Korean with a side of litigiousness
April 26, 2015 7:09 AM Subscribe
"So what does this curious tale of a mediocre restaurant prove? It proves that in London’s modern restaurant business, the combination of furiously high costs, reputations and big egos can be explosive. Indeed only one thing is clear to me. Right now the people really making money out of Jinjuu are the lawyers." Guardian restaurant critic Jay Raynor reviews Jinjuu - and the ensuing legal storm he accidentally provoked.
It's the only damn way someone could afford to do unpaid stages in some of the most expensive cities in the world, that's for sure.
posted by bitter-girl.com at 7:20 AM on April 26, 2015 [5 favorites]
posted by bitter-girl.com at 7:20 AM on April 26, 2015 [5 favorites]
This is some serious "So, how was your day?" "YOU DIDN'T SEE ANYTHING! YOU CAN'T PROVE ANYTHING!" behavior.
posted by Pope Guilty at 7:25 AM on April 26, 2015 [16 favorites]
posted by Pope Guilty at 7:25 AM on April 26, 2015 [16 favorites]
I'm glad he plugged Smoking Goat. I spent a whole afternoon in there recently dismantling a crab and it was about as much fun as I've ever had.
posted by sobarel at 7:31 AM on April 26, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by sobarel at 7:31 AM on April 26, 2015 [3 favorites]
I don't see anything unreasonable about Judy Joo's decisions. She's trying to protect her reputation. She has worked extremely hard to get to this point in her life, and absolutely wants nobody to take it away from her now that she's on her own in the restaurant business, especially after making so many sacrifices.
posted by oceanjesse at 7:44 AM on April 26, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by oceanjesse at 7:44 AM on April 26, 2015 [3 favorites]
Oversized egos and ridiculous prices, mediocre cooking, food "concepts", pissing contests over "authenticity" - it's the worst of modern dining. As a guy who loves food - I find this stuff depressing and soul killing. Sound and fury, when all I want is a nice little curry.
posted by helmutdog at 7:46 AM on April 26, 2015 [6 favorites]
posted by helmutdog at 7:46 AM on April 26, 2015 [6 favorites]
I'm kind of with you, oceanjesse - I see this almost more as a sad comment on what people have to do (or what they think they have to do) to stay competitive in the restaurant industry these days. I highly doubt that this is strictly a London-only problem. She might have gone overboard - but the fact that Gordon Ramsay's company just reflexively tried to burn her says just as much.
posted by Punkey at 7:52 AM on April 26, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by Punkey at 7:52 AM on April 26, 2015 [2 favorites]
It's not litigiousness to have your lawyers communicate with other lawyers. Or has anyone been sued?
posted by Foci for Analysis at 8:18 AM on April 26, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by Foci for Analysis at 8:18 AM on April 26, 2015 [1 favorite]
i would be interested to see the emails that jay raynor wrote - i wonder if they weren't as lighthearted as he presents them.
posted by nadawi at 8:21 AM on April 26, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by nadawi at 8:21 AM on April 26, 2015 [4 favorites]
I don't see anything unreasonable about Judy Joo's decisons
Resorting to lawyers over a restaurant review is a little unreasonable, and probably not well-judged if you want to protect your reputation. It guarantees wider circulation for the views of one critic who presumably thinks you're shit - although in this case it wasn't even that negative, which makes it even less sensible.
posted by Segundus at 8:24 AM on April 26, 2015 [6 favorites]
Resorting to lawyers over a restaurant review is a little unreasonable, and probably not well-judged if you want to protect your reputation. It guarantees wider circulation for the views of one critic who presumably thinks you're shit - although in this case it wasn't even that negative, which makes it even less sensible.
posted by Segundus at 8:24 AM on April 26, 2015 [6 favorites]
I dont understand the interest in following up on the employment history part of the discussion. At that point it stops being a restaurant review.
posted by asra at 8:25 AM on April 26, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by asra at 8:25 AM on April 26, 2015 [3 favorites]
but she didn't resort to lawyers over a review - she resorted to lawyers over questions of her work background that i would guess she thought raynor would include, which seems valid - gordon ramsey holdings were being dishonest by calling her history into question.l
posted by nadawi at 8:27 AM on April 26, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by nadawi at 8:27 AM on April 26, 2015 [4 favorites]
Chefs' training and like, the master who they learnt from, is quite relevant to who they are and what they do. It's a perfectly legitimate thing to ask about. Jay Rayner (who I trust more than most critics) just seems to have stumbled on a sensitive area. It does matter how much time she spent in GR establishments, as both parties seem to acknowledge, though Jay Rayner is willing to just tell us what the food was like, and does.
posted by Segundus at 8:36 AM on April 26, 2015 [11 favorites]
posted by Segundus at 8:36 AM on April 26, 2015 [11 favorites]
but she didn't resort to lawyers over a review - she resorted to lawyers over questions of her work background that i would guess she thought raynor would include, which seems valid - gordon ramsey holdings were being dishonest by calling her history into question.l
The Evening Standard pulled its review after receiving a letter complaining that its critic didn't appreciate the fried chicken properly. If you don't think there were lawyers involved in that letter, well. If you don't think the Evening Standard pulled their review because of an (implicit or explicit) threat of litigation, well.
This is someone who, when they could answer the inquiry with, "I worked in several Ramsay restaurants and can happily supply references," decided to rack up thousands of dollars of legal fees responding. If you don't think that's a display of muscle from an organization that responds to negative reviews with lawyers, well.
I don't think there's any mystery here. It's a mediocre $200-a-plate restaurant whose cuisine is litigation.
posted by grobstein at 8:55 AM on April 26, 2015 [29 favorites]
The Evening Standard pulled its review after receiving a letter complaining that its critic didn't appreciate the fried chicken properly. If you don't think there were lawyers involved in that letter, well. If you don't think the Evening Standard pulled their review because of an (implicit or explicit) threat of litigation, well.
This is someone who, when they could answer the inquiry with, "I worked in several Ramsay restaurants and can happily supply references," decided to rack up thousands of dollars of legal fees responding. If you don't think that's a display of muscle from an organization that responds to negative reviews with lawyers, well.
