Should food reviews be scored? Should reviewers be reviewed? How can you compare the food at a pool hall, to a fine restaurant?
Jump right in and join the debate.
I’ve seen lots of complaints about the length of reviews; I’ve had some myself. A review is only going to be as thorough and accurate as the budget of the publication will allow. Newspapers and magazines are besieged. Costs are skyrocketing while profits wither, as organizations like Craig’s List eat away at advertising revenue. Critics have to walk a fine balance between doing their job, and alienating the very advertisers that are paying their salaries. We’d all like to be in a perfect world, but as long as periodicals take revenue from the businesses they review, this will, in some way, influence the outcome. They may claim it isn’t so, but they are lying to themselves. It just isn’t possible to be objective in these days of limited advertisers and falling budgets.
So let’s talk about the life of a newspaper reviewer. I’ve been there, so have a pretty good idea what it is like. You compete with other people on staff to get the interesting restaurants. When you are assigned one, you are given a pretty dismal budget; many papers pay anywhere from $50 to $100 towards the cost of the food. Sounds like a pretty good amount of money, but by the time you go to many Portland restaurants, have a few appetizers, a couple of entrees, desserts, and then tip, you’ve easily spent the bottom end of that budget. Now you sit down and write a review that talks about the philosophy, décor, culinary offerings, and maybe six dishes out of the entire menu. Unfortunately, the editor is limiting you to 600, or if you are really lucky, 1000 words, so when you finish your opening and summary, you don’t have much room to describe the food anyway.
You do your best to write within the confines allowed; you send it off to your editor, feeling pretty good about what you have managed to achieve within the constraints. Let’s see; you spent an hour getting the review assigned to you, an hour in transportation time, three hours eating, three hours writing the review and dealing with the edits; that’s a total of at least eight hours. For this, you get paid the enormous sum of $.35 a word, maybe $.75, or if you are REALLY lucky, $2.00 a word. Most critics write 2-3 reviews a month – remember, most papers have several writers – so for the glory of having your name in print, you have turned out a half-assed review that took you eight hours and paid $100.00. Finally, when the finished piece hits the streets it has a headline written by your editor, which pisses off the restaurateur so much, you have to endure a barrage of hate mail for a week. Then, of course, whatever you write will be challenged by lots of people who feel they know more far more about food than you ever will.
Let’s look at another factor, which, in my mind, is a very real problem. Reviewer Burnout. I’ve known several people who started out as wonderful critics. Every few weeks, lovely pages of flowery text flew from their fingers. Vivid description, tricky phrases; you could feel the environment, and taste the food, through their quality prose. Critiques began with anecdotes that pulled you in and made you want to read the entire piece. Unfortunately, most bright flames quickly extinguish themselves. This may be difficult to believe, but it is hard it is to do this week after week, year after year? In five years, will your reviews still have the fresh spark to ignite a reader’s interest? It’s not easy. I don’t think any really good reviewer lasts too long. Here is an experiment for you. Take any newspaper with a long-running critic, and compare the pieces he writes now to what he wrote his first year. Karen Brooks comes to mind – when she’s on, she’s on… but she’s not nearly as often as she used to be.
I’ve been doing this for 14 months. At first, the reviews were easy; they just flew out of my head. Now I stare at the screen and mutter, looking for a new way to say the lettuce was dressed correctly: “The dressing settled in a fog-like mist over the perfectly crisp field greens.” Everything rolls together, and it’s more like a regular job. It takes three times as long as it used to.
There are a few reviewers in town who write nothing better than toilet paper. They steal lines from their peers and make frequent mistakes in talking about various ingredients and whatnot. There are also some that are terrific. Karen Brooks, Patrick Coleman and Roger Porter come to mind.
I’ve used a lot of words, but they all boil down to this. Reviewing is a difficult job. The pay is crap, the work frequently boring, the glory fleeting, and the editorial pressure can be daunting. Finally, half the people that read your column will hate you. Remember this the next time you are reading a blithe little review in the paper: the critic probably only had $75.00 to work with and was getting paid $.50 a word. This isn’t his choice, but rather the constraints of working for an industry in decline.
Food Dude says
Hmmm… That is an interesting idea, I don’t really want to alienate anyone, but still… hmmm. I suppose we could set something up. How would you like it structured?
As far as ratings in reviews, this is something I have struggled with since the beginning. I’ll have to look, but I think we may have even done a poll on this.
I hate having to come up with an overall rating, and spend much more time thinking about it than I probably should. It is so hard to boil down a series of dining experiences into one score. There is always the question of rating a pizza place or pool hall against a place like Wildwood/Carafe. The way I look at it, is I try to decide what their original intent is, and then see how close they come to that. IF all they want to do is have a pool hall with good cafe food, and they do a perfect job, how can I say they don’t succeed as much as Wildwood?
On the other hand, people like the score because 1. they are too lazy to read the entire review, 2. they like to be able to search the database based on a score.
J Eisenhart says
Philippe is %100 right- on about the reviewers in Portland- the local paper’s review of my restaurant made no sense at all. Many judgements put on a newer restaurant should be kept to themselves- not on paper. Is the food good?
Nice interview. Thanks.
Pascal Sauton says
Hey Phil…bien dit, ma poule!
GREAT interview.
When I got reviewed by the the Oregonian, I got a “B”. The Rialto got a “B” last Friday, BY THE SAME REVIEWER!!! What are their standards???
I have been cooking for 30 years. I’m sure the food is fine at the Rialto, BUT IT’S a pool hall for crying out loud!
