the pete wells thread

[Wilfrid]

Wells returns with a lengthy piece on Sushi Sho (not technically a review).

[Orik]

A lot is lost in translation (likely also due to how Nakazawa-san talks about his work) but it's still a very nice piece. 

[Diancecht]

penny for your thoughts:

Q: What gets too much attention?

A: Tasting menus, for sure, and the self-conscious chef class. The fancy restaurant sector gets too much attention relative to everything else—to places that are not living by those values, necessarily, but they’re still trying to be excellent. And new places versus old places.

========

there’s lots more here. the interview was about a month ago.

Edited December 11, 2024 by Diancecht

[Diancecht]

some previews of coming attractions

[backyardchef]

29 minutes ago, Diancecht said:

 

there’s lots more here. the interview was about a month ago.

"And I’m going to need some really cold ice… this may be asking too much." 

[MitchW]

48 minutes ago, backyardchef said:

"And I’m going to need some really cold ice… this may be asking too much." 

A really great line, as one of the keys to a great martini is making sure it, and the glass, are properly cold.

 

[Wilfrid]

Also the gin in the freezer. 😐

[small h]

That's the big advantage to not eating meat. So much space in the freezer for gin.

[Diancecht]

the internet is forever, or so the saying goes. here’s a long excerpt from an interview in 2016. maybe the next critic will keep this in mind?

How do you decide between not reviewing a restaurant or giving a negative review?

There are all kinds of restaurants that if one reviewed them, would get a negative review. More than 90% of the restaurants in New York probably don't merit a star in my system. Most of them are not interesting enough to my readers to have any kind of justification for knocking them. If you're going to knock a place, you have to have some sort of reason.
Per Se just has such a reputation.
Senor Frogs, I did not like most of the food, but the place was so nutty that I thought it would make for good copy.
A couple years ago I did 21, and it's an important, historic New York resturant but I don't think it gives good value on the food for the history and location. I did an affectionate negative review. Senor Frogs is an affectionate negative review.

I read your Senor Frogs review and it didn't sound negative, not like Per Se.

I had a good time there. I don't think it's a great restaurant but as a surreal circus in the center of Manhattan it's an experience.

I'll ask this question generally, but you know what I'm talking about* so you can either answer generally or specifically. How do you decide, when giving a negative review, how many stars to give?

* (To readers: Wells gave Per Se two stars even though he called it a "no-fun house" and ripped it a new orifice; he may have made Thomas Keller cry. As a condition of our interview Wells said he would not speak specifically about that review because he doesn't want to "inadvertently say something that expands on the original criticism.")

It's hard. I try not to write many reviews that are a defense of the star rating I've given. You read some reviews that every line is a defense of the star rating. Four stars, you almost have to do that. There are so few of them. They're at the tippy-top. You have to explain why it's there.
I find that kind of review doesn't allow me to have nuances, for me to have mixed feelings. I could write it's good in these ways, it's not good in these ways. I don't want to read that.
I want to give myself some freedom to write some reviews that have some shading and hope the readers understand that not everything's all good, not everything's all bad. Readers don't all need to be led by the hand as to why this is one star or two stars.
As a result people argue about my star ratings. But they'd argue anyway.