Robert Courtine, for many years the restaurant critic for the French newspaper Le Monde, had the habit of visiting the most prestigious restaurants in France and setting various traps for them. During one period he visited each of the three-star restaurants in Paris. After being shown to his table he ordered a tomato salad and then gave bad marks if the tomatoes had not been peeled and seeded and if he had not been asked what sort of oil he wanted in the dressing. On another occasion, when dining at the famed Chantecler in Nice he made a scene when his crepes Suzettes had been made with orange peel and not, as they should have been, with tangerine peel.

Another well known French critic, Maurice Edmond Sailland, best known under his pen name of Curnonsky, would walk into a restaurant and then, as loudly as he could, call out: "Make me a leg of lamb with red beans and if the skin is not crackling crisp and if it is not the color of a baby's cheeks inside, I'm leaving". Describing the impact of Curnonsky's reviews, another journalist wrote that "a mediocre review by `The Prince' could seriously harm the reputation of a restaurant. A bad review was enough to force the owners to decide whether it was profitable to even keep their doors open".

While the public may find such antics edifying, many chefs and restaurateurs are not appreciative of the efforts of the critics who come to their restaurants and then share their opinions with all and sundry who happen to read their newspapers. In fact, to listen to many chefs and restaurant owners might be to conclude that restaurant critics are the most unpopular people on the planet. What many of those who own or prepare the food in restaurants do not understand is that critics are not their enemies.

Critics are no-one's enemies. Being critical is one of the factors that makes us human.Restaurants, like the theater, the cinema or any other artistic endeavor, are part of the public domain and thus, are open to being criticized. The truth is that as the art or music critic loves paintings or the symphony, most restaurant critics adore food and have happily devoted large portions of their lives to consuming good meals.

It is true that restaurant critics should play out their game within a certain set of rules. While there is no requirement for them to be master-chefs, they must have knowledge of how food is prepared. Even more critical, however, is broad experience in dining. In addition to adoring good food, they should be familiar with many restaurants in many places. They should have discriminating palates and should be broadly knowledgeable about a variety of cuisines and cooking styles. They should also have at least a basic familiarity with the psychology, physiology, sociology and anthropology of food. They should have demanding standards but should be realistic enough to know that not all of their public will be as demanding.

Critics should also be aware that they have a set of moral obligations, partly to their readers and partly to the restaurants they are reviewing. In their writing they should think of their readers as clients who have the right to expect honesty and integrity. The honest critic, for example, will never promote chefs or restaurateurs merely because they are his friends. Nor should he ever be malicious in a review merely because he does not "like" this person or that. With regard to restaurants, the critic has neither the right nor the mandate to be malicious simply because it makes him popular with his readers. Nor does he have the right to criticize a restaurant, a chef or even a specific dish unless he has the experience and the expertise to back up his criticism.

To understand critics and their roles one should know that what drives most critics is an undying sense of optimism. By its very nature, food criticism cannot be carried on without a sense of hope. What makes the honest critic continue is the hope that the next Bordelaise sauce he tastes will have been thickened without flour, that the chocolate sauce on the Poires Belle Helene will have made with just the right amount of butter, that his next fillet steak will be cooked just to that point where it is charred on the outside but still perfectly pink inside. In fact, like critics in every field, the restaurant critic dreams of the day when all of his criticism can be positive.

Critics have various styles in both how they carry on their visits and how they write. Some, for example, try almost desperately to remain anonymous when they visit restaurants. When Mimi Sheraton was the restaurant critic for the New York Times, she was so concerned with anonymity that she would devote hoursto selecting a wig and an elaborate costume designed to hide her identity. Nearly all critics try to maintain a sense of anonymity, but are realistic when they realize that the longer they write the better becomes the chance that they will be recognized.

The truth of the matter is that anonymity is not all that important. Even when the owner of a restaurant recognizes a critic who has entered his establishment, there is little he can do to fool him. If the chef did not know how to make Beauharnaise sauce before the critic arrived, he is not about to learn in the next fifteen minutes. If the fish was not quite fresh or the spaghetti of an inferior quality, there is simply nothing that will hide these things. The critic may get better service or may even get a larger than usual portion, but these tricks don't help, for whatever he is, the critic is not stupid and is watching carefully to see how the service is at other tables and what size portions other clients are receiving. Nor are critics taken in when an owner who obviously knows them strongly suggests a certain dish. Ignoring this advice, most critics will simply order a standard dish from the menu, for such standards make for easy comparison to long recognized standards.