How can we destroy those reviewers? How can we review them???
Somebody help me!
witzend says
FD~
I think Pascal may have stumbled onto something. I absolutely LOVE the notion of reviewing the reviewers! Perhaps you could create some sort of clever page layout that would allow guests to comment on individual reviewers. I, for one, have strong opinions about a few of them that I wouldn’t hesitate to share, given the proper forum to do so.
Betsy says
Ohhhh, reviewing the reviewers definitely has promise…!
mczlaw says
Fascinating interview.
When it comes to the chef’s review of reviewers, he needs to get real. Readers like lists and they like grades, stars and any other form of simplistic assessment. That is not going to change, even recognizing the inherent flaws of subjectivity and using the same scale to assess totally different types of establishments and styles of cooking.
One other thing: just as there are chefs (and, for that matter, doctors, lawyers, cops and bureaucrats) who really know their stuff and others who ought to be doing something else, so too it is with reviewers. Knowing food, restaurants, chefs and reviewers as I do, I am persuaded that most of the local reviewers do a mostly good job most of the time. (In aggregate, I’d offer a “B” .)
I am equally persuaded that chefs and reviewers will forever have an uneasy relationship with one another because of the potential power the latter have over the former. Chefs complaining about unfair or stupid reviewers or reviews, however, is not a terribly productive exercise. It is especially ironic to see criticism of mainstream reviewers up on a blog where anyone with a keyboard and an opinion (no matter how ill-informed) can rip away with abandon.
Pascal Sauton says
Hey Zus…I think hanging out with critics is going to your head! I would love to see a newspaper reviewing lawyers, you might change your mind quickly…
If I had time and money to do it, I’d love to sit in courtrooms and assess the job of the attorneys, particulary because I don’t know anything about law…
What is the point of reviewing anyway? Why is it only restaurants and movies get reviewed??? Why not gas stations, shoe stores, garbage companies?
Why can’t people trust their own palate, their eyes (deco) their ears (noise level) their comfort zone (service)?
On top of it, reviews are generally soooo imcomplete. I remember a review I got at Lucere where the reviewer choose the review title to be “The Contender” and followed to talk about baseball for a whole chapter (sorry…it was during the “world” series after all). But that reviewer didn’t write whatsoever about the wine list, the noise level, the identity of the restaurant, what we were trying to achieve, the service, or the lighting. If I was to read reviews to make up my mind where to eat, those are things I would love to know about.
On top of it, we know that a review is about one person’s opinion. And that opinion will be followed by thousands of “sheep” who don’t realize IT IS, indeed, only ONE person’s opinion.
I love people showing up in a restaurant and reading the review right at the table to know what to eat! And by the time they show up anyway, the menu has changed, maybe the chef did too, even maybe the whole restaurant was sold to someone else!!!
How many reviews are consistent in between, let’s say, the Oregonian, Willy Week, Tribune, Food Dude and City Search? Look it: they are all different, so where’s everyone’s point? Who’s right – who’s wrong? Who will listen to who? What a mess!
If I had to compare my opinion of a restaurant to any reviewer in this town, I would not rate those reviewers a “B”. It’d be more like a “D”. Who cares about the “Hip” factor…
Probably only the people who write about it.
Philippe is right: Anyone can write what they want, it’s a free country (well, could be…) but don’t grade us.
Zus, how about you stick to law? This is a food blog.
Karen Brooks says
Here’s the review of Lucere sited by Pascal Sauton. (FYI: Sauton’s newer Carafe received a B+ from The Oregonian, not a ‘B’)
From A&E, The Oregonian, Friday, October 4, 2002
SHOOTING FOR THE BIG LEAGUES
The new Lucere restaurant in the RiverPlace Hotel has the potential to be a contender
By Karen Brooks
As we head into that annual fall ritual known as the World Series, fans and pundits debate the eternal, burning question: What makes a contender? The New York Mets, despite a flamboyant check-writing campaign, ended in a swoon, weakened by alienation and disharmony in the clubhouse, by lapses and catatonia on the field. The poorer Oakland As, who lost key players to the robber barons of baseball, clinched the American League West with a closely knit group of spirited players driven by competitive pride.
In the end, true contenders have a certain magic, a beautiful chemistry that elevates the ordinary to the heroic. They have a sense of destiny that pushes them above who they think are and beyond what everyone else expects them to be.
Lucere, the newly rehabbed waterfront restaurant inside RiverPlace Hotel, is contending to become a “player.” But does it have the vision and ambition to step up to its plates and compete in the bigs? Winning would mean going beyond the well-known reality of another high-end hotel stopover and becoming a genuine dining destination. That status eluded its longtime predecessor, the hotel’s Esplanade restaurant, a kitchen always on the verge of victory but undone by a rotation of trendy chefs and menu experiments that didn’t pan out.
Lucere (pronounced luh-SEHR) has a competitive edge in its passionate chef, Pascal Sauton, pastry ace Paul Lemieux and a face-lift that transformed the Laura Ashley-gone-to-seed ambience into a contemporary room with butterscotch walls, squat, retro-ish chairs and glass-art chandeliers that conjure up spun sugar gone wild.
Sauton’s menu is comfortable and familiar and blessedly unencumbered by chic or show. He honors his Parisian roots with classics: escargots and quiches, gratins and cassoulets. But he also shows a commitment to quality, local ingredients that give these dishes a home-field advantage with regional meats and cheeses and farm-fresh produce.
