognito and always pays the bill. Reviews are based on one visit to the restaurant and should therefore be viewed as a snapshot in time. The review is however a fair and accurate reflection of the food and service provided on that day."

Andy, don't you think readers of the critics see the reviews in that way?

PS i would take out the incognito bit

←

That much is agreed, basildog. I have never in my life seen so much bowing and scraping as when I dine with Andy, or for that matter, walk down the street with him. Although I'm well aware that he is the most famour international food writer currently living in Brighton, England, it all seems a bit much. Why, at Bibendum, they even tried to influence his opinion by offering us double the regular number of olives.

[Scott]

I'm with Moby, but I'd probably substitute Durack for Coren at the moment. I think Giles has got a little self-indulgent, but I applaud his raising awareness of animal husbandry.

←

you don't mean that.

if anyone were self indulgent in comparison to durack it would trigger cold fusion.

[Andy Lynes]

Andy, don't you think readers of the critics see the reviews in that way?

←

I certainly do. Its doubtful if many people would care very much even if that disclaimer were published. I imagine there are far more casual readers of restaurant reviews than there are those of use which take them "seriously", but it would at least deflect some of the potential criticisms from fellow professionals such as Mr Maw.

Its certainly true that someone like Jay Rayner who writes articles and features about chefs and restaurants is going to have a very hard time remaining anonymous. For example, Ramsay has a couple of places opening up soon, and there was a recent interview by Rayner with Ramsay in Hollywood. He's hardly likely to be able to slip into Maze undetected is he? Its equally unlikely that he's not going to review such a major opening, so what's he to do?

[jamiemaw]

I'm with Moby, but I'd probably substitute Durack for Coren at the moment. I think Giles has got a little self-indulgent, but I applaud his raising awareness of animal husbandry.

←

you don't mean that.

if anyone were self indulgent in comparison to durack it would trigger cold fusion.

←

Like the meal I had at Bibendum?

[Basildog]

"Our critic dines incognito and always pays the bill. Reviews are based on one visit to the restaurant and should therefore be viewed as a snapshot in time. The review is however a fair and accurate reflection of the food and service provided on that day."

Andy, don't you think readers of the critics see the reviews in that way?

PS i would take out the incognito bit

←

That much is agreed, basildog. I have never in my life seen so much bowing and scraping as when I dine with Andy, or for that matter, walk down the street with him. Although I'm well aware that he is the most famour international food writer currently living in Brighton, England, it all seems a bit much. Why, at Bibendum, they even tried to influence his opinion by offering us double the regular number of olives.

←

Maybe Andy just looked like he needed feeding up?

[jamiemaw]

Andy, don't you think readers of the critics see the reviews in that way?

←

Its certainly true that someone like Jay Rayner who writes articles and features about chefs and restaurants is going to have a very hard time remaining anonymous. For example, Ramsay has a couple of places opening up soon, and there was a recent interview by Rayner with Ramsay in Hollywood. He's hardly likely to be able to slip into Maze undetected is he? Its equally unlikely that he's not going to review such a major opening, so what's he to do?

←

I hear the AA Gill disguise kit is going cheap. Besides, that way Jay would be virtually assured of picking up the coveted Best Dressed Food Critic award as well. I'm not lending him my Blonde though--she's busy here.

Edited February 8, 2005 by jamiemaw (log)

[Basildog]

Which moves us on to how fair a review is from a well known critic.Do we weigh it knowing that he/she was recognised and that the food served/service given was the best they could do??

[Andy Lynes]

Which moves us on to how fair a review is from a well known critic. Do we weigh it knowing that he/she was recognised and that the food served/service given was the best they could do??

←

I'm sure that changes from restaurant to restaurant. A proportion of front of house staff aren't going to have a clue who a lot of the critics are. Fay Maschler mentions from time to time that she has been spotted and notes that she has been given preferential treatment in the body of the review. Other times it obvious that she has gone unnoticed and has been given a bad table and suffers clueless service.

