Notetaking during a foodventure...In one of his final blogposts as New York Times' chief restaurant critic, Frank Bruni tried to explain (in short-form blogging prose, at least) what makes a restaurant truly great and worthy of the coveted four stars.
Try as he (or any other critic) may to rationalize and quantify the stars, ultimately it's still considerably touchy-feely and subjective, given the differences in palates and expectation; one person's "perfectly seasoned" may be another's "oversalted" (which was the case from a recent dinner), and what one considers "perfectly polished service" may be "too fussy, overbearing and interruptive" for the dining companion.
And so, whenever I read reviews from bloggers, critics, etc.--I definitely take those biases in mind. Such as when a critic who's used to being served hand-and-foot at fine, full-service restaurants is disgruntled about the service a casual walk-up, order, sit-down and wait eatery. Should I really take that one/two star review seriously? Esp. given all the other raves I've heard from others about their food?
That's not to say I don't have my own prejudices too, anti-chain being the most notable of them, but when I write about eateries I try to take contexts into consideration -- I certainly am not going to blog about a taco stand the same way I do for, say, Saam or Providence. And while I have a rating system too for my full-fledged foodventures posts; like Bruni noted, I don't unilaterally recommend the highest-scoring ones to my friends looking for a place to check out. I try to take their preferences, budgets and other nuances into consideration when suggesting places and dishes.
But in a world of sound bites, quick stats and short-term memories, I definitely understand how people find it easier to drop "that place has a Michelin two stars" or "FoodDigger folks gave it an A overall" or "Exilekiss gave it a 9 out of 10" rather than paraphrasing/summarizing what the folks behind those ratings actually said. Love it or hate it, that's the world we live in. But with active reading and even more active discussions (and boy, do the debates on the forums get heated every time a controversial review comes out!) maybe we can learn to read beyond the stars and ratings and just appreciate good food and a positive experience for simply that.
Try as he (or any other critic) may to rationalize and quantify the stars, ultimately it's still considerably touchy-feely and subjective, given the differences in palates and expectation; one person's "perfectly seasoned" may be another's "oversalted" (which was the case from a recent dinner), and what one considers "perfectly polished service" may be "too fussy, overbearing and interruptive" for the dining companion.
And so, whenever I read reviews from bloggers, critics, etc.--I definitely take those biases in mind. Such as when a critic who's used to being served hand-and-foot at fine, full-service restaurants is disgruntled about the service a casual walk-up, order, sit-down and wait eatery. Should I really take that one/two star review seriously? Esp. given all the other raves I've heard from others about their food?
That's not to say I don't have my own prejudices too, anti-chain being the most notable of them, but when I write about eateries I try to take contexts into consideration -- I certainly am not going to blog about a taco stand the same way I do for, say, Saam or Providence. And while I have a rating system too for my full-fledged foodventures posts; like Bruni noted, I don't unilaterally recommend the highest-scoring ones to my friends looking for a place to check out. I try to take their preferences, budgets and other nuances into consideration when suggesting places and dishes.
But in a world of sound bites, quick stats and short-term memories, I definitely understand how people find it easier to drop "that place has a Michelin two stars" or "FoodDigger folks gave it an A overall" or "Exilekiss gave it a 9 out of 10" rather than paraphrasing/summarizing what the folks behind those ratings actually said. Love it or hate it, that's the world we live in. But with active reading and even more active discussions (and boy, do the debates on the forums get heated every time a controversial review comes out!) maybe we can learn to read beyond the stars and ratings and just appreciate good food and a positive experience for simply that.
Posts
2 comments:
I whole-heartedly agree with your post. Its hard to go off of a simple star system. This is one of the reasons I like to read blogs about food. I get a feel for what the likes and disslikes are and can take that into consideration.
Excellent summary, H.C. I was thinking along these same lines when rec'ing a "romantic downtown spot" for my budget conscious friend for an upcoming date. Colori Kitchen came in first, as BYOB, intimacy, good food and a low price point make it a perfect spot for this fellow, with Bacaro Wine Bar coming in second and Church & State third if he wants to stretch his budget a little. Different places than I would rec my high end dining bff. It is all so very subjective, and making recs knowing a friend's individual needs and preferences is a big part of the picture.
Post a Comment