And he values value: Though Sauton wants Lucere to be a casual retreat, his real competition is the upper-echelon of Portland’s dining scene, many of them also straddling French and Northwest styles and serving similar dishes, from hanger steak with pommes frites to risotto. Good news: Lucere’s price points are 10 percent to 20 percent lower. On the other hand, the quality of the food drops in comparable points when going against Portland’s heavy hitters.
Sauton’s cooking is solid and occasionally even moving. His bouillabaisse of Northwest seafood is gloriously stocked with the delicate and the sea-gamy, the voluptuous and the sleek, all in an intoxicating lobster broth — definitely the star of the house. And a couple of dishes are notable for simply being flawless: a trio of lovely cold soups served in micro glass bowls and an appetizer of halibut “leaves” — thin slices of moist fish in an almost shockingly rich broth tinctured with the woodsy scent of Oregon truffles.
Working with an extensive menu of 15 starters and 14 entrees, Sauton boldly offers dishes not found elsewhere, including roasted mussels in a sea of creme frache instead of the ubiquitous white wine-garlic juices, and a grilled chicken smoky with paprika and the hot edge of chorizo.
Still, something is missing here: a core of unforgettable signature dishes, the kind of food that stimulates the neuron jungle and causes appetite flashbacks days later, an unabashed craving that draws you back to the source to experience it again . . . and again. And overall, the dishes haven’t reached that advanced level where surprise and mystery are the rule, not the exception.
There’s also some inconsistency in the delivery — tough razor clams here, some plodding potatoes there. Goat-cheese ravioli are burdened by ingredients that have all the relationship of strangers on an elevator, and offering an Oregon cheese plate would be a more welcome idea if the result didn’t signal fear of flavor.
Additionally, small, off-the-rack wine glasses don’t belong in a restaurant whose wine list — despite a solid range of depth and breadth in regional, French and California wines — has few good options under $30.
The playing field is a bit uneven, too. While it’s a relief to walk into a restaurant that doesn’t look like a theater set, the redesign didn’t go far enough to create a personality. Instead of completely overhauling the interior, old problems were left behind, including a barrier that slices across the room, creating a clunky bi-level space without a center. The art needs serious rethinking, including a dominating painting of what appears to be exploding baseball caps. The overall feel is a bit corporate and cold. Some interesting lighting, maybe some smart black-and-white photographs and shrewd lower-level seating that capitalizes on the river view could put this place on the map. On the plus side, on good-weather days, the outdoor patio seats are like a box seat on the third-base line.
Service is polite but not particularly crisp or energetic. The wait staff doesn’t bring anything remarkable to the table — a banter, a keen knowledge, even an eccentricity — and there’s no front person to individualize your experience.
Still, if the game was decided on nothing but desserts, Lucere would have the competition running scared. Paul Lemieux’s conceptual list delivers a level of intelligence, artistry and originality normally seen in major culinary capitols. His Chocolate Bing Cherry Fritters — tiny, sugar-dusted creations — maybe the only dessert that doubles as a hypnotic, especially in between bites of homemade ice cream that tastes like Cherry Garcia with a Harvard degree.
Some of Lemieux’s flavor combinations sound right out of another galaxy, but surprisingly, they can rock your world. Tarragon ice cream, for example, does not evoke a delirious experience. But when packaged with filo dumplings holding a heavenly jolt of molten chocolate, you know that anything is possible when placed in the right hands.
Lucere is a new franchise, and the game is just beginning. With a little strategizing and adjustment in the lineup, it could be a contender. If that happens, this could be a fun series to watch.
tparr says
One of the things that I think is often lacking in reviews is the writer’s sense of their own subjectivity, their own likes and dislikes, preferences, etc. Good reviewers tell you where they are coming from, and then deliver their observations from there. They know they have a perspective. Striving for objectivity is not only impossible, but is not going to get anyone anywhere. So if you make a negative comment, say, about the restaurant’s use of a particular condiment, where are you coming from? What makes you say that? Reviewers should be self conscious enough to know that not everyone will share their judgments and preferences, and be able to approach the restaurant being reviewed without making the whole thing about them. If successful, this type of review will not foster the “sheep” mentality because it empowers readers to think for themselves.
ladida says
I know people on this site will throw tomatoes at me but I always enjoy Karen Brooks’ reviews…. and the one above was a good review if you ask me. (Cobra and Matador review- BAD REVIEW. But I almost died laughing while reading it. I thought it was awesome) Also- I think most restaurant owners are only happy if the reviewer raves and raves and doesn’t have one bad thing to say. Really- the general public doesn’t remember the bad things in a review, or even really read them. They are just looking to try something new, and when they see it in the A&E with a B or above you bet your ass they will.
Also- to slam any customer to me is low. Who cares what they are reading at the table or what questions they ask while they are seated in your restaurant? The bottom line is that you exist, in the end, because they are there.. and you bet on them coming back. Wouldn’t it be a good thing to not bite the hand that eats your food, or something like that?
I personally have given up on any restaurant reviews in Willamette Week (too short and too boring- it also annoys me how they just repeat news from this site days and days after you read it here. research for yourselves people! oh- and one more thing. Their rotating restaurant guide sucks big time. It just repeats things that came out in their annual restaurant guide over and over all year long. LAME!) I look forward to the Oregonian every Friday and have learned to like all of the reviewers and their perspectives. I read the reviews on this site, as well as XTRA MSG and Portland food org.
