But, as an amateur and poseur, I often wonder.
How do you, (read how does one) keep interest up when you simply want to say – “OK Go,” or “This place really, maximally, sucks?”
This issue came stark face in front of me at a place in Florence (Italy, not Mass) when I realized that the meal was in serious descent and there were no ropes or axes to bind me to the rocks.
My buddies in Paris seem to have no problem.
One says “I don’t write up bad meals,”
Another says “I try to encourage young people to experiment and eat out” (implied meaning, they usually eat take-out or crappola from Monoprix.)
Yet another says “I try to pair a bad review with a bad one or tuck it into a longer piece.”
One other says “what’s the problem?”
And finally, one said “Why bother, it’s done.”
Well, as a guy who likes to tell the truth and has considered the last 8 years in the US to have caused us to have lost all respect globally for honesty, intelligence and values, I think telling it like it is, up or down, positive or negative, warts and all is what counts.
you write for yourself first and other fellow food and restaurant fans, they write to litterally feed themselves and to maintain their position in an outdated system...
Posted by: Chrisos | March 23, 2009 at 11:23 AM
This is why, over a quarter century ago, when John Hess agreed to become the New York Times' restaurant reviewer for a year, he quit after six months.
Posted by: John Whiting | March 24, 2009 at 07:03 PM
That's interesting; I always wondered why Hess and Sokolov were so short-lived at the Times.
Posted by: John Talbott | March 25, 2009 at 03:17 PM