Restaurant Reviewers

[lizziee]

No I'm in total agreement.

FG,

Do you feel bad again?

Suvir,

Thank you for your kind thoughts. I see e-gullet as an education in itself. I enjoy the exchange of ideas as it challenges my assumptions and often forces me to research what I had taken for granted. Sometimes, I feel as if I am back in college doing a term paper. Also, I will often post a half-formed idea to see how other members feel. I think it is through these exchange of ideas that the world of fine dining and the culinary arts can grow and flourish.

[Suvir Saran]

Thank you for your kind thoughts. I see e-gullet as an education in itself.  I enjoy the exchange of ideas as it challenges my assumptions and often forces me to research what I had taken for granted. Sometimes, I feel as if I am back in college doing a term paper.  Also, I will often post a half-formed idea to see how other members feel. I think it is through these exchange of ideas that the world of fine dining and the culinary arts can grow and flourish.

Thanks should go to you... Again, you share a great post for all of us to enjoy and reflect upon. I am sure many others have tried to articulate what you shared, maybe not all were able to give words to what they felt.

But in your post, you have made it clear and simple and evidence for each of us to understand what we do at eGullet.

[Lesley C]

I disagree with a lot -- if not most -- of Steven's post but I'm tired of re-posting opinions already stated on another thread. I believe there are plenty of excellent restaurant reviewers out there. And anyone who thinks anonimity isn't important hasn't a clue what goes on behind the scenes in most professional restaurant kitchens.

Don't you people ever tire of critic bashing? What is this, the third thread devoted to the subject?

[Suvir Saran]

I disagree with a lot -- if not most -- of Steven's post but I'm tired of re-posting opinions already stated on another thread. I believe there are plenty of excellent restaurant reviewers out there. And anyone who thinks anonimity isn't important hasn't a clue what goes on behind the scenes in most professional restaurant kitchens.

Don't you people ever tire of critic bashing? What is this, the third thread devoted to the subject?

Can someone remind me about that famous English saying about Critics?? What does it say....?

But jokes apart, I am sure there are many good critics, but really we do need an overhaul of the entire system. Certainly the good ones stand to become legendary with that happening.

Can that be such a bad thing after all?

[lizziee]

I disagree with a lot -- if not most -- of Steven's post but I'm tired of re-posting opinions already stated on another thread. I believe there are plenty of excellent restaurant reviewers out there. And anyone who thinks anonimity isn't important hasn't a clue what goes on behind the scenes in most professional restaurant kitchens.

Don't you people ever tire of critic bashing? What is this, the third thread devoted to the subject?

Lesley,

Would you please let me know where you have posted? I would like to read it.

[Fat Guy]

Here's one . . .

http://forums.egullet.org/ibf/index.php?ac...t=ST&f=2&t=3427

(It makes reference to an earlier thread as well.)

[Steve Plotnicki]

"And anyone who thinks anonimity isn't important hasn't a clue what goes on behind the scenes in most professional restaurant kitchens"

The best evidence I've seen yet that the more info you get (and inside info is even better) the better off you are.

It all comes back to what Lesley C. said in the other thread. If the purpose of a review is to allow a couple who live in the suburbs of a major metropolitan area, and who go to a high end restaurant a few times a year for celebrations, and who have saved up money for this extravagance, if the goal is to give them a consumer guide to restaurants I can understand the need for anonymity. But if the purpose is to reveal the best about a restaurant, including a more demanding test of their abilities, I don't see how anonymity helps. My experience is that restaurants perform better for special customers. And as much as people might not like that fact, it's true. And the people who need that information (moi,) don't have much use for a description of the average meal.

There's a whole other track to this aspect of the discussion that asks, does better information make the dining experience more exclusive and possibly shut out the people described in the paragraph above from a restaurant? This is an argument made against wine publications all the time. The theory goes, if the information wasn't so accessable and detailed, people who are less interested in wine wouldn't be interested in buying highly rated wines. But now that they have easy access to the info, they drive prices up and it becomes unaffordable for people who "deserve" to drink them because they appreciate them. Do you think there is an aspect of this in restaurant reviewing and why publishers always orient their reviews towards a common denominator?

