|
|
|
|
|
|
by onion2k
3919 days ago
|
|
|
No one goes to a restaurant because they need to eat. There are quicker, cheaper, easier options. A restaurant should be seen in the same light as a trip to a theatre, or to a gig. You don't go to a gig to listen to songs you could play on your home hifi, you go for the experience. The reason to go to a restaurant is because it's also an experience - the food is a part of it, but there's much more. There's the ambiance, the company, the style, the luxury, the cost. That is what a restaurant reviewer should write about. A report on what someone ate, or what they saw, is not a review. There should be an emotional ride. That's what a review is. If you want to read some of the best restaurant reviews ever written, search for Jay Rayner's work in the Observer. He is masterful at writing about restaurants (and food, and wine). They're a joy. |
|
|
A useful review should include some objective analysis. Ignoring details that marred your visit but wouldn't likely impact future patrons for instance; instead of wallowing in them gleefully.
Also a good reviewer should understand and adjust for their own emotional state going into the deal. You have a bad day; you write a scathing review - how is that useful to anybody?
So, what a review is, is a lot more than disgorging a personal emotional odyssey in print. A professional would write a carefully weighed analysis including a dispassionate component to factor out their own irrelevant biases. Would include those elements that were well crafted, even if they didn't hit home with the reviewer on the particular night they visited. Would resist cheap jabs, which are the review equivalent of click-bait.