Some feel that the problem of anonymity is further compounded because critics sometimes have friends among the chefs whose restaurants they patronize. Although it is sometimes difficult to maintain the distance required between the critic and the criticized, this is not an insoluble problem. The intelligent chef, especially if his ego is strong enough, realizes that his friends may not always agree with him. The wise critic knows that one of the dangers he faces is that of occasionally losing friends because of his criticism.

Maintaining Good Relations with Critics

Some restaurateurs and chefs welcome criticism, seeing it as a form of free and hopefully productive advertising. Others are less enthusiastic but, because restaurants are public places, critics are liable to walk in at any moment. Restaurateurs simply have no control over this fact of life.

The restaurateur who wants visits from critics has several options. The first is to phone either the critic or his editor at the newspaper to issue an invitation. Never phone a critic at his or her home, for that is an imposition on his privacy. And, because being pushy is rarely appreciated, do not pressure a critic for a specific time and date for a visit. The phone call has been enough. The critic has written down the information and, if it is of interest to him and his readers, he will eventually make an appearance.

Another option is to work through a public relations firm. Some of these firms will invite groups of critics to a lunch or dinner, others will invite them individually. Do not, however, expect your p.r. person to show up with all of the important critics. Although some critics freely accept such invitations, others go only with the one or two p.r. people they know will not be nuisances. Some critics, preferring to go on their own, never accept. All of which is fair enough, for every critic is entitled to his or her own modus operandi.

If a critic accepts an invitation, either directly or through a public relations person, do not automatically anticipate a positive review. The sad fact is that many restaurateurs think that for the price of a "free meal" they have bought a good word from the critic. What these people do not realize is that critics always eat "free" when they are working because their newspapers reimburse their expenses.

Because most critics appear anonymously whenever possible, most chefs and restaurateurs do not know they have been visited until the review appears in the newspaper. If, however, you do recognize a critic while he is in your establishment there are certain things that can make life more civilized for both of you. Be honest enough to say hello and welcome him. After that, simply avoid being a nuisance. Let the critic decide on his own what he wants to eat. If he has any sense at all, he probably won't take your suggestions anyway. If, after the critic has ordered, you want to show off one of your specialties that he has not requested, simply ask him if he would like a small taste. If he says yes, be happy. If not, be quiet.

More than anything, do not hover over the critic's table, monitoring his every bite and asking him every few seconds whether he enjoyed what he was eating. Under that kind of scrutiny, even the finest meal becomes little more than an ordeal. Even after the critic has finished his meal do not ask for his critique. More than likely you'll only get a polite nod of the head and an evasive answer. After all, he's not looking for a fight. Do not hestitate, however, as you would with any customer, to tell him that you hoped he enjoyed his meal. In a phrase - don't try to sell the critic something. The quality of the cuisine, the ambiance, the price-value ratio and the service at your establishment are what are important. Bribery is offensive, flattery is demeaning, and begging is pathetic. The quality restaurant needs none of these to receive favorable reviews.

What To Do After The Review Appears

In 1973, Howard Johnson, the founder of one of the largest advertising agencies in the United States, wrote that "nearly all reviews are good for business. Good reviews give business an immediate boost. Mediocre reviews do not really harm because after several days most people forget the content of the review and only remember that the place was mentioned in such-and-such a newspaper. Bad reviews, unless all the critics are unanimous in despising a place, may be bad for the ego, but even these are rarely fatal". Keeping this edict in mind, the best reaction to most reviews, good, bad or indifferent, is nearly always a minimal reaction.

In the event of a favorable review, no reaction is necessary. A message left for the journalist at his newspaper will not be misinterpreted, but such "niceties" as invitations to free meals are definitely out of order. With regard to a negative review, most thinking people agree that the most elegant response is no response at all. While letters to the editor or phone calls to friends or other journalists may elicit a reaction, these are rarely helpful, for all they do is call further attention to the fact that a potential problem exists. Unless one has been liabled (and in such cases, a good attorney and not phone calls are required), there is simply little sense in making the public aware that you think you have been wronged.

As it is impossible to claim that all restaurateurs are honest or that all chefs are talented, neither are all critics knowledgeable or particularly moral. This does not mean that a malicious or unknowledgeable critic can get away with everything. Because criticism is a public act, the critics themselves are also subject to constant criticism. No one is more critical of critics than their readers, who do not hesitate to write letters to the editor when they disagree with what the critic has said. By the very nature of their work, editors are also critical for, as news must be accurate, criticism must be based on firm, well recognized standards. And, as a chef may disagree with a critic's evaluation of his restaurant, so may the critics disagree with each other. The ultimate critic of both restaurant and those who write restaurant criticism,is the public, for these are the people who will eventually determine whether a restaurant thrives or eventually goes out of business. Critics have influence. They are not gods.

© Daniel Rogov