][1]The Independent’s restaurant reviewer John Walsh has written a revealing piece about what he is looking for when he reviews a restaurant. Sunlight, a good steak, decent bottles at the lower price end of the wine list and informed staff were in. Pretentious menus, foam and a meet ‘n’ greet or shake ‘n’ fake with the chef were out.
Any review is just a checklist of the reviewer’s personal preferences and tastes so it’s no surprise that I don’t agree with quite a few of Walsh’s criteria. His moaning about ‘hand-dived’ scallops, for instance, seems short-sighted. If it doesn’t say they are hand-dived then they have probably been dredged which, in these eco-conscious days, is akin to saying that you only ever buy furniture from wood that has been illegally logged in the rain forests of the Amazon.
It’s interesting which facets of a restaurant yank some people’s chain but mean nothing to others. Last week, I spoke to one of Edinburgh’s Michelin starred chefs who had been sent a blistering letter of complaint by a customer who, at least during his meal, had seemed perfectly happy. Top of the complaints list was the fact that the waiting staff had addressed the customers as Sir rather than calling them by name. Secondly, the bread had been served after the amuse-bouches rather than before.
I’m not sure I would have noticed either of these things far less write about them. That was a snippy letter of complaint rather than a review but it goes some way towards showing how subjective these things are. When you are reading a restaurant review, what really matters to you? Is it purely the food or are you also interested in things like the service, the decor and the cleanliness or otherwise of the loos?