British Restaurant 'Critics'

[jamiemaw]

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.

←

Ah, the real problem--budgets. It's odd, because Jeremy Clarkson seems to keep the test-drive cars for at least a week on Top Gear, driving them at peak times as well as during the lunch hour. What gives?

But this raises that other issue--conflict. Who pays for the cars, the review theatre and sports tickets, the movie DVDs, and for that matter, the bridge cards, pads and pencils? Smaller periodicals might have no budget at all, bartering dinner with restaurants--some of whom might be advertisers--in exchange for a 'review'.

But I've left the best until last: Who pays the freight for travel journalists, surely the most conflicted of them all?

Here's a thought though. Surely the soon-to-be Duchess of Cornwall should be approached (before she gets busy with wedding arrangements) to deed surplus monies from Duchy tree rental to fund impoverished food writers. This would have the effect of pacifying both your Inland Revenue auditors and jealous lifestyle editors.

Edited February 10, 2005 by jamiemaw (log)

[Andy Lynes]

Here's a thought though. Surely the soon-to-be Duchess of Cornwall should be approached (before she gets busy with wedding arrangements) to deed surplus monies from Duchy tree rental to fund impoverished food writers.

←

I rather not think about approching the soon-to-be Duchess of Cornwall if its all the same to you, it's quite putting me off my next "cleansing ale"( Jamie Maw 19??).

[Basildog]

I think the internet is providing the information /opinions about restaurants for those who are interested.The critics aren't writing for "us".People on this board and others are really just seeing if the critic's opinion matches with other first hand experiences, and then debate as needed.

[circeplum]

i know that before i did the gig, i'd follow those critics whose judgement i trusted. still do, for that matter. others i read for entertainment value - what's so wrong with that? others i simply disregard. there are so many of us here with a reasonable rep that you can pick and choose and make an informed decision on the back of that.

as far as several visits go, andy is right. besides, our brief is to cover new restaurants and there are so many new gaffs opening every week (in my patch, london, alone) that we'd never get round to a third of them if we kept re-visiting. (plus i'd have to be trundled around in a wheelbarrow.)

we never go to 'soft' openings or first nights. we always go anonymously when the restaurant is open to paying customers and report as we find. much as paying customers would do.

x

[transfattyacid]

"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.

←

having worked at bibendum. i know their penchant for generosity.

if you can afford it .

[Dirk Wheelan]

we never go to 'soft' openings or first nights.  we always go anonymously when the restaurant is open to paying customers and report as we find.  much as paying customers would do.

←

Do you mean 'anonymously', or perhaps 'unannounced'?

[Winot]

So which one's circeplum?

[transfattyacid]

bring back Will Self.

[Gareth]

Jamiemaw's argument seems to be that good restaurant criticism should involve multiple visits and prolonged research and that whilst reviews not underpinned by the are less worthy.

I think this is a false premise, since it assumes that all reviews have the same purpose. Instead, you might categorise them as Entertainment Reviews; Signpost Reviews; and Interest Reviews. I think there is a parallel with theatre/literary criticism.

Signpost Reviews are the mainstay of British restaurant reviews - and theatre reviews - what's on; is it worth a look ? Keeping the time-scarce punter up to speed with the myriad of trends new/openings etc to which Circeplum refers. I wouldn't need or expect the reviewer to have made multiple trips any more than I would expect a theatre critic to have seen lots of performances. Like as not, I'm going to be judging my experience on a sinlge visit so why not take the steer of someone whose opinion I trust on the same basis ?

Entertainment is the domain of Mssrs Gill and Winner. More soap opera than anything else. I'm a big fan of scathing theatre reivews: on the show "Bernadette" - "It's at times like this I wish I were in a kinder business, like whaling or seal clubbing..."; on "The Bakers Wife" - "je ne baguette rien..."; and Kenneth Tynan's famous "I seem to have knocked everything except the knees of the chorus girls, and there nature has anticipated me." The difference is that in theatre criticism such barbs are kept in the quiver only to be shot if the target presents; the purpose for Winner and Gill seems to be to invite us week after week to admire their archery, the target being secondary. That and the fact that I don't think either of them know as much about food as Tynan did about theatre...so, harmless enough if you find them engaging or funny but it's for a readership that doesn't really want to be troubled by considering whether they would actually want to eat at the places reviewed.

