Fat Guy Lays it on the Table

[Andy Lynes]

Who do you want cooking your duck breast:  The meat cook at Daniel who has been cooking a zillion orders of the duck breast dish to chef Boulud's exacting specifications for years?  Or Daniel Boulud himself

←

Daniel, just to see if he was still any good or not and to be able to swank about it afterwards!

I think its debatable whether the duck (or whatever it was) that Matthew Evans was served that night would have been better if had had been prepared by a line cook who had been knocking them out all night or Moran, one of that country's top chefs, who came fresh to that one dish and gave it his full attention. It's the intention to provide VIP treatment, something better than anyone else had recieved during that service, is the important factor in the context of this thread.

[slkinsey]

I think its debatable whether the duck (or whatever it was) that Matthew Evans was served that night would have been better if had had been prepared by a line cook who had been knocking them out all night or Moran, one of that country's top chefs, who came fresh to that one dish and gave it his full attention.

Or, there's option C: Get the line cook to give that one dish his full attention, making sure he knows that it's for an important customer. The point I'm making is that top chef does not equal top cook, and that some of the things chefs are doing to create a VIP experience (such as personally cooking a dish) may actually result in lower quality rather than higher.

It's the intention to provide VIP treatment, something better than anyone else had recieved during that service, is the important factor in the context of this thread.

There is some question, however, as to how much better the experience can be made. Let's assume that the experience is bumped up for an important customer, including but not limited to a critic. How much better do we think it can be made? Five percent? Ten percent? A whole star rating better? So much better that the critic's opinions will be meaningless with respect to the "regular customer's" experience? Assuming that the critic is recognized (and it's either silly or pretentious to think that they aren't recognized 90% of the time), how much better do you think the restaurant will make the experience for a critic who has a relationship with the chef as part of his professional activities compared to a critic who has no relationship with the chef? Will it be better at all? Could it be?

[Fat Guy]

in the case of restaurant reviewing specifically why should anything more than the dining experience be necessary? I don't see how buddying up to chefs helps write good reviews, although I can see clearly how it can undermine critics' integrity.

←

I suppose that's how Paul de Man and Jacques Derrida would write restaurant reviews -- nothing but the dining experience! -- but for everyone else context is important. The more a journalist can do to provide context, the better. Cutting oneself off from the creators of restaurant experiences is simply irrational as a research tool. A fact-checking phone call at arms length is not going to yield the same richness of information as an ongoing relationship. This is not "buddying up." It's the job. I'm sure there are some critics who do it for personal gratification, just as there are reporters of all kinds who love the job only because it brings them close to celebrities. But for the good critics, it's just not a consideration. If anything, its a source of discomfort because they always have to be prepared to turn on their "buddies."

And the proof is in the proverbial pudding. In my opinion, many of the best critics in recent memory have been the ones who engaged the industry they cover. David Rosengarten's reviews in Gourmet were markedly superior to those of his successors. Thomas Matthews at Wine Spectator has been one of the leading advocates of non-anonymous reviewing and is a critic par excellence. (While he is certainly entitled to his opinion, it is presumptuous of Mr. Yardley to claim to speak on behalf of all experienced journalists, when many of the best, most experienced critics so plainly disagree). Bryan Miller and Ruth Reichl had more involvement with the industry than William Grimes and Frank Bruni -- would anybody care to argue that the latter two are the better critics?

[Andy Lynes]

It can't be utterly transformed, but could be tweaked sufficiently to improve a rating.

[FoodMan]

I am sort of on the fence about this whole annonymity issue for critics. I agree with most what FG argued about in the book, but I do not think a critic and a restaurant owner or chef have to be close friends for me to get a well written review and informed. I believe if anything I might take that review with a large grain of salt. Not because I do not trust the critic or because he was recognized but because he is a friend of the house. This alone IMHO might skewe his or her perspective, no matter how "objective" they are. An ideal critic would be someone who knows the business, knows food, has a good understanding of how restaurants work and has no hidden agendas. Above all he has to be someone whose recommendations have worked for me in the past. Whether he is known a la Marianni or not is besides the point.