[Lesley C]

Lizziee, My rant about anonimity was on the Hangin' with the Peeps thread.

Steve, sometimes I can't believe the stuff you write! Common denominator? Jesus, you are such a snob! Do you realize that a lot of those “common denominator” people from the suburbs are probably better cooks than you are? They just don't spend all their time analyzing every last detail. And if a reviewer wrote such an elitist, Plotnicki-friendly review, he/she'd bore the crap out of 99% of the readers. If you want a really detailed upscale restaurant review, look for it in a magazine like Gourmet -- not a newspaper. Is Jonathan Gold not doing it for you?

And I don't go for this "deserving" garbage. I think anyone who is willing to drop their hard-earned money on food or wine out of interest, curiosity, or keeping up with the Jones' -itis is OK with me. In fact, they keep the food writers employed -- because heaven knows, the gourmets already think they know everything.

[Steve Plotnicki]

Lesley C - Gee, if the architecture reviewer for the New York Times didn't write his reviews for that top 1% of the readers he would be lambasted. It's only food writing that is watered down for a certain segment of the masses which is the point I/we keep making. All other reviewers write about their disciplines without making any compromise for consumability. And the truth of the matter is that who you are doing a great disservice to that 99% of the audience by lumping them together with people who understand less about food than they do. A large percentage of those people are capable of understanding, and subsequently enjoying a better quality review and meal than what the ordinary paper publishes. These days, those people do not have a way to get the reviews they deserve to get. And again, it's not a matter of the quality of reviewers, but the format of restaurant reviewing in newspapers.

No Jonathan Gold doesn't do it for me. . Back in my music business days, he was a music reviewer for the L.A. Times. One day I walked into the office of my in house publicist and she was on the telephone with him. I had never heard of him but she told me we should talk because she knew he was really into food (he might have been writing about it for the paper too.) So she hands me the phone expecting me to schmooze him up so he would review some new CD we released. So we start chatting about restaurants in NYC, and we end up in this huge argument about which was better, Bouley or JoJo. Let's just say my publicist was not happy. But I think his work at Gourmet has been pretty good. I just find the Gourmet editorial style to be a bit sedate for me. I'm not content with idle descriptions, I want robust writing so I can be there eating with them.

[Steve Plotnicki]

I have something to add to this. I wonder why a segment of the food industry feels it is appropriate to describe a request for better, more detailed, and more exhaustive information about restaurants as "elitest?" Would anyone describe a request for more detailed writing about any other discipline the same way? Do people describe thorough reviews of automobiles as elitest? Are articles about sandwich presses elitest? Would they have been elitest last year before the pressed sandwich boom but not this year because pressed sandwiches are in vogue? Is it the action that is elitest or is it the percentage of people? Is the classical music reviewer for the NY Times made to review the Philharmonic through the ears of the average listener and is he called elitest if he doesn't? Who put food in this ghetto and why are people in the food industry so determined to keep it there?

[Bux]

Lesley C - Gee, if the architecture reviewer for the New York Times didn't write his reviews for that top 1% of the readers he would be lambasted. It's only food writing that is watered down for a certain segment of the masses which is the point I/we keep making.  All other reviewers write about their disciplines without making any compromise for consumability.

I've had a couple of thoughts while reading this thread. One is that restaurant reviews are not in a class of their own. Film reviews are similar. Why is it that we don't rate paintings or museum shows with stars? Almost every newspaper in America will rate films by the number, but I can't ever recall seeing a four star book review. Come to think of it, even theater reviews escape the numbers game. (Am I wring on this?) It seems that books are regarded as literature and art as, well ..., art, but movies and meals are consumable products like washers and dryers in our society and their reviews are treated as consumer reports. I think film and food has evolved, but the popular media (newspapers, TV, glossy magazines, etc.) have not resignificantly recognized that change with a change in reviewing patterns. On the whole, I suspect the majority of their audience or market is not interested in seeing change. To go back to architecture for a minute, the Times caters to the 1% because although we all use buidlings, only 1% thinks about architecture. With film and food, we all use it and we all think about it. Few people buy architecture, everyone buys movies and dinner.

