How to Write a Kickass Restaurant Review

I love food. No seriously. I LOVE food. Any kind of food, from the greasiest french fries to the most healthy quinoa-stuffed salad. And I’ve eaten it all: fried intestine, blood pudding, even a rooster’s private bits.[1]

Recently I lost a ton of weight and have become completely and utterly food obsessed. They say thin people have more taste buds—like their body is panicking, saying: Look at all the yummy food, wouldn't it taste AMAZING?! You know you want to eat it, yes, you know you do. Yes, that’s right, go closer, go to it ...

Anyway, I thought one way to combine my two favorite things—writing and eating—would be to visit a few of the funky restaurants in my area, eat something that makes my mouth water and then write a review.

So, next question: How does one write a review? I mean, not JUST a review, I’m talking about an amazing, fantastic review, one that makes you, the reader, feel as though you’re there with the writer, sitting at the table, taking in the ambiance, scrutinizing the service, tasting the dishes.

True, I published an article about how to write a restaurant review not too long ago (creatively titled: How to Write a Restaurant Review) but I didn’t feel as though I’d given enough ... call it ‘actionable’ advice. That post gave more of a general overview of the topic, one that focused on the norms food journalists live by, this one is more contemporary, more focused on the nuts and bolts of writing a review. It’s more gorilla journalist than traditional journalist. Make sense? No?! Ah well, here we go ...

How to Review Food

What does a food reviewer do? What’s expected of them? I came across this sentence in an article I read while researching this post:

“The job of a food reviewer is to accurately convey the taste, texture, smell, and presentation of a restaurant's food.”[2]

I thought that was such a specific, informative answer I wanted to give it verbatim. Because we’re not just reviewing the dishes we’re eating, we’re judging the entire experience: the food, the atmosphere, the service and one’s general impression of the restaurant.

Let’s do this in parts. First, I’ll talk about the importance of researching the restaurant. Who owns the restaurant, does it have an interesting history? Who is the head chef? What was the atmosphere like? Were the waitstaff helpful and friendly, and so on. Second, I’ll focus on the meal itself.

1. The Background

In fiction writing we often need to give background information but don’t want to give the reader an information dump. That is, we don't want the reader to feel overwhelmed by information they couldn’t care less about but which the writer feels they need to know in order to appreciate what’s going to happen in the scene.

This sort of background information is a bit different, but we must still be careful not to overload the reader. Although the history, location, ownership and philosophy of a restaurant are important parts of the overall experience, it is a good idea to only share those parts which are unique and specific lest we bore our readers.

The Restaurant

What is the history of the restaurant? How long has the building been in existence? What sort of businesses have been there (only mention this if you think readers will find it interesting, for instance if it’s a historic building.).

How long has the restaurant been open? What kind of restaurant is it, what is it trying to achieve? Is it Chinese or Indian or Japanese? Is it fusion? And so on.

What is the price of the average meal? Is the restaurant considered a good value, moderately expensive or pricey? Is it casual or fine dining? Is there a dress code? How were your fellow diners dressed? Should one make a reservation? If so, how far in advance?

What kind of area is the restaurant is in? Are there any local landmarks? Is it someplace a tourist might want to take a stroll after dinner? Or is it the kind of place you wouldn’t want to take your kids after dark? How was parking?

Does the restaurant have a specialty? Are they known for a particular kind of cuisine or for, say, their desserts? Their seafood? I had dinner at a particular restaurant a few times mostly because the restaurant served the most divine cocktails!

Did it seem as though your fellow diners were enjoying their food? Was it loud? Raucous? Quiet? Was it family friendly?

How was the service? Don’t just say it was good or bad. Ask yourself, “Why?” If the service was great, what was great about it? Give details. Was it difficult to get the attention of a server? Was your water glass kept full? Did your server ask how your meal was? Were the servers able to give you recommendations when asked? Was the staff charming and stylish? How was the server dressed? Was he or she wearing a uniform? Jeans and t-shirt? Smart black dress or pants and shirt? Most importantly: Did what the server wear match the venue?

