Chefs running scared of websites

[Carrot Top]

We're mostly in philosophic agreement on this, Pan. I don't generally "follow" critics nor reviews too much. . .no matter what the source (and in this it is possible that I am unusual).

Why not? For this was my profession and I guess I feel qualified to make my own judgements based on knowledge and experience. . .and also, like Bux, I do not enjoy being in supermarkets.

I guess that if anything external comes into play (for often I'd rather just use my intuition upon looking right at the place) it would be that thing that used to be called "good will" or more easily perhaps just reputation.

Word of mouth reputation is a rather free-floating thing. It doesn't land upon a place that is new. . .nor is it defined and qualified by any professional critic. . .nor is it determined by any group of people opining on the place. It is something indeterminate, an idea or concept of quality that verges on the "classic".

If anything external would make my feet wander towards a place, this would.

.........................................................................

Again, my comments were not directed at eGullet. They were directed at the idea of critical opinions by the public that were posted on the website mentioned in the first post being defined as something that should "make chefs run scared".

This twists the whole idea of what every single chef I have ever known does. . .which is try very hard to make people happy. . .into some alternate and ugly shape.

You can not make really great things happen when you are supposedly to be in a position of "running scared". The. . .creative desire. . . .is broken.

Imagine yourself, you in the position of playing a piece of music. . .or someone else doing whatever it is that they do professionally. . .doing it to a crowd that was interested and curious to see, or alternately to a crowd that sat with hard eyes and demanding expectations.

How would the thing come off?

Sometimes anger or fear can move one to do "a better job" momentarily. But not on a long term basis.

And how very strange to think that someone would want their food to taste like fear itself rather than like understanding and love.

Edited August 27, 2005 by Carrot Top (log)

[Carrot Top]

Finally, in response to this idea as taken to its furthest, this is what I want to say:

"If you think you could do it any better, please feel free to give it a try."

Now. Nobody else here has felt the same way about whatever it is that they do, have they?

Please. Open a restaurant. We need good ones.

But if that is not in the cards, at least be courteous and gracious and ethical when giving opinion on how you think it should be done.

And maybe do not expect a direct and personal response unless you are at the table itself, and the chef right there in the kitchen. You want response, this is the best way to get it. One on one. Person to person time of happening open ended and real.

Again, this is not directed at eG or anyone in particular.

Edited August 27, 2005 by Carrot Top (log)

[Carrot Top]

As usual (sorry to go on like this, but the subject has taken my interest ) there are some underlying things that affect my own ideas on this.

Two important things in particular seem to me to be aspects of this entire situation where anyone can critique any business or person pretty much unhindered on the internet. These two things have an effect on how I personally "take" this.

The first thing is the nature of the internet itself.

The second thing is people in general and our culture at this moment in time in particular.

The first. . .the nature of the internet. Anyone can portend to be an expert on the internet. We all know the jokes about dogs and about people in their underwear.

And I think we all know that this could be true in cases.

Who is that person on the other end of the screen?

One thing that bothers me about the internet is that although I have "met" many intelligent and wonderful people on it. . .and although it is a marvel in terms of offering up all sorts of information at one's fingertips. . .I do notice that there seem to be a great number of people who take to using it as a sort of psychological dumping place. They say things and do things that they never would do or say in their day-to-day life.

Unfortunately, most of this is not of a very creative nature, nor of a very nurturing or helpful nature. . .except perhaps to be helpful in the way of ridding their systems of some poison that resides there.

What are the most popular sites on the internet? Pornographic.

If pornography were as common in day to day life as it is on the net, we would have a very different world. Whether that is what the general public wants, who knows.

Recently I looked on a different site that focuses on food. What I found were a great number of people fighting and insulting each other and the site. This happens just too much in this media for it to be an oddity. It is a fact that if people want to fight, to argue, it is an easier way to do it behind the curtain of the screen.

This disturbs me. And this has an effect on how I ultimately understand the media as a whole.

The second issue that recently has been coming to my mind is the level of satisfaction that people seem to have in their lives, today, in this culture, and how they attempt to find a way to assuage their need for satisfaction.

We are among the first generation where the average person does not make their living by "creating" anything. Instead, we are in the information age, and many people make their livings by simply exchanging information.

Yet I sense a much higher level of dissatisfaction in daily life among people in general than previously, when the culture was different and when perhaps a small satisfaction could be found in looking at what the day's work had produced, rather than having nothing "real" to look at. And I see a hunger for satisfaction that comes out in different ways. Some people eat. They eat too much. . .and this in my mind is a major cause of the "obesity epidemic". Some people spend every extra moment looking for entertainment and succor from others. . .from the others that do create things. Movies, magazines, books, clothes, things at the mall, and restaurants and chefs.

