[ElSapo]

I think this is probably a really important topic, because it speaks to so much of what is a restaurant dining experience. Whenever I read a restaurant review, I do a little (and obvious) comparison -- the tone of the review versus the final rating. I read the Washington Post because that's where I live, and often you'll see reviews that are pretty damn positive - and yet the restaurant gets maybe 1-star or 1.5-stars, or something.

At first, that seems off. The food was great, the service was great, and they get 1 star? And then you start to think about what the restaurant is, beyond the food. The kind of experience they aspire to give, what they actually give, and so on. Aspirations and intentions become really important.

If that was off topic, I didn't mean it to be. I think considering what a restaurant is trying to do, and what you want, is vital.

Personally, I love doing pre-fixe/tasting menus. This is the distinction for me when I go to a new place - me ordering a la carte is nice, but the chef saying "this is what I can do" is what can often make the meal a memorable ocassion. I hate paying $75/head for a boring but decent meal; I don't mind paying $200 if I'm going to be amazed.

Most of all, I want restaurants to push both what I know and what they can do.