Nor does he have the right to criticize a restaurant, a chef or even a specific dish unless he has the experience and the expertise to back up his criticism. To understand critics and their roles one should know that what drives most critics is an undying sense of optimism. By its very nature, food criticism cannot be carried on without a sense of hope. What makes the honest critic continue is the hope that the next Bordelaise sauce he tastes will have been thickened without flour, that the chocolate sauce on the Poires Belle Helene will have made with just the right amount of butter, that his next fillet steak will be cooked just to that point where it is charred on the outside but still perfectly pink inside. In fact, like critics in every field, the restaurant critic dreams of the day when all of his criticism can be positive.
Critics have various styles in both how they carry on their visits and how they write.
Some, for example, try almost desperately to remain anonymous when they visit restaurants. When Mimi Sheraton was the restaurant critic for the New York Times, she was so concerned with anonymity that she would devote hoursto selecting a wig and an elaborate costume designed to hide her identity. Nearly all critics try to maintain a sense of anonymity, but are realistic when they realize that the longer they write the better becomes the chance that they will be recognized. The truth of the matter is that anonymity is not all that important. Even when the owner of a restaurant recognizes a critic who has entered his establishment, there is little he can do to fool him.