Skip to main content

Why you won't find me in any of the world's 50 best restaurants

Why won't you find me in any of the world's 50 best restaurants? Because I'm too tight.

But that apart, when I heard on the radio this morning that the 2010 'World's 50 best restaurants' award winner had been announced, I couldn't help think 'SO WHAT?' Yes, I thought it in capitals. (The awards' website is here, but seems a bit flaky - there's a little bit about it from the BBC here.)

Part of the problem I have with this award is that the chances are high I will never experience anything in the list. I certainly won't find myself at the #1 restaurant, Noma in Copenhagen, and I'm highly unlikely ever to cross the threshold of Britain's top spot, which is Heston Blumenthal's Fat Duck at Bray coming in at a respectable #3.

Compare this with an awards ceremony that's faintly interesting like the Oscars or one of the book prizes. It's highly likely that I will experience at least some of the contenders there. That's what makes it interesting. But why should I care about restaurants I will never visit? (I can't help but feel the media go on about this kind of thing, because media people are kind of people who end up in these restaurants.)

It's not that I'm anti-food, quite the contrary. I'm happy to enjoy anything from a basic family restaurant up to a local quite-expensive eatery. But I can't get so excited about a meal that I'm prepared to travel any great distance to experience it - and I'm certainly not about to contemplate our Heston's £150 per person menu (without wine or tip). That's just obscene. (On the subject of tips, I love the way Heston's menu says 'An optional 12.5% service charge will be added to your bill. Someone should point out it's not optional if it's added.)

My biggest problem with the sort of restaurants that are likely to get on the list is that they are overwhelmed with a sense of their own importance. If I want to eat somewhere, I want booking a table to be a painless experience, not something I have to contemplate fearfully a year in advance. And I want the restaurant to treat me as if I am customer who deserves good service, not something the waiter has scraped off his shoe.

So, frankly, you can stuff your award with a nice chicken liver parfait, oak moss and shaved fennel. Enjoy.

Comments

  1. Tim Almond27 April 2010 at 13:00

    I'm a bit of a foody and tried some well-known, upmarket places and was really underwhelmed.

    You're much better following local word of mouth about the pubs/restaurants serving food in the area. Around Swindon, The Hare at Lambourn Woodlands is very good.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Brian Clegg27 April 2010 at 13:53

    Thanks, Joseph - yes, we've been to the Hare a couple of times and very much enjoyed it.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's 2010 gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some exp
117 comments
Read more

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor
25 comments
Read more

Why backgammon is a better game than chess

I freely admit that chess, for those who enjoy it, is a wonderful game, but I honestly believe that as a game , backgammon is better (and this isn't just because I'm a lot better at playing backgammon than chess). Having relatively recently written a book on game theory, I have given quite a lot of thought to the nature of games, and from that I'd say that chess has two significant weaknesses compared with backgammon. One is the lack of randomness. Because backgammon includes the roll of the dice, it introduces a random factor into the play. Of course, a game that is totally random provides very little enjoyment. Tossing a coin isn't at all entertaining. But the clever thing about backgammon is that the randomness is contributory without dominating - there is still plenty of room for skill (apart from very flukey dice throws, I can always be beaten by a really good backgammon player), but the introduction of a random factor makes it more life-like, with more of a sense
6 comments
Read more