...and so we're lost!!!
By now all the guides have been out for a while, anticipated even by grand presentations and followed by articles upon articles that have done nothing but present them by publishing rankings upon rankings, bouncing names and scores, cross-referencing data and ratings... as if they were those of the IRS!
There are many guides, from restaurant guides to bar guides, from tavern guides to brewery guides. And we could go on and on with more examples. Each, of course, comes up with its own focus and presents itself for its own audience, different in needs and culture. Each, then, enters what it wants, selecting at its own discretion all the addresses. Each, finally and should it propose to do so, judges with its own criteria. Obviously, the ones that make the most discussion are those of restaurants, although those of bars are not to be outdone. All of us have leafed through at least one, bought perhaps less, but certainly a peek in the bookstore we have not given up. Curiosity is woman, man too! And just as certainly, we glanced at the newspaper reporting all the results, as if it were the last of the championship. First and foremost to know, but also to understand, because let's face it, sometimes something doesn't add up ... and again we lost the lead!
In short, the question is: who controls the controller or at least who invests himself with that role, critic, journalist or gourmet that is? This is not meant to be a provocation for its own sake, but a cue to understand how exactly things work, especially putting yourself in the shoes of a consumer who buys a guidebook relying on you in selecting a venue. My concern stems not from the number of places listed, but from the fact that they are all reviewed, judged, rated and criticized. Just do the math and some doubts arise: how many times should each critic have sat at the table each day? Or, how many inspectors does each guide have? In the first case, I think every food observer would have had to turn into the mythical Gargantua to collect enough data to make a judgment that adhered to reality. In the second case, however, we would have a large number of critics, then mouths, then heads, and why not, stomachs. Therefore, how can the multitude of judgments collected be considered relevant and responsive to reality, that is, a uniform standard? There should be an alignment of all inspectors, not so much on what to evaluate, but rather on how. But given that sitting in a restaurant is a multisensory experience and that each person responds to stimuli differently and that there are numerous factors that intervene and affect the experience itself, I see this as even more complicated. In fact, if we compare the different guides, however compiled by gastronomic experts, we find discrepancies, sometimes not inconsiderable, but this could be explained by the guides themselves who say they each have their own yardstick. What's more: how many 'visits' does each place mentioned receive to be judged, which is subsequently assigned a score? This, however, is only the, shall we say, technical logistical part of the guides. The other key aspect, already mentioned, is the yardstick adopted that distinguishes one guide from another: thus it is the authority that makes the criticism important and valuable. How, however, does one choose if there are subtle but substantial gaps between two guides? Which one is right? Both? Maybe. No one? Maybe! In fact, here we return to what we were talking about earlier: there is objective and perceived quality, and the latter has a big bearing on the final judgment. Guidebooks are the cross and delight of chefs, they make gourmets gloat, they make powerful critics who 'can make or die' a star and seal the fate of a restaurant. So, one should be very careful, because consecration makes noise, but a negative judgment echoes! Without, therefore, going into even the merits of various scandals involving some guides and their inspectors, there are several examples I can bring to back up the reason for my doubts. A few years ago, the guides began to take an interest in beer by 'rewarding' those establishments that stood out for their selection and particularly attentive service of this product, mentioning those who were particularly attentive to beer culture. And sifting through the numerous pages like a bookworm, I discovered some oddities. One guidebook honored only three establishments with these merits, so I assume just those with a high standard of brewing, another over a hundred and fifty. The strange thing, however, that one of the three was not even mentioned in the other guidebook, and another was not even included in the marked with a mug. Also, ... no, maybe I'd better not write any more now! I could risk a lawsuit! Continuing with the examples, let's move on to bars. Browsing through a well-known guidebook, I felt like going to a coffee shop in my town reviewed with high marks. Highly disappointing visit. Then I understood why. That guidebook was also supported by a well-known roasting company, coincidentally the same one as the coffee shop, which by the way is a historic establishment. And here I will stop. I would like to close with an emblematic testimony. One year, on a TV program the awardees were decreed live and they conferred a star on a chef who brilliantly replied that he was obviously pleased with the nomination, but he preferred every night to spy through the doors of his kitchen and admire the packed and fulfilled room, rather than to have the star and no one sitting at the table!
Next time, perhaps it would be better to rely on the guidance of the spirit, or rather the stomach, our...