Interest reviews are for the sheer joy of engaging with the detail of a topic: the literary criticism of Hamlet, or the consideration of an actor's career, rather than a review of a single performance. This seems to be much more of the nature that Jamiemaw values. I do too; I find it particularly valuable when I am choosing those couple of meals a year that are going to be my total treats: "Tom Aikens" or "The Fat Duck"; "Guy Savoy" or "L'Ambroisie" ? I when I can't get to these places I can enjoy them vicariously through writing. I agree with Jamiemaw that I would like to see more of it in the UK press. But in its absence, I am happy to get it on "e-gullet".

But at the end of the day we need the lot: god forbid we sacrifice breath of coverage on the altar of depth; or that 'one visit' reviews erode the understanding of the topic which must support them.

And God forbid that critics write dull reviews.

Edited February 11, 2005 by Gareth (log)

[circeplum]

So which one's circeplum? 

←

exactly!

[Suzi Edwards]

So which one's circeplum? 

←

She's the one trying to crawl out of AA Gill's jacket.

[Basildog]

Circe is sat with her twin sister on either side of AA

[culinary bear]

VLS is obviously working undercover with me...

he purports to be a German demi Chef de Partie called Gillian. :)

Edited February 11, 2005 by culinary bear (log)

[jamiemaw]

In addition to service questions (see 'A Glass Half Full?'), The Box Tree thread also prompted me to ask you about British restaurant reviewers and their seeming propensity to review a restaurant after a single visit. It seems that the reviews of The Box tree were written after a single visit, or at least that's the impression I got. Am I correct in this assumption?

If so, is it because the budgets of even the national newspapers/magazines don't allow for multiple visits given the horrific expense, especially in London? As it takes greater effort (and perhaps knowledge) to qualify for a driver's license than the postion of large-circulation restaurant reviewer, I was wondering if it asks on  the job application: Are you (check one) (a.) not very, (b.) quite, or (c.) very clairvoyant?

Because as any critic worth their salt might allow, restaurants can and do change from night to night, as well as over longer periods of time; a decent critic can tell you if chef fought or made love with his girlfriend that afternoon. That change and lack of consistency is especially true of new restaurants still gaining traction; ironically that is the stage in a restaurant's life when most reviews take place.

Perhaps even more ironic however, is the fact that the financial editors of the same periodicals would never consider reviewing other businesses (and forecasting their future prospects) after a mere two hour visit--much more due diligence would be required of the reporter. Why does this seemingly not hold true in the UK for restaurant businesses?

So, for the most part are they one-shot wonders? Or do critics of conscience revisit (as in the methodology of The New York Times) until they're sure that they have gotten the full measure of the establishment, especially in tasting most of the menu? I ask this realizing that there are some cartoonish characters such as the oxymoronically named Michael Winner and AA Gill who could as easily be writing about The Norfolk Small Animal Auction as food and no doubt should.

But for the most  part, what's the deal--and the rationale?

←

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.

←

Congratulations to Jay Rayner for his article in Saveur entitled "Diatribes for Dinner" which does indeed explain why British critics feel a compunction to dish spleen or merely offal. There is an interesting historical slant to the piece as well, although it doesn't mention Craig Brown, whom I had thought was in the vanguard of eatertainment reviewers.

My only real complaint with the piece was that--at less than 40 column inches--it was even shorter, if only slightly, than Michael Winner.

By the way, Gourmet magazine this month scours London.

[jayrayner]

In addition to service questions (see 'A Glass Half Full?'), The Box Tree thread also prompted me to ask you about British restaurant reviewers and their seeming propensity to review a restaurant after a single visit. It seems that the reviews of The Box tree were written after a single visit, or at least that's the impression I got. Am I correct in this assumption?

If so, is it because the budgets of even the national newspapers/magazines don't allow for multiple visits given the horrific expense, especially in London? As it takes greater effort (and perhaps knowledge) to qualify for a driver's license than the postion of large-circulation restaurant reviewer, I was wondering if it asks on  the job application: Are you (check one) (a.) not very, (b.) quite, or (c.) very clairvoyant?