Also- I eat at restaurants around town because I like them, I feel comfortable there, they are run by good people, and bottom line- THEIR FOOD IS GOOD. But how would I ever even know about them if they did not get press- good or bad?
s says
What is the point of reviewing anyway? Why is it only restaurants and movies get reviewed??? Why not gas stations, shoe stores, garbage companies?
Why can’t people trust their own palate, their eyes (deco) their ears (noise level) their comfort zone (service)?
The basic need for reviewing is simple. Most people do not have unlimited resources. For instance, the median income for a 4-person family in Oregon is about $62K/yr. Considering taxes and such, it probably leaves about $4k/month to spend on things like housing, food, clothing, utilities, and other necessities.
People don’t want to feel like their money is ill-spent. If you need to buy a car, a washer/dryer set, a stereo, cell phone service, etc., the first thing you’ll probably do is look at Consumer Reports, or Amazon’s customer reviews, or search online for stories of people’s experiences with the product. For instance, type “Dell hell” or “Cingular sucks” in Google and you’ll see that restaurants and movies aren’t the only thing being reviewed. And guess what? People are making purchasing decisions based on the information in those sites, even if some of it is the opinion of one person.
Restaurants, movies, art, and music are really no different. They are products competing for a share of your income at the expense of other products. This is why some restaurants hire PR firms to woo national magazines. This is also why some restaurants have 3,000 word press releases with terrible poetry in them (you know who you are).
People seek the same sort of information on restaurants in order to guide how they will spend their money as they would for any other product. That information isn’t just reviews, but also word of mouth (the category in which I put most food blogs).
I think there is a sense among those who pursue creative endeavors that their work is above the whims of the market, but it isn’t. The reality of it is that you probably get one or maybe two shots to get it right. If people don’t think you are delivering for the money they spent, they won’t spend any more money on your product. It’s a pretty simple proposition.
The market is a brutal and unforgiving thing, but with the risk comes great potential rewards.
I would write more, but I think this is more than enough to get the flamethrowers started. Let’s dance, shall we?
Food Dude says
Ladida, welcome to the site. You won’t get any tomatoes from me.
In my opinion, slamming a customer is short-sighted. Whether you agree with them or not, they are the reason you can pay your rent, support your family, etc. When I was first out of college, I worked for a guy that was fanatical about quality, and customer service. Everything had to be absolutely perfect. Still, there were times when the customer didn’t like it. My boss used to drum into me, “It doesn’t matter if we think it’s perfect. The customer pays our salaries. If he doesn’t like it, then we failed”. It drove me crazy, but people loved him. Eventually he sold his restaurant for a small fortune, became a very successful cookbook author, and lives a very comfortable life surrounded by his vineyards.
Dave J. says
I personally have given up on any restaurant reviews in Willamette Week (too short and too boring- it also annoys me how they just repeat news from this site days and days after you read it here. research for yourselves people!
Definitely agree with that one. I think they imposed a 500 word limit a few months ago, and IMHO that has really hurt them. It’s fairly obvious now that the reviewer goes to the restaurant once with some friends and then writes about it. Moreover, the arbitrary limit creates a tension between the creativeness of the writer and the need to include information about the restaurant itself. I don’t know who was responsible for that silly word limit, but I wish they’d reconsider–I think it has really hurt the quality of their reviews.
The Oregonian is fine, while the Mercury lost all credibility with me when it gave a stellar review to a restaurant that had yet to open (GBT, I think?). The Tribune is just meh, and for various reasons I just don’t trust Citysearch–half of their reader comments feel like they were written by the restaurant owner.
Pork Cop says
Not to pick on Karen Brooks specifically but…I have had the opportunity to serve her on a few occasions and she wouldn’t or couldn’t eat many things on the menu. I think she was a vegetarian at one point.This didn’t seem to stop her from reviewing the meat dishes on the menu! Hows that work?
mczlaw says
Comments on comments:
1. To my pal Pascal: We will have to agree to disagree on this one my friend.
My creds, fyi, extend well beyond lawyer work, as I thought you were aware.
For you and many of my friends and acquaintances in the food service trade, for example, I tracked the 2005 foie gras criminalization legislation so you could make sure to attend even the last minute, sneak attack hearings in Salem–all at no charge to anyone. I also formally represent several chefs and restaurant owners, so understand the business, at least to some degree, from the inside.
As you also know, I am bread baker and have dabbled on the professional side. Some people even think my bread is pretty good and that I ought to open I bakery. So far, I have resisted the temptation.
I love good food and have made it my business to know the field well. I am out to eat at least 3 to 4 times per week and have been doing this for at least the last 10-15 years. The good fortune to travel has taken me to restaurants in many parts of the US and the world. I also have bookshelves filled with works on gastronomy—from MFK Fisher (the real one) to Elizabeth David to Jeffrey Steingarten to the western world’s original gastronomer, Jean Anthelme Brillat-Savarin—and have read them all and continue to read. Most recently, I have undertaken a cover-to-cover read of Harold McGee’s “On Food and Cooking,” a book of breathtaking scope and intelligence.
So, please, do not tell me to stick to the law. I will do as I wish and that includes both “hanging out with critics” and doing review work and other food writing myself.
2. To Tami: It is difficult in allotted newspaper space to include much in the way of one’s own prejudices. There is barely enough space to describe the main subject.
Personally, I assume any reviewer has his/her own outlook and it may differ from mine. Any discerning reader must understand this. The rest, in Pascal’s terms, are “sheep” who will apparently do whatever they are told (see lyrics to “Crazy Miranda,” G.Slick on Jefferson Airplane’s “Bark”).
