To Be Or Not To Be

Okay, so I’ve never, ever claimed to be a food critic. That is, one of those dudes who sneak into restaurants and pretend not to be food critics and then go write about it.

Or is it food reviewer? Whatever it is, it implies a certain authority. To be a true food critic, you have to be better than all the other food-critic aspirants . . . at writing.

You have to be able to organize your thoughts and present an argument in a succinct and somewhat reasoned fashion. You have to present your case pro or con and do it in an adequately descriptive and if possible, entertaining manner.

In other words, in a review of a restaurant, one should, in general, hesitate at venturing opinions such as “It fucking sucked.”

But now it seems everyone is a food critic. There is an explosion of food critics. People are food critics because they can be food critics. Blog after blog after self-appointed neighborhood foodie watchgroups are sprouting all over the Internet. Forums rage over the pros and cons of the latest restaurants.

But just try to read some of this stuff; it’s like Miss Wong in English class delivered an assignment to review a restaurant near your high school.

A sample: “well... believe it or not, this chez panisse is actually in the 1000 things to do before you die list! and i've been there twice!!!! anyways, the first time was REALLY good and the second time was just so so.”

This is akin to accidentally knocking over someone’s purse and having to pick up a pair of smelly panties.

I may not play a food critic, but I am one on the Internet.