Because as any critic worth their salt might allow, restaurants can and do change from night to night, as well as over longer periods of time; a decent critic can tell you if chef fought or made love with his girlfriend that afternoon. That change and lack of consistency is especially true of new restaurants still gaining traction; ironically that is the stage in a restaurant's life when most reviews take place.

Perhaps even more ironic however, is the fact that the financial editors of the same periodicals would never consider reviewing other businesses (and forecasting their future prospects) after a mere two hour visit--much more due diligence would be required of the reporter. Why does this seemingly not hold true in the UK for restaurant businesses?

So, for the most part are they one-shot wonders? Or do critics of conscience revisit (as in the methodology of The New York Times) until they're sure that they have gotten the full measure of the establishment, especially in tasting most of the menu? I ask this realizing that there are some cartoonish characters such as the oxymoronically named Michael Winner and AA Gill who could as easily be writing about The Norfolk Small Animal Auction as food and no doubt should.

But for the most  part, what's the deal--and the rationale?

←

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.

←

Congratulations to Jay Rayner for his article in Saveur entitled "Diatribes for Dinner" which does indeed explain why British critics feel a compunction to dish spleen or merely offal. There is an interesting historical slant to the piece as well, although it doesn't mention Craig Brown, whom I had thought was in the vanguard of eatertainment reviewers.

My only real complaint with the piece was that--at less than 40 column inches--it was even shorter, if only slightly, than Michael Winner.

By the way, Gourmet magazine this month scours London.

←

ANd thank you. Believe me I could have gone on for another thousand words. Re Craig Brown - he was great, and perfectly fit the model of the journeyman writer thrust into the gig, but historically he's not really more relevant than any of the others.

thanks for the heads up on the London Gourmet. Am meant to have a small bit in there (D is for drinks) and didn't know when it was out.

[jamiemaw]

Jay Rayner

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.

Jamie Maw

Congratulations to Jay Rayner for his article in Saveur entitled "Diatribes for Dinner" which does indeed explain why British critics feel a compunction to dish spleen or merely offal. There is an interesting historical slant to the piece as well, although it doesn't mention Craig Brown, whom I had thought was in the vanguard of eatertainment reviewers.

My only real complaint with the piece was that--at less than 40 column inches--it was even shorter, if only slightly, than Michael Winner.

By the way, Gourmet magazine this month scours London.

Jay Rayner

ANd thank you. Believe me I could have gone on for another thousand words. Re Craig Brown - he was great, and perfectly fit the model of the journeyman writer thrust into the gig, but historically he's not really more relevant than any of the others.

thanks for the heads up on the London Gourmet. Am meant to have a small bit in there (D is for drinks) and didn't know when it was out.

On first blush it seems that your editor, Ms. Reichl, may have pulled rank and installed "Dark Roast" in lieu of "D is for Drinking", however there is an unattributed piece called "Just Drinks" that mentions Match EC1, Match Bar, The Cork and Bottle Wine Bar and Cross Bar.

And Nigel Slater offers "The Tables Have Turned", an article on . . . wait for it . . . British restaurant critics.

Edited February 26, 2005 by jamiemaw (log)

[jayrayner]

Jay Rayner

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.

Jamie Maw

Congratulations to Jay Rayner for his article in Saveur entitled "Diatribes for Dinner" which does indeed explain why British critics feel a compunction to dish spleen or merely offal. There is an interesting historical slant to the piece as well, although it doesn't mention Craig Brown, whom I had thought was in the vanguard of eatertainment reviewers.

My only real complaint with the piece was that--at less than 40 column inches--it was even shorter, if only slightly, than Michael Winner.

By the way, Gourmet magazine this month scours London.

Jay Rayner

ANd thank you. Believe me I could have gone on for another thousand words. Re Craig Brown - he was great, and perfectly fit the model of the journeyman writer thrust into the gig, but historically he's not really more relevant than any of the others.

thanks for the heads up on the London Gourmet. Am meant to have a small bit in there (D is for drinks) and didn't know when it was out.

On first blush it seems that your editor, Ms. Reichl, may have pulled rank and installed "Dark Roast" in lieu of "D is for Drinking", however there is an unattributed piece called "Just Drinks" that mentions Match EC1, Match Bar, The Cork and Bottle Wine Bar and Cross Bar.