Elie

[Fat Guy]

Elie, I think a review serves several functions. Some of those functions, particularly the idea of "consumer protection," are probably best served by anonymity -- although of course anonymity is not a reality in the world of restaurant reviewing; it is simply a pretense. But other functions, and I would argue more important ones, are not well served by anonymity, distance, etc. Those are mostly the informational functions -- the ones that give reviews depth, richness and interest and make them more than Michelin blurbs or Consumer Reports ratings. No, one does not have to be friends with the chef in order to evaluate the chef's food -- it's not relevant whether you like the chef or not. But talking to the chef, having a full appreciation of the overall restaurant concept and in general having enough connectedness to the industry not to be out of touch -- these things help, and as I've mentioned before you can plainly see it in the end product if you go and do a side-by-side reading of reviews by reviewers who favor the different approaches. You can also see its analogs in every area of criticism: the better informed "insider" critics generally just have more to offer. There are dangers and pitfalls to be avoided when you encounter your sources, but that's something to be dealt with -- not something to run away from.

[Angela Alaimo]

Steven,

In case you're making a scrapbook for the grandchildren, there is a story about you and your book in today's Journal News (Westchester, NY), in the Life/Style section. Written by Patricia Talorico of Gannett.

Angela

[Fat Guy]

Thanks very much, Angela. Patty Talorico, who has twice been nominated for James Beard journalism awards, writes for the News Journal in New Castle, Delaware. The piece originally appeared there a couple of weeks ago, and is now in syndication on the Gannett news wire. So it's showing up in other Gannett papers -- quite a few of them actually -- edited and laid out in various ways. Thanks Patty!

[KatieLoeb]

I just got word that Steven will be in Philadelphia at Book & the Cook's Caffe Society in the KitchenAid Theater at DiBruno Brothers on September 23rd. Book & Cook has requested that I post the event to the PA calendar. I'm looking forward to seeing Steven again and will try and get a good turnout of PhilleGuleeteers to join me.

Congrats Steven! I'll see you in a couple of weeks!

[Liz Johnson]

Steven,

In case you're making a scrapbook for the grandchildren, there is a story about you and your book in today's Journal News (Westchester, NY), in the Life/Style section.  Written by Patricia Talorico of Gannett.

Angela

←

Beat me to it, Angela.

[markk]

Elie, I think a review serves several functions. Some of those functions, particularly the idea of "consumer protection," are probably best served by anonymity -- although of course anonymity is not a reality in the world of restaurant reviewing; it is simply a pretense. But other functions, and I would argue more important ones, are not well served by anonymity, distance, etc. Those are mostly the informational functions -- the ones that give reviews depth, richness and interest and make them more than Michelin blurbs or Consumer Reports ratings. No, one does not have to be friends with the chef in order to evaluate the chef's food -- it's not relevant whether you like the chef or not. But talking to the chef, having a full appreciation of the overall restaurant concept and in general having enough connectedness to the industry not to be out of touch -- these things help, and as I've mentioned before you can plainly see it in the end product if you go and do a side-by-side reading of reviews by reviewers who favor the different approaches. You can also see its analogs in every area of criticism: the better informed "insider" critics generally just have more to offer. There are dangers and pitfalls to be avoided when you encounter your sources, but that's something to be dealt with -- not something to run away from.

←

When reading restaurant reviews, and choosing restaurants, I like the idea of "triangulation" - that is to say, reading multiple reviews of the same restaurant, and forming an opinion. I really enjoy reviews written by critics who have gotten to know the restaurant owners and chefs, for all the reasons Steven gives in his book. You can get a great feel for a restaurant from such a review. But it's great to have reviews of the same place written by people not "in the know" at the establishment. By compaing them, I find that I can get a pretty good sense of what the place will be like, food- and vibe- wise.

So I can't argue that a critic should be one way or the other - for help in choosing restaurants, I say 'the more the merier'.

[Fat Guy]

I agree, and mention in the book, that it's best to rely on a variety of sources. What I would argue against, though, is treating them all equally.

[rich]

I agree, and mention in the book, that it's best to rely on a variety of sources. What I would argue against, though, is treating them all equally.

←

Okay, I'll take the bait. And what reviews or reviewers should be treated "more equally" than others? Certainly opinions count more from someone you know either personally or from past performances and they may be given more weight. But I've tried places based on recommendations from the same source that were both good and bad.