When people in the trade find out that I have met Marina O'Loughlin, they always want to know what she looks like as she has been very successful in hiding her identity (I always tell them, "Imagine Jay Rayner in a dress and you've got it.") so there's no chance of preferential treatment there.

[origamicrane]

are there actually people that take restuarant reviews as gospel?

most reviews I read seem to be more about the people writing them then the restaurant?

not sure but i think most people read reviews as a form of entertainment rather then a definitive guide?

like i'm sure we have all read a rave review about a restaurant

visited it and been thoroughly disappointed and vice versa.

[circeplum]

"Imagine Jay Rayner in a dress and you've got it."

←

don't forget the shag-me shoes...

x

[jamiemaw]

Which moves us on to how fair a review is from a well known critic. Do we weigh it knowing that he/she was recognised and that the food served/service given was the best they could do??

←

I'm sure that changes from restaurant to restaurant. A proportion of front of house staff aren't going to have a clue who a lot of the critics are. Fay Maschler mentions from time to time that she has been spotted and notes that she has been given preferential treatment in the body of the review. Other times it obvious that she has gone unnoticed and has been given a bad table and suffers clueless service.

When people in the trade find out that I have met Marina O'Loughlin, they always want to know what she looks like as she has been very successful in hiding her identity (I always tell them, "Imagine Jay Rayner in a dress and you've got it.") so there's no chance of preferential treatment there.

←

One English reviewer seems to have an in-built bias against restaurants that do not allow smoking at the table--perhaps he should be dispatched to Dublin--while another seems to have an in-built bias against restaurants that will not allow him in the door. Must be his winning ways, i.e appalling ignorance. So even if anonymity can be a little over-rated at times, (a decent reviewer can 'read' a room and adjacent tables quickly), it does raise some questions.

are there actually people that take restuarant reviews as gospel?

most reviews I read seem to be more about the people writing them then the restaurant?

not sure but i think most people read reviews as a form of entertainment rather then a definitive guide?

And yes, I know from firsthand experience that even the most obviously sardonic statements can be taken as literal gospel sometimes. We have the equivalent of a restraining order on one Greek chef--he's not allowed within 50 feet of several Vancouver food writers, Maw aussi. And as for the mountain of mail that an unfavourable review can trigger, especially from a certain Italian restaurauteur with an impressively sized extended family, each of whom wrote variations of the same letter, right down to the same spelling mistakes . . .

Edited February 8, 2005 by jamiemaw (log)

[jamiemaw]

THe March issue of Saveur has a piece on the differences between US and UK restaurant critics by, er, me. It goes into all this stuff.

←

I legged it up to the local newstand to find out exactly when the March issue of Saveur will arrive, Jay. Alas, it won't be with us until mid-February as it comes by canoe to the lakehead, then pony express. At least the delay affords the chance to save up the lordly sum of Cdn $6.95 or precisely £3, plus tax, or approximately 1.5 cleansing ales in the local currency.

We wait with bad breath, etc.,

Jamie

Edited February 8, 2005 by jamiemaw (log)

[Scott]

I'm with Moby, but I'd probably substitute Durack for Coren at the moment. I think Giles has got a little self-indulgent, but I applaud his raising awareness of animal husbandry.

←

you don't mean that.

if anyone were self indulgent in comparison to durack it would trigger cold fusion.

←

Like the meal I had at Bibendum?

←

?

[jamiemaw]

I'm with Moby, but I'd probably substitute Durack for Coren at the moment. I think Giles has got a little self-indulgent, but I applaud his raising awareness of animal husbandry.

←

you don't mean that.

if anyone were self indulgent in comparison to durack it would trigger cold fusion.

←

Like the meal I had at Bibendum?

←

?

←

The meal I had there was not exactly piping hot. Mind you it wasn't exactly fusion either.

[nwyles]

are there actually people that take restuarant reviews as gospel?