The Owner

Who owns the restaurant? Have they owned previous restaurants? If so, were they successful? Is this restaurant similar to the rest or different? What are the owners major culinary influences? Why did he  open this restaurant as opposed to another?

The Head Chef

Who is the head chef? Where did she study? Where has she worked before, what kind of restaurants and for how long? What are her major influences? What is her style of cooking? What is her signature dish? Has she written a cookbook?

Try to find one unusual and interesting, one memorable, thing about the head chef. For example, were they the youngest chef to graduate from their culinary school? Were they the oldest? What is their signature dish?

One more thing about background ...

When trying to decide what information to include about background, only talk about something you think will interest the reader. After all, the main focus of the review is the food.

Ask yourself whether a particular tidbit of information about the restaurant, etc., is MEMORABLE. Is it exaggerated, unusual, vaguely scandalous? I’m not suggesting you veer into tabloid sensationalism, but you don’t want to put readers to sleep. This isn’t a history paper, it’s a review. You want to give the reader enough information to decide whether they will enjoy eating at this restaurant. If something isn't relevant to that question think twice before including it. Remember, if a certain piece of information bores the pants off you, your reader will probably feel like that times infinity!

2. Your Meal

What should you order? Generally, the advice is to order a drink, an appetizer, a main course and a dessert. If the restaurant has a specialty or a signature dish, order that.

Okay, so, that's (more or less) WHAT you should order, but how does one make one's review informative AND engaging?

Make it Colorful

Don’t put your readers to sleep! This is easier said than done but here are a few tips:

a. PROMISE the reader something, either an interesting story or a surprise. For example: “I’ve found the best cinnamon buns in existence!” That’s (kinda, sorta) a promise. (By the way, I am a lifelong connoisseur of cinnamon buns. I’ve eaten just about every kind. This recipe (Overnight Cinnamon Rolls, by Alton Brown) made the best cinnamon buns I’ve ever had! It’s easy. Make it, you will not be disappointed!)

You could also recount something interesting, unique, unusual that happened to you at the restaurant. Perhaps you interviewed the chef or something amusing occurred.

b. Give the reader an INTERESTING FACT. For example, “This is the owner’s second restaurant. The first one, in Greenland, was carved from a single sheet of ice!”

c. Describe a memorable aspect of the AMBIANCE, good or bad. Did it have an amazing view or was there a suspicious odor wafting from the kitchen? Use details that aren’t obvious. Does it have arched skylights? The perfect lighting for taking pictures of your food? Is it “industrial inspired”? [4]

The Review Itself:

The first sentence. More than anything a review is a piece of writing and, as is true for any kind of writing, we want to hook the reader with our first sentence.

Only describe 3-5 dishes. A great way to do this is go out for dinner with friends and sample each of their dishes. Let’s say you taste more than 3-5 dishes, what then? Only talk about dishes you had a strong reaction to, whether for good or ill.

Describe how the food was presented. How did the food look when it arrived? Was the dish/plate clean and beautiful or messy and tired? How did the presentation of the dish make you feel? Excited? Hungry? Did you feel pampered and special or did you feel like you were back home having dinner with mom and pops? How you felt, does it match the restaurant? When I go to a fine dining establishment I want to feel pampered but when I go to a place that advertises itself as 'homestyle' I expect a more casual experience.

How did the food taste? Describe it, be colorful. Engage all your senses: sight, smell, hearing, taste and touch (mouthfeel). Also, there are (generally speaking) five tastes: Sweetness, Sourness, Saltiness, Bitterness and Umami. Don’t be afraid of using adjectives—or even the odd adverb—when you communicate your taste experience.

Also, was the food spicy? Talk about what memories of food it evoked. What was the texture like? Did the food melt in your mouth? Was the food juicy and tender or chewy and tough? Were the noodles gooey or dry? Were there a variety of textures? Was something soft inside yet crunchy outside? How did the textures work together?

Talk about the complexity of the food. Talk about the variety of flavors. Was it better than the sum of its parts? How did the flavors come together?

Be up front about your biases if they are relevant. For instance, if you are reviewing a seafood restaurant but you hate seafood, mention it!