I don't think there's any mystery here. It's a mediocre $200-a-plate restaurant whose cuisine is litigation.
posted by grobstein at 8:55 AM on April 26, 2015 [29 favorites]
The thing that struck me most about this is that Raynor's picture appears with his column. Is this a standard thing in the UK? Restaurant critics on this side of the pond try to keep their likeness a secret in order to receive the same treatment as any other customer.
posted by Johnny Wallflower at 9:01 AM on April 26, 2015
posted by Johnny Wallflower at 9:01 AM on April 26, 2015
it's interesting how grh seems to be getting off with no damage to their reputation since it's their lie that started the whole thing.
posted by nadawi at 9:10 AM on April 26, 2015
posted by nadawi at 9:10 AM on April 26, 2015
Checking out the menu on Jinjuu's website, and the pictures of the food, I honestly have no idea what the chef is going for here. The claim is that it's "modern Korean," but to me it just looks like a collection of Korean-American Chefs' Greatest Hits, and not very attractively presented, either, especially for the price point.
I would have found it far more impressive if the chef's credentials included time spent in Korea, say, learning vegetarian cooking at a Buddhist temple or taking classes at the Institute of Korean Royal Cuisine, or just spending time knocking about restaurant kitchens in Seoul, than the affiliation with Gordon Ramsey restaurants, given that her selling point is Korean food. Or perhaps I just don't understand the London restaurant scene, and mentioning Gordon Ramsey is more important than unique experience with a particular cuisine.
posted by needled at 9:13 AM on April 26, 2015 [2 favorites]
I would have found it far more impressive if the chef's credentials included time spent in Korea, say, learning vegetarian cooking at a Buddhist temple or taking classes at the Institute of Korean Royal Cuisine, or just spending time knocking about restaurant kitchens in Seoul, than the affiliation with Gordon Ramsey restaurants, given that her selling point is Korean food. Or perhaps I just don't understand the London restaurant scene, and mentioning Gordon Ramsey is more important than unique experience with a particular cuisine.
posted by needled at 9:13 AM on April 26, 2015 [2 favorites]
The Guardian's other main food critic - Marina O'Loughlin - is anonymous, but Jay Rayner's been around for ages and has done lots of TV, so it really wouldn't be practical. He's also a distinctive looking chap - sort of a dandy Cavalier crossed with Marco Pierre White - so he was never likely to maintain any sort of cover.
posted by sobarel at 9:14 AM on April 26, 2015 [7 favorites]
posted by sobarel at 9:14 AM on April 26, 2015 [7 favorites]
There's clearly also a cultural issue in play between Joo and Raynor: Raynor talks about his British reserve and Joo has typically American brashness. Though I have no idea what Ramsay's issue is in all this. That's the really weird part to me.
posted by immlass at 9:15 AM on April 26, 2015
posted by immlass at 9:15 AM on April 26, 2015
I don't think there's any mystery here. It's a mediocre $200-a-plate restaurant whose cuisine is litigation.
You know, the least you could do is actually look at the menu prices before making a claim like this. It's worthy of note that Rayner's review says it costs £110 for dinner, drinks and service for two. In other words, around $83 per person. Not all that much for a city like London or New York. Regardless, a far cry from "$200-a-plate." Indeed, I've had plenty of serviceable but uninspiring meals at this price point. This is anything but a super-expensive restaurant, especially considering the neighborhood and the concept.
This doesn't seem to have much to do with Rayner or his review, but with the chef (or, rather, her backers) protecting her reputation against what appear to be demonstrably false claims from Gordon Ramsey's people. Given that Gordon Ramsey himself is a notorious asshole, one supposes that this may have trickled down to his management group.
Personally, I think it was disappointing that Rayner chose to make this background dispute a full 65% of his written review.
posted by slkinsey at 9:17 AM on April 26, 2015 [5 favorites]
You know, the least you could do is actually look at the menu prices before making a claim like this. It's worthy of note that Rayner's review says it costs £110 for dinner, drinks and service for two. In other words, around $83 per person. Not all that much for a city like London or New York. Regardless, a far cry from "$200-a-plate." Indeed, I've had plenty of serviceable but uninspiring meals at this price point. This is anything but a super-expensive restaurant, especially considering the neighborhood and the concept.
This doesn't seem to have much to do with Rayner or his review, but with the chef (or, rather, her backers) protecting her reputation against what appear to be demonstrably false claims from Gordon Ramsey's people. Given that Gordon Ramsey himself is a notorious asshole, one supposes that this may have trickled down to his management group.
Personally, I think it was disappointing that Rayner chose to make this background dispute a full 65% of his written review.
posted by slkinsey at 9:17 AM on April 26, 2015 [5 favorites]
I believe Rayner doesn't warn restaurants in advance but he also doesn't hide his identity while there. He's a good reviewer and one of the few I trust. I think he figures that they can cook or they can't and he's not swayed by free stuff or extra polite service.
posted by vacapinta at 9:18 AM on April 26, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by vacapinta at 9:18 AM on April 26, 2015 [4 favorites]
I would have found it far more impressive if the chef's credentials included time spent in Korea, say, learning vegetarian cooking at a Buddhist temple or taking classes at the Institute of Korean Royal Cuisine
Nah mate, food truck, that's impressive.
posted by Artw at 9:45 AM on April 26, 2015
Nah mate, food truck, that's impressive.
posted by Artw at 9:45 AM on April 26, 2015
You know, the least you could do is actually look at the menu prices before making a claim like this. It's worthy of note that Rayner's review says it costs £110 for dinner, drinks and service for two. In other words, around $83 per person. Not all that much for a city like London or New York. Regardless, a far cry from "$200-a-plate." Indeed, I've had plenty of serviceable but uninspiring meals at this price point. This is anything but a super-expensive restaurant, especially considering the neighborhood and the concept.
Sorry, thanks -- I was very wrong about the USD-GBP exchange rate! I certainly find a mediocre $83-a-plate restaurant less reprehensible than a $200 one.
posted by grobstein at 10:00 AM on April 26, 2015 [1 favorite]
Sorry, thanks -- I was very wrong about the USD-GBP exchange rate! I certainly find a mediocre $83-a-plate restaurant less reprehensible than a $200 one.
posted by grobstein at 10:00 AM on April 26, 2015 [1 favorite]
I ask Gordon Ramsay Holdings about her time with them. At this point it should be made clear that, from my subsequent enquiries, there is no doubt Joo did spend significant time working in the kitchens of the group, albeit mostly on an unpaid basis. ... Which makes the GRH response all the more bizarre. You’d think I’d accused them of drowning kittens.
