D

He’s absolutely right. And his comments apply to paid as well as unpaid critics.

I have seen some food bloggers take a chef to task for things most diners would not notice, with or with out cause. I have read reviews from professionals that don’t match the actual experience both good and bad. True, it would be nice if both pros and bloggers went to review these places in the perfect mood and with no expectations before the meal. On the other hand, chefs are, I think, joining the ranks of those who believe that all reviews, both blogger and professional, are biased and do not truly reflect the actual experience of the average diner. That is foolish of because what if the review was un-baised and reflected real issues? They may be apt to ignore or downplay them and miss an opportunity to improve.

So… I wonder if he thinks it’s fair to come in with the (preconceived) positive notion that the restaurant will have the best burger in TX… but not with a preconceived negative bias? I agree that the dining experience should be ultimately assessed based on its merits – not on hype – in either direction. But preconceptions cut both ways. How much does business increase at The Grape after a widely publicized favorable review?

Also – I appreciate the perspective that life should be lived rather than recorded. Typically I agree. But who is this guy to tell the rest of us how to enjoy our dining experience? Sometimes I want pictures of my meal to help stimulate my memory (which enhances the experience), or so I can share a beautiful presentation with like-minded friends. I’m not sure that just sitting and eating in silence (don’t talk – you might miss the dining experience!) is necessarily the best way to enjoy a meal.

I think Luscher needs to explain what he means by preconceived notions. Gavlist makes a good point about the burger. Sure I’m going to go in there with expectations that is the best effin burger in Texas. When I review, I go in with a lot of information about the place–the chef, the design, the “concept” (ugh), and try to see if what they are doing stands up to what they have previously said they intended to do. Take Stephan Pyles—I’ve gotten news releases and read reports of soft opening dinners and I know he has traveled all over the world to research the menu. There are no secrets here. Is that going in with a preconceived notion? Luscher/Hiller, help me here. Are you referring to another set of criteria? The scalp and hatchet line is confusing—it doesn’t sound like you Luscher.

It’s kinda funny that he drafted a blog post that was critical (and fairly condescending) of how critical and condescending bloggers can be…

It seems to me Luscher was directing his comments primarily at those bloggers and casual Web commenters who don’t feel any obligation to present fair, comprehensive reviews. How can they, when they only visit once and may have ordered something on the menu that they personally didn’t like. Poor choice? We’ve all chosen things on the menu we wouldn’t order again. Never been to NYC? How can you judge a NYC-style deli?That’s why we critics tend to be well-traveled, visit restaurants multiple times and eat across the menu. But that’s not the nature of the Blogosphere’s Wild West environment. When Luscher calls out “those engaged in the leisurely pursuit of dining critique” for snapping photos with their iPhones, “consumed with capturing every nuance,” he indirectly makes a valid point: How can you enjoy the dining experience as intended by the chef/owner/staff, if you’re rewriting the script, looking for fault, introducing your own subtext? Critics at the larger publications (I can vouch for this), visit several times and most strive to give a balanced view. You’ll probably recall a few critics in the past who bent over backwards to avoid deprecating critique. Not so in the Blogosphere. And the scalp/hatchet comment, well, that was added in the final edit and has since been removed.

I don’t see the removal of the scalping line noted anywhere in the article, Mike. On the D blogs, if they ever redact a post, they show it clearly (e.g., with strike-throughs or brackets for insertions). Maybe you should do the same.

No, wait, I see you buried the redaction in a comment, in which you say you’re reposting what you posted here. Except here you say the scalping line “was added in the final edit and has since been removed,” while there you say it “was added for spice in the final edit.” Why “for spice” over there, but not here? I guess you have your reasons.

Anyway, how is it that such a provocative line “was added [for spice] in the final edit”? (“Was added”? I thought serious journalists spurned the use of passive voice.) Who added that line? You? If you did, it’s ironic that you’re concerned about bloggers “rewriting the script” and “introducing their own subtext,” when you bait a restaurant owner into sharing his thoughts and then take it upon yourself to “spice” them up to draw attention to your blog. What else did you add to Luscher’s comments?