In terms of reviewer credibility, I try to find voices with which I generally agree (or disagree) based on my own experience. After a while, I can pretty well figure whose tastes are consonant with mine and who, in my view, doesn’t know what the hell they are talking about. Personally, I think Roger Porter and Karen Brooks are two of the best in Portland though I do not always agree with their assessments.
I apologize for prattling.
–mcz
Karen Brooks says
To Pork Cop: I eat anything and everything for the purposes of reviews and food enlightenment, from pig ears to snake blood soup. But off-the-clock or education track, I often eat lean to keep the engine clean.
MyNextMeal says
Regarding the rating of POOL HALL nosh vs FINE DINING cuisine…
If an POOL HALL establishment says it makes the best hamburger and fries – and, in the opinion of the reviewer, succeeds on their promise…then the reviewer can give that place 4-stars or some other accolade.
Similarly, a fine-dining establishment that says they offer a certain level of cuisine and dining experience, but, in the opinion of the reviewer, doesn’t quite deliver…then the reviewer can give that establishment a 3-star rating.
The fine dining establishment may provide ‘better’ food than the burger place – but the reviewer is, in part, judging the establishment by the standards that set by the restauranteur themselves.
That’s how I judge whether or not I’ll go back to a restaurant…do I like the food? did the restaurant (humble or exalted) deliver what I expected?
vicki says
Yeah…well, I note Lucere bit the dust a while back. They didn’t last terribly long. I did enjoy the one meal I had there.
singingpig says
Lucere didn’t exactly “bite the dust”. Larkspur Properties bought the Riverplace Hotel where Lucere was located in 2003, then closed Lucere so that they could remodel and reopen the restaurant under their “Three Degrees” brand.
This business deal closed well after Pascal had left Lucere. It was just that, a business deal. Certainly no reflection on Chef Sauton’s performance.
singingpig says
I personally read restaurant reviews like I play Megabucks–for entertainment purposes only. I have yet to make the decision to dine at a restaurant based on a review. As a longtime purveyor who is in many of PDX’s kitchens, it is fun to read the perceptions of the people who walk in the front door. It is doubly nice when the really good people, such as Ben Gonzales at Nuestra Cocina, get the recognition they deserve. It is also entertaining to watch as the hype unfolds and sucks in the reviewers only to see the flash turn to fizzle.
I certainly wouldn’t order a meal based on what a reviewer recommended. I know what I like and what sounds good to me.
I have always enjoyed Roger Porter, especially when he’s unhappy. I remember one riverfront restuarant he recommended “eat before you go and enjoy the view from the bar.” I check Frank Bruni’s blog often just because I enjoy his writing.
The food blogging trend is good because it gives people interested in food a forum to discuss their experiences. It also has a dark side. A chef recently told me a story of a woman who came into his restaurant, introduced herself to his chef de cuisine and told him “I just want you to know I’m a blogger.” FD: Sentence redacted She then took her seat and was very high maintenance, sending dishes back, complaining etc. How does that type of behavior encourage any chef/cook to join the discussion? One blogger likes to take his camera and cause a big scene in the dining room in the middle of meal service by photographing the food. It disrupts the other diners’ experience. It is just rude, boorish behavior. Again, how does that type of behavior encourage a chef/cook to join the discussion?
Aaron says
This thread seems to focus on the accuracy of a specific review or reviewers in general. I agree, of course, that accuracy matters but I think it is only half the job of a reviewer. A restaurant review isn’t a consumer report. If we’re “reviewing the reviewers,” then maybe we should treat them like we treat restaurants and accept that there is more to the picture than telling us where to get our next meal – just as there is more to Lucere than how authentically French it was. Some reviewers want to create worthwhile pieces of literature (Food Dude seems to be in this category), some have semi-politcal agendas (Ruth Richel when she was at the Times and giving two and three stars to non-French restaurants), some want to change the way reviews themselves are written – making reviewing as much a self-reflexive art as an objective report. Though, like most people who read restaurant reviews, I’m more interested in eating (or cooking) food than reading about it, I have to allow for a certain amount of disconnect between food and food reviews. Food reviewing is an art and journalistic endeavor separate (though dependent on) the food reviewed. When I read good critics I’m more interested in what they have to say about what they know best – writing about food.
That said, I think of accuracy not as an accessory to a review but rather as a starting point. A review that has glaring inaccuracies is as questionable as an Italian restaurant with spaghetti and meatballs on its menu. I think it says something about Portland (both the reviewers and the readers) that the accuracy of many of our reviews is questionable enough that any other issues are almost entirely lost in the flack.
Sorry this sounds overly negative. I think this thread is incredibly interesting and do enjoy reading some Portland food writers. I suppose criticism is easier than praise.
Pascal Sauton says
Woaw…it feels like I threw a bucket of water on a bunch of cats!
This is fun, though, it add fuel to the fire and get some people to say loudly what many have been discretly thinking…
I’ll try to answer to everyone, maybe not now, but I’ll add up as I go. Sorry, but I’m kind of a little tired after a 12 hour day. I’m not as young as I used to be.
OK
Food Dude. I think your comments at the head of the page prove how lame it is to review in a paper. At least, now and until you run out of $$$, you are your own boss and can write what you want without all the BS assoiated with it that you described so well.
