The Ethics of Mentioning Friends

[Bux]

The real, basic question is whether any working food critic or journalist should write a book or be connected in any way with a chef, purveyor, producer or restaurateur, not the issue with Hesser, but certainly with Wells.

←

As JohnL already flat out stated, it's really difficult to pigeonhole any culinary writer. I don't know what people should do and Mimi Sheraton has certainly earned more respect than I am likely to earn in culinary circles, but I'm glad Michael Rhulman wrote The Soul of a Chef, and I'm glad Dorie Greenspan worked with Julia Child, Daniel Boulud and Pierre Hermé. I don't think it should stop them from writing in other areas of gastronomy. If Wells has been so influenced by Robuchon that she's no longer able to be an impartial critic, that's a shame, but I don't know that's true or that it's a universal factor.

[russ parsons]

it's important not to paint with too broad a brush when you're talking about these issues. as for bux' last post, neither dorie nor michael hold themselves out as a critic--someone who is supposed to be delivering impartial opinion. they are unreservedly "writers", who are free to indulge whatever passions they may have.

furthermore, i think it's critical that patricia wells publishes in france (though, certainly, in an english-language publication). there has always been a major difference of opinion between american critics (who see themselves as consumer reporters, and therefore need to remain anonymous in order to get the "true experience") and french critics (who see themselves as ambassadors of the arts, and therefore want to get the best the chef has to offer in order to better judge it on its true artistic merits).

[JohnL]

it's important not to paint with too broad a brush when you're talking about these issues. as for bux' last post, neither dorie nor michael hold themselves out as a critic--someone who is supposed to be delivering impartial opinion. they are unreservedly "writers", who are free to indulge whatever passions they may have.

furthermore, i think it's critical that patricia wells publishes in france (though, certainly, in an english-language publication). there has always been a major difference of opinion between american critics (who see themselves as consumer reporters, and therefore need to remain anonymous in order to get the "true experience") and french critics (who see themselves as ambassadors of the arts, and therefore want to get the best the chef has to offer in order to better judge it on its true artistic merits).

←

You are making some good points.

Parker took a consumer reporter's approach to reviewing wine and shook up the European establishment.

The problem I see with many critics today is that they are inhabiting a middle ground between dispassionate reporters American style and the passionate advocates Euro style.

They are reviewing restaurants but rather than dispassionate and "anonymous" they are attempting to be entertaining and --in today's world where celebrity is king (or Queen) the temptations are too great to overcome in the service of professional journalism.--these critics are "writing" not so much reviewing.

It is happening across the board--from food to wine to theatre to music etc.

I believe that newspapers and other publications have become "vehicles" for entertainment rather than places where good reportage is practiced. It is rare to see informed solid reporting anymore.

What we have is creative writing --it all about the writer not the restaurant or movie etc.

Again--the perfect example! Hesser--without making a judgement on her writing (where she has a lot of leeway) ther is a difference (or should be ) between her work as a food writer and her position as a reviewer.--it is dangerous to mix the two.

--I am not sure the Times isn't encouraging or experimenting with this "new Journalism"--Gael Green is the pioneer in the area of restaurant reviewing--she was more important than the restuarant.

anyway--I can see this going off in all sorts of directions --many off topic!!!

so.........................

[russ parsons]

i do agree there are sometimes problems with writers going overboard in creativity ... some reviews seem to be much more about the critic's rich interior life than about the food ... but surely you're not advocating a consumer reports style coverage for restaurants? if cooking is an art, then it must be embraced on an artistic level, which calls for impressionistic creative writing. a restaurant is not a honda. without naming names, my local newspaper (not the times), has a critic that reports in a "just-the-facts" manner. each dish is a paragraph and he details every aspect of preparation from ingredient to technique (as derived from an interview with the chef). we do find out that a dish included a sauce that came from sysco and black pepper, but not what it was like or whether it was any good.

furthermore, let's not mistake "good entertaining" for "bad entertaining" (the only difference being that one works while the other does not). there is nothing wrong with being entertaining in your writing. in fact, i would say that is a pre-requisite for good criticism. not the only one, to be sure, but a prime one.

[chefzadi]

i do agree there are sometimes problems with writers going overboard in creativity ... some reviews seem to be much more about the critic's rich interior life than about the food ... but surely you're not advocating a consumer reports style coverage for restaurants? if cooking is an art, then it must be embraced on an artistic level, which calls for impressionistic creative writing. a restaurant is not a honda. without naming names, my local newspaper (not the times), has a critic that reports in a "just-the-facts" manner. each dish is a paragraph and he details every aspect of preparation from ingredient to technique (as derived from an interview with the chef). we do find out that a dish included a sauce that came from sysco and black pepper, but not what it was like or whether it was any good.

furthermore, let's not mistake "good entertaining" for "bad entertaining" (the only difference being that one works while the other does not). there is nothing wrong with being entertaining in your writing. in fact, i would say that is a pre-requisite for good criticism. not the only one, to be sure, but a prime one.

←

I find this to be more true with fine dining reviews, especially in regards to French fine dining by French and American writers. Sometimes it's like reading a review by an aristocratic philosopher or rather a philosopher who fancies him/herself to be an aristocrat. I'm often left with the burning question, "So what did you eat?"