Give your opinion but don’t be opinionated. Give your own opinion of the restaurant at the end of the review. If you are inclined to review it negatively, consider going back and giving it a second try.

Write with Attitude. Be Unique

You want this restaurant to stand out and feel unique. Give specific details. For example,

“Danny Meyer’s flagship restaurant has moved to a new multilevel space with dramatically lit booths, cozy nooks, and a gorgeous bar.”[3]

“The original restaurant, on Sixteenth Street, was vaguely Tuscan, vaguely new American, and extremely hospitable. These were the kind of people who learned your name, then remarked on your lovely brooch while giving you an extra-generous pour of Barolo. Carmen Quagliata, the executive chef since 2007, has a penchant for elevated comfort food that befits the restaurant’s polished good vibes, and his cooking gets a grand showcase in the new multilevel space, spiffed up with dramatically lit booths, cozy nooks, and a gorgeous, towering front bar in the model of Gramercy Tavern.”[3]

A rule of thumb: Try to give at least one detail, one specific detail, for every aspect of your review.

One Last Thing

Remember, your review should not be about whether you liked something, it should be about giving readers the information they need to decide whether they would like it.

Tips from Zagat

Yes, that Zagat, the folks from whom even a single star is a very big deal! Here’s a short video they made.[4] It’s under three minutes long. :-)

---

Every post I pick something I love and recommend it. This serves two purposes. I want to share what I’ve loved with you, and, if you click the link and buy anything over at Amazon within the next 24 hours, Amazon puts a few cents in my tip jar at no cost to you. So, if you click the link, thank you! If not, that’s okay too. I’m thrilled and honored you’ve visited my blog and read my post.

Will Write for Food: The Complete Guide to Writing Cookbooks, Blogs, Memoir, Recipes, and More, by Dianne Jacob.

From Anthony Bourdain: "A concise, illustrative, and eminently useful guide to the nuts and bolts of professional food writing."

---

Notes:

1. It was at a friend’s family’s get together and his grandpa—a withered Chinese gentleman who looked a million years old, could jog five miles without breaking a sweat and had forgotten more than I’ll ever know—ordered the food. My friend called the dining experience “old school.”

2. How to Write a Food Review.

3. Union Square Café Lives On[http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/03/20/union-square-cafe-lives-on], by Shauna Lyon. The New Yorker. (For more excellent reviews see: Tables for Two)

4. How To: Write a Good Review.

How Murder Mysteries Differ from Other Kinds of Stories

I’ve been writing about murder mysteries quite a bit lately. I PROMISE I’ll write about something else for the next post! (If you’d like me to talk about a particular topic please let me know! Leave a comment, tweet me at @woodwardkaren or send an email. I would love to hear from you!)

High Stakes & High Tension

The following is true regardless of genre: Your story should have high stakes and lots of tension/conflict. But exactly how you cash this out in a murder mystery presents it’s own unique challenges.

High Stakes

The stakes need to be high for both the detective and the murderer; they must both stand to either gain and lose a lot. The same with the murderer. Let’s cash this out.

Detective

First, there’s the obvious: The detective’s goal is to identify the murderer just as the murderer’s goal is to evade detection. Notice that if the detective achieves his goal the murderer can’t and vice versa. That’s the structure we’re looking for. If the detective succeeds the murderer will, at the very least, go to jail. If the detective fails, his reputation will be in tatters, perhaps he’ll even lose his job.

But there are less obvious stakes. The detective might own his own business and solve puzzles on the side. Perhaps he has developed a reputation for solving murders that stump the police. How would his business fare if his customers came to see him as incompetent?

Or it could be that some suspicion has been cast on the detective. He must solve the crime to clear his name. If, for instance, the detective owned a bakery and the victim was killed with poison, that would NOT be good for business!

Or it could be that the detective is a lawyer. He needs to exonerate his client (who happens to be his aunt’s favorite nephew) and the only way to do that is by identifying the real murderer. If he fails Aunt Petunia will hate him forever and he’ll lose most of his clients!

