Many people believe that being a restaurant critic for a prominent publication is an enviable position. The idea of dining at someone else’s cost and penning down your thoughts sounds appealing. But how challenging could it really be?
In reality, it is quite a tough job, and I wouldn’t trade places with them. I hold great admiration for those who manage to deliver engaging, balanced, and sharp critiques of their culinary adventures week in and week out without falling into monotony or repetition.
In an unforgettable episode of the classic British sitcom Fawlty Towers, a hotel inspector arrives at the establishment. The bumbling owner, Basil Fawlty, is on high alert, knowing that a group of inspectors is in town. However, in typical Basil style, he mistakenly believes another guest to be the inspector, showering them with attention while neglecting the real inspector. In the realm of restaurant reviewing, this scenario is unlikely, as restaurant owners can quickly identify prominent critics. One notable exception was Marina O’Loughlin, who successfully concealed her identity; no one knew her appearance, she never made reservations under her own name, and no photographs of her exist online—an impressive achievement.
The reality that reviewers are not undercover creates a significant challenge for their assessments. However, if a restaurant goes the extra mile to impress a critic and still falls short, that speaks volumes about its quality. Additionally, if you encounter photographs in a review, it’s likely that these images were staged after the fact, with the publication sending in a photographer to capture the ambiance and the dishes highlighted in the write-up. This aspect also complicates things, as the images may not represent what typical diners receive.
Why is it so challenging to write a restaurant column? For me, one significant hurdle is the fact that I’m discussing someone’s livelihood, along with the performance of their staff, based on just a single experience—typically, only one visit. This reality can be quite daunting. If I provide a negative critique and I happen to be mistaken or if the kitchen simply had a bad day during my visit, I could inadvertently harm someone’s business or dishearten the professionals working there.
Giving something an unwarranted positive review (suggesting it’s better than it truly is) seems less troublesome than delivering a negative one (indicating it’s worse than reality). Yet, it’s the negative reviews that tend to captivate readers and often make for the most engaging content. There’s a certain pleasure we take in critics recounting a horrendous dining experience. Occasionally, critics go to extreme lengths in their exaggerations about a bad meal, introducing an element of comedy. While we may chuckle at these tales, it’s essential to remember that someone is genuinely affected, sometimes undeservedly so.
Consistency is a key trait that distinguishes a truly great restaurant. A poor experience may indicate that the establishment is lacking overall quality, or it might signal inconsistencies—neither of which are ideal. Conversely, if you enjoy a meal, that single visit doesn’t provide enough insight into the overall consistency of the kitchen and the dining environment. Additionally, it’s crucial to recognize that the reviewer is human, and humans are rarely consistent. Dining out is a deeply personal experience, and to offer an accurate review, one must capture the essence of the restaurant while minimizing the influence of personal biases.
The greatest struggle in crafting an engaging restaurant review lies in maintaining interest. Many reviews fall into dullness and predictability. They often kick off with a history of the establishment, detailing staff members and their career trajectories. It’s common to read about Chef X training under [famous chef Y] and subsequently working at [famous restaurant Z] before embarking on this new journey, which belongs to the XXXXX group. Whether this information is derived from insider knowledge or a basic internet search, it generally fails to capture attention. Next, the reviews dive into the restaurant’s interior design, the type of patrons dining there, and the effectiveness of the front-of-house staff. The food commentary tends to be unexciting, especially since the reviewer usually samples only a fraction of the menu. The beverage selection is a vital aspect of the dining experience, yet some reviewers overlook this entirely. I find this puzzling because I would assume that a strong knowledge of beverages is a crucial skill for anyone reviewing restaurants. Ultimately, the review concludes with remarks on the meal’s pricing and possibly some numerical or star rating reflecting the overall experience.
There are some outstanding restaurant reviewers out there. They provide unbiased assessments, devoid of unnecessary rivalries and personal grudges within the culinary community. Their expertise in food and beverages shines through, complemented by refined aesthetic appreciation. They possess strong writing skills, making their columns a pleasure to read. I have great respect for them; executing this challenging job with fairness and skill is no easy feat.