EATS

Posted by Rod Domedome @ 6:19 AM Thu, Jan 31, 2008

I am so glad someone finally reviewed my favorite Thai place but disappointed it did not get at least 3 stars. Yes, the whole fish fried with a ton of garlic is the best!! I have tried many of their dishes and all have been flavorful, authentic, and satisfying. If you go again, you have to try the raw shrimp from the Special Items section. It's addicting but ask them to tone down the spice otherwise you'll be sorry. I have a good friend who spent two years in Thailand and proclaimed this place the best and most authentic Thai food in town after I brought him the first time.

Posted by Clementine @ 7:55 AM Thu, Jan 31, 2008

Embarassingly, I have to confess that my heart rate is up after noticing that you, Mr. Addison, have already re-reviewed Aurora - only to gift it with 5 stars all around, a significant upgrade since your initial debut review once you landed in the city. May I ask how many times shortly thereafter Mr. Samuel himself called you, outraged by your gently true words on service, or perhaps the logic behind your stars? Or Ms. N. Nichols, perhaps, to get you to reconsider and "change your vote"? (She is such a gushingly big fan of the place sometimes we ought to stop and remind her that the heir-apparent to Alain Ducasse has set up shop in a strip mall, not the Place du Madeleine. Anyone else turned off?) Why am I so disappointed? Believe it or not, Bill, I care more about your stamina than I do Mr. Samuels ego. The refreshing and delightful thing about your first review of the place, which appeared simultaneously with a thoughtful review of York Street, was the confidence you demonstrated in standing alone, perhaps. You gave me hope that I would be able to expect, as is custom in NY, that you were up for challenging certain dining 'institutions' or traditions in Dallas that former critics dared not to. Why now - with a re-review so soon, now that you may have developed a faithful readership - go running with your tail in between your legs? Unless getting too cozy with the very people you're supposed to be judging has softened your original swagger? Since I'm getting worked up here, I must also ask if this might explain why a review of Stephan Pyles is taking longer-than-not? If trying to tip-toe around such a 'celebrity' reputation versus offering a real 'anonymous' review has become your main objective, I'll add Shinsei to the list and say, DMN readers: "It'll be a while. Bill is being woo-ed."

Posted by brian @ 9:30 AM Thu, Jan 31, 2008

the jungle curry at jasmine is maybe the best dish in town. no mention of the garlic prawns either. go figure.

Posted by AC @ 10:29 AM Thu, Jan 31, 2008

Didn’t someone comment last week about 2 stars being the new 3?

Does anybody "get" the idea that Dallas isn't some little backwater dining destination anymore? Hello? NY, SF, LA, Vegas - we are in a global market with those cities now, and the standards, if we want to compete, must be upheld here in little old Dallas, as well.

You'd think that after all these years of handing out stars like fortune cookies, folks would finally comprehend that this is a big city now, all growed up and in the game.

Posted by Bit of a Skeptic @ 1:14 PM Thu, Jan 31, 2008

My darling Clementine, your fangs gleam so brightly in the morning sun. While I am no fan of the swarthy, sociopathic Avner and while it would be easy to say the esteemed critic caved, it is more important that he saw that he got it wrong and corrected his error. Many in his position would have left Aurora dangling for another year or two with that somewhat harsh initial review that is not reflective of the current dining experience rather than face the appearance of caving to some behind-the-scene pressure.

Posted by Martha @ 3:00 PM Thu, Jan 31, 2008

Sounds like Clementine has personal issues with food writers. Perhaps she should be one or perhaps she has been one and no longer uses her real name on her "reviews."

Posted by Clementine @ 4:28 PM Thu, Jan 31, 2008

Sweet Martha, never have been a food-writer, do love reading "food writing," however. And yes, do have personal issues when it comes to public opinion about restaurants, in particular when the debate concerns a five-star rating, even though I don't care much for stars anyway. I'm glad my writing really gives my passion away.

The main issue at hand: critics have an obligation to stick by their reviews. Thus, to go back and randomly "change one's mind" because said reviewer may have encountered public scrutiny from people in or outside of the business is disappointing. This coming from me, a woman who lives by high standards and expects the same from the writers whose words I do read -- and occasionally trust.

To me, as dramatically as it may read, it's about ethics.

It's uncommon - if not unheard of - for a (fine) restaurant to be RE-reviewed in less than twelve months, unless some whirlwind has taken over the place such as the import of a talented new chef, et al, and the entire dining experience is likely to have changed for the guest as a result.