My wife hails from a large praire city in Canada and the local food critic's articles are firmly in hand when entering the restaurant o' the month. People would order all of the things that the reviewer had. It seemed a little outlandish to me but has been confirmed by many sources. As a side note - several of the local restaurants have barred her from ever entering their restaurants. ( The writer, not my wife )

In all fairness to the readers who use the review as a guide to dining, multiple visits would seem only fitting as to give a broader, more informed picture to the faithful reader. ( the ones buying the paper )

This also works in favour ( or not ) to the restauranteur. The overall score could average up or down, depending on each visit. But a true representation of what they are doing.

If the reviewer raves about so and so's latest bistro ( based on one announced visit ) and the locals flock to it and it really turns out to be crap, everybody loses. The restaurant loses guests and the writer, credibility ( and marketability ).

This also works the other way around.

If the true point is to slag a place for the fun of it and drop in your new ten dollar word, it really becomes info-tainment and not journalism.

The marketplace really dictates if a restaurant is going to survive or not, but a fair, informed review will help it on it's way. And I do not think that that can be done with one fleeting visit. A writer owes it to their reader to be well informed, and that is not achieved over a quick lunch.

I know that it is a little like preaching to the choir here. No one who is active in this forum would take a critics word for anything. They would get out there and find out for themselves. But we are talking about your average person on the street here, not the egullet uber-informed.

Edited February 9, 2005 by nwyles (log)

[the queneau]

←

[culinary bear]

AA Gill, for example, is a writer who happens to do restaurant reviews. Fay Maschler is a food critic, who happens to write. Ewe dig?

Absolutely, and I know which sort I'd rather read.

[Stigand]

←

A simplistic difference would, I suppose, be the difference between information and entertainment. It is rare that the twain ever meet. AA Gill, for example, is a writer who happens to do restaurant reviews. Fay Maschler is a food critic, who happens to write. Ewe dig?

←

I don't doubt that Gill is a great journalist, and I enjoy his articles even though they don't say much about food.

I think what frustrates many British eGullet members is the fact that many restaurant reviews in quality British papers seem to talk much less about food than, for example, the motoring column talks about motoring or the bridge column talks about bridge. For example: I know nothing about the game of bridge, and I'd be hugely entertained if AA Gill wrote the bridge column in the Sunday Times and spent every article penning witty epigrams and gently mocking people who play bridge. But this isn't what happens - instead, the column talks unceasingly about bloody card games I don't understand. If the bridge column doesn't need to be made more accessible, why do the restaurant reviews?

[jayrayner]

←

A simplistic difference would, I suppose, be the difference between information and entertainment. It is rare that the twain ever meet. AA Gill, for example, is a writer who happens to do restaurant reviews. Fay Maschler is a food critic, who happens to write. Ewe dig?

←

I don't doubt that Gill is a great journalist, and I enjoy his articles even though they don't say much about food.

I think what frustrates many British eGullet members is the fact that many restaurant reviews in quality British papers seem to talk much less about food than, for example, the motoring column talks about motoring or the bridge column talks about bridge. For example: I know nothing about the game of bridge, and I'd be hugely entertained if AA Gill wrote the bridge column in the Sunday Times and spent every article penning witty epigrams and gently mocking people who play bridge. But this isn't what happens - instead, the column talks unceasingly about bloody card games I don't understand. If the bridge column doesn't need to be made more accessible, why do the restaurant reviews?

←

Because more people go to restaurants than play Bridge, and when they do they are less obsessed with the detail of the restaurant's functionality than the bridge obsessive is with the play of cards. As I've said many times the people who post here on egullet are far more interested in the nitty gritty of restaurants than the general reader (though I don't believe that means restaurant columns should be Deborah Rossesque streams of sconsciousness about the trials of being Deborah Ross.)

[oldschooltie]

A simplistic difference would, I suppose, be the difference between information and entertainment.

Gill provides neither

[the queneau]

Gill provides neither

←

I refer the honourable School Tie to the comment I made about Barthesian Reader Function not too long ago. Fewl.

