|
|
|
|
|
by porphyrogene
2684 days ago
|
|
They are pretty transparent about that fact. There are obvious factors that contribute to a restaurant being visited by Michelin judges, not the least of which is its location relative to other restaurants that are visited. There is also the matter of judges needing to be familiar with a cuisine in order to judge it properly. Without extensive knowledge of ingredients, preparation methods and presentation patterns it is difficult to issue a Michelin rating. If they do not know the culinary landscape how do you imagine they will issue a rating? Doing so would destroy their credibility as a knowledgeable school of critics. There used to be zero stars in Japan but that has changed over time as the Michelin system has embraced the cuisine and visa versa. It is easy to point out that many cuisines are not represented in the Michelin guide but what are the alternatives? That a limited number of people learn everything there is to know in an instant? That the ratings become so arbitrary that they are meaningless? There is nothing in the Michelin guide that claims that good food cannot be found elsewhere. I fail to see the controversy in a publication that is seemingly doing what it can to stick to what it knows while progressively broadening its horizons. |
|
By hiring more inspectors?
I'm not saying there is cultural bias or something like that. I'm just pointing out the fact that they have certain cuisines that are not represented.
If you consistently claim to be - "the world’s best known independent restaurant and hotel guide" with proudly boasting 100 odd year history, then you better show gastronomic variety. Else it just seems weird.
[1] From their twitter handle description - twitter.com/MichelinGuideUK