3.07.2009

With All Due Respect, Etc...

I find that I am deeply dissatisfied with Dave Margoshes review of Regina’s new vegetarian restaurant, Beet Root, which appeared in last week’s Prairie Dog. (As a far off subscriber, I get my R-town news a week late.) Though the review was up to Dave’s usual standards of good writing and accurate menu description, I cannot trust it to be a useful account of Beet Root’s food. The reasons for this are twofold:

First, I have long suspected Mr. Margoshes of doing a bit of, shall we say, grade inflating when it comes to the Prairie Dog count of his reviews. Thus, a place like that grotty diner at College and Arcola, which reeked foul grease odour all down the block, and who’s staff scratched at open sores while they served, (I bloody well wish I was exaggerating,) received, when reviewed, the apparent bare minimum of three Prairie Dogs. I understand that Regina is a small city, and as the only local food reviewer*, Margoshes has to play nice or be shunned by restauranteurs en mass, but there is such a thing as inedible food. And inedible food should get no, zero, Prairie Dogs out of five. If Beet Root received 3.5 Dogs, I can only read that as meaning no better than that the meals were indeed edible. And that the servers refrained from scratching at themselves. I am sure that the restaurant is better than that; the text of the review makes it sound like a fairly nice joint, with tasty, nourishing food. But, having skewed his system of measurement in the past, Margoshes isn’t convincing me with his numbers.

Secondly, I would have valued the input of at least one actual vegetarian. The closest person present in the review identifies as “lapsed”. And yes, my own pro-veg prejudice pokes through here, but that often means someone who found themselves unable or unwilling to find or learn to make truly tasty meat-free food for themselves, and retreated to old and familiar eating habits. These guys are, I must say, awfully easy to impress with something just a little fancier than a tofu dog and some pasta primavera.

So, a few meat eaters, and one meat eater who gave it up briefly, visit Beet Root and declare it “Not bad, for rabbit food.” (I paraphrase, with snark aforethought, natch.) Are there any P.D. contributors or commenters who are actual herbivores, who have another opinion?

“But why,” asks the Reginian, “Does this Toronto-dweller give a darn about this one veggie restaurant of ours, or our rating review system?”

Dear Reader, I have in-laws. And I visit them. And, much as I adore being taken out for side vegetable medley, vinegary greek salad and Irish coffee at the Lakeview Steak House, sometimes I (And my fella, his brother, his brother’s wife, and all our various kiddos, vegetarians all,) like to dine somewhere where we can order from the whole menu. A really, really good vegetarian restaurant, serving food that we and our omnivorous family could enjoy, would rock our socks. And I care about the ratings because I think that no one, nowhere, should be content with food that is merely edible. We must have some standards of deliciousness, and the reviews should reflect that.

* Possibly the Leader-Post has a guy. Or maybe they just print an AP stringer's review of a restaurant in Vancouver. I'd have to read the thing to know.

7 comments:

Emmet Matheson said...

Don't blame the critic! Blame the editors, all of them.

Sez Roger Ebert: "I curse the Satanic force that dreamed up the four-star scale (at the New York Daily News in 1929, I think). It forces a compromise. So why don't I simply drop the star ratings? As I have explained before. I'd about convinced my editors to drop them circa 1970, when Siskel started using them. To drop them now would be unilateral disarmament. Do editors even care about such things? You're damned right they do."

http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2008/09/you_give_out_too_many_stars.html

Stephen Whitworth said...

Hey you bloodthirsty mongrels: 3.5/5 "dogs" = 70 per cent. that's a "B" as you'll know if you're in high school worrying about grades and/or understand simple math.

As an experienced eater-outer in this city, most Regina restaurants are a "B" as I see it: decent food, decent service, decent prices. Beet Root is decent; some highs (soup, desserts), some mild disappointments (entrees). So Beet Root gets a B. If Beet Root's entrees (the weakest part of this lapsed vegetarian's meal that night, and by the way I was a strict vegetarian for six or seven years) improve, the restaurant would, in my view, be flirting with an A.

As for the one review my good friend Emily violently disagreed with, it's likely Dave was served on a different day by different, non-scabby staff. When Dave has a bad experience, the restaurant gets a bad review. It just doesn't happen that often because like I said, most places are, in our judgement, "decent".

By the way, Dave gave the Rooftop a scathing 2.5/5 (a "D") a few issues back, so there is no minimum rating.

I'm sure when someone serves Dave scabs, the place will get an "F".

-Signed, The Editor

Emmet Matheson said...

In all fairness to Margoshes, as well, he at least wears his meat on his sleeve in his reviews. That he reviews a vegetarian restaurant from time to time at all, etc. Would you rather read a restaurant review from someone who reviews restaurants, or from a veggie pinch hitter?
That said, Margoshes could probably stand to find more enthusiasm for food what never had a pulse. Veg food from an omnivore POV, etc. I don't know if there's any vegetarian equivalent to Craven, but that's how I learned to love country music-qua-Country Music: TOTAL IMMERSION.

EmilyZ said...

Yo, guys. I think my main issue is that I don't really believe in B restaurant food. (B movies, hell yeah though) If food is just "okay", then why bother paying for prep and service? Anyone can fix themselves "okay" at home.

And I've no problem with a review being written by someone who doesn't usually eat that type of food. But dude could have rustled up a veggie dining companion, maybe?

(And I know I'm always way harsher with my Dog counts than the average. Stephen once told me that I couln't give a cd zero dogs unless I could actually prove that it caused cancer.)

The Mouth Journal said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
The Mouth Journal said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Stephen Whitworth said...

Hey Mouth Journal, thank you for an excellent, thoughtful post which I just censored.

Here's the thing: Dog Blog is a training-wheels Web experiment. It isn't a fully-formed prairie dog web site with detailed policies about, for instance, what constitues fair comment on forums. So FOR THE TIME BEING it can't be a forum for reader criticism of specific restaurants. Maybe (I'll say probably) at some point. But not today.

hence your post being censored.

Still, it was an excellent post. Any chance you could re-post it without the naming-names reference to the specific "neo yuppie haunt" with "smirky-ass servers"? You can still say "neo-yuppie-smirky-ass".

If you don't have a copy of your post, and if you'd be willing to re-post it, contact me at feedback@prairiedogmag.com and I will e-mail it back to you.

Sorry for being difficult and thanks for your (hoped-for) understanding.