Perspective vs. Provincialism

A poster on my favorite food forum recently got into a debate with a local food critic for his review stating that a couple of local Mexican food places have tacos that “were as good as it gets”. The native southern-California poster argued that while the food she’d had at one of those restaurants was good and certainly better than most Mexican food available around in this area, it was pretty mediocre when compared to the Mexican food she grew up eating in Los Angeles. The exchange then quickly morphed into a discussion on what scale of comparison should be applied in cases such as this.

First off, let me say that I tend to side with the poster on the food forum. I don’t think a critic does anyone any favors by heaping unqualified high praise on a restaurant because it is the best representation of that type of food that can be obtained locally. I would much prefer to see something along the lines of “_________ has the best _______ that can be found within driving distance” or “While not as good as you’ll find in (insert place of food origin here), the __________ at _________ illustrates the potential of this dish.”

Also, when someone has tasted a great version of something, it is very difficult not to compare it to every other take on that dish they eat subsequently. The best salmon I’ve ever had was caught just a couple of hours previous to my eating it and is how salmon should taste to my palate. So whenever I eat salmon, I automatically think back to that meal and use it as a benchmark.

However, in comparing the food of one locality to another, the possibility of rosy memories or loyalty to a home country/state/town coloring one’s judgment cannot be ignored. The whole dining experience… the setting, the dining companions, the occasion… can add to the perceived taste of a particular meal, especially in one’s memory and, even more so, over time. Or having a strong geographical bias such as those expressed in conversations I often had while going to school in Texas:

Texan: “I would never want to live anyplace other than Texas because it is the best.”
Me: “Oh, where else have you lived?”
Texan: “Nowhere else!”
Me: “Then how do you really know Texas is the best?”
Texan: “I just do. How can it not be the best?”
(At this point, I would hurriedly change the subject before start of the second half of this conversation which would inevitably be the “Texas should be a country, not just a state” argument.)

On the other hand, the majority of Mexican food served in restaurants around here is pretty dismal and any bright spots definitely deserve to be noted. I applaud the critic for “discovering” a place to obtain real Mexican food and his encouragement of others to go check it out. Since there is no place to get great Mexican food, I am more than happy with adequate and appreciate not having to waste my time trying out the bad Mexican restaurants that abound.

But the problem I see with the critic's more regional approach is that he risks doing two things… giving people with no previous experience of that type of food an inaccurate impression of what it tastes like at its best (and if they never eat better, they’ll never know). Or, disappointing the folks (such as the poster) who are familiar with that type of food and have their hopes dashed once they taste the food. Unfortunately, I think both issues weaken the critic’s authority.

So while I feel it is the duty of a restaurant critic to encourage the readership to explore and try new things, it is also important to educate and give as complete of a picture as possible. Of course, the bottom line is that taste really is subjective and previous experiences cannot be ignored whether they are representative of reality or not. And a critic's opinion is merely that -- an opinion. It is a place to start, but whether something tastes bad, good or great (and the myriad of other judgments in between) is a decision that is up to each individual.

(And to throw a wrench into the works… RWT’s response to this topic: “Geez, it's just tacos.”)