There are MANY possibilities.

Murderer

Again, there’s the obvious: The murderer’s goal is to evade detection, to commit, as the saying goes, the perfect murder. If he fails, then he could be killed or spend the rest of his life in prison.

But there are less obvious stakes. Even if the murderer is never sent to prison he could lose everyone and everything he cares about: his job, his wife, his kids, his espresso maker, not to mention the cute Pomeranian that licks his toes in the morning. Life, as he knows it, would be over.

It’s important to mention the stakes for both the protagonist and antagonist at the pinch points, to remind the reader of what the detective is up against, how desperate the murderer is, the lengths to which she will go.

High Tension

As we have seen, the detective has a goal as does the murderer. The detective wants to identify the murderer by way of investigating clues. The murderer wants to remain free!

High stakes help CREATE high tension. How? High stakes drive characters to do things that take them out—way out!—of their comfort range. It is the push and pull between characters, especially between antagonist and protagonist, that drives a story forward.

Every scene, no matter who is in it, has two important characters.[1] These characters are working toward different clearly defined goals that are mutually exclusive. If one character achieves his goal then the other character cannot and vice versa. Sometimes these two characters will be the protagonist and antagonist (or, in our case, the detective and murderer), but not always. In fact, in a murder mystery, a reader won’t be able to tell whether the person in the scene with the detective is the murderer! In that respect, murder mysteries really are quite different from other genres: readers don’t even know who the antagonist is until the very end!

Clear as mud? Let me give you an example. Let’s say our detective wants to get a witness, Mrs. Lawson, to tell him what she saw the night of the murder. The main character in the scene is the detective and the character opposing him is Mrs. Lawson. The detective has to find out WHY Mrs. Lawson doesn’t want to tell him what she saw—is she afraid or is she covering for someone she knows?—and convince her to do something she doesn’t want to do. If he does, he achieves his goal. If not, he loses.

Is Mrs. Lawson the murderer? Probably not but who knows. In an Agatha Christie murder mystery the less suspicious someone is the greater the likelihood they’re the murderer!

It is the reader’s knowledge of what the main characters in any specific scene have to gain and lose that pulls the reader through it. Will the detective (or perhaps the detective’s helper) get the clue they need to solve the next part of the case, the next piece of the puzzle? Ultimately, they will have to face their darkest fears to achieve their goals.

One thing that’s different about mystery stories in general (I’m including thrillers in this category) is that the protagonist—and usually the reader—doesn’t know who the murderer is. Perhaps we have a smattering of scenes where we see the murderer anonymously do a number of bad things, or plan to do a number of bad things, but we don’t know who this person is until the end. So the antagonists we have are going to be the cranky boss, the obnoxious co-worker, even the weather!

For example, the detective and his sidekick must visit someone who is in the hospital, scheduled to have a risky operation, and they need to question her. But there’s a storm brewing. Then it breaks, turns the roads to mud and the sleuth’s car gets stuck. And so on. Each scene must have something who ACTS as an antagonist, something that opposes the goal of the main character in that scene. The antagonist doesn’t have to be a person though. In this example it was the storm. More broadly, the antagonist can be a person, place, thing, idea—it can be the main character themselves! I don’t know about you but I’ve sabotaged myself a time or three.

Reader Involvement

Finally, a murder mystery involves the reader in a unique way. Sure, ANY kind of story involves the reader but in a murder mystery the reader doesn’t know who the antagonist is and is ACTIVELY engaged in trying to guess their identity. In a sense, the writer is playing a guessing game with the reader (for more about books that play games see: How To Write A 'Choose Your Own Adventure' Story.)

UPDATE:

I've received some wonderful feedback regarding the detective's stakes. Adaddinsane mentioned that in many excellent murder mysteries the stakes for the detective are low. For instance, this is true in many of Agatha Christie's mysteries and she is one of the best selling novelists of all time!

I've noticed this tendency toward low stakes as well and wrestled with it. Personally (and this could just be my own preference) I like it when the sleuth has something personal riding on the outcome. It could be something humorous (an ill-advised bet he's made) or it could be something more substantial (the failure of his business). I find this adds more conflict, more tension, and helps pull me through the book.