All are clear: Joo had spent an awful lot of time in the kitchens of Gordon Ramsay’s restaurants. Zanoni referred to her as a true pleasure and a great asset to the team.
The implication is that I now have a vendetta against Ms Joo, which I don’t. I simply wanted to find out why Gordon Ramsay Holdings should be so angry with her description of her time in the group.
Yeah, I was prepared to hate on the restaurant, but.
The review reads like the surprised and frightened tone of a reviewer who accidentally set off a legal dispute, and fanned the flames further by pursuing that line of inquiry --- then holds his hands up in desperate surprise and says "I wasn't doing anything! I was simply asking! Blimey! What about a casual lawyerless face-to-face?"
posted by suedehead at 10:05 AM on April 26, 2015 [5 favorites]
All are clear: Joo had spent an awful lot of time in the kitchens of Gordon Ramsay’s restaurants. Zanoni referred to her as a true pleasure and a great asset to the team.
The implication is that I now have a vendetta against Ms Joo, which I don’t. I simply wanted to find out why Gordon Ramsay Holdings should be so angry with her description of her time in the group.
Yeah, I was prepared to hate on the restaurant, but.
The review reads like the surprised and frightened tone of a reviewer who accidentally set off a legal dispute, and fanned the flames further by pursuing that line of inquiry --- then holds his hands up in desperate surprise and says "I wasn't doing anything! I was simply asking! Blimey! What about a casual lawyerless face-to-face?"
posted by suedehead at 10:05 AM on April 26, 2015 [5 favorites]
Sorry, thanks -- I was very wrong about the USD-GBP exchange rate! I certainly find a mediocre $83-a-plate restaurant less reprehensible than a $200 one.
About 41 percent as reprehensible, I make it.
posted by Naberius at 10:13 AM on April 26, 2015 [2 favorites]
About 41 percent as reprehensible, I make it.
posted by Naberius at 10:13 AM on April 26, 2015 [2 favorites]
Prediction: in, oh, 20 years, restaurant critics will, emulating literary critics, specialize in being Marxist critics, or Freudian critics, or what have you.
posted by thelonius at 10:20 AM on April 26, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by thelonius at 10:20 AM on April 26, 2015 [1 favorite]
The review reads like the surprised and frightened tone of a reviewer who accidentally set off a legal dispute, and fanned the flames further by pursuing that line of inquiry --- then holds his hands up in desperate surprise and says "I wasn't doing anything! I was simply asking! Blimey! What about a casual lawyerless face-to-face?"
You're acting like this is not the appropriate response. He really was simply asking! Why do you insist on casting the most ordinary journalistic practices as some kind of inexcusable faux pas?
I suppose if a reviewer stumbles on something so weirdly explosive, he should just ignore it because it's not polite, forget whether it's interesting or relevant to the readership.
posted by grobstein at 10:23 AM on April 26, 2015 [7 favorites]
You're acting like this is not the appropriate response. He really was simply asking! Why do you insist on casting the most ordinary journalistic practices as some kind of inexcusable faux pas?
I suppose if a reviewer stumbles on something so weirdly explosive, he should just ignore it because it's not polite, forget whether it's interesting or relevant to the readership.
posted by grobstein at 10:23 AM on April 26, 2015 [7 favorites]
Rayner, not Raynor. Ramsay, not Ramsey.
Rayner writes wonderful reviews, essential Sunday reading.
posted by epo at 10:32 AM on April 26, 2015 [7 favorites]
Rayner writes wonderful reviews, essential Sunday reading.
posted by epo at 10:32 AM on April 26, 2015 [7 favorites]
slkinsey: "Personally, I think it was disappointing that Rayner chose to make this background dispute a full 65% of his written review."That does tell me all I need to know about how interesting the meal was.
posted by brokkr at 10:48 AM on April 26, 2015 [5 favorites]
Joo is correct about the fried chicken, though. It's definitely a thicker batter. I like it, but I could see where English critics might not.
posted by corb at 10:54 AM on April 26, 2015
posted by corb at 10:54 AM on April 26, 2015
Upstairs is a bar with music so loud it vibrates your colon.
If the restaurant fails, maybe they can get into the cleanse business.
posted by CheeseDigestsAll at 10:55 AM on April 26, 2015
If the restaurant fails, maybe they can get into the cleanse business.
posted by CheeseDigestsAll at 10:55 AM on April 26, 2015
The fried chicken comes in a heavyweight batter shell....
I so want some Korean fried chicken now.
posted by offalark at 10:55 AM on April 26, 2015 [1 favorite]
I so want some Korean fried chicken now.
posted by offalark at 10:55 AM on April 26, 2015 [1 favorite]
Doesn’t say what species of egg.
posted by El Mariachi at 12:24 PM on April 26, 2015 [5 favorites]
posted by El Mariachi at 12:24 PM on April 26, 2015 [5 favorites]
I love Jay Rayner's reviews (as well as his nonfiction books). I just picked up his top 20 worst reviews from a bookshop in Hampstead Heath because I couldn't resist. The radio program he does about food is great listening too.
posted by Kitteh at 3:29 PM on April 26, 2015
posted by Kitteh at 3:29 PM on April 26, 2015
> She might have gone overboard - but the fact that Gordon Ramsay's company just reflexively tried to burn her says just as much.
If her engagements with Ramsay's management are anything like her engagements with her critics, it's reasonable that they'd do everything they can to keep their name as far from hers as possible.
posted by ardgedee at 3:47 PM on April 26, 2015 [1 favorite]
If her engagements with Ramsay's management are anything like her engagements with her critics, it's reasonable that they'd do everything they can to keep their name as far from hers as possible.
posted by ardgedee at 3:47 PM on April 26, 2015 [1 favorite]
The thing that struck me most about this is that Raynor's picture appears with his column. Is this a standard thing in the UK?
Everyone knows who Jay Rayner is, just like everyone knew who his mum, Claire Rayner was.
Imagine Alton Brown started reviewing food. How useful would not printing his picture be?
posted by PeterMcDermott at 4:12 PM on April 26, 2015 [1 favorite]
Everyone knows who Jay Rayner is, just like everyone knew who his mum, Claire Rayner was.
