If a restaurant doesn't want to be in a guidebook

[Beachfan]

It was more along the lines of:

"Hi, may I please speak to the owner."

"That's me."

"I'm working on a guidebook . . ."

"We don't want to be in your guidebook. (Click.)"

That sounds like he thought you were from the yellow pages trying to sell him a listing.

[cakewalk]

You're in a bar.  You get hit on and decline interest.

"Getting hit on" in this context is precisely equivalent to a restaurant getting listed in a guidebook--when you go to a bar or open a restaurant you accept the possibility--indeed, even probability--of this occurring.

Wishing it wouldn't occur is just not realistic because, well, you are in a bar.

Now if you absolutely positively don't ever want to get hit on--you don't go to a bar.

You stay in your room, hire bodyguards, etc.

Oh dear.

Quite often, a man will go into a bar because he wants a drink. Now this may be hard to believe, but quite often a woman goes into a bar for the same reason. I think each is entitled to that drink.

I think the analogy, from the get-go, was off the mark. A restaurant's "existence," as it were, is for the purpose of serving others, exposing itself to others, it's there for "my" sake. A woman going into a bar is not there for "your" sake, unless she wants to be. She does not have to "stay in her room" or "hire bodyguards." (I'm sure you didn't really mean that. Did you?). She does not exist for the pleasure of others. The restaurant does. It's a business, by definition. A woman is not! (No wisecracks here.) The restaurant is also a one-to-many type thing. The man hitting on a woman in a bar is one-to-one, and that dynamic also changes everything. So really I think the analogy just doesn't hold up.

Shropsins is becoming more than ridiculous at this point. It was even dropped into the article on the Russian Tea Room's closing in yesterdays Times, along with Le Circque, etc. It made me think of the old Sesame Street song, "One of these things is not like the other ..."

[Fat Guy]

Cakey, baby, if I could rearrange the alphabet, I'd put U and I together.

I'm not sure I understand why it's ever wrong to "hit" on a member of the opposite sex (or the same sex, come to think of it). We had lots of sensitivity training in college where we were indoctrinated with the most extreme feminist vision of right conduct and what I recall us learning is that it's acceptable to approach another person in a non-threatening manner in a public place (as opposed to a dark hallway or elevator), introduce yourself politely, and hope for the best. Of course you have to look at the social context -- you don't interrupt a business meeting even if that meeting is taking place in public, and if somebody is putting out a leave-me-the-fuck-alone vibe you should be sensitive to that and stay away, but if it's a cocktail party or the type of bar where strangers commonly talk to one another or another equivalent situation I don't see the objection. Gazillions of people meet this way; some even get married and live happily ever after. There is no ethical transgression in the approach; it's in the refusal to disengage immediately upon rejection that puts you firmly into the scumbag category. Or as Special K (which is what all the ladies on the bar scene used to call him before he got married, and they still speak about him in hushed tones all over the DC Metro area) puts it, "You're in a bar. You get hit on and decline interest." At that point, I would happily step in and kick the ass of any non-compliant guy.

There must be some really gorgeous women participating on eGullet, because I have plenty of female acquaintances who I think are pretty darn good looking and they never get hit on -- they'd probably talk about it for months, in a good way, if it ever happened to them. I once got hit on by a woman at a bar, and it was the coolest thing that ever happened to me, but I guess that's different because it was at a fancy hotel bar and it quickly became evident that she was a high-class hooker. I have been legitimately hit on by gay guys, though, and I took it as a compliment even though it kind of freaked me out.

Edit: If you think I'm completely wrong here, please view this as an opportunity to educate me and Steve K and other bystanders on the subject, and not as purposeful antagonism.