On the whole, I'd rather read a literate account of a restaurant by a food writer than a restaurant review. I'd probably rather read a food writer's historical account of a restaurant long gone, or a fictional account of a great restaurnant that never was, than a restaurant review, but when I read a restaurant review, I'm probably as guitly as the next person in seeing it as a consumer report. I think a large part of that is conditioning.

[Steve Plotnicki]

Bux - Quite excellent points. If I can add anything to what you said, it isn't only that 1% of the population is interested in architecture, it's also that only 1% of the buildings built are interesting enough to write about. An inexact percentage but you get my point. And to be honest, the same is true about restaurants. What is interesting about the Mark Joseph steak house? I can encapsulate the entire restaurant by saying "this Peter Luger copycat...."

[Fat Guy]

Plotnicki, with regard to MarkJoseph as a worthy review subject, there are a couple of points. Clearly there is interest out there -- at every level of the dining-experience/connoissuership curve -- in knowing whether a steakhouse modeled after the best one in the world is able to compete, especially when there's so much buzz out there saying it does compete successfully. So I think the relevant paragraph in Eric Asimov's review is entirely worthwhile:

"Here is where the resemblance to Luger ends, for while the porterhouse is remarkably tender, with a well-charred, salty crust, it cannot match the firm, chewy texture of the Luger porterhouse or its funky mineral-laden flavor. It has a soft blandness that may thrill those who like their beef buttery but will leave lovers of dry-aged steaks unsatisfied."

I reached a similar conclusion -- though I did not express it as well -- when I wrote about MarkJoseph:

"It's pretty clear that MarkJoseph is doing everything right but just isn't getting the same beef as Luger's. So the steak is, unfortunately, just not terribly beefy when you get right down to it. And I think whatever they're doing in the aging process to keep it so moist and tender is preventing some of the concentration of flavor that usually comes from dry aging. Still, this is a major-league steak."

A big part of the reason you have expert restaurant reviews is to have this sort of stuff explained to the person who doesn't have the tools to articulate why one steak is better than another. And another big part is so that the person like Plotnicki, who does have the tools, doesn't have to go to the restaurant to find out. I mean, is there any question in reading Asimov's statement that he's right? His mere ability to express the concept correctly gives near-100% credibility to his conclusion in my opinion.

The rest of the review is all about getting to that paragraph. That's not to say it's irrelevant; I thought it made for decent reading.

Another thing that I think you have to bear in mind: As far as we know Asimov is currently substituting for the Times's official reviewer, who it is stated at the end of each Asimov review is "on leave." If that is so, it doesn't make sense to have Asimov out there reviewing Daniel and Lespinasse and rejiggering the three- and four-star universe. That's Grimes's job -- to speak with one voice and lay down a comprehensive hierarchy at the highest levels. So it's not surprising that they have him out investigating the middle-tier establishments just to keep the process moving. I'm also just plain enjoying his reviews, but that's a different issue.

Anyway, with 52 weeks in the year and maybe 10-20 world-class restaurants in town, it's not as though you can review a super-serious place every week. The occasional steakhouse review does not offend me.

[Fat Guy]

The thing about writing "for the top 1%" and Bux's points about film reviews are not part of the way I look at this. I would not necessarily consider it appropriate, in a non-technical publication, to write for the top 1% (I will adopt this rather coarse terminology for the purposes of moving on with the important part of the argument). I consider it a balancing act: You need to bring the knowledge of the top 1% (as a critic you better be a member of that group!) to bear on the subject, and you need to make sure you're fulfilling the needs of that audience in everything you write -- and you also have to address the rest of the readership by explaining the assumptions that the 1% take for granted (and there are many other things you must try to do as well, such as be a good writer). You can't be all things to all people, but you can certainly try to avoid exclusionary behavior. Otherwise restaurant reviews become like the bridge or chess columns that nobody outside the club will ever read. Finally, I do not accept that film reviews are non-serious. People like Ebert actually do a good job at what I described here -- they bring academic seriousness to bear in a way that is attractive to a wider audience. That they put their thumbs up and down is merely a distraction. But I do agree there is a hierarchy of seriousness in criticism -- not every area of criticism is currently on the same level. But surely restaurant criticism is not on as high a level as it should be.

