Stephen D wrote:
No. He said that he knew nothing more than how to make a fine sandwich (and I'm sure that's one fine sandwich.) I did not put those words in his mouth. Now, you jump the credibility gap when you admit such a thing after criticizing food critics with decades under thier belts.
Obvious hyperbole is obvious, and I'm a little shocked you chose to latch on to that.
And even if he really DOES know nothing more than how to make a good sandwhich, who cares? I don't expect a critic to be an expert in PREPARING food. I want them to tell me how it tastes. Might it help? To a point, sure, but the end product is the most important thing and relating the quality of the food is almost entirely independent of knowing how to prepare it.
There's also an undercurrent here to what you are saying that's downright unsettling to me: the idea that the critic is irreproachable. Any one of us, regardless of our lack of kitchen knowledge, should be able to call our local critics to task when something is amiss.
See, what you aren't seeing is that our critics allow restaurants to grow, guiding them along the way. They don't show up and lambast a place in an effort to gain readership through sensationalization. I think this is one of the reasons why we have so many great restaurants in this town- no critic tries to shut down any of the new ones. That's the beauty of the process- something lost here, I suppose.
A critic's (ar least a commercial critic's) first responsibility is, at least in my eyes, to the consumer. Their columns exist to guide us. Where to go, where to avoid. If a restauranteur gleans aid through those reviews, that's excellent, but that's not the primary job of the critic. Again, to me anyway. I'm willing to allow that some may disagree with that position and leave it there.
M'k. So that bit about 4 or 5 stars didn't happen?
Sure, it happened I just don't think it's any sort of tit for tat argument. He was called out for apparently referencing the scale wrong, he defended it, eventually with a call back to one of the things he was first (wrongly) criticized for, in an obvious jest. I don't see it as an honest retaliatory attack launched simply as retribution for an initial attack on him. It was just a joke.
Being a pollyanna with teeth is both my blessing and my curse. I was simply explaining, in as few words as possible, my perspective. So it applies, always. Any person who has shaken my hand will tell you exaclty that. These aren't just pretty words to me- they are a way of life.
That's great but to be honest with you the first glimmer I saw of that here was in your description of your vision of the relationship between local critics and restaurants as quoted above.
You conjure these images of school yard brawls and taking down bullies, but the main thing in this thread, or the linked article that resembled either to me was your little "your snarky ass will die here" diatribe on the first page.
I understand and respect standing up to real bullies, but this thread reads more like the hive mind got their sensitive little feelings hurt and couldn't take a little criticism of the so called elder statesmen.
PS. In fact, I'll extend to you the same offer I did him. Please, PM me and I'll bring you in for a complimentary tasting. Shake my hand and I'm sure you will find all my pretty words to be truth. Or I'll kill myself making it so.
That's a kind offer but I wouldn't be able to accept - mainly because we have a five month old at home and no regular baby sitter we can leave him with at this point. Our dining out experiences since his birth, with one exception for my parents annivesary, have been restricted to very casual spots where I feel comfortable eatting with him sitting in my lap or sleeping in his stroller. It's been fun, but we do miss getting out to slightly higher end places from time to time!
And for what it's worth I do think you are being genuine here. I don't mean to cast aspersions on your sincerity. Far from it. We just have a fundamentally different take on the very nature of this discussion.