So, colleague and all-around good guy Jim W. sent me this review. It's a slam--a gleeful, meanie-pie, whoa-this-restaurant-blows shellacking. Fun to read, but going back to our ongoing debate, necessary? Like I said to Mr. Peel in an e-mail:
I don't like writing negative reviews because I understand how many moving parts there are in a restaurant, and just how hard it is to have them all working effectively, day in and day out. I have to write them occasionally as a service to readers--a small mom and pop restaurant I'll just choose not to write about if I have a really horrendous experience. Readers probably haven't found it anyway, why draw negative attention? But I'm not doing my job if there's a high-profile opening and I choose to adopt Thumper's credo: "If you don't have something nice to say, don't say anything at all." Gourmet magazine is a good example--Caroline Bates wrote a total of 10 stories in an average year. She could afford to draw the nation's attention to just 10 GREAT places. I write more than 100 reviews a year, more if you include "round-up" stories. I'm only doing half my job if I'm only doling out glowing praise. But my aim, and I think I'm fairly successful, is to never be vicious. It's unnecessary, and certainly unflattering to the critic herself.
Every art (dance, theater, visual art, pop and classical music, film, etc.) has critics. Their function: to serve readers by guiding them toward the great and away from the mediocre. What makes a critic capable of doing the job is years or decades of diligent study of their given subject. If you define the culinary arts as an art, isn't this a valuable service that restaurant-goers deserve as much as opera patrons or museum visitors? And in a truly lousy economy, shouldn't readers receive MORE guidance about how best to spend their money rather than LESS?
What I do serves readers as a "vetting" process--essentially my job is to pre-screen new restaurants or unknown restaurants so readers can make informed choices about where to spend their money. I'm aware that what I say impacts the livelihood of real people, which I why I try to choose my words carefully and err on the side of generosity (plenty of readers on this blog think I'm too easy on restaurants here).
So, that said, do I participate in a expectations-of-mediocrity-equals-self-fulfilling-prophesy kind of thing? Is it diners' (and critics') high expectations that raise the bar for restaurants, or do the restaurants have to lead the way? It's hard to say.
Recent Comments