Imagine Alton Brown started reviewing food. How useful would not printing his picture be?
posted by PeterMcDermott at 4:12 PM on April 26, 2015 [1 favorite]
You're acting like this is not the appropriate response. He really was simply asking! Why do you insist on casting the most ordinary journalistic practices as some kind of inexcusable faux pas?
Because the article is a restaurant review, not a journalistic inquiry into the history of the restaurant.
Because the restaurant critic is ostensibly there to review the food, and spends little to zero time actually talking about how any of the food tastes, instead choosing to criticize the wording on the menu, the decor, the size of the portions, etc.
Because it's a piss-poor restaurant review in which the only inkling of the critic's own culinary opinion is this single sentence fragment: "but we do like the accompanying sauces in their miniature squeezy bottles".
posted by suedehead at 6:01 PM on April 26, 2015
Because the article is a restaurant review, not a journalistic inquiry into the history of the restaurant.
Because the restaurant critic is ostensibly there to review the food, and spends little to zero time actually talking about how any of the food tastes, instead choosing to criticize the wording on the menu, the decor, the size of the portions, etc.
Because it's a piss-poor restaurant review in which the only inkling of the critic's own culinary opinion is this single sentence fragment: "but we do like the accompanying sauces in their miniature squeezy bottles".
posted by suedehead at 6:01 PM on April 26, 2015
little to zero time actually talking about how any of the food tastes, instead choosing to criticize the wording on the menu, the decor, the size of the portions
Sorry, but at $83 a pop, I'd like to know whether I'm still going to be hungry after I eat there. Portion size is absolutely a valid review topic.
posted by Etrigan at 6:19 PM on April 26, 2015 [3 favorites]
Sorry, but at $83 a pop, I'd like to know whether I'm still going to be hungry after I eat there. Portion size is absolutely a valid review topic.
posted by Etrigan at 6:19 PM on April 26, 2015 [3 favorites]
Because the restaurant critic is ostensibly there to review the food
No: the restaurant critic is there to review the experience of dining at the restaurant. Food is but part of that.
posted by We had a deal, Kyle at 6:21 PM on April 26, 2015 [10 favorites]
No: the restaurant critic is there to review the experience of dining at the restaurant. Food is but part of that.
posted by We had a deal, Kyle at 6:21 PM on April 26, 2015 [10 favorites]
The review reads like the surprised and frightened tone of a reviewer who accidentally set off a legal dispute, and fanned the flames further by pursuing that line of inquiry --- then holds his hands up in desperate surprise and says "I wasn't doing anything! I was simply asking! Blimey! What about a casual lawyerless face-to-face?"
Precisely, what else could it be, and what's wrong with that?
Because...
Because...
Because...
not at all, this is clearly something else, not a restaurant review, more of a peek behind the curtain of what goes on in pricey london restaurant business scene. If it was just a review we certainly wouldn't be discussing it.
posted by wilful at 6:36 PM on April 26, 2015 [2 favorites]
Precisely, what else could it be, and what's wrong with that?
Because...
Because...
Because...
not at all, this is clearly something else, not a restaurant review, more of a peek behind the curtain of what goes on in pricey london restaurant business scene. If it was just a review we certainly wouldn't be discussing it.
posted by wilful at 6:36 PM on April 26, 2015 [2 favorites]
Tonight I saw one of the owners of our local haunt haul a shorty of ice up to the bar, so at least there's that.
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 6:45 PM on April 26, 2015
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 6:45 PM on April 26, 2015
The Guardian's other main food critic - Marina O'Loughlin - is anonymous
I work at a restaurant and I can tell you, she's not. she made the reservation under her own name.
posted by [tk] at 9:39 PM on April 26, 2015 [3 favorites]
I work at a restaurant and I can tell you, she's not. she made the reservation under her own name.
posted by [tk] at 9:39 PM on April 26, 2015 [3 favorites]
Pity the investment banker so savagely set upon by the food eater-writer's inquiries. What next, being forced to breathe the same air as the rabble?
posted by basicchannel at 12:00 AM on April 27, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by basicchannel at 12:00 AM on April 27, 2015 [2 favorites]
Everyone knows who Jay Rayner is, just like everyone knew who his mum, Claire Rayner was.
And wasn't his dad, Des Rayner, also fairly well-known painter too?
When I was staying in Herne Hill on vacation a couple of years ago, he was remarkably nice and patient answering my neighbourhood/food questions via Twitter.
posted by Kitteh at 12:04 AM on April 27, 2015 [2 favorites]
And wasn't his dad, Des Rayner, also fairly well-known painter too?
When I was staying in Herne Hill on vacation a couple of years ago, he was remarkably nice and patient answering my neighbourhood/food questions via Twitter.
posted by Kitteh at 12:04 AM on April 27, 2015 [2 favorites]
"Because the article is a restaurant review, not a journalistic inquiry into the history of the restaurant.
Because the restaurant critic is ostensibly there to review the food, and spends little to zero time actually talking about how any of the food tastes, instead choosing to criticize the wording on the menu, the decor, the size of the portions, etc.
Because it's a piss-poor restaurant review in which the only inkling of the critic's own culinary opinion is this single sentence fragment: "but we do like the accompanying sauces in their miniature squeezy bottles"."
Hey, before you go poppin' off, I think you might want to actually read the review:
Sorry, your response just comes off as angrily wrong about something you didn't read and wouldn't understand if you did.
posted by klangklangston at 12:24 AM on April 27, 2015 [9 favorites]
Because the restaurant critic is ostensibly there to review the food, and spends little to zero time actually talking about how any of the food tastes, instead choosing to criticize the wording on the menu, the decor, the size of the portions, etc.
Because it's a piss-poor restaurant review in which the only inkling of the critic's own culinary opinion is this single sentence fragment: "but we do like the accompanying sauces in their miniature squeezy bottles"."
Hey, before you go poppin' off, I think you might want to actually read the review:
It is for the most part serviceable, if expensive. Dumplings have light casings, but the portion is meagre for £6.50. Prawn balls have all the virtues of seafood that has swum in the deep-fat fryer. Boo Ssam pork belly, glazed and served with apple cabbage kimchi, is fine, if a little stringy. The fried chicken comes in a heavyweight batter shell, but we do like the accompanying sauces in their miniature squeezy bottles.And since food criticism is still often done under a rubric of journalism, asking about the history of the restaurant and investigating claims is part of that journalism.