[Bux]

I trust I didn't imply that I would't like to see restaurant reviews reach a level of food writing above consumer reports. On Asimov's recent MarkJoseph column, Fat Guy also points out the bit I would see as justification for the review and it's not to knock MarkJoseph's steaks or praise those of Peter Lugar, but to note the difference and educate those who don't know the difference. That the review is of a mediocre restaurant of a genre that has little personal interest to me is insignificant in my finding redeeming value in the piece. Asimov covered a lot of ground here and satisfied more than a few interests, especially when you consider the restaurant review as form has inherent problems. All things considered, that Asimov is being presented as a substitute and that his primary appearances to readers has been as a reviewer of "cheap" restaurants, whatever plans the Times has for him, I think this was a thumbs up performance.

[wingding]

In an ideal world,a good kitchen will consistently attempt to produce great food for Bill Gr*mes or Joe Shmoe.In reality,the hysteria and pressure that goes on behind the scenes during the reviewing process is comical at best.Whether the extra effort expended produces better results is questionable,but anyone who doesn't believe that a huge amount of extra effort goes into pleasing recognized critics is naive.I agree that we don't have very interesting writers these days.

[lizziee]

I disagree with a lot -- if not most -- of Steven's post but I'm tired of re-posting opinions already stated on another thread. I believe there are plenty of excellent restaurant reviewers out there. And anyone who thinks anonimity isn't important hasn't a clue what goes on behind the scenes in most professional restaurant kitchens.

Lesley C,

On one of those threads you said," And it's no fun when everyone knows what you look like (the anonimity bit is the best part of the job)." Would you explain why you find anonymity the best part of the job?

[Fat Guy]

A reviewer reviews what's there.  If the reviewer interferes with the creation process such that what's there is now different, then the review is inherently less relevant.  The best way not to interfere with the creation process is to be anonymous.

I apologize for ignoring this very interesting point earlier, but I would like to address it before I head out for the day.

Being anonymous does not spare you from interference with the "creation process." The nature of a restaurant meal is that it exists as potential. It is not an imprinted image on a reel of film, as you so correctly note. You can never have the meal somebody else had, because when you go to the restaurant the food will be cooked just for you. Every customer who visits a restaurant influences the creation process through the mere act of ordering. What you are really talking about, I think, is degrees of interference with the creation process. I certainly agree that a recognized critic will influence the creation process more than the average customer! Still it is only to the extent of what is cooked for him on that evening. Everything else has been created without reference to him: The restaurant was conceived, a business plan was written, investors came on board, construction took place, staff were hired, recipes were tested, a menu was created, the wine cellar was stocked, the line was trained in certain procedures, the stocks were made the day before, there is a lot that is unchangeable. Now the question is, does the critic's increased marginal ability-to-change negatively impact on the review? I've given my particular answer to that question in several places above. More importantly, though, what I think most customers have yet to learn is that they have the power to be more involved in the creation process than they currently assume. There are several other points I've made and that others have made that bear on this issue as well, so I will not repeat those.

In restaurant criticism, there is without question a slipperiness to the medium that does not exist in most other areas of criticism (actually I can't think of another, but maybe someone can). The question then becomes what do we do about it? One option is to view the issue as so central to everything that the form must be completely redesigned to accommodate it. That seems to be what has occurred, and to the detriment of the form in my opinion. The other option is to live with it and continue with business as usual, while of course trying to bear in mind that you're reviewing something that is fluid and dynamic. That would be my preference.