K.M. Idamari (over on Google+) mentioned that Murder Mysteries have a social dimension. The murder breaks the rules of society. Identifying the murderer is about writing a wrong, it's about justice.

Very true! Yes, this is something I meant to speak about then it slipped my mind. Thank you!!

---

Every post I pick something I love and recommend it. This serves two purposes. I want to share what I’ve loved with you, and, if you click the link and buy anything over at Amazon within the next 24 hours, Amazon puts a few cents in my tip jar at no cost to you. So, if you click the link, thank you! If not, that’s okay too. I’m thrilled and honored you’ve visited my blog and read my post.

An Autobiography, by Agatha Christie.

Read about Agatha Christie's life in her own words. From an Amazon reviewer: "Agatha Christie's autobiography will keep the reader interested in knowing a little bit more about her life as wife, mother, and author."

---

Notes:

1. I say “characters” but these needn’t be people. For instance, a tornado could be an antagonist. However in the case of a murder mystery the antagonist does have to be an agent since they have to try and avoid detection.

The Structure of a Murder Mystery in 5 Acts

What follows is a structure—one-among-many—a murder mystery could have. If you would like to read about a general story structure head over here: The Structure of a Great Story: How to Write a Suspenseful Tale!

Below, I’ve broken a murder mystery into six main events stretched over five acts.

A Murder Mystery in Six Events

1. A Crime
2. 1st Murder
3. Crime solved
4. 2nd Murder
5. Sleuth’s Trap
6. Reveal & Wrap Up

I'll discuss each of these in more detail in what follows.

Again, I want to stress that I’m not saying this is how all murder mysteries are structured, simply that this is one way a murder mystery could be structured.

A Murder Mystery in Five Acts

Act One: The Crime, Murderer Introduced and the 1st Body Found

Opens with: The Crime.

The Crime. In the first act a crime occurs and is the inciting incident for that act (not the main story). The crime is not the first murder. It could be blackmail, common assault, burglary, vandalism, etc. Your detective could investigate this crime or someone else might. For instance, if your detective works as a homicide detective this would be outside her purview. Or if your detective runs a bake shop this particular crime might involve those close to her, but not involve her directly.[1]

The Murderer is introduced. The murderer doesn’t have to be introduced in Act One, but I think it’s a good idea. If you don’t introduce the murderer here try to at least have one or more of your characters mention him or her in conversation.

The 1st Body. At the end of Act One we have the Inciting Incident for the main arc of the story: The first body is discovered. This event draws the detective into the story.

Close with: Finding the 1st body.

Act Two: Detective Introduced and Led Astray

Opens with: The detective. Perhaps the detective is at the crime scene or at the morgue. Generally I think it works best if the detective is introduced with the victim since it was the victim who, in a sense, called him into the story. It is the victim the detective seeks justice for.

Detective Introduced. The detective and her sidekick/helper are introduced and interview the suspects. They will likely also talk to one or two experts over the course of the story.

Led Astray. Initially, the murder leads the detective astray. Gives them a red herring. As a result of this, the murderer gains the upper hand. (The detective likely won't realize this is the case until after the second body is found.)

2nd body found. The detective feels he is partially responsible for this person’s death. Perhaps he suspected this person wasn’t telling him everything but he didn’t press her because she seemed frail and elderly, or perhaps the sleuth and this person had a relationship.

Closes with: The second body is discovered.

Act Three: Crime Solved and the Detective Knows Who the Killer Is

Begins with: The detective at the crime scene or in the morgue. He discusses with his helper/sidekick how the death changes things, his current theory of the crime, and so on. This is a low point for the detective. The murderer has the upper hand.

New information sets the sleuth on the right track. We’re at the midpoint now and this storyline should resolve and loop back into your main arc. This will have the effect of giving the detective a major revelation into either the circumstances of the first murder or the murderer himself/herself. At this point the detective gets information that gives him a whole new perspective on the case.