Sorry, your response just comes off as angrily wrong about something you didn't read and wouldn't understand if you did.
posted by klangklangston at 12:24 AM on April 27, 2015 [9 favorites]
And since food criticism is still often done under a rubric of journalism, asking about the history of the restaurant and investigating claims is part of that journalism.
Yeah, you can probably get all that other stuff off Yelp.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 3:23 AM on April 27, 2015 [1 favorite]
Yeah, you can probably get all that other stuff off Yelp.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 3:23 AM on April 27, 2015 [1 favorite]
The very first sentence on the restaurants website is:
"JINJUU, meaning “PEARL”, is London’s premier modern Korean food restaurant with celebrity chef, Judy Joo, at the helm."
So, she is saying, hey come eat here because I'm a celebrity chef. Rayner isn't doing some deep background investigation here, probing where he should not. He was trying to find out a bit more about who she was, and reporting that, unexpectedly, a wall of lawyers blocked him from talking to her.
posted by vacapinta at 4:14 AM on April 27, 2015 [7 favorites]
"JINJUU, meaning “PEARL”, is London’s premier modern Korean food restaurant with celebrity chef, Judy Joo, at the helm."
So, she is saying, hey come eat here because I'm a celebrity chef. Rayner isn't doing some deep background investigation here, probing where he should not. He was trying to find out a bit more about who she was, and reporting that, unexpectedly, a wall of lawyers blocked him from talking to her.
posted by vacapinta at 4:14 AM on April 27, 2015 [7 favorites]
Sorry, your response just comes off as angrily wrong about something you didn't read and wouldn't understand if you did.
Hmm. Perhaps it's that, for the most part, I consider criticism to be uninteresting, and writing to be absolutely fascinating.
Especially for a domain so 'subjective' as food, which quite literally comes down to matters of 'taste', I'd believe that the only real valuable and interesting response to a restaurant's food is to discuss it in-depth and to consider the work (the food, the restaurant experience, in this case).
Most often than not, I think people are terrified of having opinions (and I'm not exempting myself from this), and instead rely on what I call 'chains of legitimacy' to anchor one's opinion. 'Is the restaurant famous?' 'Did the chef train from a famous place?' 'Do people like it on Yelp?' 'What do other people say about it?' 'Can I let myself like it yet?'
So "how do I feel about this restaurant?" becomes a conservative strategy of amalgamating different markers of legitimacy together until you've made a decision, like some sort of high school popularity game. Entirely social, and thus entirely conservative. And if I (accidentally) come across as angry, perhaps it's my exasperation at reviews like this that say very little and are quite uninteresting -- and most of all are actually conservative.
Your hole-in-the-wall restaurant isn't discovered this way - it's by eating the food, listening to your senses, and realizing in utter delight that the food is absolutely amazing, to you, others' opinions be damned.
So - yes, I think the article's unfair to the restauranteur, former investment banker though she may be, because this critic's article is uninteresting. (If the critic, however, is also a wonderful writer and are strongly and personally opinionated, they become a writer and thinker. See: Susan Sontag, Roland Barthes, etc.) A few meager sentences with some denotative statements about food is hardly an opinion.
posted by suedehead at 10:20 AM on April 27, 2015
Hmm. Perhaps it's that, for the most part, I consider criticism to be uninteresting, and writing to be absolutely fascinating.
Especially for a domain so 'subjective' as food, which quite literally comes down to matters of 'taste', I'd believe that the only real valuable and interesting response to a restaurant's food is to discuss it in-depth and to consider the work (the food, the restaurant experience, in this case).
Most often than not, I think people are terrified of having opinions (and I'm not exempting myself from this), and instead rely on what I call 'chains of legitimacy' to anchor one's opinion. 'Is the restaurant famous?' 'Did the chef train from a famous place?' 'Do people like it on Yelp?' 'What do other people say about it?' 'Can I let myself like it yet?'
So "how do I feel about this restaurant?" becomes a conservative strategy of amalgamating different markers of legitimacy together until you've made a decision, like some sort of high school popularity game. Entirely social, and thus entirely conservative. And if I (accidentally) come across as angry, perhaps it's my exasperation at reviews like this that say very little and are quite uninteresting -- and most of all are actually conservative.
Your hole-in-the-wall restaurant isn't discovered this way - it's by eating the food, listening to your senses, and realizing in utter delight that the food is absolutely amazing, to you, others' opinions be damned.
So - yes, I think the article's unfair to the restauranteur, former investment banker though she may be, because this critic's article is uninteresting. (If the critic, however, is also a wonderful writer and are strongly and personally opinionated, they become a writer and thinker. See: Susan Sontag, Roland Barthes, etc.) A few meager sentences with some denotative statements about food is hardly an opinion.
posted by suedehead at 10:20 AM on April 27, 2015
(Note, of course, that the restaurant may entirely be overpriced, and horrible.)
posted by suedehead at 10:22 AM on April 27, 2015
posted by suedehead at 10:22 AM on April 27, 2015
"Your hole-in-the-wall restaurant isn't discovered this way - it's by eating the food, listening to your senses, and realizing in utter delight that the food is absolutely amazing, to you, others' opinions be damned."
Pulitzer-prize winning food critic Jonathan Gold both covers background and actively seeks out hole-in-the-wall restaurants, including an ongoing project to eat at every restaurant on Pico Blvd., arguably home to more Central American restaurant varieties than anywhere else in the world.
"So - yes, I think the article's unfair to the restauranteur, former investment banker though she may be, because this critic's article is uninteresting."
Oh, so you've eaten there and liked the food? Or are you just kinda shooting your mouth off and ignoring the parts of the review that talk about the food (specifically noted as less interesting than the surrounding drama) because you've decided to make a stand and this article is as good as any you could have copy pasta'd your comment under?
posted by klangklangston at 10:56 AM on April 27, 2015 [3 favorites]
Pulitzer-prize winning food critic Jonathan Gold both covers background and actively seeks out hole-in-the-wall restaurants, including an ongoing project to eat at every restaurant on Pico Blvd., arguably home to more Central American restaurant varieties than anywhere else in the world.
"So - yes, I think the article's unfair to the restauranteur, former investment banker though she may be, because this critic's article is uninteresting."