Karen Brooks:
Thank you for posting again this wonderful review of yours from Lucere. Once again, it shows with gusto why you are so “respected” and “loved” by the industry in this town… I admit with humility that you indeed talked about many things that I said you didn’t. You win there.
However, let me tell you how much you missed the point in your story:
I NEVER pretented to be a contender. That’s your story. Since I have moved to Portland, I have been saying over and over again that I am not the best chef in town. I was already over 40 when Lucere opened and I had nothing to prove, NOTHING. My goal has always been to feed people a good value meal, with the best ingredients, get a decent pay check, and THAT’S IT! I’ve proved myself plenty before to move to Portland. At Lucere, I had to write the menu with the feedback of the GM (who’s favorite restaurant was Ruth Chris) the Chief Engineer (who ate at Wendy’s) the front desk manager (a vegetarian) the rooms manager (a 300 lb lady who knew nothing else but burgers and Taco Bell) the Assistant GM etc, etc. 14 people total would look at my menu and tell me what was wrong with it…
If I had it my way, Lucere would have been Carafe. Which is what I want to do. Which is what I love to eat. Which is NOT fine dining.
So me, a contender? Whatever! The problem is that I hang out with the big leagues. We do fund raising together, we eat at each other’s house, we talk shop, we joke together. We have a great time together. Does this make me a contender? Because the guys in the big leagues like me? Please…
Sometimes, I want to make sure my skills are still alive. So I enter competitons, with the big league guys, and I beat them, regularly (twice second place at Wild about game, two times Portland Iron Chef winner, winner of the Best Oregon Seafood chef) you saw the press releases! Does this make me a contender? Only in your head. As I go back to Carafe and cook burgers, steak frites and Coq au Vin, Cassoulet and Choucroute. Do I pretend to be a contender with that? I do peasant food. But it’s French peasant food so everyone think it’s “Fine Dining”. Even the critiques. At least there is technique and style in French peasant ood. Not like the peasant food that trendy places put out… A piece of steak with broccoli as Philippe would say! and they charge an arm and a leg for it! Come on!
And I have days where I am in front, sitting people, joking with them, making them feel at home, running the food, washing dishes. And then there’s days when it’s a little slow and I go home play with my kid. A contender?
Please stop making people what they are not. At least talk to them, try to understand what they do. Don’t create your story. I invite you to participate in a seminar called the “Landmark Forum” you’ll understand what I mean.
Zus, i’ll reply to you tomorrow. I’m going home now to play my kid and hug my sweet wife. Because even though I’m supposed to be a contender, I actually do have a life. Tht’s why a choose NOT to be a contender.
S. I’ll get back to you too. And also the gigolo who talked about how restaurants NEED reviews. You’re up for a ride, buddy.
Good night.
singingpig says
Chef, you crazy frenchman, you’re cracking me up!
I’ve got to stop by for dinner, do you work Weds?
Steve
Food Dude says
Aaron: Welcome to the site. very well written response. Thanks.
Pascal: I’ll vouch for you. You and I have had several in-person discussions over the years (though you don’t know who I am), and you told me once, “I am not, and will never be a great chef. I just cook what people want”. You made lots of points with me that night.
ExtraMSG says
Steve, email me with info about that story about PortlandFood.org, please. I’d like to know the restaurant so I can talk to the chef. I would consider banning that person from the site, if it were true as you described it. And if it were widespread, I’d probably shut the site down.
Pascal Sauton says
Food Dude,
I really wish we could meet one day. In the meantime, I’ll stick to my guns. Thanks for your words! However, let me tell you that if I wanted to be a “contender” I’d have a good shot at it.
I’ve been in the past. I was one of the youngest chef to get a one star rating in the Michelin. You see, nobody knows that! And that was just one person’s opinion! My point when I said I win competitions was not to show off. It was just to say that if I wanted to do fine dining, I’d have great potential to do it. This is not what I want. For the reasons I gave and also because at 48, I want a life. I want to see my kids, my wife, go to France for a couple weeks a year, and hang out with my friends, go the Opera and Symphony, see a movie, go out to restaurants! Being a contender requires 14 hours days, stress, pressure, etc… I’m not about to play that game, there is way too much in life that I want. And I’m not about to let some reviewer tell me what to do. Or who I am.
I’m not burned out, I just don’t want to be.
Steve: I work Wednesdays, but give a call to make sure I’m there if you want to see me. I’d love to see you!
Food Dude says
Pascal, you may not of heard, but when I decide to quit this site I’m taking everyone that comments to dinner ;>)
Pascal Sauton says
Cool! Will it be to a “contender’s” place?
Just kidding!
Pork Cop says
This whole “contenders” thingy is all part of the media backed hype of the Portland food scene. They try and create some sort of rivalry or competition to make it seem like there is a scene and thus justifying their work/salary. The fact is that Portland’s newspaper food critics are irrelevant to people who actually love food. Nepotism and borderline corruption are rife. Anyway.. I much prefer eating food to reading/talking about it. Cheers to Chef Sauton!!!!!
pollo elastico says
hmm…I didn’t get that from Ms. Brooks’ piece at all. She was simply using a literary technique and referred to a fleeting sports analogy that was culturally relevant at that time. the impression I came away with from reading her review: Pascal’s restaurant could and should be considered amongst the upper echelon.
If I declared that eating at (insert name of a horrible, overpriced restaurant here) was akin to being waterboarded at Gitmo, I am not making an equivocal statment that somehow the experience is as disgusting as the actual practice of torture. Or sitting through a Jerry Bruckheimer film.