For instance, based on a member's recommendation I tried Landmarc and think it's one of the top places in the city based on a dollar for dollar value. And based on your recommedation, tried the fois gras appetizer. I think you said it is the best $12 you can spend in an NYC restaurant (or something close) and I agree.

However, I went back to Daniel based on the same person's comments and completely disagree with said individual's opinion.

Another example. Most people on the board know my negative feelings toward Luger (based on historical perspective). Yet when I first mentioned this, I was severely criticized. However, over time several other members said the same thing. While clearly not in the majority, my opinion has gained more validity over time.

Bottom line, I think each review or reviewer should be treated equally, until you make a decision for yourself. The majority isn't necessarily right, nor will the opinion(s) of other(s) match yours all of the time. If you don't treat reviews or reviewers equally, you will probably go into a place with pre-conceived concepts that will certainly cloud your judgement.

Edited September 8, 2005 by rich (log)

[markk]

I agree, and mention in the book, that it's best to rely on a variety of sources. What I would argue against, though, is treating them all equally.

←

Okay, I'll take the bait. ...Bottom line, I think each review or reviewer should be treated equally, until you make a decision for yourself. The majority isn't necessarily right, nor will the opinion(s) of other(s) match yours all of the time. If you don't treat reviews or reviewers equally, you will probably go into a place with pre-conceived concepts that will certainly cloud your judgement.

←

Absolutely, and I took it that that was what he meant.

When I read a review in a local neighborhood newspaper, or in Fodors or Frommers, I give it a different mental value than let's say some other source. But speaking for myself, at this point I've formed a weighted average (or something) in my mind that tells me how much to credit each source, and for me anyway I think I get a good picture of what the restaurant and food will be like.

[rich]

I agree, and mention in the book, that it's best to rely on a variety of sources. What I would argue against, though, is treating them all equally.

←

Okay, I'll take the bait. ...Bottom line, I think each review or reviewer should be treated equally, until you make a decision for yourself. The majority isn't necessarily right, nor will the opinion(s) of other(s) match yours all of the time. If you don't treat reviews or reviewers equally, you will probably go into a place with pre-conceived concepts that will certainly cloud your judgement.

←

Absolutely, and I took it that that was what he meant.

When I read a review in a local neighborhood newspaper, or in Fodors or Frommers, I give it a different mental value than let's say some other source. But speaking for myself, at this point I've formed a weighted average (or something) in my mind that tells me how much to credit each source, and for me anyway I think I get a good picture of what the restaurant and food will be like.

←

I can agree with that Mark. But there is a school of thought that will say Bob Smith's review is more credible and reliable that Fred Jones' before entering a restaurant. While I may agree with Bob 75 percent of the time and agree with Fred just 30 percent of the time, I don't give more credibility to one over the other. But I do understand that I'm more likely to agree with Bob, but I try to keep an open mind - thus allowing for the equality of their respective reviews.

This is also works with chefs. I think Mesa Grill and Bolo are very good restaurants. Therefore, when Bobby Flay opened Bar Americain, I was anxious to try it based on my experiences with the other two. I walked into the place with a positive attitude and was very disappointed with the negative experience.

[Fat Guy]

I can agree with that Mark. But there is a school of thought that will say Bob Smith's review is more credible and reliable that Fred Jones' before entering a restaurant. While I may agree with Bob 75 percent of the time and agree with Fred just 30 percent of the time, I don't give more credibility to one over the other. But I do understand that I'm more likely to agree with Bob, but I try to keep an open mind - thus allowing for the equality of their respective reviews.

←

The "school of thought" that says you should assign more personal value to the reviewers with whom you agree more often is known as "logic." The "school of thought" that says you should assign equal value to all reviewers no matter what is known as "random." Of course, one should keep an open mind and there are all sorts of factors that come into play when evaluating reviews. And even then you can get burned, either because the reviewer screwed up or because you hit the restaurant on an off night or because your something was not to your taste for whatever reason. But starting from a base of proven, trustworthy sources significantly improves your chances of getting good meals. And even when you're in a situation where no source has a track record (e.g., you're visiting another city), you can make some judgments about sources just by reading with a critical eye. You won't always be right, but you'll improve your chances.

[rich]

The "school of thought" that says you should assign more personal value to the reviewers with whom you agree more often is known as "logic."

←

Agreed. But personal value isn't the same as equal. I can take two opposed reviews and treat them equally, yet understand that I have agreed with one reviewer more often.

