CHOOSING WISELY
The second of a three-part series devoted to
The fine art of selecting an appropriate restaurant
Part II: Professional Reviews and Reviewers
Unless we have a penchant for masochism, most of us are vitally concerned not only with the quality of cuisine that invades our gullets, but also with the quantity of legal tender that flees our pockets. Therefore, most conscientious diners tend to rely on restaurant critics, in one way or another, to acquaint them with the spectrum of possibilities in this area or that, to separate the gastronomic wheat from the chaff, so to speak.
And, the truth be told, what most people desire from their restaurant reviewers is painfully simple: Straightforward, incisive, and intelligent reviews that are, come hell or high water, willing to call a caper a caper -- but these are, sad to say, seldom forthcoming. What we are treated to instead are a host of "culinary ciphers," those innocuous-sounding words and phrases designed to obscure rather than enlighten. These include such catch-alls as "respectable" and "acceptable," which mean anything but; "standard fare," which clearly denotes substandard fare; and "serviceable," which undoubtedly means quite beyond repair. So until various and sundry critics see fit to stop playing their silly word games, I would offer my fellow diners the following rules of self-defense...
1) Always keep in mind that restaurant reviewers are mere mortals. They climb into their pants/pantyhose one leg at a time, even as we. They are human. All too human upon occasion. They have their good days and bad days, and a host of variables is likely to exert considerable influence upon their peripatetic palates. A less than appetizing preprandial rowdy-dowdy with the spouse/significant other, for example, hardly bodes well for the establishment to be visited on that particular evening.
2) Cosmopolitan critics may have their own peculiar faults and foibles, but their palates tend to be infinitely more reliable than do those of various and sundry "local yokels." Not only are small-town reviewers apt to be biased in favor of a new eatery in their own neck-of-the-woods, they are also likely to lack both the expertise and the general savoir faire to properly evaluate any culinary establishment more illustrious than a taco stand... But my wife and I learned pretty early on, and from bitter (and often costly) experience, to treat the enthusiastic endorsements of "down-home" restaurant reviewers with a healthy degree of skepticism.
3) Restaurant reviews are not etched in stone. They should not be read, as many diners are prone to do, with the passionate devotion customarily reserved for Holy Writ. Restaurant reviews, and the restaurants themselves, for that matter, are simply too ephemeral. Today's "place to be" is tomorrow's "has been" in the making. A chef flies the coop, an establishment changes hands, time munches on... and all bets are off.
4) As diners should be wary of out-of-date reviews, so they should be equally suspicious of those upon which the ink is yet to dry. The gullible restaurant-goer who spies a glowing tome in the weekend scandal sheet and bolts to make a reservation for the following Saturday evening, may be in for emotional as well as peristaltic indisposition. He/she is likely to encounter a mass of humanity that rivals the 42nd Street Post Office on April 15th. If a restaurant -- particularly a new establishment -- receives an extremely favorable endorsement, you should make it a cardinal rule to avoid setting foot in the place for at least three to six months. This usually spares you an aggravating encounter with the "gastronomic groupies," those indiscriminate omnivores who invariable circle like vultures over every new culinary carcass. It also gives the wait and kitchen staffs time to work out the kinks and affords the chef opportunity to hit his/her stride. By not rushing to judgment, the serious diner is usually rewarded with a more relaxing and edifying encounter.
5) One final point. Never forget that reviewers' comments express personal opinions -- and absolutely nothing more -- of a given eatery. In many cases, dear reader, your opinions are just as valuable as those of some overfed hired belly, if not more so. Just one minor problem: Reviewers' opinions tend to move mountains. An unfavorable critique can cause heretofore contented patrons to vacate an establishment with the alacrity of the Exodus. A favorable review, on the other hand, often generates a massive influx of humanity that makes the invasion of the Mogul hordes pale by comparison -- and this is not as it should be.
The conscientious diner needs to be infinitely more circumspect with regard to both restaurant reviews and reviewers. Simply seeing it in print doesn't make it so.
TO BE CONTINUED...go to Part III
Bon Appétit!
