While no one—and I mean no one—will sympathize with me, it’s tough being a critic. The smaller the arena, the harder it is to tell the truth. Why? Well, because essentially no one wants to hear it.
Oh everybody wants to hear the good news. They insist on teasing out the positive soundbites, the lines that can be pulled out and used for advertising purposes. Or to put on their Facebook site. Or to tear out of the paper and carry around in their wallets for the rest of their lives.
Yes, everybody thanks me when I provide feedback that supports their claims to be great at what they do. That’s when people are glad they can point out that someone whose opinion is respected has just praised them.
That’s what words of praise are: rewards for work well done.
So it only undermines genuine praise if I confer words of praise on work that is not well done. Right? (There’s an entire sidebar on “self-esteem issues,” and “political correctitude” that has yet to be crafted. But it’s in the works.)
If one follows the logic of praise for fine work, then it means that there will often be no words of praise, no words at all sometimes, for less than fine work.
In a small town, woe betide the critic who actually points out that the emperor has no clothes. And for you in the Selfie Generation, that phrase—”the emperor has no clothes”—is the punchline of an old fairytale anecdote about the reluctance of anyone (except an innocent, pre-politicized kid who doesn’t know any better) to tell the truth. to be continued. . .
Ah. I did wonder about the review in this week’s Good Times, clearly a whitewashed version of your review of the same restaurant here. I see the dilemma and look forward to hearing more.
Christina….I love that you tell it how it is! Keep doing it!
I sympathize, honestly I do. Any time money is involved, especially advertising revenue look out because truth goes out the window if it might effect revenue. Years ago a publication named The Good Food Guide was formed in the U.K. supported on a subscription only basis, no advertising, for the very reason that that was the only way restaurant reviews could be published utterly without bias. The critics could write the truth as they saw it and the publication would also publish any response both good or bad from their readership only. And of course the publication paid the bills. Eventually it became available as an annual book and then a Good Hotel Guide followed both for the U.K. and later, the rest of Europe. I credit it somewhat for the vast improvement in British food the last few decades along with Brits traveling more.
I do sympathize with the dilemma you face and compliment your courage. I do hope you will be allowed to do your job properly and that those establishments that don’t live up to your expectations accept the critique you offer as help with improving their business rather than hurting it further, because serving mediocre food badly sure isn’t any recipe for success. Finally you’re wrong, there is an audience for unbiased reporting, surely every time the bill comes for a hugely disappointing meal or event or film people wish they had be warned? Thanks Christina, keep up the good work.
Perhaps I misunderstood the source of this issue and if indeed it emanated from your readership then that’s even more appalling. Are they that threatened when everything isn’t perfect in this place they so often refer to as paradise?