[Steve Plotnicki]

Fat Guy - Well said. My complaint about allocating an entire Friday review to MarkJoseph is that it is too much copy just to make the ultimate point. It really doesn't merit an entire article. But I guess you also have a point in that there aren't 52 interesting restaurants to write about either. But I think the Times would be better off giving some of that column space to great ethnic restaurants in the boroughs even though they are more likely candidates for the $25 and under column. As to the 1%, it isn't that a review should be geared to that 1%, it's that a review should cover the entire spectrum. From the $20.20 meal to the best meal. What goes on in a restaurant each not isn't just one experience, it's a multitude of experiences and the goal should be to report them all.

[Lesley C]

Lizziee,

It’s the best part of the job because when I’m anonymous, I am the client. When I’m recognized, I’m someone the staff is bending over backward to impress. If I favorably write up a restaurant where I was recognized and a customer returns a few weeks later and doesn’t share an experience remotely similar to mine (this has happened) I hear about it. Also, before I worked as a restaurant reviewer, I worked in restaurants as a professional pastry chef where I heard every chef under the sun brag about how he added this and that to some critic’s plate. I’ve had to assemble dishes for a critic myself and -- trust me -- we ignored every other order while three people worked on that one plate.

I think many posters are only considering the highest of the high end when they say a restaurant cannot change its style at the last minute. I agree, in fact, anonymity is not such an important factor with the four-star places. It is important, however, when reviewing that large group of restaurants that fall between 1 and 3 stars.

Ultimately, preferential treatment can best be judged by the service. I was recently reviewing one of Montreal’s best hotel restaurants. The food was wonderful but the service was horrible. Next to me was a PR woman from a big wine company. I watched the waiters kiss up to her shamelessly while I was treated like some poor, stupid tourist. Lovely, I thought, the truth comes out!

The first time I went to Gramercy Tavern, the two girls by the door barely offered a hello and we were offered a banquette in a back corner of the restaurant. I thought the service, though correct, was cold, verging on smug. It wasn't a pleasant experience. The next night I went to Babbo and the service was superb. The food was excellent in both places but the service made Babbo especially memorable. A year later I went back to Gramercy with someone who knew the staff well and we were treated like long lost friends. Big difference.

[Fat Guy]

Plotnicki, I agree that MarkJoseph shouldn't necessarily get a whole review to itself, but there's no alternative given the system. All I'm saying is that within the parameters of the Times's system the review made sense. Were I to renovate that system one of the things I'd do is say that all reviews of simple restaurants like steakhouses and pizzerias should be comparative and cover multiple establishments. So basically I'd say, okay, once every year or two (or whenever a critical mass of new steakhouse openings and closings has caused a significant change on the steak scene) we're going to do a steakhouse review piece where we start out by talking about the steakhouse phenomenon, run the reader through a basic steak education, lay out the criteria by which we judge good steak, and then hold each steakhouse up to that standard and see how the hierarchy shakes out. And of course the related information -- wine lists, side dishes, lobsters, service -- should also be in there, space permitting.

Ultimately I think people and organizations should do what they're good at. Restaurant reviewers are or should be food experts and educators. That's what they're supposed to be good at, and it just so happens that the weekly essay written by a single person is a form well suited to that goal. What a nice piece of luck.

What restaurant reviewers are not good at is evaluating consistency or service. The maximum theoretical number of meals a reviewer can eat at a single restaurant when faced with a 52-reviews-a-year burden is not high. In an exceptional instance the number might approach 10, but most of the time it's 2 or 3 -- and that's assuming unlimited funding such as at the New York Times (there are only a handful of reviewers in the world with effectively unlimited resources). That is not enough to establish a statistically reliable pattern of consistency or inconsistency.

Moreover, in those 2 or 3 visits, assuming a restaurant with 10 waiters, how can a reviewer possibly judge the service? Some conclusions can of course be drawn, but we delude ourselves if we believe a single reviewer can give us anything close to a statistically relevant discussion by experiencing a few individual waiters over the course of 3 meals.