[Steve Plotnicki]

There's no perfect answer to this one. It's a balancing act. Who suffers more harm from it not being included the restaurant or the readers. First of all, I don't think the harm to Shopsin's from being included has been properly stated. Shopsin's is a neighborhood restaurant with some international reknown due to Trillin. Most of what Trillin writes about are the restaurant's eccentricities. Even when he talks about the food, it's in the context of how unusual and eccentric it is, even when it's good. But if you have been to Shopsin's you know the reason it works is that the family can manage running the place on its own quirky terms. They have no desire to, nor could they handle having the lines that a place like Sarabeth's has. To do something that would put them in a situation where it could jeopardize their business (not that the inclusion in this guidebook would guarantee that) has its own unusual morality in my opinion. And to me that is the threshold issue in evaluating their request.

On the other hand, the publishers of this guide have the right to publish anything they want. There is no restrictions on printing the address and telephone numbers of a public business along with a description of the services you might find inside. That's a free speech issue. And in addition, the public has the *right to know* which so many people here have already done a good job of expressing.

If it was my decision, I would give deference to the restaurant's request. Maybe it's because I know how hard it is to start a successful business and how hard it is to keep that delicate balance going for so many years. Also in this instance, having been to Shopsin's many times and observing the Shopsin family at length and in detail, I would conclude the harm is going to be much greater to them from their inability to handle the excess business due to the publicity than it is going to be to diners who literally have thousands of other choices of where to eat. In fact I can see the Shopsin's shutting their business in frustration at being forced to live a lifestyle they have purposely chosen not to live. But I can understand all the other arguments that everyone has made and I can see including it. But I still see coming down in favor of a specific harm to a generalized harm to the publisher/public. Where in spite of all the great arguments made here, I can't really get my arms around what their real harm is. Not including it in the book won't stop a single person from buying that book, nor finding it useful.

[Ron Johnson]

Being hit on in a bar is not analogous to being listed in a guide book.

Being reviewed in a guide book could be.

Being listed in a guide book is analogous to going to a bar in the first place. There is a possibility you will be hit on, but not a guarantee.

In other words, where the business card example and the hit on in a bar example both have an implicit invasion of privacy aspect, being listed in a guide book does not. It merely creates the possibility of an invasion of privacy, which leads to the real point.

Suzanne seeks to equate individuals and businesses open to the public. Certainly an individual enjoys an expectation of privacy, and in countries with certain constitutional language, they even enjoy a RIGHT to privacy. However, when a person opens a going concern for profit and solicits the business of the public in order to earn money, that precludes any expectation of privacy.

If you want to own a private club, then don't open a restaurant.

In light of their response, I would put them on the cover of the book.

[Fat Guy]

You know, the way I was scrolling and my eyes were scanning the screen I was reading Plotnicki's post but I thought it was Ron Johnson's post and I was saying, "There's no way Ron Johnson thinks this. He's too rational." Then I realized it was Plotnicki, and that was even more surprising to me, for different reasons: It displays an extraordinary amount of sensitivity, even if it is ultimately wrong.

Plotnicki, did you see my list above of where this place is listed? The train has already left the station here. I don't see any balancing act on the exposure issue in this context. Also, if you hadn't known the place was Shopsin's, what would you have said?

By the way, does anybody know if Zagat lists Shopsin's? I don't have the latest edition. And it was interesting that someone said Michelin allows establishments to opt out. Is this really the case? Assuming Zagat doesn't list Shopsin's, and assuming it's because Shopsin's asked to have it that way, how do we view Zagat's decision?

Also, I haven't read the Trillin piece, but someone told me the backstory was that the Shopsin's people were willing to go public on account of wanting to talk about their dispute with the landlord. Is that the case? Somebody lend me the magazine so I can get up to speed on this.

[Steve Klc]

Let me try again Cake--but I'm with Shaw on this, sincerely see this as an opportunity to educate--because everything I've said is gender neutral and applies equally to men and to myself. It's about reality, expectation and self-delusion.

We're not talking harassment here but simply being approached--being hit on--and obviously most individuals in a public, social context are not businesses.