Maybe it's just semantics, but I can assign equal status to reviews, yet at the same time realize I'm more likely to agree specifically with one.

[jhlurie]

I agree, and mention in the book, that it's best to rely on a variety of sources. What I would argue against, though, is treating them all equally.

←

Okay, I'll take the bait. And what reviews or reviewers should be treated "more equally" than others?

←

"More equally" appears to be your phrase, not Steven's.

As Steven says, I think you can make a variety of judgments about a review right off the bat. I'll listen more to good writers than bad ones. I'll tend to believe people who fact check over people with obviously incorrect information in their articles. I'll appreciate a writer who has specific knowledge of a kind of food over a complete novice (and if I know the genre or ethnicity of the food myself on an expert level, it's often pretty apparent whether or not the writer does as well). On occasion, I'll give some extra weight to a review based on the publication it appears in.

It's true that most of us trust our own senses over anyone else's. I'll walk into plenty of restaurants without ever seeing a review, if I like the smell, the look, the menu, etc. Heck, due to being involved in this board that's almost become a habit. In many cases a review is just additional information. It's not supposed to replace that process. Except...

...one last variable is economics. A review of an expensive restaurant often fulfills a different purpose than one of a more economical one. Many people think twice before going to an expensive restaurant--they see it as more of an investment. In turn, it becomes more important to verify (and rank) the reviews. It's all well and good to say that things should be equal until you "decide for yourself", but that's a luxury some people can't afford. If you are someone budgeted to go to only one "fancy" restaurant a year, for example, the process of reading reviews will be much more important to you than someone who can go to any restaurant they choose on a lark. You HAVE to give weight to the various reviews, because unless they are all unanimous, you are taking a risk no matter what. You are going to have to make a decision without tasting the food yourself, so you really ARE better off deciding who's the best person to believe.

That's just reality, at least for some people.

[Angela Alaimo]

Steven,

In case you're making a scrapbook for the grandchildren, there is a story about you and your book in today's Journal News (Westchester, NY), in the Life/Style section.  Written by Patricia Talorico of Gannett.

Angela

←

Beat me to it, Angela.

←

<g> I was in the office on Wednesday, instead of at the jobsite, and got to read the paper. I could see from the banner at the top of the front page that it looked as if our own Fat Guy was a feature of the Food Section that day. I've noticed one can usually get more reading done indoors than outdoors, fwiw.

OTOH, you could sent him a nice First Edition copy--for the grandchildren...

Angela

[rich]

"More equally" appears to be your phrase, not Steven's.

I think I made that clear - it is a journalistic take off on a 1954 Supreme Court decision, hence the quotes.

Edited September 12, 2005 by rich (log)

[oakapple]

There are two issues here.  Issue number one is the question of who the restaurants are cooking for?  Are they cooking for the "general public" or are all high-end restaurants fundamentally cooking for regulars?  I would argue that they are cooking for the latter, so why should a restaurant critic go into a restaurant and try to experience the lowest level of the experience -- that of a complete unknown?

Well, I can think of at least two reasons. First is that the review isn't for the regulars. After all, they've already decided they like the place, and don't care what the critic says. It's the non-regulars who might conceivably make a dining decision based on what the review says. Second is that non-regulars surely comprise a significant percentage of the dining audience, and the review shouldn't disenfranchise them.

A related question is whether it is even possible for a restaurant critic to experience the "common man's meal" at a restaurant. You don't think Bruni is getting VIP treatment every time he sits down at a restaurant table?

At restaurants that know a review is coming, he is probably recognized every time. I doubt that Bruni truly ever had an "anonymous" meal at Perry St, The Modern, or Alto. At Le Bernardin, Daniel, and Jean-Georges, and a few other places of that ilk, he will be recognized instantly.

But take another look at the range of places he visits. A fair number of them are non-high-end places that have no particular reason to expect him. Sure, if he shows up with large groups four times within a month, the restaurant will catch on by the second or third visit. But at least he's had some opportunity to experience the restaurant as the ordinary diner would. Newspaper reviews recount a fair number of service glitches that, I am reasonably sure, wouldn't have occurred had the critic trumpeted his presence.

And I think Asimov had a good point in his eGullet Q&A. Even where he is recognized, the pretense of anonymity creates a useful barrier; otherwise the chefs would feel obligated to schmooze and send out freebies.

