conundrum

What to do, what to do? Last night I went to dinner with friends at a new restaurant. Between the four of us, we must have eaten nine dishes off the menu, plus an amuse bouche. I went prepared, with my camera and my notebook, and made sure to taste a bit of everything we ordered. At the end off the meal, what was my verdict? (Our collective verdict, I might add.)

Eh.

It wasn't terrible by any stretch, and certainly some of the dishes were very very good, but overall it was pretty average and I wouldn't go back.

So now what do I do? There has been so much press over the years about the ethics of food blogging. "Food bloggers are capricious fools who trash restaurants without so much as a backward glance!" whinny some. "Hey, it's just my two cents, why can't I share it?!" counter others.

Funny, I don't have a problem writing up a place I liked after only one visit, so why should I hesitate if I didn't like it? This place has received zero press to date that I've seen (in terms of reviews, though certainly the opening was covered). Truthfully, I'd prefer to go back before I write them off (literally) -- except that I really don't want to eat there again, and I haven't got anyone to pay for my meal like the big critics do.

So I'm leaving it up to you, dear readers. Is it fair for me to write up what I think -- or not?

Comments

[mark fallows]

tell it as it was for you...we want to know...if you don't name it, it's the start of a slippery slope

[sam]

Well - you know me - I wouldn't review it until I had been again but in this instance, like you, I can't think of any reason to ever go there again.

Here is a quote from Culinary Artistry by Dornenburg & Page that I stumbled upon a couple of days ago and it struck me:

"Daniel Bolud contrasts the thoughtful critic who attempts to understand the chef and his or her intention when evaluating the restaurant with the "dreaded critic with a checklist". Similarly Mark Miller criticizes what he views as many critics' quantitative as opposed to qualitative approach to criticism. "Dance critics don't that [a performance] was worth going to or how much it was worth. They educate you that these are some of the things should help you what you are seeing," says Miller."

I decided that the next time I write a review I would bear those words in mind but now thinking about Miller's words in the context of last night's meal it is extremely difficult to work out how you can educate a reader when some of the dishes were so disappointing. In the cas of dessert, especially - I would say it was the pastry chef who needs an education.

Bolud's advice is perhaps more useful in this case. The restaurant's own website has, under its 'about' section, a detailed explanation of the philosophy of the restaurant and it's chef which you can refer to.

If I was to review this restaurant right now, after one visit, I think my criticism would have to be highly constructive, I would be careful to point out the highlights as much as the lowlights. There is no question I liked them, the service was charming, and I was rooting for them. I certainly couldn't live with myself if I were to do a snipey, bitchy type review. It's kind of painful to witness their falures alongside their successes.

[stephanie vacher]

restaurants thrive off of criticism, whether it's good or bad. if they're doing a poor job, or just a mediocre job, they deserve to know so that they can change for the future.

my suggestion if you want to be kind or polite is to inform the restaurant about its shortcomings. call them and ask to speak to a manager, and tell them what you think and that you're a critic but you're hesitant about giving bad press to their restaurant. they may even invite you back and offer free drinks or a complimentary entree. you could base your review off of that, and mention in your review that previously you thought the restaurant was sub-par, but on further investigation, it could be for better or worse.

it's all up to you though. that's just my $.02 :]

[Ryan]

Your only duty is to write the truth.

By all means, note that you've only been there once and any other reason someone else could have a different experience.

It is not for a chef or restaurant owner to tell you how to write any more than it is for you to tell them how to run a restaurant. Each side has interesting information for the other and is well advised to listen, but in the end neither may set rules nor make decisions for the other.

For decades, diners and indeed consumers of all sorts have suffered from a deep and pervasive lack of information about the restaurants and other businesses with whom they spend money.

The result has been the triumph of inertia, advertising, marketing and public relations spin over simple quality, and through this victory an inefficient market, and through this market high risk and low return on investment for wise consumers and excellent restaurateurs alike.

The past decade and a half has seen the rapid development of an advanced computer network with the power to change all this, to reward quality and multiply the power of the consumer dollar and restaurateur investment by simply providing deeper and wider information about quality.

People who have prospered by the inefficiencies of the old system, or who are simply fearful about the new system because of the significant financial risks they have taken, are now trying to convince consumers through various ploys to not take advantage of this new network to empower themselves, to in various ways ignore or make only crippled use of technology developed at no small expense of money and time over decades by academics, government officials and private enterprise.

I implore you to impose no artificial restrains on yourself. Caution is wise, but let it be in service only of the truth, foremost, and of yourself and of your readers second; never to protect the feelings, investments or interests of business owners or other powerful people.

[Jeff]

I say skewer the losers. But seriously, I agree with the 'constructive critcism' approach. If the guys running the place really want to succeed, they'll appreciate knowing what they're doing right, and no-so-right.

[The Cooking Ninja]

Personally I would write about it whether I like it or not. The other night, we went to an Indian restaurant that has great reviews by everyone but we were disappointed : they have so great dishes but the service was so slow and all the main courses were delicious but too salty. So we gave it a 3 stars only and will not go back there again.

[Cynthia]

If everything was blah then write it but if there was hits in between, give it another go before writing the review.

[mom]

Maybe you could have 2 columns (as long as they're about equal): Positives & Negatives--very straightforward. Then readers can judge for themselves--&/or try the place to really decide.

[Restaurant Mom]

I've had this happen before, too. In these cases... I just let it go. It sounds like it isn't a terrible place, just not a great place. I figure people are reading my blog to get suggestions on where to go, not necessarily places to avoid (especially if, like you said, the place has gotten no press lately).

[erika]

I've seen you write "eh" reviews in the past. Why hesitate now?

[bill]

You should never hesitate to tell the truth, but will it be the truth after one visit? If you weren't impressed, you won't be the only one. And all restaurants survive off of repeat business, not the revenue from one good review. If it wasn't worthit, don't waste the electrons and find somewhere great to recommend to people. I'd rather be a food fan than a food critic anyday.

[Dana]

I may be biased, but I say review it regardless of like or dislike as long as you're honest (as suggested above). We all have opinions, so why not you too?