Oh, so you've eaten there and liked the food? Or are you just kinda shooting your mouth off and ignoring the parts of the review that talk about the food (specifically noted as less interesting than the surrounding drama) because you've decided to make a stand and this article is as good as any you could have copy pasta'd your comment under?
posted by klangklangston at 10:56 AM on April 27, 2015 [3 favorites]
You guys should read Jay Rayner's review of Bubba Gump Shrimp Co. It will either confirm or upset your opinion of him.
posted by vacapinta at 11:39 AM on April 27, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by vacapinta at 11:39 AM on April 27, 2015 [3 favorites]
Oh, so you've eaten there and liked the food? Or are you just kinda shooting your mouth off and ignoring the parts of the review that talk about the food (specifically noted as less interesting than the surrounding drama) because you've decided to make a stand and this article is as good as any you could have copy pasta'd your comment under?
Well, I'm not sure what the article you linked to has to do with my dismissal of critics who don't have opinions. Or perhaps you're trying to help me prove a point, since your linked article seems interesting, and is written by a writer who took the time to go in-depth about their subject of inquiry?
I haven't eaten there, but now I'm assuming that you have (and hated it), or that you're actually the writer in disguise. Otherwise, I'm not sure how anyone would mistake a few sentences, most of the taken up by words describing the ingredients in the words, to be actually a review of the food itself. We'd probably agree that it's not a food review at all, and more interesting as an article about an accidentally started legal dispute.
Or are you just kinda shooting your mouth off
You must be new to Metafilter.
posted by suedehead at 11:56 AM on April 27, 2015 [1 favorite]
Well, I'm not sure what the article you linked to has to do with my dismissal of critics who don't have opinions. Or perhaps you're trying to help me prove a point, since your linked article seems interesting, and is written by a writer who took the time to go in-depth about their subject of inquiry?
I haven't eaten there, but now I'm assuming that you have (and hated it), or that you're actually the writer in disguise. Otherwise, I'm not sure how anyone would mistake a few sentences, most of the taken up by words describing the ingredients in the words, to be actually a review of the food itself. We'd probably agree that it's not a food review at all, and more interesting as an article about an accidentally started legal dispute.
Or are you just kinda shooting your mouth off
You must be new to Metafilter.
posted by suedehead at 11:56 AM on April 27, 2015 [1 favorite]
You must be new to Metafilter.
suedehead... Joined: February 27, 2006
klangklangston... Joined: March 26, 2005
posted by Mister Bijou at 12:18 PM on April 27, 2015
suedehead... Joined: February 27, 2006
klangklangston... Joined: March 26, 2005
posted by Mister Bijou at 12:18 PM on April 27, 2015
"Well, I'm not sure what the article you linked to has to do with my dismissal of critics who don't have opinions. Or perhaps you're trying to help me prove a point, since your linked article seems interesting, and is written by a writer who took the time to go in-depth about their subject of inquiry? "
My point was that hole-in-the-wall restaurants are often discovered by people who are professional food critics, and that your True Scotsmen of critics versus reviewers seems to have been conceived without much actual experience with food writers. It reminds me very much of the sort of grousing that led, in music criticism, to Cristgau's "Consumer Guide." In any event, this article seems poorly connected to your ostensible thesis.
"I haven't eaten there, but now I'm assuming that you have (and hated it), or that you're actually the writer in disguise. "
Nope. I'm in LA, which has plenty of Korean joints to keep me occupied without a trans-Atlantic jaunt for mediocre banchan. It was more to point out that you have nothing to go on that would supplant the general "expensive; mediocre" thrust of the review. If you had eaten there, you might have an opinion on whether or not the dishes were representative, etc. Instead, you're an old man yelling at clouds.
"Otherwise, I'm not sure how anyone would mistake a few sentences, most of the taken up by words describing the ingredients in the words, to be actually a review of the food itself."
I tend to think that discussing the ingredients, techniques and results of dishes is generally sufficient to describe the food.
"We'd probably agree that it's not a food review at all, and more interesting as an article about an accidentally started legal dispute. "
… except that it is a review of the food. Which is apparently not very good, given the price tag. Which was clearly communicated in the piece, including in a rather damning meta way of discussing the legal fracas as more interesting than the food. He at least gave me enough details to think that it does comport with my experience of mediocre Korean food, which I've had both in America and Korea. So instead of bemoaning that Raynor didn't give you an accurate count of the sesame seeds on the fried chicken, maybe think about why the review was written as it was.
"You must be new to Metafilter."
No, I came on an earlier turnip truck. Do you need directions?
posted by klangklangston at 12:33 PM on April 27, 2015 [3 favorites]
My point was that hole-in-the-wall restaurants are often discovered by people who are professional food critics, and that your True Scotsmen of critics versus reviewers seems to have been conceived without much actual experience with food writers. It reminds me very much of the sort of grousing that led, in music criticism, to Cristgau's "Consumer Guide." In any event, this article seems poorly connected to your ostensible thesis.
"I haven't eaten there, but now I'm assuming that you have (and hated it), or that you're actually the writer in disguise. "
Nope. I'm in LA, which has plenty of Korean joints to keep me occupied without a trans-Atlantic jaunt for mediocre banchan. It was more to point out that you have nothing to go on that would supplant the general "expensive; mediocre" thrust of the review. If you had eaten there, you might have an opinion on whether or not the dishes were representative, etc. Instead, you're an old man yelling at clouds.
"Otherwise, I'm not sure how anyone would mistake a few sentences, most of the taken up by words describing the ingredients in the words, to be actually a review of the food itself."
I tend to think that discussing the ingredients, techniques and results of dishes is generally sufficient to describe the food.
"We'd probably agree that it's not a food review at all, and more interesting as an article about an accidentally started legal dispute. "
… except that it is a review of the food. Which is apparently not very good, given the price tag. Which was clearly communicated in the piece, including in a rather damning meta way of discussing the legal fracas as more interesting than the food. He at least gave me enough details to think that it does comport with my experience of mediocre Korean food, which I've had both in America and Korea. So instead of bemoaning that Raynor didn't give you an accurate count of the sesame seeds on the fried chicken, maybe think about why the review was written as it was.
"You must be new to Metafilter."
No, I came on an earlier turnip truck. Do you need directions?
posted by klangklangston at 12:33 PM on April 27, 2015 [3 favorites]
suedehead... Joined: February 27, 2006
klangklangston... Joined: March 26, 2005
I recall the time when this was a joke, not a literal measuring of dates.