Crime Solved. The detective uses the information, his increased knowledge, to solve the initial crime. The detective is back on his game and the murderer is nervous.

Detectives figures out the identity of the murderer. Detectives figures out the identity of the murderer. This act ends with the detective at a high point. He has solved the initial crime and this resolution combined with something his sidekick says (it doesn't have to be this, though it often is), allows him to identify the murderer. The detective also, often, knows how the murderer pulled it off, he just doesn't have any proof.

Ends with: The detective solving the crime.

Act Four: Third Body Found; Sleuth Lays a Trap for the Killer; The Reveal

Begins with: The sleuth puts into action a plan to trap the killer.

Act Four begins with a sequel. We need to all be on the same page. The sleuth is about to keep something from Watson, which means he’s going to keep something from the reader. We need to be sure not to trick the reader, not to keep anything back. All the clues need to be on the table at this point.

The Third ‘Murder.’ There really is no third murder. This is a trap the detective lays for the killer. Perhaps the murderer wants to kill the sleuth and the sleuth fakes his death. Perhaps the sleuth gets an accomplice to blackmail the killer and the killer takes the bait and appears to murder the blackmailer (or perhaps the murderer is apprehended before he or she can do the deed; if this is the case then it also serves as The Reveal).

The Reveal. The murderer thinks he’s in the clear, he’s gotten away with it. Everyone is in the library sipping brandy and pulling a long face. The detective says, “Well, at least I now know who committed the crimes.” The real killer thinks the detective is a fool and plays along.

The detective begins to lay out all the clues, explaining things as though he is still fooled by the murderer. Then he explains why the person the murderer was framing couldn’t have done it.

This makes everyone nervous. What is the detective talking about? What he’s suggesting is impossible! We know the victims were murdered, but the detective has ruled everyone out!

Then the detective says: No. The killer was clever, yes, but he was up against me, the great one! He never had a chance. The detective then goes on to explain what the real killer's plan was, what his motives where and how he did what he did.

The killer now feels like a cornered animal, fighting for its life. He passionately denies everything. "No, this is impossible! This is outrageous!"

But then comes the final detail, the final twist. The third victim isn’t dead! It had been a trap all along! The killer, panicked, springs up ready to run but is overpowered by the detective’s helper and the rest of the suspects.

Ends with: The reveal. The detective reveals the killers identity.

Act Five: The Wrap Up

Begins with: The detective explains how he discovered the identity of the murderer and ties up all the loose ends.

Finish explaining the clues. The first part of the wrap up deals with any unresolved details, any unanswered questions from the reveal. You can take a bit of time here.

Resolve the relationship arcs. The second part of the wrap up deals with relationship arcs, resolving them and tying them off. Make sure the detective and his sidekick, their conflict, is resolved right before the end.

Ends with: The detective, having wrapped up all the relationship arcs, goes back to his ordinary life.

* * *

I want to stress again that this is just one of thousands of possibilities for how you could structure a murder mystery.

---

Every post I pick something I love and recommend it. This serves two purposes. I want to share what I’ve loved with you, and, if you click the link and buy anything over at Amazon within the next 24 hours, Amazon puts a few cents in my tip jar at no cost to you. So, if you click the link, thank you! If not, that’s okay too. I’m thrilled and honored you’ve visited my blog and read my post.

Witness for the Prosecution, by Agatha Christie.

This is, hands down, one of the best plotted stories I have ever read! If you’ve never seen it before—I believe it started out life as a play—read it! Or, if you like, watch the 1957 movie of the same name. Don’t let anyone tell you the ending, though! It’s one of the best endings of a mystery story, ever!

From the blurb: “When wealthy spinster Emily French is found murdered, suspicion falls on Leonard Vole, the man to whom she hastily bequeathed her riches before she died.”

---

That’s it! I have another post nearly finished, one that picks up some of these same themes. In the meantime, good writing! :-)

Notes:

1. Above, I suggested beginning your murder mystery with a run-of-the-mill crime but there's another way to approach this, a way that can increase the stakes and start things off with spine-tingling excitement: Show the murder happening. The body, though, is still found at the end of the first act.