Dear Bit of a Skeptic makes it too simple, claiming that Bill "got it wrong" and has basically, with the re-review of Aurora, righted this wrong.

But I think that's unfair for him to say, Bill and our skeptic. As if saying, "Eh, had a lot of complaints following my review, ought to go back and...Wow, in line with what everyone has been telling me, it is a 5-star place!"

From what I understand, Mr. Addison visits a place subsequent times before penning the review, in which case I'm to believe that Aurora originally and, more than once, failed to meet the 5-star test, which led to the first review we read way back when.

By re-reviewing them so soon, in my opinion, Mr. Addison cheapens his words to some extent, beautiful and well crafted as they may be, in particular with Aurora. It communicates, "Let me make up for my ill judgment." This feels as if my (the public's) trust is being toyed with, especially since I didn't initally take the review as "ill judgment," but an informative and well-researched piece of journalism. When we read Mr. Addison's reviews in the future, shall we always leave open a little room for doubt, that Bill may just change his mind? I say yes for a casual restaurant, but 5-star dining is 5-star dining. It doesn't change much - the "fineness" of a 5-star restaurant lies in it's execution of near-perfection every single time. It doesn't fluctuate: quality of food, service, et al. There's no room for error or improvement.

I don't care who Mr. Addison rubbed the wrong way with his first review on the place. I do believe he did his homework and research, meaning that he had dined there many times, enough to write what he did and send it to press. And now to render that opinion false? Is it any coincidence that "swarthy, sociopathic" Avner is the only one who gets a second chance - quite possibly, because he needs one? Regardless, that responsibility doesn't belong to Bill, but it's interesting he used his authority in Avner's favor - which my thesis statement confirms: I find disappointing.

Posted by Jami @ 5:00 PM Thu, Jan 31, 2008

I'm quite surprised that we haven't heard from Mr. Addison himself regarding the hoopla. Most weeks he's quick to respond to criticism with his perspective. Bill - you out there?

Posted by Kim Pierce @ 6:13 PM Thu, Jan 31, 2008

I'm reluctant to wade into these piranha-infested waters, but I don't want to leave Bill dangling.

Restaurants are always works in progress. In a perfect world, we would review every one at least once a year. With those at the top of the curve, we critics want to be especially mindful. It's like you're evaluating art. You want to be confident that your critique is well reasoned, fair and thoughtful. But that doesn't mean your opinion is set in stone. And it's not inconsistent for that opinion to change.

Sometimes, though rarely, there's an accumulation of feedback that leads you to believe a re-evaluation is in order. This is qualitatively different from getting a lot of emails or letters from people who disagree with you.

And while it might be satisfying to suggest that critics are leaned on to write a certain way, they're not. The good ones - and Bill is a good one - write to an inner standard that doesn't waver.

I think the thornier issue is evaluating service once you've been recognized. Even watching other tables, the knowledge that a critic's in the room puts everyone on their toes.

Posted by Bill Addison @ 6:36 PM Thu, Jan 31, 2008

Greetings, gang --

It was a two-article deadline day and I've been buried and not keeping up with the blog goings-on. But since I've been summoned ...

Clem: I expected the review to evoke that kind of reaction in some readers. Honestly, though, it is a pretty simple situation: I went to Aurora once on that first visit, something I state in this most recent update. After all the feedback -- and a policy change after the Aurora review ran that dictated (happily, for me) that I go to restaurants, including updates, two or more times for review purposes -- I felt it fair for me to go back and check out the situation.

No one is "wooing" me. I hold myself to the highest ethical standards. I trust that my work has reflected those standards and will continue to reflect that. Sorry you were disappointed. Hope you keep reading.

And PS -- Stephan Pyles update review coming soon ...

Posted by sandy @ 6:53 PM Thu, Jan 31, 2008

Mr Addison,

I think you explain it well. It takes more then one visit to evaluate something so complex as a four- or five-star restaurant. Restaurants with history need the benefit of the doubt, as they have paid their dues! So even though Avner is doing complex old-school food, it is probably elegant and small enough to be a 5-star restaurant. Being a real foodie, I like your style.

You are a good critic, and giving someone a second chance is also a good thing. I feel it balances the objectivity.

Now that you have whetted our appetites with the future review of Stephan Pyles -- when are we going to hear about Charlie Palmer, and the new Mansion Chef?