Edited September 12, 2005 by oakapple (log)

[markk]

I've always expressed a lot of interest in the food, asked questions, shared my thoughts on wine with the sommelier but let him help me choose, etc.  This is interesting, because I've also noticed that there are certain restaurants where I have always had what seems to be a better experience than most people who post about it.  I never payed much attention to this, nor thought that the two might be related, because I wasn't expressing my enthusiasm deliberately to get a better experience.  But after having read Steven's book, it's something that's been in the back of my mind.  A few weeks ago I visited a very good NYC restaurant with a few friends and decided to pay attention to what was going on at the other tables.  We had the tasting menu with wine pairing, but asked the chef to work in an extra foie gras dish from the appetizer meny.  Throughout the meal, we talked with the waiter about the provenance of various food items, correctly identified which dishes had been cooked sous vide and talked a little about that, asked about the wines and commented on the ones we thought were particularly good, etc. . . more or less what we always do when we're out at a restaurant of this caliber.  It also just so happens that we got a number of extras compared to another table doing the tasting menu.  We got a few more amuses they didn't get, our glasses were topped off when it was a wine we really liked, we were comped the wine that was paired with the extra foie gras course, etc.  Now, these people don't know me from Adam, and yet they were pleased that we were so interested in their cooking and so excited about their food that they were happy to give us some special treatment -- which is just what I would do in their position.

Indeed! As I've already said somewhere here, the two are definitely related (the interest you show in your meal and the kind of recommendations, service and special treatment from the kitchen that you get) - I leared this accidentally a long time ago and was delighted to see it in the book. I'm always surprised how people will go into a "real" (i.e. not "chain") restaurant and without asking anything just order off the menu.

Issue number one is the question of who the restaurants are cooking for?  Are they cooking for the "general public" or are all high-end restaurants fundamentally cooking for regulars?  I would argue that they are cooking for the latter,

I would say that if they are, that's terribly bad business. I mean, it's a really good meal prepared with obvious care and served with great service that turns a first time patron from the "general public" into a regular. For a restaurant to make that distinction would be bad business although I grant you that many do.

[rich]

I would think that if a critic truly (and that's the key word) wanted to remain anonymous, it wouldn't be that difficult. First, when you take the job, write it under a pen name. Secondly, don't appear on television extolling the virtues of your "cuisinehood."

Additionally, if you're writing the column under the name of Felicity St. James, don't do radio guest spots with a voice that's deeper than Bocelli, conversely if you're writing the column with the name Lionel Ingelstand, don't sound like Kate Winslet in heat.

Finally, don't tell your friends, partners or live-ins - you know what big mouths they have.

Now you have the best of both worlds - no one recognizes you and you can remain friends with the restaurant staff. You can be one of the regulars.

[slkinsey]

A related question is whether it is even possible for a restaurant critic to experience the "common man's meal" at a restaurant. You don't think Bruni is getting VIP treatment every time he sits down at a restaurant table?

At restaurants that know a review is coming, he is probably recognized every time. I doubt that Bruni truly ever had an "anonymous" meal at Perry St, The Modern, or Alto. At Le Bernardin, Daniel, and Jean-Georges, and a few other places of that ilk, he will be recognized instantly.

But take another look at the range of places he visits. A fair number of them are non-high-end places that have no particular reason to expect him. . .

You don't think that every single restaurant out there that has pretensions of getting a main review in the NY Times (especially if recently opened) doesn't know what Frank Bruni looks like? Maybe have a picture of him, along with other critics and notable food figures on file somewhere?

I was in a bar recently when William and Nancy Grimes came in and took a seat at the bar. They were instantly recognized. I also think the kinds of questions one asks, and the kinds of things one orders, etc. will alert the FOH staff of just about any potentially star-rated restaurant (Sripraphai notwithstanding) to take a closer look at certain customers. I've been recognized and received special treatment at some restaurants because I'm on the eGullet Society staff, for Pete's sake. If this is happening to me 15% of the time, I am quite sure it's happening to Frank Bruni 95% of the time.

[rich]

I've been recognized and received special treatment at some restaurants because I'm on eGullet.

←

I have too, but I picked myself up from the sidewalk, wiped off the dirt and grease from my trousers and ate next door.