DMZ's and Horror Shows

People ask me if it's hard to write a negative review. I don't think of them as negative or positive, but rather, the story of my dining experience on any given night. If bad or unfavourable things happen, that becomes part of the review--if I only wrote about the good things, well then that would be an ad and not a review, right?
I find it truly difficult to tell the tale not when the restaurant is truly outstanding, and not when it's a horror show, but when it lies somewhere in the middle, the dreaded mediocre zone (DMZ).
I really know I've eaten in a DMZ restaurant when I can't remember thing about the meal two days later. And if I can't remember it, I won't go back. Don't ask me to name any of these DMZ restaurants--I won't be able to recall.
Now the Horror Show dining room, the ones where the experience was so horrific that it's etched permanently in my brain--those I can sink my teeth into. And I will return to those, just to see if anything changes; sadly, it usually hasn't.

Pet Peeves Part One

Pet peeves while eating out:

• cold butter with warm bread
• servers who use the royal "we" as in "What are we having tonight? Are we ready to order?"
• servers who scrunch down to eye level as though you were a small child
• kitchens that place more emphasis on appearance than taste--lotus root chips, gaufrettes, herbs as big as small trees, spun sugar, parmesan crisps, beetroot emulsions--all well and good, but not if the steak is overcooked and the potato is cold.
• music too loud
• tables so too close together

to be continued...

Fact vs Opinion

Back to the Dishing. I read, with some amusement, the Disher's theory on the ages of the reviewers. Any regular readers of my Coast column will definitely have some idea on my age, based on comments that I've made. This guy makes statements like "Ms Feltham is younger and has younger friends". See, here's the problem. He states that as a fact, when in fact he doesn't know me and therefore has no idea of how old I am. If he had started his statement with "I think", or "I'm assuming...because..." or "It seems that..." then it would be clear to his readers that he was speculating based on conclusions he draws from the writing, and not stating a fact.
When I do a review, I would not write "Kitchen X is serving dog food", I would write "Kitchen X's main courses taste like dog food". See the difference? The first one infers that I have knowledge that someone in the kitchen is pouring kibble the plates; the second is clearly my opinion as "tastes like" is subjective. Think there's no difference? My comment "Kitchen X is serving dog food" could get me sued for libel (written defamation), whereas I am entitled to express an opinion, as long as it is phrased as such.
Not to say that I could/would sue the Disher for stating conjecture about my age as fact (that would be very Hollywood diva-like). I just wish he wouldn't present his speculative theory as fact, whether or not it's right or wrong.

Blogging the bloggers

Ever Google yourself to see if you appeared somewhere unexpected, like in someone else's blog?
I did, and came up with some interesting bits. Of course, many Coast articles appeared, as did links to restos and other places that I'd reviewed favourably. Also found some music reviews done by a "Liz Feltham", who isn't me.
One blog I found interesting is attached to a site called Eating Halifax. The blog is called Dishing, and the writer spends a lot of time linking to reviews written by the three Halifax food writers, and commenting on those reviews.
I always enjoy hearing about someone's opinion of my articles, because food is a very subjective thing--a group of people can eat out and have as many different opinions about the meal as there are chairs at the table.
And when readers do contact me, I don't mind that they agree or disagree with what I've said, as long as they're not abusive but that's another entry. After all, the greatest gift to a writer is the ability to evoke a response in the reader.