Let's eat: Do it right or swallow criticism

If a chef's battles in the kitchen don't produce good food, a critic must point it out. Photo / Thinkstock

New eateries could follow overseas trend of charging less on opening nights

Two reviews on these pages of two newly opened Auckland restaurants have prompted readers to write, privately to me or by way of online comments, taking exception. None of them has claimed (or perhaps I should say disclosed) any connection with either restaurant. But, even allowing for the intemperate tone adopted by some, they raise matters that deserve addressing.

The writers' viewpoints fall into two categories. The first, to which I shall return, questions the right of "so-called food experts" to pronounce judgment on a restaurant - an attitude tinged with irony since the people holding it have evidently decided to read what I wrote.

The second holds that, in reviewing places that have just opened, I am "not giving them a chance" to "find their feet".

This latter idea, which chimes with our deeply ingrained "fair-go" philosophy, has never ceased to amaze me since, in 30 years of reviewing film, television, theatre and books, I have never encountered it. In a decade of restaurant reviewing, it has been a recurring refrain in correspondence.

A first novel, a play's opening night, a new sitcom, are rightly assessed on their merits, for the benefit of people who might spend money or time on them. If the attendant at a new service station filled your petrol tank with diesel, would you say, "Oh, well, they're just starting out. They're bound to be better in a month, and I'll go back then"? Would a dentist in a new practice be forgiven for filling the wrong tooth, so long as he promised to do the right one in a few weeks?

Such indulgence is for children. When my grandson tries and fails to catch the ball I throw to him, I will say "Oh, good try!" or "Poppa did a bad throw"or "Let's try again: watch the ball closely now". But he's 4. Grown-ups, if they are seeking to charge for their goods or services, must hit the ground running and, if they fail to do so, they must not expect the matter to go unremarked on by their customers, of which I am one.

In any case, the two restaurants in question - one of which invited me to its opening (I declined) and had a pretty good hint I would be there the next night - are not the work of novices. Both boast of their chefs' and owners' extensive experience; CVs mention fabled names.

But even if they were neophytes - and I have had some damn good meals in new restaurateurs' opening weeks - if they are charging full price, they get the full treatment. In big cities abroad, it is common for restaurants to have "soft" openings: for a week, even a month, they charge cost prices and ask reviewers to stay away. Anyone who did that here would earn my respect - and I'd stay well clear.

Evidently, several staff members did not turn up to one place on the evening I went. The explanation for their absence can only be guessed at, but it seems to me that hiring staff capable of coming to work on the first public night is a basic requirement of running a restaurant; the failure to do so is not something a critic or diner should be expected to take into account.

As to my expertise: I am a pretty decent home cook but I'll happily concede that some know (and many more purport to know) more about food than I do, though few have eaten at 500 Auckland restaurants. I have the expertise of an experienced and discerning diner, and I write.

Presumably the "fair go" folks have opinions about meals they pay for. My opinion differs only in that it is published in a newspaper. And note the first four letters of "newspaper"; "new" restaurants get reviewed, early, because readers rightly expect to be told early what's opening and how good it is. That's my job and I take it seriously.

It is for readers that I write and it is readers, not restaurants, who deserve a fair go from me. The day I forget that, I would expect the editor to show me the door.