“There are many differences between critics and sensible human beings, but the main one is this. Critics are fixated, above all else, with novelty.”
This was how Michael Deacon began his review of the Magpie restaurant on Heddon Street on London. The Telegraph lists him as a ‘Parliamentary Sketchwriter’; Wikipedia says he is a British author and political satirist. In any event, I thought, ‘this guy knows what he’s talking about’. The review appeared in The Telegraph Magazine on the 2nd of September. If you’re interested in food, he gave the Magpie four stars and said, “With no menus, adventurous taste buds and an acute sense of smell are required. Most of the food was terrific. Essentially, it was dim sum, but with all kinds of influences”
He went on to say, “It’s the same in every field of creativity: books, music, film, theatre, painting. In the eyes of critics, the highest accolade they can bestow is to call a work original – or groundbreaking, bold, radical, seminal, revolutionary. To them, it’s more important for a book to be original than readable. More important for music to be original than tuneful. More important for a play to be original than enjoyable. Novelty trumps all. Pleasure is a lesser concern.
“There are two reasons for this. First, insecurity. A critic is anxious about dismissing a work that is experimental for fear of how he’ll look to his fellow critics. He’ll look stuffy, provincial, dim. He’ll look as if he doesn’t get it. He has to show them that he’s intelligent enough to understand and appreciate what the artist, this subversive innovator, this trailblazing auteur, is doing.
“The second reason is just as crucial. Boredom. Think of a teacher marking a stack of essays from an exam in English literature. In essay after essay, the same topics recur. An exhausting majority of students have written about the set texts. Read in isolation, their essays might be perfectly well-written – but read one after the other, they start to seem drainingly uninspired. So a student who writes about an unusual topic – about novels, plays or poems that weren’t even taught on the course may get a higher mark than those who wrote about the set texts, even if his essay is inferior. The marker is simply relieved by the change in scene. That’s what critics are like. Sooner or later they run out of things to say about the conventional. Hey ho, another romantic comedy. Yawn, another detective thriller. So when something unusual turns up, they embrace it with desperate gratitude. What the paying customer is likely to make of it is irrelevant. What matters is, it’s given the critic something new to write about. The artist has done the critic a favour – and, more often than not, can expect to be rewarded.
“But of course, the above doesn’t apply only to critics of books, music and the rest. It applies to restaurant critics, too. And so when I go out to review a restaurant that’s in some way out of the ordinary, and decide that I like it, I have to ask myself: do I, though? Am I genuinely enjoying myself? Honestly? Or am I just grateful to the chef because he’s just made my job easier?”
Five stars to Michael Deacon!