Matt Preston's opening paragraph:
We live in an era of house extensions and supersizing where there seems to be constant pressures to increase our footprint on the world for reasons of status, or sometimes pure greed.
Pressures from whom, ungrammatical Matt? Status and pure greed are voluntary motivations. And Matt, if you're worried about the dreaded footprint, why eat in a restaurant: have you seen the size of their stoves?
Restaurants are no different. Too often we hear how a top chef is looking for a bigger site so he can pack in more slavering fans and take their money.
'Take their money'? For shame. Restaurants should be free. Ban the bill! And exactly which top chef or chefs are 'too often' heard looking for 'a bigger site'? Matt doesn't tell us: but he should, were he to make any sense. Matt's rapacious restaurateur theory lurches from sentence to bad sentence like an out-of-control dessert trolley:
The potential financial benefits to them are obvious.
Financial benefits are a requisite for any restaurant to exist. Otherwise, you don't get to eat there. Nevertheless, hundreds of restaurants go spectacularly bust every year because the restaurant customer is fickle. Matt is proof.
It's unclear, however, what's in it for us, the consumer. It might make a table easier to get and there's a definite excitement about entering the grandeur of a big new place, but I'd debate whether the food is always better in a bigger place.
'Us, the consumer ... entering the grandeur' sounds intriguing if you're into mangling the language. But forget grandeur: Matt wants fewer customers around, so he can have the chef to himself:
If anything, the increased numbers can lead to compromises and remove you further from a major reason for going out - to taste the cooking of the actual chef whose name is on the door.
So what does Matt want from a restaurant? A smaller carbon footprint, free meals, restaurants who never develop their business and - pretentiously - that only the actual head chef should cook his food.
Maybe he should eat at mother's.
I gave up at that point. Do newspapers have actual editors any more?
We live in an era of house extensions and supersizing where there seems to be constant pressures to increase our footprint on the world for reasons of status, or sometimes pure greed.
Pressures from whom, ungrammatical Matt? Status and pure greed are voluntary motivations. And Matt, if you're worried about the dreaded footprint, why eat in a restaurant: have you seen the size of their stoves?
Restaurants are no different. Too often we hear how a top chef is looking for a bigger site so he can pack in more slavering fans and take their money.
'Take their money'? For shame. Restaurants should be free. Ban the bill! And exactly which top chef or chefs are 'too often' heard looking for 'a bigger site'? Matt doesn't tell us: but he should, were he to make any sense. Matt's rapacious restaurateur theory lurches from sentence to bad sentence like an out-of-control dessert trolley:
The potential financial benefits to them are obvious.
Financial benefits are a requisite for any restaurant to exist. Otherwise, you don't get to eat there. Nevertheless, hundreds of restaurants go spectacularly bust every year because the restaurant customer is fickle. Matt is proof.
It's unclear, however, what's in it for us, the consumer. It might make a table easier to get and there's a definite excitement about entering the grandeur of a big new place, but I'd debate whether the food is always better in a bigger place.
'Us, the consumer ... entering the grandeur' sounds intriguing if you're into mangling the language. But forget grandeur: Matt wants fewer customers around, so he can have the chef to himself:
If anything, the increased numbers can lead to compromises and remove you further from a major reason for going out - to taste the cooking of the actual chef whose name is on the door.
So what does Matt want from a restaurant? A smaller carbon footprint, free meals, restaurants who never develop their business and - pretentiously - that only the actual head chef should cook his food.
Maybe he should eat at mother's.
I gave up at that point. Do newspapers have actual editors any more?
Personally, I'd like to see larger reviewers – than life in some cases.
ReplyDeleteI nearly posted a caustic post about an earlier review of his; where the point of the whole piece seemed to be how funny it would if the restaurant food gave his nut allergic friend a reaction. Better editing would be nice to see, but it wont fix dud writers.
ReplyDeletedin