He at least gave me enough details to think that it does comport with my experience of mediocre Korean food, which I've had both in America and Korea.
See, I disagree. Saying that bossam is "fine, if a little stringy" is a nearly neutral statement. Was it near-gelatinous, like a million different mediocre takeout bossam places will do in Seoul? Was it perfectly boiled with medicinal herbs and deftly crisped on one side for an ideal amount of texture? Was the ratio of fat to meat so disproportionate that you could only chew endlessly and wash it down, the bossam mostly performing as a palate-neutral delivery mechanism for half-decent ssamjang? Is the "heavyweight batter shell" on the chicken providing some much-needed texture that contrasts nicely with the meat inside, or is it like the plated armor in a Medieval History exhibit at the Tate: visually appealing from a distance, uncomfortably hard in experience? Etc, etc, etc.
My point was that hole-in-the-wall restaurants are often discovered by people who are professional food critics, and that your True Scotsmen of critics versus reviewers seems to have been conceived without much actual experience with food writers.
I haven't made a distinction between "critics versus reviewers" - perhaps you're reading someone else's comment.
My core argument is that lazy criticism that doesn't actually have a personal opinion is uninteresting, and that this article as a food review is lazy and thus uninteresting. I don't see how extolling the virtues of other great restaurant critics would be relevant. And if you disagree with me, then it seems that you would consider this a shining example of an ideal restaurant review. As an article about a legal dispute, mildly interesting.
posted by suedehead at 1:16 PM on April 28, 2015 [1 favorite]
klangklangston... Joined: March 26, 2005
I recall the time when this was a joke, not a literal measuring of dates.
He at least gave me enough details to think that it does comport with my experience of mediocre Korean food, which I've had both in America and Korea.
See, I disagree. Saying that bossam is "fine, if a little stringy" is a nearly neutral statement. Was it near-gelatinous, like a million different mediocre takeout bossam places will do in Seoul? Was it perfectly boiled with medicinal herbs and deftly crisped on one side for an ideal amount of texture? Was the ratio of fat to meat so disproportionate that you could only chew endlessly and wash it down, the bossam mostly performing as a palate-neutral delivery mechanism for half-decent ssamjang? Is the "heavyweight batter shell" on the chicken providing some much-needed texture that contrasts nicely with the meat inside, or is it like the plated armor in a Medieval History exhibit at the Tate: visually appealing from a distance, uncomfortably hard in experience? Etc, etc, etc.
My point was that hole-in-the-wall restaurants are often discovered by people who are professional food critics, and that your True Scotsmen of critics versus reviewers seems to have been conceived without much actual experience with food writers.
I haven't made a distinction between "critics versus reviewers" - perhaps you're reading someone else's comment.
My core argument is that lazy criticism that doesn't actually have a personal opinion is uninteresting, and that this article as a food review is lazy and thus uninteresting. I don't see how extolling the virtues of other great restaurant critics would be relevant. And if you disagree with me, then it seems that you would consider this a shining example of an ideal restaurant review. As an article about a legal dispute, mildly interesting.
posted by suedehead at 1:16 PM on April 28, 2015 [1 favorite]
"See, I disagree. Saying that bossam is "fine, if a little stringy" is a nearly neutral statement."
No, it's damning with faint praise. If you bothered to think through your questions, you'd find them moot. Fer instance: "Was it perfectly boiled with medicinal herbs and deftly crisped on one side for an ideal amount of texture? Was the ratio of fat to meat so disproportionate that you could only chew endlessly and wash it down, the bossam mostly performing as a palate-neutral delivery mechanism for half-decent ssamjang?"
Likely no and no. If it were perfectly boiled and had ideal texture, it would be better than "fine, if a little stringy." If it was merely a palate-neutral delivery mechanism, it wouldn't be good enough to be called "fine, if a little stringy." It was mediocre. If you'd like to form a more concrete opinion, I believe that despite this review Jinjuu still has seatings.
"Is the "heavyweight batter shell" on the chicken providing some much-needed texture that contrasts nicely with the meat inside, or is it like the plated armor in a Medieval History exhibit at the Tate: visually appealing from a distance, uncomfortably hard in experience? Etc, etc, etc."
Likely, it's a standard heavy batter on Korean fried chicken, with little to distinguish it as remarkable from the myriad other examples of the same.
"My core argument is that lazy criticism that doesn't actually have a personal opinion is uninteresting, and that this article as a food review is lazy and thus uninteresting.
… but it does have a personal opinion. You're just ignoring it because it wasn't florid enough for you.
"And if you disagree with me, then it seems that you would consider this a shining example of an ideal restaurant review."
No, I think it's a decent enough restaurant review to be above average but not exemplary. I just find your continued harping on the style needlessly pretentious, and that your examples lead me to believe that you prefer your newspaper prose style to be so purple that it throbs tumescent. That, combined with repeatedly asserting bunk that's rebutted by reading an article at an 8th-grade level and assuming anyone who objects must be therefore holding the article as the top entry on the Pulitzer shortlist makes you look fairly silly. I have many vices, but it's easier to quit smoking than it is to stop playing picador to daft pretentiousness.
posted by klangklangston at 4:26 PM on April 28, 2015 [2 favorites]
No, it's damning with faint praise. If you bothered to think through your questions, you'd find them moot. Fer instance: "Was it perfectly boiled with medicinal herbs and deftly crisped on one side for an ideal amount of texture? Was the ratio of fat to meat so disproportionate that you could only chew endlessly and wash it down, the bossam mostly performing as a palate-neutral delivery mechanism for half-decent ssamjang?"
Likely no and no. If it were perfectly boiled and had ideal texture, it would be better than "fine, if a little stringy." If it was merely a palate-neutral delivery mechanism, it wouldn't be good enough to be called "fine, if a little stringy." It was mediocre. If you'd like to form a more concrete opinion, I believe that despite this review Jinjuu still has seatings.
"Is the "heavyweight batter shell" on the chicken providing some much-needed texture that contrasts nicely with the meat inside, or is it like the plated armor in a Medieval History exhibit at the Tate: visually appealing from a distance, uncomfortably hard in experience? Etc, etc, etc."
Likely, it's a standard heavy batter on Korean fried chicken, with little to distinguish it as remarkable from the myriad other examples of the same.