It gets worse for me when I read a writer's description of French techniques, to be sure I'm not the average reader in this regard. But perhaps writer's spread themselves or get spread too thin by the demands of having to write about a range of cuisines authoritatively. There is a local writer, not the paper you write for who covers a range of so-called ethnic cuisine. He is very popular, but has been criticised for making definitive statements about cuisines he does not have in depth knowledge. I've met him, he's avery nice man. Certainly didn't give me the impression that he is knower of all things ethnic in terms of cuisine. He just sometimes writes that way or is read that way.

It would be refreshing to read occassionally "I don't really know, this is my understanding of it so far. I am trying and willing to learn more."

my 2 cents.

[chefzadi]

While I'm at it. Food personalities who talk about a range of cuisines. I saw one show in which a chef was teaching a woman how to make a Moroccan tagine just like the one she had in Morocco. He precedes to toast the spices for "that authentic flavor". There is nothing authentic in toasting spices for Moroccan. Maghrebi cuisine doesn't toast or roast spices. We just don't do it. There is nothing wrong with it, but there is nothing authentic about it. Better for him to have said that toasting the spices would produce a more intense bouquet of spices rather than claiming deeper knowledge of a cuisine.

After the woman tastes the dish, she proclaims, "YES, that's it. That is the flavor of Morocco!" (or something like that). I think she is confusing a trip to India.

[JohnL]

It all comes down to the purpose of the review.

This gets into the editorial thing--

There should be a balance --I would hope that a review's main purpose is to "inform" and that the "entertainment" factor is secondary at best.

Afterall isn't the raison d etre of the review to inform readers about critical areas of the dining experience so they can have a good sense of what to expect were they to dine there.

Food quality--creativity--freshness-wine list-prices--cleanliness-atmosphere etc etc.

The problem is, many critics today seem to be struggling to find new and clever ways to convey this information at the expense of clarity.

A reader should be able to quickly read or glance over a review and come away with the appropriate information--this is reporting pure and simple.

So I am more concerned with good writing vs bad writing with clarity most important in a review of a movie or a restaurant etc.

An editorial piece is different as is an article --the writer has more leeway in these forms.

I (and I would hope my fellow readers) look at the newspaper reviews for information (and a point of view of course) not to get a few chuckles or become awestruck with the reviewers ability to turn a phrase or show how smart they are!

To bring this home--

Wells was, I think, simply using Robuchon as a point of reference--it was "tossed off" and I doubt, given her credentials, she was "showing off" it was her opinion and it certainly does not get in the way of the review--we can quibble over wether or not she should have elaborated a bit more or left it out, or wether or not it works as a point of reference but in the end I do not think it is a real problem. She is a good writer and she is a good reviewer--I think because she gets the point of each role!

[chefzadi]

There should be a balance --I would hope that a review's main purpose is to "inform" and that the "entertainment" factor is secondary at best.

For a fine example of informative and entertaining I suggest reading Mr Busboy's thread on dining in Athens.

The way he describes the physical aspects of eating, the pleasures of the landscape, the people... Why isn't he writing more about this elsewhere??? He's funny too, laugh out loud funny!

[Chris Amirault]

Click here for Busboy's Athens thread. It is, indeed, most excellent -- Homeric, even, in its appreciation for Grecian oysters.

[Bux]

it's important not to paint with too broad a brush when you're talking about these issues. as for bux' last post, neither dorie nor michael hold themselves out as a critic--someone who is supposed to be delivering impartial opinion. they are unreservedly "writers", who are free to indulge whatever passions they may have.

←

Then again I was responding to a comment that said "The real, basic question is whether any working food critic or journalist should write a book or be connected in any way with a chef, purveyor, producer or restaurateur, ..." "Or journalist" was quite pointed, I thought. No distinction was made between the nature of journalist and reviewer. I think it's quite difficult to have a strong interest in food and restaurants and not get to know chefs. There may be art critics who have not gone out of their way to meet painters and sculptor or visit their studios, but that, I believe, is not the norm. Many great art critics have been champions of a particular artists. These rules of impartiality seem more to have to do with a contemporary view of the critic as a consumer reporter. We read newspaper reviews not to understand book, movie or restaurant, but to know if we should buy in. That's an editorial "we," of course.

[russ parsons]

These rules of impartiality seem more to have to do with a contemporary view of the critic as a consumer reporter. We read newspaper reviews not to understand book, movie or restaurant, but to know if we should buy in.

←

That's an interesting point, but i'm not sure i completely agree--and the difference may be instructive. i think book and movie critics still tend to view themselves more as critics of the art rather than consumer representatives. and, as a result, i think you can make a pretty fair argument that they have pretty much written themselves out of the mainstream. when was the last time praise from a movie critic made much of a difference in the box office? the same with book critics. their role now seems to be writing for the smaller subset of movie and book fans who --for want of a more delicate term -- "think" about what they're doing (as opposed to those who simply enjoy ... and yes, i am a compulsive reader of mysteries and i thought "something about mary" was hilarious, so spare me the "elitist" garbage").

i suppose you could continue the analogy to food, but only if you are willing to broaden your concept of restaurant enough that it would take in fast food and places like dennys and carrows. if you keep the focus on more-or-less "fine dining", i'd argue that restaurant critics have done a pretty good job of straddling the two worlds.