Pork Cop says
Hold on…..Bruck was on board for 1)American Gigolo 2)Beverly Hills Cop 1 And 2 3)Pirates of the Caribbean 4)Black Hawk Down Brucks da man!!!! Karen Brooks writes for the Oregonian………
pollo elastico says
One word (and 4/5 of a first/last line of a fooku)…
“Armageddon”
’nuff said. Though maybe I should qualify torture as Bay/Bruckheimer – he’s not nearly as poisonous on his own.
Pork Cop says
Ouch!!….ya got me!!!!! He’s certainly no Samuel Goldwyn.
Flattail says
You hit it on the head, Food Dude. As far as French bistro food is concerned, I really miss Casanis. No offense, Pascal.
Paascal Sauton says
SO…
Zus, Sorry, but you’ll never be on the right page unless you open that bakery and be the prey of the reviewing vultures. Once again, I am asking how you’d feel if the O and WW started to review lawyers…In the same token, to that guy who reads all reviews before to buy, how do you find a good lawyer? Where are the ratings?
Back to Zus…
Since you read all those books , eat in all those restaurants, baked all that bread and know everything, how about you come run my line for lunch and jump in the saute station tomorrow night for pre-theater (120 covers in 45 minutes)? Oh, and don’t forget to do the ordering before you leave, and fix the gas leak on the salamander. This way, I can take the week end off! Great to have a know-it-all around!
oh, also… only a lawyer would brag about doing something for FREE for the community…
Hell, I’ve been sleeping every night for the last 48 years, maybe I should open a mattress store. Beware, “Sleep Country USA”, here I come…
The reason I am bitter about reviewers, is that they think it’s cute to write a beautiful review, good or bad, on my back. I’m going to be the one who generate their (miserable, I guess) paycheck. I’m going to work like a mule, find investors, spend my life paying them back and some gigolo with his / her huge ego who wants to read his words in the paper and try his writing style is going to slam my work. When I say “I” I mean also my friends and colleagues. I’m in a time in my carreer where I don’t care anymore. Where I want to voice my frustation and try to end this BS.
In all honesty, I got pretty much nothing but good reviews at Carafe. So I’m not angry because of those reviews. I just wish I would have never been reviewed.
You know what happens…?
You open a restaurant. For about 3 months, if you did things right, people come and you build a great clientele of regulars. Then, the first Review comes. It’s good: a bunch of people read it and storm your restaurant. They want what was on the menu amonth ago because the reviewer liked it. You don’t have room for your regulars! You have to turn them away! Then, that paper review another restaurant a week later and all the sheeps storm that new place. You loose them. Your regulars come back, and the second review comes. It’s good: you don’t have room for your regulars. They start to get pissed. Etc etc.
You don’t get a review: people come, they like you for who you are, not for what they read. You build your clientele, they tell their friends, it’s heaven.
SO you know what? You guys can talk eloquently about the pros and cons of reviews, but in the real world, the working world, this is what happens. Not a story of what happens.
Good night!
mczlaw says
Pascal:
Your remarks are most unfortunate. Goodbye and good luck.
–mcz
Food Dude says
Pascal, I won’t review carafe if you would rather I didn’t. I can understand your feelings.
Pork Cop says
“Beware, “Sleep Country U.S.A.” here I come…” LOVE IT!
Pork Cop says
This reminds me of Lou Reeds live version of Walk On The Wild Side where he says ” can you imagine working for a fucking year and getting a B plus from some asshole in the Village Voice? I don’t need you to tell me I’m good….. I KNOW I’m good!”
Pascal Sauton says
Food Dude,
I think you got the answer to the whole debate:
Reviewers should ask if the restaurant wants to be reviewed. I know what my answer would be!
Food Dude, thank you for asking. I would appreciate if you don’t review me. This way, maybe we can go out for a drink one of these days!
Pork Cop,
this quote is on the nose! Always liked Lou Reed and like him even more now. Same for you: stop for a drink sometimes, we’d have a good time!
Zusman,
Sorry you want to quit the conversation, it was fun…Good luck to you too. I know it hurts to hear the truth once in a while…
mkg says
Hate to interrupt a good row, but would like to address one of the opening questions of this thread. “Should reviewers be reviewed?” Anyone remember back about 15 years ago when a chef, maybe it was Mark Ross from Regions, but my memory could be off, was also quite annoyed at the reviewers in town. He organized an event where the reviewers came to his restaurant and cooked for him and his chef pals. They did the reviewing and a good time was had.
Maybe another cook off is needed!
atlas says
anybody see the “Three’s Company” where jack had the reviewer come into his restaurant and chaos ensued.
portland reviewers, namely those at the O… are a funny bunch… they weild so much power yet take their reviewing so easy and are lackadaisical in general, save for Karen Brooks who is dangerous because she thinks she knows a bundle and is very IMO 1989 portland. (that is why she went so ga-ga over the ripe folk-nothing against them) but I am also biased in regards to her… I don’t like her, I think she is rude, snotty, reckless, small-minded, and cruel… but then so am I… so take my words with a grain of salt.
the rest of the bunch at the O are people like Bob Hicks who seems to like everything he tries, David Sarasohn who is always mentioning salt like it’s battery acid…
Also some of those that review are pulling double duty. It seems that for the O they may as well have the classified team go out and review restaurants with some of the reviews I read in there.
This is trouble with a one paper town… but the force of change is upon us and regionally we are seeing the beginning of that right now with sites such as this, portlandfood, chowhound, and even such sites as metroblogging portland.