And Nigel Slater offers "The Tables Have Turned", an article on . . . wait for it . . . British restaurant critics.

←

Ah, the no-byline thing. That's the way to keep the uppity journos in their place. Yes, that drinks piece is me. I suspect they'll be some round up of names somewhere in 2point.

[jayrayner]

SOrry. Just noticed the Nigel slater thing. That is intriguing. Will read with interest.

[jamiemaw]

SOrry. Just noticed the Nigel slater thing. That is intriguing. Will read with interest.

←

I was amused by his laudatory review of Bibendum, where your own Mr. Lyons and I had a rather amusingly inept meal delivered by somnolent staff.

Andy and I weigh in (heavily) about midway through here.

Edited March 2, 2005 by jamiemaw (log)

[endless autumn]

SOrry. Just noticed the Nigel slater thing. That is intriguing. Will read with interest.

←

I was amused by his laudatory review of Bibendum, where your own Mr. Lyons and I had a rather amusingly inept meal delivered by somnolent staff.

Andy and I weigh in (heavily) about midway through here.

←

Aren't you guilty of judging the restaurant on exactly the criteria you objected to upthread? I know that you are under no professional obligation when reporting on this site, but Nigel Slater's review of Bibendum carries no more or less weight in light of your experience there.

He has probably been more than once (which you may well have been as well, I suppose).

[seanw]

Jamie

I imagine Bibendum staff probably know who Nigel Slater is, big fish/small pond, which of course you can empathize with in your own little pond. I really appreciated the Asimov Q&A, the way he conducts reviews of restaurants where he is recognised seems a fair approach. However service ,obviously, shouldn't discriminate & perhaps a more widespread acceptance of the tip-out doctrine will encourage higher service standards. Me thinks not! Diners in London pay enough. The adoption of tips to supplement(& maybe replace) wages should not be overly encouraged. I personally think that some people take advantage of this situation to dictate their own agenda i.e. to get what they want. What's wrong with that?? Well it is generally hard enough to service a busy restaurant with a professional, dedicated staff where the diner respects the capabilities of a Kitchen that work's tremendously hard to bring together the threads of their experiences & encapsulate it all in a menu that has sourced incredible ingredients from incredible people. If you want to encourage culinary excellence, as the French say...The Chef is always right!!(but in french..unless they are on holiday)Also why ignore the supplier of the great product you are using ,too often the tip-out remains in the hands of service staff, it should just be possible to demand a fair price for a meal where the entire chain of conception, production & service are respected for their valuable input(with factors such as experience, education, performance etc. are considered...not just big tits & a smile). Suppliers & staff are generally squeezed the most financially because the owner/s can, but how does this encourage further development? Diners should pay more for their food to help in the realisation that the general food industry is a false economy, but reward those that endeavour to produce the best quality products in a sustainable way( welfare of animals, environment etc). When i see a waiter/ess shove a pile of cash in their pocket i don't necessarily believe that the greater good is being served(excuse the pun!)

cheers sean

[jamiemaw]

SOrry. Just noticed the Nigel slater thing. That is intriguing. Will read with interest.

←

I was amused by his laudatory review of Bibendum, where your own Mr. Lyons and I had a rather amusingly inept meal delivered by somnolent staff.

Andy and I weigh in (heavily) about midway through here.

←

Aren't you guilty of judging the restaurant on exactly the criteria you objected to upthread? I know that you are under no professional obligation when reporting on this site, but Nigel Slater's review of Bibendum carries no more or less weight in light of your experience there.

He has probably been more than once (which you may well have been as well, I suppose).

←

Precisely why I had your own Mr. Lyons carry the ball in 'reviewing' Bibendum, EA, even if my diary entry was chiefly for the bemusement of eGulletarians.

Seriously though, had we been running a feature hard copy review, we would visited the restaurant several times, exactly for the reasons that I previously spoke to. You see, collectively Andy and I suspected that:

a.) It must be better than our single-meal impression allowed for, even if Henry Harris has moved on to lustier pastures at Racine;

b.) There may well be a different (and more attentive) chef on at dinner; and

c.) Likewise the service staff, who might have been more oxygenated by the dinner hour.

