|
The Rant
Critical Thoughts
Karl Wells
"You're a Newfie joke." That's how a reader described my reviewing skills recently in e-mail. I was more upset by his use of the "n" word than being called a joke. Personally I think it's a vile, disgusting word, used to put Newfoundlanders down. That's probably why he used it. No doubt he got a thrill referring to me as such.
That particular reader seemed obsessed with the fact that I am not a "chef," someone who has toiled in a hot restaurant kitchen for years and has the burn scarred hands and bad feet to show for it. In his view only people with that background are qualified to review restaurants. That’s total bunk of course. Last time I checked, all sorts of people were dining out, most were not chefs. Surely a few non-chefs might be able to critique a restaurant as well. In my case I do cook, and, not bragging, I happen to have a very good palate.
 Most of the highly respected restaurant reviewers in the world are not chefs. Frank Bruni of the New York Times, arguably the most influential, is not a chef. In fact, an argument can be made that chefs might find it difficult to write objectively about restaurants. I know an award-winning chef who is much more impressed by technique and how difficult it is to prepare a dish than in how it actually tastes. What’s that about? In any case, my disgruntled guy’s nasty note prompted me to devote this column to some thoughts on restaurant reviewing. Here goes.
First, I speak for nobody but myself. What I write about a restaurant is my account of my experience at the restaurant. I try to convey to you how I - as well as other diners - was treated and how I enjoyed the overall experience. Some might say, because I am easy to identify (unlike most restaurant critics) that I receive better treatment. I have not found that to be the case and if I were treated differently from other diners I would lean more toward describing how others were treated.
When reviewing I never make a reservation myself. Someone does it for me in another name. That way a restaurant cannot prepare for my arrival. Once I’m there and order from the menu, the food is what it is. I have been served great food and I have been served really bad food. Either the food is fresh or it isn’t. Either the chef can cook or he can’t. The décor is what it is. The ambience is what it is.
Most reviewers know they are not really anonymous when they visit restaurants. A famous Toronto chef, Greg Coulliard, told me recently he’s been able to identify Toronto’s most influential critic for years. In New York, Frank Bruni’s picture was tacked to the wall of every important kitchen in Manhattan the day his appointment was announced by the Times.
You should also know that I do not take freebies from restaurants or other favours. I am constantly being offered free meals by restaurants. I turn them all down. Many restaurants can tell you that I send back vouchers and coupons sent me. My credibility is important. I wouldn’t want anyone thinking that someone’s getting a good review because they gave me a free meal. If they get a good or not-so-good review it’s because I felt it was warranted.
I pay for meals from my own pocket. I am not reimbursed. I receive payment for what I write and apart from personal satisfaction that is all I receive. Most freelance restaurant critics working for small papers do not have expense accounts. It does, however, put one closer to being more like a regular diner. If my $45 entrée is not the bee’s knees I can’t say, “Oh well, at least I’ll be reimbursed for it.”
Obviously I don’t do it for the money. So, why do I do it? It’s fun. I enjoy food and I enjoy writing about food. I also felt St. John’s needed a restaurant critic given the increase in the number of restaurants over the past five years. My ego was just big enough to allow me to think that I might do a decent job of it. Thankfully, The Telegram was prepared to give me a shot. Critics keep restaurants on their toes. When people are prepared to spend hard-earned money it’s good to have someone giving impartial guidance on what’s great or only so-so.
People have asked why I assign a ratings number and how I can give a small family restaurant the same number as a swanky, expensive one. Simple. Once you’ve read the review, if I’ve been doing my job, you should know what category of restaurant it is: burger joint, economical family, high end Japanese, et cetera. Then all I’m saying is, in my opinion, this restaurant is “satisfactory,” a “7” or this restaurant is “excellent,” a “9” and so on. There are excellent family restaurants and excellent fine dining restaurants. Excellent is excellent.
Finally, what I am writing about is the experience of dining out. For some of my friends it’s all about the food. The rest is of no importance. That’s not why I dine out. If that were how I felt then I’d stay home and cook for myself. I am interested in the “event,” the music, the décor, atmosphere, service, food and wine. Yes, the food has to be good but I have rated many restaurants differently where the quality of the food was the same.
The difference between an “8” or “9” may have been in the level of service or in décor or atmosphere. If a restaurant gets a “10” then, for me, it was the ultimate experience. I wish they were all that way. Wait a minute, if that were the case I wouldn’t have much to write about would I? Well, I guess the ideal world is still a few years off. Till then, see you next week in The Telegram.
|