And if ewe're all so het-up about the quality of restaurant/food reviews, why not channel all this here key-tapping anomie into something more worthwhile, like writing the frickin' things ewerselves* (like a notable few here already do).

* and yes, before anyone says it, I'm perfectly aware of the validity of meta-reviews.

[oldschooltie]

I refer the honourable School Tie to the comment I made about Barthesian Reader Function not too long ago. Fewl.

←

I read it differently

[jamiemaw]

←

A simplistic difference would, I suppose, be the difference between information and entertainment. It is rare that the twain ever meet. AA Gill, for example, is a writer who happens to do restaurant reviews. Fay Maschler is a food critic, who happens to write. Ewe dig?

←

I don't doubt that Gill is a great journalist, and I enjoy his articles even though they don't say much about food.

←

I do doubt that Gill is a great journalist, at least in the modern sense of the word. No doubt though that he is a great writer, and occasionally that great writing intersects with what he had for dinner.

In reading your responses to my earlier question, it seems there are food writers who write decent, if somewhat forensic expository prose (the “I came, I ate, I left” school) and those who are more concerned only with exposing themselves. Fay Maschler seems to belong to the former school, the CSI: London Restaurants camp, Gill and Deborah Ross et al to the latter. But is there a writer out there who subscribes to both—i.e. entertaining word play that involves the reader while dishing the goods? Or am I just missing Craig Brown overly much?

And, getting back to my earlier question, is there anyone who more thoroughly tests the restaurant in question, or is England simply too populated with restaurants to make it too expensive—both in time and money—to do a thorough job?

My own theory is that, in order to develop a fully exposed picture of a new restaurant in England, it seems necessary to compile the sum of various reviews, other opinions as enlisted here, and then evaluate if that’s the place where I might wish to spend my daughters’ modest legacy. And so by default it is the reader, not the writer, who becomes the ink-stained wretch.

That’s what we call conventional wisdom on this side of the drink, although I believe you call it received opinion, not unfitting given the protracted methodology necessary to make up the collective mind.

In some jurisdictions there are voices of authority, whose budgets of time and money permit thorough, well-written and even occasionally entertaining soliloquies on our favourite topic. I can think of no better than those who occupy the throne at The New York Times where expansive budgets (and waistlines) portend repeated, anonymous visits at differing times of the week, i.e. during the Friday night slam as well as early in the week, and lunch if appropriate. The result is usually balanced, fair and accurate, although there is a downside: few are those who can do it for very long--in time it becomes toxic to the body and presents conflicts for the soul.

(I remember a conversation with Bryan Miller, as he was about to reach his tenth anniversary in the job and who had long-since exhausted his bag of adjectives. He knew it was time to excuse himself from the table. “I just keep writing, over and over again, ‘and it was good,’” he said.)

As to the hopes of the impoverished reader, perhaps Barthes himself said it best: "Writing is that . . . space . . . where all identity is lost, starting with the very identity of the body writing." Sound advice for some of the more flamboyantly self-aware in the writerly pack. They are the authorial equivalent, at one end of the journalistic contract, of the ignorant diner who has more money than brains, the flavour-of-the-month arriviste, the incoherent purchaser. They are—and should be—in direct dialogue with one another, even if most of us would rather keep that dialogue banished to the nethers of Harpers and Queen, where, unfettered, excess cash flow seeks social validation.

Edited February 10, 2005 by jamiemaw (log)

[Andy Lynes]

A slightly educated guess from a slightly educated person: if a British critic were to suggest that it was routinely necessary to visit a restaurant two or three times before writing a review, they would be laughed out of the editor's office. I get the impression, as a measily freelance, that budgets in publishing in the UK at the moment are as tight as...something that I would be kicked off this board for alluding to. However, I am quite prepared for someone who actually knows what they are talking about to contradict that statement.

Jamie your assertion that "in order to develop a fully exposed picture of a new restaurant in England, it seems necessary to compile the sum of various reviews, other opinions as enlisted here, and then evaluate if that’s the place I really want to spend my daughters’ modest legacy" accords with my own experience.