"My core argument is that lazy criticism that doesn't actually have a personal opinion is uninteresting, and that this article as a food review is lazy and thus uninteresting.
… but it does have a personal opinion. You're just ignoring it because it wasn't florid enough for you.
"And if you disagree with me, then it seems that you would consider this a shining example of an ideal restaurant review."
No, I think it's a decent enough restaurant review to be above average but not exemplary. I just find your continued harping on the style needlessly pretentious, and that your examples lead me to believe that you prefer your newspaper prose style to be so purple that it throbs tumescent. That, combined with repeatedly asserting bunk that's rebutted by reading an article at an 8th-grade level and assuming anyone who objects must be therefore holding the article as the top entry on the Pulitzer shortlist makes you look fairly silly. I have many vices, but it's easier to quit smoking than it is to stop playing picador to daft pretentiousness.
posted by klangklangston at 4:26 PM on April 28, 2015 [2 favorites]
I just find your continued harping on the style needlessly pretentious, and that your examples lead me to believe that you prefer your newspaper prose style to be so purple that it throbs tumescent. That, combined with repeatedly asserting bunk that's rebutted by reading an article at an 8th-grade level and assuming anyone who objects must be therefore holding the article as the top entry on the Pulitzer shortlist makes you look fairly silly. I have many vices, but it's easier to quit smoking than it is to stop playing picador to daft pretentiousness.
And I find your continued unwillingness to discuss the article in question completely uninteresting and counterproductive. You seem fascinating in the idea of picking a fight with me; I remain critical of the article and any sort of lazy criticism that doesn't hold an opinion in an eloquent way. Clearly, we must agree to disagree, since whatever I discuss concerning the actual article, you'll make jabs with easy attacks about my stance concerning it, not with actual arguments with/for/against the article itself.
I wonder why you're so hesitant to actually, you know, discuss the article in question.
posted by suedehead at 8:10 PM on April 28, 2015
And I find your continued unwillingness to discuss the article in question completely uninteresting and counterproductive. You seem fascinating in the idea of picking a fight with me; I remain critical of the article and any sort of lazy criticism that doesn't hold an opinion in an eloquent way. Clearly, we must agree to disagree, since whatever I discuss concerning the actual article, you'll make jabs with easy attacks about my stance concerning it, not with actual arguments with/for/against the article itself.
I wonder why you're so hesitant to actually, you know, discuss the article in question.
posted by suedehead at 8:10 PM on April 28, 2015
Objectiverestauratreviews.com is available.
posted by Artw at 8:25 PM on April 28, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by Artw at 8:25 PM on April 28, 2015 [2 favorites]
Initially read as Objectivistrestaurantreviews.com. Shuddered.
posted by benito.strauss at 11:56 PM on April 28, 2015
posted by benito.strauss at 11:56 PM on April 28, 2015
"I wonder why you're so hesitant to actually, you know, discuss the article in question."
Does that work in places where people can't scroll up and notice that my first comment was pointing out that if you'd read the article, you wouldn't have claimed the only inkling of opinion was a sentence fragment?
posted by klangklangston at 2:27 AM on April 29, 2015
Does that work in places where people can't scroll up and notice that my first comment was pointing out that if you'd read the article, you wouldn't have claimed the only inkling of opinion was a sentence fragment?
posted by klangklangston at 2:27 AM on April 29, 2015
"Initially read as Objectivistrestaurantreviews.com. Shuddered."
A=Appetizer
posted by klangklangston at 2:28 AM on April 29, 2015 [2 favorites]
A=Appetizer
posted by klangklangston at 2:28 AM on April 29, 2015 [2 favorites]
Does that work in places where people can't scroll up and notice that my first comment was pointing out that if you'd read the article, you wouldn't have claimed the only inkling of opinion was a sentence fragment?
Oh, I see, these sentences below involve your direct engagement with the article. Understood.
- Sorry, your response just comes off as angrily wrong about something you didn't read and wouldn't understand if you did
- Or are you just kinda shooting your mouth off
- Instead, you're an old man yelling at clouds
- If you bothered to think through your questions
- That, combined with repeatedly asserting bunk that's rebutted by reading an article at an 8th-grade level and assuming anyone who objects must be therefore holding the article as the top entry on the Pulitzer shortlist makes you look fairly silly.
As for the article: This is the part you quoted:
It is for the most part serviceable, if expensive. Dumplings have light casings, but the portion is meagre for £6.50. Prawn balls have all the virtues of seafood that has swum in the deep-fat fryer. Boo Ssam pork belly, glazed and served with apple cabbage kimchi, is fine, if a little stringy. The fried chicken comes in a heavyweight batter shell, but we do like the accompanying sauces in their miniature squeezy bottles.
In your words, this is a "decent enough restaurant review to be above average but not exemplary". Ah, above average. Noted.
posted by suedehead at 9:48 AM on April 29, 2015
Oh, I see, these sentences below involve your direct engagement with the article. Understood.
- Sorry, your response just comes off as angrily wrong about something you didn't read and wouldn't understand if you did
- Or are you just kinda shooting your mouth off
- Instead, you're an old man yelling at clouds
- If you bothered to think through your questions
- That, combined with repeatedly asserting bunk that's rebutted by reading an article at an 8th-grade level and assuming anyone who objects must be therefore holding the article as the top entry on the Pulitzer shortlist makes you look fairly silly.
As for the article: This is the part you quoted:
It is for the most part serviceable, if expensive. Dumplings have light casings, but the portion is meagre for £6.50. Prawn balls have all the virtues of seafood that has swum in the deep-fat fryer. Boo Ssam pork belly, glazed and served with apple cabbage kimchi, is fine, if a little stringy. The fried chicken comes in a heavyweight batter shell, but we do like the accompanying sauces in their miniature squeezy bottles.
In your words, this is a "decent enough restaurant review to be above average but not exemplary". Ah, above average. Noted.
posted by suedehead at 9:48 AM on April 29, 2015
Mod note: Separate corners or mefimail at this point, maybe?
posted by cortex (staff) at 1:47 PM on April 29, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by cortex (staff) at 1:47 PM on April 29, 2015 [2 favorites]
« Older the lifecycle of discarded clothes | We use products to dream things that matter. Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by benito.strauss at 7:16 AM on April 26, 2015 [5 favorites]