Media: Trial By Media

Chef Anthony Worrall Thompson Turns The Tables On Restaurant Reviewers

THE RELATIONSHIP between food critic and restaurateur can be compared to a marriage that has hit the rocks. Not that we should have tied the knot in the first place, since there are times when we positively hate each other. Both sides would say the same thing of their other half: can't live with them, but definitely can't live without them.

As there are good and bad chefs, there are also good and bad critics; there are those with phenomenal fame or notoriety, and there are those who, for no particular reason, rarely get mentioned.

Top of the mentionables is AA Gill, the postcode critic who needs to remember that there is life in restaurants outside London. He is brilliant when writing acid comments at the restaurant's expense, but is less interesting when the establishment pleases. Word on the street is that he shouldn't have written the Ivy Cookbook as it is a little like a restaurant owner writing restaurant guides - not the done thing.

Another reviewer taken seriously is Jonathan Meades of the Saturday Times, a critic in earnest. If you're not really into architecture or don't need a good read but want to know about the restaurant he is reviewing, turn to the last two paragraphs of his piece. A man who appears to write with a Thesaurus beside his PC. I have probably learnt more new words reading his column than I learnt in all my schooldays.

The one critic London restaurateurs take seriously is Fay Maschler, who has been at the keys over the past 26 years for the Evening Standard. After that length of time, eating up to six meals a week in order to pen reviews, it must be hard to stimulate the readers' senses, but she does just that. Every read has as much enthusiasm as if she were in her first year.

One rung below on the ladder of fame you find Matthew Fort of The Guardian, a delightful chap who doesn't have a bad bone in his old Etonian body - the PG Wodehouse of the critics' world. More of a food writer than a restaurant critic, Fort is not for those who revel in other people's misfortunes.

Following closely in the hierarchy comes Craig Brown of The Daily Telegraph, who was the talk of the country when at The Sunday Times (pre-Gill, of course). He writes with humour, but more important for me he writes as a member of the public. He has none of the foodie airs and graces of the average restaurant critic; if you want to know what a restaurant really feels like apart from just the food, Craig's the one for you.

There are other critics who come and go, but the above-named are the ones who matter to restaurateurs. We all have our favourites, and equally recognise the ones we can't stand; I couldn't name one who takes Michael Winner and his dinners seriously. In my opinion he is a man who gives critics a bad name. Unless you're into name-dropping or have a keen interest in Lear jets, give his column a miss.

Good reviews from a mainstream critic can fill a new restaurant, but contrary to general opinion a bad review doesn't close you down, you just have to try a little harder. When reading a review, remember that you are reading a very personal opinion, just as you are now.