Thank you FD
FD: last sentence redacted. No personal attack please
witzend says
Atlas,
You crack me up! You are spot-on regarding the “o” bunch, especially David Sarasohn. I’ve actually reached a point where I scan his reviews for the word “salt”, before I even start reading them. I think maybe a dinner date with David S. and Jim Dixon is in order.
Pork Cop says
At Castagna………….I’d pay for that one.
Food Dude says
Some of you may notice comments missing. ExtraMSG wrote complaining about a comment that referenced a member of his site, PFO, in a negative way. Per his request, I have removed the section of the comment that referenced his site, and all the follow-up comments. Hopefully this will make him happy, and he won’t sue me for libel ;)
Pork Cop says
If a person really is a weenie is it still libel?
ExtraMSG says
As a followup note: I never threatened to sue for libel. I did use the term, but only because it’s the most accurate term to use: “libel — a defamatory statement or representation esp. in the form of written or printed words; specifically : a false published statement that injures an individual’s reputation (as in business) or otherwise exposes him or her to public contempt”.
As I told Food Dude in emails and as I said here, my biggest problem with it was just that it’s an unverifiable claim. No restaurant is named, no person is named. I couldn’t investigage it to see whether it was true, or what parts of it may have been true, what may have been exaggerated, or if it was flatly false. The website and all its membership was maligned, but vaguely enough that no defense could be made nor a separation of the greater membership from a possible bad apple.
atlas says
all apologies, to fd of course. I thought about that last sentence and concluded it fell into the absurd. I disagree that it was a personal attack, nevertheless I am sorry that you felt so and needed to remove it.
why do I suddenly feel so bad? maybe I need to go sit in the corner… oh wait
all kidding aside, I am sorry you had to edit that… I recognize the waste of your time in having to do that.
I’ll watch it next time.
mczlaw says
atlas shrugged?
–mcz
Pascal Sauton says
I find the absence of a reply from Madame Brooks regretable. It would have been interesting to hear her feedback on this thread. She probably refuses to lower herself to a “little” food site when she’ll probably choose her paper, in one way or the other, to get back at me…
Can’t wait to see with which sauce I will eaten in the upcoming Dining Guide! Oh well.
MKG: As of reviewing the reviewers, I think to have them cook for a bunch of chefs would be like having a few chefs write a paragraph about any subject…It can be rehearsed and in the end, they should be reviewed about their reviews, as they review chefs for what they do everyday. However, I don’t think we should lower ourselves to do what they do.
Once again, I think that Food Dude has it right:
Any reviewer should contact the restaurant and ask if they wish to be reviewed…
The more I think about it and the more I get upset with people getting paid to critisize what I’m doing. I really feel that I should be
consulted if someone wants to talk about me in public in a paper or magazine!
Food Dude says
“Once again, I think that Food Dude has it right:
Any reviewer should contact the restaurant and ask if they wish to be reviewed…”
Ah, but Pascal, I didn’t say that. I said if YOU didn’t wish for me to review your restaurant, I wouldn’t. It helps that I wasn’t planning to do so anytime soon, and I really don’t want to go where I’m not wanted.
I think you are overlooking a few things. In this day of everyone having an internet connection, it’s not just restaurants that are being reviewed. I don’t know about you, but before I buy a book, get tires, upgrade my cell phone, go to a new dentist, or just about anything else, I’m reading reviews first. Sure, there are a lot of idiots with keyboards out there so you have to learn to separate the chaff, but the thousands of internet sites that have sprung up make it possible to find out almost anything. Restaurants are no different, and you’d better get used to it.
There does seem to be a phenomenon where people want to be part of something successful. Tell them everyone is going to Carafe, and they will too; until the next big thing comes along. It is unfortunate they aren’t there because the food is good; but rather because everyone else is. Like you said, they chase away the regulars and leave tumbleweeds in their wake.
Let’s face it. All restaurants slowly fade away. People forget about them, the chef/owner gets bored, food slips, whatever. That has happened everywhere I’ve worked, and I’m sure it will happen to Carafe some day. One thing that reviewers can do is help prevent the slide from happening so quickly. If they only focus on the new and trendy, you are right; it’s not going to do a whole lot of good in the long-term. But if you go back three years after they open and point the spotlight back on them, it can be a good thing. For instance, Park Kitchen has been open three years or so, but I went back and wrote a new review last week. This is important, and a luxury that most newspapers can’t afford. Their readers want to read about new things, and so do mine. But I’m not doing this to make subscribers happy; I do it because I love it. Thus, I’ll keep mixing in old with new, and continue to update reviews.
Finally, food websites can give a restaurant a leg up. We can report on openings faster than the papers. We’ll publish menus to build up interest. We’ll give you free advertising by posting press releases. For a struggling restaurant, these things can be very helpful.
Ellie says
The trick with any reviewer (food, wine, movie, music, etc.) is to find one whose taste is in line with your own. Why on earth would you blindly trust the opinion of someone you have never met? Reviewers need to “prove” themselves to me before I give their reviews any weight.
(That being said, I feel I’ve found a kindred palate in FD.)
I never cease to be amazed at how the general public takes a review to heart. As a diner, I want the restaurants I love to do well, yet I cringe when a wave of one-time-restaurant-review-followers invades the joint for a while.
Food Dude says
And Ellie wins comment of the week for:
“(That being said, I feel I’ve found a kindred palate in FD.)”
If FD wins the lottery, 1/4 will be yours.