The reason the analogy works for me (not speaking as a lawyer since I'm not) is just because you're in a bar and don't want to be hit on--you are choosing to go into a public place where there is an expectation someone else might talk to you (unless you're putting out the killer vibe) just as when you open a restaurant there is an expectation the public will come, eat, pay and return. Don't get hung up on the transactional element of this--I don't see that rendering the analogy invalid.

To deny the reality of either premise--is to deny rational expectation and is self-delusional with respect to accepted Western urban societal norms.

The only way a restaurant or an individual going into a bar can opt out or self-select out of the expected societal interaction--is not to open a restaurant in the first place and create a private membership supper club instead--or go to a bar with bodyguards as a celebrity might, or ask for a private room.

Otherwise, just sitting at a bar taking a drink--male or female--you accept the probability someone might nudge your arm and say "hey, haven't we met before?"

That's why a restaurant being included in a guidebook and the individual getting hit on in a bar--both work for me. Both parties are free to feel aggrieved--the restaurant owner wishing never to be covered in the media nor included in the guidebook and the individual in a bar wishing never to be hit on. It's just an unrealistic and self-delusional stance to take.

[tommy]

I REFUSE to sit around a let this restaurant get bullied against its wishes.

[Robert Schonfeld]

inability to handle the excess business due to the publicity

There was a restaurant in Venice - I forget the name now - just one guy and, I think, a daughter, who waited the tables, of which there were about a dozen. The house specialty was a pork chop with some sort of vinegar preparation. He was in every guide book in existence.

When the last table was taken, he would draw the shade over the glass door. If someone knocked on the door, he would shoo them away. When a table opened up, he lifted the shade until it was taken. Then, shade down again. Lines, crowds; it didn't matter. The guy went about his business at a pace he knew he could handle.

List 'em

[Steve Plotnicki]

Fat Guy - Well I didn't say it was right or wrong. I said that based upon the facts the way I know them, I would balance the harms that way. I see the harm to the Shopsin's, and I don't see much harm to the public. But like I said, you will never get a perfect answer here. The Shopsin's are not happy with the monetary benefit that comes from fame and fortune. They want an equitable remedy of privacy. While they might not be entitled to get one as a matter of law, if it was in my power, I would give it to them on grounds of morality. Fortunately, the publisher of the guide and you as the editor *do not have to live to the letter of the law, or even the spirit of it.* You are both private entities that have a conscience and can decide it on any terms that you want. You are not bound by the limit of the law. You can also decide things according to the laws of rachmunis. And other arguments showing me where they are listed doesn't change my mind because I do not know the details of how those listings came about. Magistrate Plotnicki concludes that on a moral basis, Kenny Shopsin needs the privacy more than a guy from Kansas needs to know about the Grilled Chicken Breast with Thai Green Curry served atop Soft Polenta.

[Fat Guy]

Add "judge" and "journalist" to the list of jobs you'd suck at.

[Wilfrid]

I'm constantly amazed at the things a bunch of intelligent people can disagree about. The correct analogy is with reviewing - or just listing - other public services or entertainments or arts (put restaurants in whichever category you please). Permission is absolutely not required. Never has been. End of story.

And the really droll thing is that those who disagree are happy to chat about Shopsin's, right here on a web-site which possibly - I don't know - gets more views than whatever guidebook we're discussing.

[Suzanne F]

First of all, let's break "hitting on someone" into its component parts: there are 2 active parties, the hitter and the hittee. Generally, there are also passive bystanders: the other patrons. There is the act: in the active viewpoint, the hitter hits on the hittee; from the passive viewpoint, the hittee receives the attention. Then the hittee responds. Finally the hitter follows up on the hittee's response.

