Hey you!!
I missed you. I hope you lived the sexy summer of your dreams and are staying hydrated. It’s almost turtleneck season, can you believe it?
Some updates from me: In the past couple of months I’ve been doing the absolute most (hence my writing hiatias). I’ve officially settled into Chicago, bought a condo with my fiance, am in the process of trying to decorate / furnish / redo said condo, changed jobs, and finally set a date for our wedding. Whew!
All that to say — I’m back, baby.
And back with a vengeance. This past week, infamous NYT restaurant critic Pete Wells published this scathing review about New York restaurant Eleven Madison Park. And I have some thoughts about it.
What I thought about this week
Pete Wells may not be a name that immediately registers if you aren’t invovled in restaurants, either directly or on the periphery.
If you do work in the industry, he instantly imbues a sense of dread. I remember my first “Pete Wells” pep-talk, which was essentailly: “Be on the lookout, because this guy is known for skewering restaurants. If he comes in, he can make or break us.”
If you Google him you’ll find almost no pictures, as a means of concealing his identity. Some Michelin starred restaurants have his single existing photograph hung with blue tape on their back kitchen doors so staff can regonize him. They have lists of the aliases he makes reservations under. His own twitter bio reads, "That elitist fuck." Generally known for being a polarizing force in the food world — he’s been hailed as a ‘populist hero’ by Slate and equally critized for being a tyrant who weilds his power to shutter restaurants whose food he deems unworthy.
In his most recent review, he takes on Eleven Madison Park — one of the most higly regarded fine dining restaurants in the United States (of which, he’d previously given four stars — the highest rating). They made news this year after announcing that upon reopening from Covid, they would be an entirely vegan restaurant. Executive chef Daniel Humm put out a statement commenting that the current food system is “not sustainable.”
While the article includes some thoughtful critique of this philophy (and well-placed critism about the hipocracy of being a vegan restaurant who still offers a meat course to diners who book the private dining room), the quotes going viral are less nuanced. Most notably, he describes a beet that “tastes like Lemon Pledge and smells like a burning joint” and insists that, “time and again, delicate flavors are hijacked by some harsh, unseen ingredient.”
And herein, we find Pete Wells doing his Pete Wells thing: offering snarky, eviscerating commentary that feels more like a celebration of his own wit rather than anything constructive. We get the impression that Wells feels his duty to be truth-telling above all else, with an acceptance of whatever real-world consequences accompany it, and the commitment to blaze ahead anyway.
In a year where the restaurant industry was forced to recon with and overhaul their troubled and problematic past, the food media seems to be doing little to question their own role. This review, if nothing else, says it’s back to business as usual. Despite the hardships, saftey concerns, closures, shortages, supply chain delays, and general uncertanity both restaurants and their workers have faced (and are still facing), it’s time to again begin critiquing the execution of dishes above all else.
Previously, Wells wrote the article From Toxic Chefs to Covid, Restaurant Workers Deserve Better — in which he discusses the take-down of the ‘celebrity chef’ and writes,
Now the microphone can be commandeered by almost anybody, for a few minutes at least, and it’s changing the way we look at restaurants.
We always knew they were group efforts. Now we can see the individuals in the group.
Yet, Wells fails to consider his own role in the promotion and enabling of the celebrity chef. In fact, he often uses ‘celebrity chefs’ and ‘restaurant empires’ as justification for his zero star reviews and so-called “take-downs.” He doesn’t “take-down” Mom-and-Pop restaurants. But he also dosen’t analyze how his excessive coverage of chefs and owners has contributed to the rise of the toxic celebrity chef and feeds their power. Or, conversely, that when he pans restaurants to the point of thwarting business — it’s often not the owner or chef who suffers the most, it’s the workers.
He, while pleading for the general public’s sympathy toward them, has done little specifically for restaurant workers — his work reflects a lack of alternative varied perspectives, and he has failed to open the door for more diverse voices. At his worst, he awarded zero stars to Locol (now closed), a community-minded fast-food chainlet aimed at providing healthier fast food and jobs to underserved neighboorhoods. As Matt Buchanan from Eater points out,
What does it mean for the restaurant critic of the New York Times — whose province is largely telling the rich, or at least the aspirational, where to eat and where to be seen eating — to evaluate a restaurant aimed at poor and working class neighborhoods, 3,000 miles outside the city limits of the town he normally covers? Who is that critic evaluating it for?….
[Wells’ previous review] revealing the hollowness of [fine dining restaurant] Per Se doubled as a reveal of the hollowness of its oligarchic patrons — what does it mean for a critic to invalidate a restaurant whose intended patrons are communities of poor and working class people, and whose goal, as an enterprise, is social justice?
It’s worth noting that the Times food critic has never been a person of color, and was a position only very shortly been held by a women. The perspective and insight Pete Wells brings to the table is limited and increasingly lacking context.
Much like the rejection of the celebrity chef, the the question remains — what is the role of the food critic? What is he critiquing, why, and for whom?
In the Eleven Madison Park article, Wells makes a dig at the executive Chef, Daniel Humm, for “rarely discussing his bottom line.” It’s worth noting that Wells, also, fails to discuss his bottom line: or — how his negative, biting reviews are the ones to go viral and keep him relevant.
In a time when the industry is changing, and restaurant workers are the ones gaining more of a voice — Pete Wells falls increasingly flat. Sure, some commentators are praising his most recent review and enjoying and laughing at the schadenfreude of it all. But in a period that was so damaging to restaurants and the people who work in them, I’m not laughing. And I’m ready to hear from a different voice.
What I drank this week
Domaine Breton, Trinch!, Cabernet Franc, Loire Valley, France 2017 $35
I’ve waxed poetic about Catherine and Pierre Breton before — a lovely producer from the the Loire Valley in France, this is an approachable and zing-y Cabernet Franc that’s just straight up fun to drink. My parents gave it to me as a gift, and it served as a perfect post-work drink to wind down this week.
What I liked this week
This song played at a friend’s birthday party this week, and I was reminded how good it is. And I’ve been listening to it everyday since:
Camille loves our bathtub. Especially when there are plants in it on watering day.
Breakfast food. I’ve been really into it lately. I’m having a phase.
I think I’m going to keep my ‘what I liked’ section more limited going forward, and I’m also thinking about limiting the wine to one wine a week. Seems more managable to me. What do you think? I’d love to hear from you!
Until next time. Bye!!!
xoxo,
Kate
Those who can’t, critique”
Loved this epi. Loved the distinction of criticism for the sake of construction vs an ego boost. Honestly I’ve been guilty of the latter and that line made me thoughtful
I like the idea of a one wine recommendation! I think it’s more manageable from my side too, I’m more likely to remember the name at the store 🤪