>that's also led to the longstanding reality that certain reviewers have make-or-break power in a given city. <
The question becomes, how did that power emerge?
The answer is, the reviewer earned it. To have make-or-break power means that a significant portion of the dining public in that area believes that the reviewer knows what he/she is talking about; that his/her opinion is valid; and that if they went to that restaurant they'd have an experience similar to what the reviewer says.
Something else we lose sight of: A restaurant review is just that, a review of the restuarant, and encompasses the entire experience. While chefs like to think it's all about them, that just isn't the case. Certainly the food should have a starring role. But if I'm writing a review of a place, where the food is always first rate but the service sucks, then it will likely be a negative review overall. If the chef wants to take that as a reflection of his/her food, that's an ego problem with the chef. But the fact still remains that the service sucks.
Chris, the one place we disagree is with the notion of "color." A reviewer has to be aware of what his/her readers want to know. So, yes, a good review is an essay. But it 1. should not go too far afield from the actual venue being reviewed, and 2. must include descriptions of the ambience, and furnishing because that's what readers want to know.
If you were to do a poll of restaurant review readers, those who pay attention to the reviewer, and asked them the #1 question they have about a restaurant, it isn't "is the food good?" Their #1 question is "Will I enjoy the dining experience?" A reviewer who doesn't answer that question might, from a literary point of view, have one of the best reviews ever written. But he/she won't be successful with the audience. And that's who counts.  |