Column

One of the most irritating parts of writing this column is reacting to people who are obsessed as to whether you are known to restaurateurs when dining.

Something which brings memories of that delightful book by Ruth Reichl, Garlic and Sapphires in which she explains how she avoids being recognised in restaurants and is able to write an honest review, even to the extent of wearing wigs.

There is in India a tradition of freebies given to people who write on food. It is for this reason that food writing, by and large, has got a bad name.

This is unfortunate, as today there is much greater interest in exploring new cuisines as well as in the culture behind food than before. If 10 years ago the foodie kept his interests under wraps rather like someone with a pornography fetish, it is now the fashionable thing.

People want to seem confident in restaurants, to understand menus with strange foreign dishes and names, wine lists, to know what goes well with what, and to give off a whiff of hauteur.

Increasingly, an interest in haute cuisine has become a hallmark of sophistication in society, rather like reading books was once upon a time.

For this reason the term gastronome is all encompassing — it covers a variety of topics, food, a discussion of different foods, farming, the organic debate, styles of cooking and cultural phenomenon associated with food.

This is not a restaurant review column: although restaurants are occasionally discussed. In fact in my view there are very few real restaurant critics in India. I recall, there was a discussion about restaurant criticism in general.

One of the leading food writers commented that people who claim to be restaurant critics should following the Michelin guideline and visit a restaurant a minimum of five times to properly judge it. I think this may be taking matters too far.

Often when I used to review restaurants I could make out the quality of the restaurant by the way the table was set, at least at the more pretentious varieties. There are, let’s face it, very few restaurants you would want to visit more than two or three times or which have any complexity in their menus which deserve these repeated visits.

In fact the really successful restaurants today are ones where food is marginal to the enjoyment; it is atmosphere, the crowd, the bar and the music which predominate..

There is an increasing tendency on the part of certain publications to announce with the review that the person reviewing has gone to the restaurant anonymously and has paid for his or her meal.

This trend is promising as previously media publications never thought of financing such meals. However, it is not a question of honesty that is at stake.It is rather the quality of the review.

At the risk of sounding like a snob, food criticism rather like any other form of art criticism like theatre or cinema, is not and cannot be judged by the principle of honesty alone: not only is the ability to write an important factor, but so is a background and experience of food culture which many young journalists do not have.

Perhaps they may acquire these skills over time, but in many cases they fall prey to the wiles of restaurateurs who treat them as people who know no better, in many cases that is unfortunately true.