There seems to be such a hunger, such a demand, such a need. . .that goes slightly beyond what feels right or balanced. For the satisfaction in oneself is then demanded to be found somehow in these creative things that others have created.

How close can one get to being truly satisfied with life without being creative oneself in some way? There is always the nudge of discomfort, the urge of "I could have done that better", the desire to inform as to how it could have been done.

And I just see too many unhappy dissatisfied people "out there", looking for satisfaction in external things that others have created. It is really just. . .sad, if not sometimes even a little spooky.

Where might this lead to in a world without boundaries? It leads to the people who do not create, setting up a whip and chair in place for those that do create. . to "answer" to them somehow. To fill their emptiness.

It won't work.

[Pan]

Karen, you've brought up a lot of issues in those last three posts. I'll just focus on one point: Unless someone drags me to someplace I strongly believe I won't like, I always go to a concert or a restaurant hoping to be pleased. If a restaurant pleases me, I praise it to friends (and oftentimes, on these boards) or/and continue to patronize it. In the case of a truly outstanding meal, I am fully capable of posting unqualified raves. It's only when something has fallen short of my hopes that I have a critical word to say about it. And I think that I'm not so different from others in this respect. I'm sure that the overwhelming majority of people who go to movies, plays, concerts, and restaurants are hoping for a pleasant experience. And yes, if I felt like my audience came to a concert with the hope of criticizing me, rather than enjoying themselves, it would be harder for me to relax and play my best. But I know that they are there to enjoy themselves.

That said, if they are disappointed with the concert, they have every right to criticize it, and not only to my face but in discussing it with friends, etc. I hope you didn't mean to suggest that there's something wrong with posting critical remarks about a meal.

[Tess]

I agree that everyone has the right to post remarks. I'm a huge fan of the internet as a consumer resource. That article is kind of odd, though. By talking about chefs "running scared" it does suggest that the point is for customers to take some kind of petty revenge. And in fact there are people who behave that way. I don't think the solution is to stop people from posting comments, but website administrators should make sure they're not encouraging people to use their sites to sabotage anyone. I think posting average customer ratings prominently is probably a mistake for some sites. (It really chaps my hide to notice books with surprisingly low ratings on Amazon and then scroll down and see a bunch of noninformative posts, probably by the same person, with one or zero star ratings-- a transparent effort to put customers off the book, which is especially invidious because people order books right from the site.) People should also check periodically for phony posts, as the article indeed mentions the administrators of the London site doing. Above all, customers should read all reviews-- including professional ones-- with a critical eye.

[Carrot Top]

That said, if they are disappointed with the concert, they have every right to criticize it, and not only to my face but in discussing it with friends, etc. I hope you didn't mean to suggest that there's something wrong with posting critical remarks about a meal.

Of course there is nothing wrong with posting critical remarks.

Again, in one of those posts I wrote that it was a good tool in general, the whole thing.

It was two things, again, that struck me. . .and struck me strangely.

1. The title of the thread and

2. The question as to why more chefs were not responding to this thing that by implication was (and should have been) fearsome to them.

So. I responded on two levels.

One, as an ex-chef. I said things that I would have wanted to say if I were still a chef. . .but guess what? I would not have, if I was still immersed in that profession, for it would be the wrong thing to do. . .for mostly chefs are trying to be hospitable and kind to people through making food, and to reply would have undermined that steady goal.

Then of course, being the thorough person that I am, I replied about three times in this way.

The second level I responded on was my feeling that somehow this whole thing (the title of the thread and what I read as the conclusion in the first post) was bullshit. It seemed to be taking facts and shaping them into a thing that was made of poseur bullshit. I react strongly to what I perceive as bullshit. It thoroughly attracts me and I want to "take it on" till it can be torn apart and proved for what it is. If it is.

Listen, I could be wrong, too. Nobody on earth is right about everything. But please, re-read those two original points I made to see if I have followed the points I wanted to make, along them, honestly and with good will.

As far as the rest of it. . .the socio-cultural babble. . .well. Life sometimes takes on the semblance of science-fiction to me. Sometimes it really IS like science fiction. That discussion of mine was decoration and side-issues to the post.

Rather depressing, too, so I don't really want to think about it.

I hope that clears it up.

Edited August 28, 2005 by Carrot Top (log)

[Carrot Top]

It probably would have been best for me to have answered the question "Why are more chefs not running scared of websites" with the responding question "Why should they be running scared from websites?" and have taken it from there.

My intent would have been clearer and more on-track.