Call it benefit of the doubt if you will, but I definitely would have revisited to confirm or deny. Countless times I have had quite differing experiences from lunch to dinner, from server to server and from night to night, and sometimes most compellingly, from dish to dish. That's why I maintain that a single, snapshot visit is not necessarily the most balanced way to review someone else's business.

And yes, I have been to Bibendum more than once, as I said, however it had been a while and on this visit it was rather smaller than I had remembered.

Cheers,

Jamie

Edited March 2, 2005 by jamiemaw (log)

[jamiemaw]

Jamie

         I imagine  Bibendum staff probably know who Nigel Slater is, big fish/small pond, which of course you can empathize with in your own little pond. I really appreciated the Asimov Q&A, the way he conducts reviews of restaurants where he is recognised seems a fair approach. However service ,obviously, shouldn't discriminate & perhaps a more widespread acceptance of the tip-out doctrine will encourage higher service standards. Me thinks not! Diners in London pay enough. The adoption of tips to supplement(& maybe replace) wages should not be overly encouraged. I personally think that some people take advantage of this situation to dictate their own agenda i.e. to get what they want. What's wrong with that?? Well it is generally hard enough to service a busy restaurant  with a professional, dedicated staff where the diner respects the capabilities of a Kitchen that work's tremendously hard to bring together the threads of their experiences & encapsulate it all in a menu that has sourced incredible ingredients from incredible people. If you want to encourage culinary excellence, as the French say...The Chef is always right!!(but in french..unless they are on holiday)Also why ignore the supplier of the great product you are using ,too often the tip-out remains in the hands of service staff, it should just be possible to demand a fair price for a meal where the entire chain of conception, production & service are respected for their valuable input(with factors such as experience, education, performance etc. are considered...not just big tits & a smile). Suppliers & staff are generally squeezed the most financially because the owner/s can, but how does this encourage further development? Diners should pay more for their food to help in the realisation that the general food industry is a false economy, but reward those that endeavour to produce the best quality products in a sustainable way( welfare of animals, environment etc). When i see a waiter/ess shove a pile of cash in their pocket i don't necessarily believe that the greater good is being served(excuse the pun!)

                      cheers sean

←

Sean,

I don't doubt for a moment that your three main points, and especially the latter two . . .

1. That "Suppliers & staff are generally squeezed the most financially because the owner/s can, but how does this encourage further development?"

2. That "Diners should pay more for their food to help in the realisation that the general food industry is a false economy, but reward those that endeavour to produce the best quality products in a sustainable way." and

3. "When i see a waiter/ess shove a pile of cash in their pocket i don't necessarily believe that the greater good is being served(excuse the pun!)"

. . . are at all mutually exclusive. Although you might argue that, in many cities, especially expensive ones such as London, the consumer would be loathe to pay a penny more.

Perhaps, though, and to summarize, a gratuity-driven service culture is more sustainable, while the sourcing of sustainable ingredients is owed more than gratuitous lip service, both from agri-business and the consumer.

Cheers,

Jamie

Edited March 2, 2005 by jamiemaw (log)

[Andy Lynes]

He has probably been more than once (which you may well have been as well, I suppose).

←

It was my fouth visit, excluding the day I worked in the kitchens. The other three visits were all wonderful, which is what made my meal with Jamie so depressing.

[jamiemaw]

He has probably been more than once (which you may well have been as well, I suppose).

←

It was my fouth visit, excluding the day I worked in the kitchens. The other three visits were all wonderful, which is what made my meal with Jamie so depressing.

←

And all this time I thought it was me. Truth be told, though, there was that inescapable hush (equal parts knee-trembling awe and then simpering respect) when Andy first strode into the room--the kind that preceeds him in all culinary temples as the most famous international food and wine writer currently working in Brighton, England. So I'm pretty sure that it was just nerves that saw them deliver two bowls of olives off the draw.

But this raises another question--as to how British critics deal with their lack of anonymity. In this case, the indigo-blue Bentley Sport double-parked at the Michelin House curb, the large security detail (who were fed in the kitchen) and the sycophantic entourage to whom Andy so graciously donated the extra bowl of olives. I must add that Andy was also unfailingly gracious in signing autographs for the cognoscenti and a few tourists, albeit at £5 a go.

Edited March 3, 2005 by jamiemaw (log)