Criticism versus nitpicking and do we have

[John Talbott]

When does criticism become nitpicking and do posters/critics have a responsibility to update/correct/amend their critiques?

Because it was thought to be of more general interest I have posted a modified version of what I posted on the French Forum a few days ago; essentially I took the names of the restaurants out and abbreviated some details.

A friend, as least he was until he reads this, has the habit of being truthful to a fault; thus if recommending someone for an academic position, he is want to say something like “he’s terrific, indeed perfect, except that he cannot write,” or “he’s good but he picks his nose/sleeps/whatever/etc. in meetings.” Now, is this really necessary; and when does valid criticism pass over into nitpicking?

Since I do not have Randy Cohen, like the proverbial policeman, at my elbow, I don’t know the ethical niceties of correcting restaurant reviews. Granted it’s not stem-cell cloning, but to my knowledge only the New York Times + Michelin do or say they will revisit places if they get negative feedback.

So, I’m faced with the dilemma of having several experiences at four Paris restos just a few weeks after writing enthusiastically, indeed raving, about them. Their problems, the second time around, included:

- not being given the “formulas/menus” but only the “carte,”

- not having our “soiled” knives and forks replaced with clean silverware after we finished our amuse bouches,

- being served two bland firsts,

- the kitchen’s being overwhelmed and slow as molasses,

- “running out” of the cheapo wine after our first (“aperto”) bottle,

- forgetting to serve us the mignardises/friandises/chocolate cookies at the end of the meal versus all the other tables did,

- rampant smoking without adequate ventilation versus no smoking before,

- a much less interesting and in no way dazzling “menu” than before,

- cold coffee,

- a paving-stone hard pave of biche and “boring” bar,

- a very assertive, un-announced rosemary sauce on the biche (to my taste it was fine, but should it have been listed on the menu, since it was the principle ingredient in the sauce?)

On the other hand, to be even-handed, I must also report that six other places held up to my last visits, indeed one was better than ever.

Quiz: My vexation is due to:

A. The sophomore jinx syndrome raised by me before.

B. The “multiplier effect” of 2-4 persons eating rather than one.

C. Inconsistency in the kitchens.

D. All of the above.

E. None of the above.

So to return to my questions: “When does criticism become nitpicking and do posters/critics have a responsibility to update/correct/amend their critiques?” Your thoughts?

Edited January 11, 2006 by John Talbott (log)

[docsconz]

I would say that if one is taking the time to initially praise or berate a restaurant and subsequent visits differ from the former than there is a certain responsibility to follow-up as others may be taking the initial recommendation to heart. Subsequent visits without a change of experience do not require additional criticism although follow-up reports are not without value as they indicate a level of consistency.

[bleudauvergne]

Our intimate knowledge with a restaurant has something to do with it was well, I think. If we don't have the pleasure to eat somewhere often enough to really know the place, we can collectively piece one together here on the boards if everyone posts their experiences.

I think that over time, as we build threads with individual experiences of certain places over time, we can finally get a clear picture of where the place falls. So while I would go back and update with my recent experiences, both good and bad, and yes a repeat good experience is worth a note in my book, I would not necessarily say I have changed my mind altogether about a place unless something really horrible happens that simply cannot fall into the 'bad day' category.

[cigalechanta]

I think along the same lines as Lucy. I have had a great meal at a place and than another poster shoots it down , only to find another praising it again. Could be our own reality. Who was cooking? new? Who was serving? Restaurant changed hands? Chefs?

Edited January 9, 2006 by cigalechanta (log)

[srhcb]

For purpose of discussion, let's say this post of Mr. Talbot's was the only piece of his writing I'd ever encountered. How likely would I be to form an accurate opinion of his abilities, and, more importantly, how justified would I be to either advocate or deride his talent to other potential readers?

SB (six of the goose, half dozen the gander)

[raisab]

For purpose of discussion, let's say this post of Mr. Talbot's was the only piece of his writing I'd ever encountered.  How likely would I be to form an accurate opinion of his abilities, and, more importantly, how justified would I be to either advocate or deride his talent to other potential readers?

SB (six of the goose, half dozen the gander)

←

If you were a regular subscriber to this forum and had visited several of the restaurant's that Mr Talbott had reviewed, you could use that as a litmus. Your opinion versus his on the same. If I read his review and it was the only one I had ever read, well I wouldn't rely too much on it as we all know tastes are subjective.

As far as there being a personal responsibility, if your opinion has changed substantially, I would say it would be nice service to your regular readers, but not necessarily a responsibility to the restaurant.

Edited January 9, 2006 by raisab (log)

[Mimi Sheraton]

It is called nitpicking when it relates to negative details. When it is positive, even the tiniest, most recherche detail is welcome.

[ned]

This is a good question.

I'm probably guilty of nitpicking as you define it all the time. The issue most important here is the context. Egullet as a critical entity is an excersize in democracy. Every member who chooses to may vote and each vote only counts a little bit. Whereas we egulleters are citizens, the folks reviewing for the NYT or Michelin are more like elected officials.

I certainly think that if someone has posted their opinion about a restaurant, then goes and has an experience that is not in line with the first one, he is obligated to post again.

It also seems to me that egullet is a perfect place for nitpicking. By virtue of the smallness of the individual voice and the number of voices, egulleters have a license to nitpick in a way the Michelin or the NYT ought to refrain from. My comment that service is slow at a certain restaurant isn't worth much. But in a given thread on that restaurant, if twelve other posters make the same observation, that has value.

[Daniel Rogov]

The great French critic, Curnonsky once bemoaned that he had only one stomach and one anus to give to his profession. I think many restaurant critics would make those complaints but one must also consider several other potential problem areas: (a) Professional critics, especially those who work for daily newspapers, are ruled by editors who dole out just so many column inches weekly and that limits how often we can update crits; (b) Chefs and owners at some restaurants change so rapidly that within a short time after the review of some places appears, the review is already dated; © New restaurants open at a pace that even outstrips the changes that take place in older ones and the critic has a responsibility to review those new places for his clients (i.e. his/her readers) and (d), Hating to sound banal, but few critics have enough of a budget that they can not only dine at and try the new places but return as often as they might like to the old.

My own policy has been certainly to post major updates in cases where dramatic changes are found (for better or for worse); to try to revisit places as often as possible and where more than the most minor of changes are found to write, if not full re-reviews, at least updates that are tagged onto the major review of that particular column.