I was perusing the weekly restaurant review in one of the local papers, when this question occurred to me. Do food critics (or restaurant reviewers, whatever) have to pretty much like all food? Can you be a food critic and just flat-out hate the taste of mayonnaise? Or tomatos, or whatever? It just seems to me that most of the people I know have at least one idiosyncratic food aversion, and I wonder if it’s possible to be a food critic if you just don’t like a particular type of food. Would you simply order dishes that didn’t include that dish? If a dish came with the offending item in it, would you order something different, or try to give the dish an unbiased review?
It seems that generally, food critics are food fanatics; strongly disliking something really common would be a huge handicap to a food critic, but then again, there’s no such thing as an unbiased opinion anyway.
I’ve wondered this myself, especially after watching the Iron Chef. Suppose the Iron Chef or his competitor created a dish with, say, anchovies. Slaves his heart out, and it is truly a magnificent dish. However, one of the tasters cannot stand anchovies, quite a dilemma.
No, of course not. If they liked everything, then what would they have to criticize??
j/k.
It would be really hard to be a food critic if you had some kind of aversion–especially an aversion to a common ingredient of a broad category of foods. For example, I dislike anything with cooked raisins in it. That wouldn’t be too hard to avoid. But my (yes I’m an ugly American) disgust for organ meats* and other “weird” meat things would probably stand in my way. I oculd just see going to some kind of southern-cooking restaurant and being served chitlins and pigs feet. Yaaaarrrgh!!
*except for chopped liver–including pate.
p.s. how could anybody eat kidneys? You Brits are weird! Pee pee pie, anyone??
There’s a difference between judging based on technique, style, execution, skill, etc. and just judging based on personal taste. Judging based on the former and being able to gve high marks to food (or movies, or books …) you simply cannot stand for personal reasons is the mark of a good reviewer. A reviewer who judges simply based on personal taste isn’t one I’d want to listen to.
Aren’t the dishes on Iron Chef made out of things like starfish anuses and rooster nads anyway? It’s hard to imagine them balking at an innocent anchovie.
i own a place and have been critiqued a few times the majority have been quite nice and positive towards my business but one of the reviews were very negitive towards myself and my business. the review was unconsistent in his views he would praise one thing and put it down in the same sentence my biggest problem with critics are how much they can hurt your business in fact they can put you out of business with a bad review i did not invite him to review me.now i understand if i am providing a bad service then i will go out of business but if i published my opinion about my lawyer or contractor etc. and it was a bad opinion i could be sued for libel( i think ) or slander which ever fits. why do i as a business owner have to accept someone writting something bad about me?
(Sorry. I had trouble reading your post as a run-on uncapitalized sentence, so I tried to clean it up a little to help me read it.)
Not to hijack the thread, but I don’t think you have to invite the critic to review your restaurant. I’ve never worked for a newspaper that ran reviews, but I don’t imagine it’s by invitation only.
I also don’t think you could be sued for libel or slander (I get them confused too) just for publishing a negative opinion, but I’m not sure.
I don’t think you can be sued for libel/slander for stating an opinion–only if you state something as a fact. For example, if the reviewer had said “I found a rat in my soup” you could sue him. (assuming that he had not actually found a rat in his soup) But if he said “The soup tasted bad,” then you can not sue.
Thanks for that cleanup, racinchikki. funguy, capitalization and punctuation are our friends.
Oh, what was I going to say? No, anyone can express their opinions about your product, even in writing, without being sued for slander (verbal) or libel (written).
I’ve written game reviews in which I bashed a game, but because I was expressing an opinion and then backing it up with my reasons, it was perfectly legit.
As a complete lark, I asked for and got the job at a mid-sized newspaper somewhere on the East Coast. Didn’t pay much (who cares?), but what a fun time I had!
The food editor would choose the restaurant for me (with my input) and then I would visit 2-3 times over the next week or so with a date. When I went, I always did so anonymously and then I was in total control of the evening. We ordered anything we wanted, including wine/cocktails, and the newspaper picked up the tab. If I was hungry for a $36 steak, I’d order it.
Did I stear clear of certain foods? Sometimes. For philosophical reasons, I’m opposed to the eating of veal, so I wouldn’t order it. But my date would, so no problemo. Of course, I made it a point to sample widely from the menu, but also focus on house specialties, interesting dishes, and what I thought other folks would enjoy.
Since I can speak with anonymity, let us just say that I absolutely burned restaurants with snotty servers or slow service. But most of the restaurants got really gracious reviews and I generally cut them slack when they were short on help or otherwise swamped. (Otherwise, a bad review can hurt business for several weeks.) What I learned over the months is that a lot of venerable institutions fell short of their reputations, which prompted my editor to send me back a few more times to triple-check everything so they would get a fair evaluation. Hey, fine with me!
For what it’s worth, women absolutely LOVE helping with restaurant reviews! Getting dates was the easiest thing in the world. I suppose it’s a power thing. BTW, I had no formal training as a chef or critic.
If you’re interested in doing reviews, call your local paper and ask.
Hmm… I suppose there is a difference between a restaurant critic and a food critic. Tsunamisurfer points out that it’s possible to be a restaurant critic with a food aversion. I think a general food writer/critic–especially an international one–would have a problem, though.
Could you imagine James Beard saying “Sorry, I don’t like squid eyeballs?”
There are always plenty of things to pick and choose. A food critic will simply try to avoid reviewing dishes of things he doesn’t like (out of professional ethics, if nothing else).
You can pick and choose as a restaurant reviewer, of course. But if you were judging something which included an ingredient you absolutely detested, the judge can simply say “I don’t care for this” as part of his review, and rate the dish taking that into account so his personal taste doesn’t disqualify the dish.