Zagat is fond of saying that 3,000 opinions are better than 1. This is decidedly untrue with regard to judging the quality of a restaurant's cuisine. But when it comes to judging consistency or service, it seems to me so obviously true as to be beyond argument. Of course the Zagat methodology -- which asks no specific questions and does not educate its participants to conform to an objective standard or require anything at all except the willingness to fill out a survey -- is next to useless. But in theory the best way to evaluate service or consistency would be to tabulate the experiences of a statistically significant group of diners who are all working from the same playbook.

It is futile for reviewers to try to compete with Zagat on that ground. That part of the effort should be dropped and the space wasted on it should be repurposed for more and better culinary discussion. Or figure out how to capture the ground using the appropriate tools. If I had the money to arrange it, maybe I'd put together a weekly review like this: A full-length discussion of the restaurant's cuisine (along the lines of what I have described in other posts) by a single expert restaurant reviewer; a sidebar discussion of the restaurant's wine list by a wine expert; and a statistical report, based on carefully timed and administered surveys (the Internet would be an excellent vehicle for this), that covers the questions of service and consistency.

[Lesley C]

A statistical report on service and consistency! Do readers really want that much information? Sidebars on the wine list? Most restaurant wine lists merit a paragraph. If it's really outstanding, it could be covered by a journalist in the food section. And are you going to pay the expert wine writer to dine at said restaurant to make sure the wine is properly served?

Let me get this straight: You want a reviewer who is a terrific writer, a food expert, the added input of a wine expert, and the budget to dine at the restaurant more than three times. Also, you want one of these critics in every major American city.

Questions: What kind of money do you think newspapers (besides the Times) shell out for the restaurant column? How much do you think most restaurant reviewers make? And, how important do you think a restaurant review column is to a newspaper editor-in-chief?

[Steve Plotnicki]

Lesley C - Your points are all well taken, but in reality all you're saying is that restaurant reviewing for newpapers is a business. And since they give the service away for free, they have limitations in what they can do. But other disciplines have scholars who write criticism for non-commercial publications and take a different approach, or write for publications that afford them a great amount of column space (how about film reviews?) Restaurant reviewing has been delegated to a lower rung of interest. And I'm not saying things like film do not warrant a greater amount of column space than food does, but it would be nice if food was upgraded and given greater deferrence. I think you would find that there is more interest out there than you realize.

You know one of the problems with food is that there is no national food reviewer of note (US I mean.) Somebody like Robert Parker has 40,000 subscribers to The Wine Advocate who pay what, $40 a year? Or the Wine Spectator has something like 100,000 subscribers. One would think that their is even more interest in food.

[Lesley C]

You'll have to write Ruth Reichl at Gourmet. How many subscribers do they have? Shouldn't your friend J Gold be filling that role? Didn't the "new" Gourmet mention something about covering more American restaurants featuring a different city every month? What happened to that?

[Bux]

Questions: What kind of money do you think newspapers (besides the Times) shell out for the restaurant column? How much do you think most restaurant reviewers make? And, how important do you think a restaurant review column is to a newspaper editor-in-chief?

Steve P., one of the reasons there is no national food reviewer of note, as there are national (actually international) wine reviewers, is that unlike wine which can be bottled and shipped around the world so that diners in Tuscon can drink almost precisely the same wine drunk in Toulouse, restaurant food is a local thing--at least at the top. Under the best of conditions, a bottle of Cote Rotie will be quite similar in Lyon and Los Angeles. Film, by the way is the same standard product across the country, barring some local censorship. If you want a national food voice it will have to report on Olive Gardens. France has been better at developing natinal voices largely because it's a so much smaller country. I suspect it's also true that France, in spite of its limited area, has more restaurants worthy of attention that we have. Certainly they have more per capita and within reach of a greater percentage of the population.

I think those are unfair questions as Fat Guy noted this was his ideal if he had the money, and not what he expected from newspapers across the country. To restrict an abstract proposal on the basis of current budgets and interests is to deny that a system should or even could improve. One of eGullet's functions may be to raise consciousness about ofood and dining so that restaurant reviews will become more important to consumers and editors.