There is nothing innately wrong with the act of hitting on someone. It is the hitter's reaction to the hittee's response that determines whether or not a problem exists. If the hittee accepts then there's mutual consent, and no problem (the problems come later, like the next morning). If the hittee declines, and the hitter ceases and moves away quietly, there may be regret, but no harm to either party. If the hittee declines and the hitter persists, but finally fails and gives up quietly, there's annoyance on the part of the hittee who must keep asserting her/his right to be left alone by this boor, but ultimately no harm. If the hittee declines and the hitter persists to the point of attempting physical contact anyway, there's a big problem. (In its extreme versions, this is a form of assault.) If, however, the hittee declines and the hitter, upon eventually accepting defeat, then goes around denigrating the hittee in public, there is also a problem (isn't this called slander?). Damn, I wish I could do this as a wishbone; it would be so much easier to follow.

You're in a bar. You get hit on and decline interest.

"Getting hit on" in this context is precisely equivalent to a restaurant getting listed in a guidebook--when you go to a bar or open a restaurant you accept the possibility--indeed, even probability--of this occurring.

No, in the context I've described, the precise equivalent of "getting hit on" would be the phoned request that Steve S attempted but was unable to consummate. Were he to actually list the place in the book, that would be the equivalent of the assault, and to do it vindictively would be the slander.

[tommy]

strong words. chilling almost.

[Fat Guy]

But I didn't have to call at all, did I? I was calling to check the facts, not to ask permission. No permission was required.

[cakewalk]

I'm not sure I understand why it's ever wrong to "hit" on a member of the opposite sex (or the same sex, come to think of it). ... and if somebody is putting out a leave-me-the-fuck-alone vibe you should be sensitive to that and stay away...

An important distinction to make. A lot of people miss it, or ignore it, or think he/she is just being coy. And then, of course, there are "hits" and there are "hits." Flirting can be fun. It can also be decidedly not-fun.

But my main point was the analogy to writing up a restaurant in a guidebook. I still say a woman and a restaurant are simply not analogous!!

[Steve Klc]

Suzanne--on this issue you and I simply exist in alternate planes of reality.

[Fat Guy]

I still say a woman and a restaurant are simply not analogous!!

Don't go there.

[Steve Plotnicki]

Well then I would be in good company wouldn't I?

[Fat Guy]

Clever boy.

[Bux]

Kenny Shopsin needs the privacy more than a guy from Kansas needs to know about the Grilled Chicken Breast with Thai Green Curry served atop Soft Polenta.

No surprise that this was a place I passed on many occasions without a need to feel curious about. Then I read Trillin's artcle and had to stop and read the menu posted outside, which was much like the label on a bottle of one of Dr. Bronner's liquid soaps. I was curious if the menu on the exterior was posted as an inducement or warning.

From what I've read [Note: Tony Bourdain will appreciate that I've never actually eaten there, nor would I let that stop me from commenting here] Kenny Shopsin needs people to complain about more than he needs privacy. I'm willing to bet he really enjoyed hanging up on Fat Guy. It probably made his day. Misanthropes open restaurants all the time. Hermits do not. People go to bars all the time and they frequently just go for a drink, but they never go for privacy.

Fat Guy, is this an all inclusive listing of restaurants like the yellow pages or a selected list of restaurants? If the latter, does the restaurant meet the criteria for selection?

[tommy]

Well then I would be in good company wouldn't I? 

hehe.

[Miss J]

I still say a woman and a restaurant are simply not analogous!!

There's a comedy sketch in the UK based on a character called Swiss Tony, a dodgy used car salesman for whom any activity can be decribed as "being similar to making love to a beautiful woman."

I feel that we are collectively starting to channel him now.

Click for Swiss Tony's Words of Wisdom

[Bux]

I still say a woman and a restaurant are simply not analogous!!

And I remember the days when a good cigar was just a smoke.

[LaNiña]

I feel strongly about this. If you (FG) think that the restaurant warrants inclusion in the book, for any reason at all, then put it in. No restaurant owner has the "right" to exclude themselves. If there were some bizarre circumstance involved that you happened to know about, then maybe for humanitarian reasons (though I couldn't imagine what they might be) you might decide to honor their request. But this is not the case here.

As for women getting hit on in bars - it's just not the same thing, at all. Start a new thread about getting hit on in bars, if somebody wants to discuss it further, perhaps.