Posted by jack anderson @ 7:14 PM Thu, Jan 31, 2008

Well stated Mr A, how can you judge a 5 star in one visit? You are a breath of fresh air and very well written and thanks for your constant acessability. As a real foodie I love your stuff.

Posted by Bill Kennedy @ 9:09 PM Thu, Jan 31, 2008

Re: "Sometimes, though rarely, there's an accumulation of feedback that leads you to believe a re-evaluation is in order."

I am taking this as a DMN reason for re-doing this review. So, why not be upfront with said reasons? Nichols is salivating over at D, but then she is Avi's bud.

Bill Addison is a big boy and knows from SF that you don't rate a "Fleur de Lis" with one visit. So, why was it done with one visit (he went to whole slew of high-buck places in his first weeks) and why was it done again -- really?

I tend to agree w/ Clementine's prescient observations. Sorry, but this one smells like a Trinity piece and I don't think you want this group going down that same path too. Thus far, it is.

Posted by Bill Addison @ 11:34 AM Fri, Feb 01, 2008

One last clarification:

Bill Kennedy said: "Bill Addison is a big boy and knows from SF that you don't rate a "Fleur de Lis" with one visit. So, why was it done with one visit (he went to whole slew of high-buck places in his first weeks) and why was it done again -- really?"

Well, it wasn't done again. I went twice for the review in today's paper. Here's the quote from the review:

"I re-reviewed the restaurant after one visit in early 2007 and found the experience excellent but not extraordinary. A prodigious number of reader e-mails hastened to my inbox afterward, claiming that I'd missed the mark on this shrine to luxury.

After two recent review meals, during both of which the cooking proved more spectacularly impressive than last year's, I can understand their devotion."

And why didn't I go twice at first? Because it was the policy here to go once, and I was brand new in the gig and following what had been the precedent before me. After weighting the reaction of the Aurora review and discussing it with my editors, we changed the policy. The end.

Posted by Bill Kennedy @ 11:50 AM Fri, Feb 01, 2008

After some idle chat today, one more comment, because this is a really important one as it pertains to food critics and the populace they serve. That is recognition.

Bill Addison was recognized the second/third time and not the first.

Review one:
Food - 4
Service - 3
Atmosphere - 5

Review two:
all 5s

Time spent on all poor service aspects in review one - a lot. Time spent on food - not as much as service.

Review two was skewed the other way. Compar both by Googling adison+aurora+guidelive and then reading the *cached* version for #1.

Review one ends: "He would perhaps do well to also encourage his staff to be a bit kindlier toward guests."

Review two ends: "I can't speak too broadly on the subject of service at Aurora: My cover as a critic was blown here, so obviously I received five-star treatment. I did spend a great deal of time observing other guests, who appeared to want for nothing amid the restaurant's swirl of pomp and ritual."

So, we are to assume that he can't comment broadly on the service because he was made. Yet he STILL gives it a 5! Watching others in the same room does not justify such, as they are not going to get lousy service in a small room with you there.

So, we are left with "what's new" and "why bother." Avner may be happy he has his pretty little 5 stars now, but the paying public is *no* closer to understanding if Aurora deserves it. And, that's what I believe Clementine, and a lot of us out here, are really coming down on.

Lastly, please list all the reviews in the past year that Mr. Addison did with only one visit, and all reviews going forward with only one visit, so we will know if the amorphous amalgam of adjectives are to be taken with a big grain of salt.

Posted by Anthony @ 12:31 PM Fri, Feb 01, 2008

What would you have had him give them for service? He experienced five star service and observed five star service around him. But since he was recognized, you'd have him arbitrarily dial it down to 3 or 4? All he can do is report on his own experience and provide the context, which in this case is his loud admission within the review that he was recognized. This goes back again to people who somehow want the star system to encompass everything so they don't have to do the pesky work of actually reading the damn review.

I would also think that poor service such as he experienced on his first visit merited more description than the perfect service when he was recognized, hence the more space spent discussing it in the first review. Would you have him go on and on about something that we all agree he can't be an objective judge of anyway?

Finally, does anyone actually think that Avner's reaction to the first review was to "woo" Bill? If anything, I would think it would have been far easier on a number of levels for Bill to write a review this time around that reiterated what he said in his first. Instead, he insists on being honest in spite of whatever we probably all assume was flung his way by the Samuels after his first review. He had a great, five star experience the second time around and he gives them their props. End of story.

The guy could just not win for losing on this one.