Why I take freebies

People are often surprised to hear that I don't review restaurants anonymously, a la Ruth Reichl. They're more surprised to hear I take comps and the restaurants know I'm coming.  Well, let me elucidate a little.

Freelance writers are a dime a dozen out there. So are foodies. While I think I'm pretty reliable and knowledgeable about food, I know there are a few people who could easily take my place as a reviewer, so I'm pretty conscientious. Also, I hate the thought that someone could show up at a place I rated highly and have a dreadful experience. In a way, that makes me an advocate for all of you - and the restaurants know it. If someone reads my review, goes to the restaurant and has a bad experience, the restaurant's going to hear from me - politely and tactfully, of course.

The real deal is that when Ms. Reichl was writing, her income outstripped the cost of eating out - and I think the Times may have actually reimbursed her for her mandatory three meals at a restaurant with one or more guests before she did a review. The truth - at least for me - is that I'm paid much less for many of my reviews than the cost of the meal. I couldn't afford to do this job without the comps.

Having said that, I will add that against at least one of my editors' advice, I often pay for meals I "shouldn't" because the restaurant was on my list and I was going to eat out anyway. I don't identify myself as a food writer (really, who does that??) and I sometimes get "Single Woman Dining Alone" service. And I write it up that way.

Here's how comped dining really works:  They know I'm coming. About half the time, I'm invited to bring a guest. Most times, alcohol is included (they'd love to get me happy - I usually refrain), but sometimes the wine list is limited to certain less expensive selections. The tip is my responsibility, which is fine - and I almost always overtip, because the waitperson's stressed out by my presence. So here's what I look at:

1. You knew I was coming: you know I'm here. If you can't get it right now, fuhgeddaboutit.
2. I'm watching all the tables around me, especially the single diners. If I get served ahead of someone who came in after me, I'm annoyed. Equally annoyed if you serve someone who came in after me, first.
3. I talk to people at adjacent tables about their experiences and food.
4. I sometimes send friends in later to see what "regular people" experience.
5. If I like you, I come back unannounced at a different time of day or on a different day of the week to see what happens.
6. Please don't hover or come by the table every 10 minutes. It's annoying and reeks of a lack of confidence.
7. My ultimate rule is this: "How would I describe this restaurant to my sister?"

So yes, I take the comps. I couldn't do my job properly without them. Also, different publications have different rating systems, so something I "LOVE" in one publication, I might be "meh" about in another. But I'm still way, way better than YELP.  I promise.

On Civil War Re-enactments

So tonight I was scrolling through Facebook and I came to this blog entry at Gettysburg College's student blog, "Surge":  http://surgegettysburg.wordpress.com/2013/08/14/stuff-white-people-like-1863/. I read Surge because (1) Gettysburg's my alma mater, (2) one of the best externs at my office EVER, Hannah Frantz, worked there before she graduated, and (3) I like to read opinions written by people who are not yet old enough to run for President, just to keep my mind nimble.

Briefly, Steve Slowinski ('09), the blog entry's author, attended the sesquicentennial of the Battle of Gettysburg and went to a re-enactment, only to find himself very conflicted by the event. He concluded it cheapened and trivialized an horrific Civil War Battle, and that it missed the point that the South fought to keep their slaves.

I see his point of view, but I respectfully disagree. I think Civil War soldiers - especially Southerners - fought for complicated reasons. Individual Southerners didn't necessarily go to battle in support of slavery - they called the conflict "the War of Northern Aggression" - they were defending their homeland and states' rights. General Lee, a West Point graduate, was deeply conflicted about choosing a side.

The re-enactment is a great living history exercise, as Slowinski initially observes, but he bemoans the fact the announcer failed to provide context for the battle. I was not there, but I'm guess that was because (1) it was blazing hot, as Slowinski said, and (2) it would probably have been like stopping to explain what a Vulcan is at a Star Trek convention. Only a bunch of Civil War nerds would travel from far and wide to sit in a field in Gettysburg in July to watch a bunch of guys in wool suits re-enact the bloodiest three days in American history.

Why were the spectators all white? I have no idea. I don't think it has to do with tacit praise of Southern support of slavery, though. Absent evidence, our conjectures are just that. Conjecture. What I really wish was that Slowinski had interviewed some re-enactors and included their thoughts in his piece. Whether they supported or refuted his POV, I believe their opinions would have been informative.

Americans have learned to embrace those who fought for their country without embracing the wars themselves.  I think what we celebrate - if that is the right word - about the Civil War is that we came out of it whole and were able to rebuild. And wrong though their cause may have been, can anyone question the courage and devotion to duty of the Confederates who undertook the suicide charge under General Pickett? Or resist the poignancy of Lee's bemoaning, "This has all been my fault," after surveying the carnage? There were great men, brave men (and women, but that's a whole other blog entry) on both sides - and tragic though the battle and War were, there is no denying their courage and love of the land.

I think the re-enactors pay tribute to that courage. I think they show us that the armies were not "good" and "evil" - that's dreadfully reductionist. And I think they remind us that this was one of the last truly personal wars, where soldiers saw each other and even knew or were related to people fighting on the other side.

Finally, I'd like to ask this question: Why do we re-enact the American Revolution and the Civil War, but not, say, the Normandy invasion? Clearly, the latter was not on our soil, but I think it goes beyond that. During the American Revolution, there were colonists who took the British side - and believed they were the patriots and the Continental Army were the traitors. I think we're fascinated by the complexity - that we could feel strongly enough about a political issue to take up arms against each other, and then still come out of the conflict first birthing, and then re-birthing, an amazing nation.

Intro

I'm a professional writer. I started out as an unpaid blogger, right here on Google's Blogger. And I had every blogger's dream come true - I got hired to write professionally for a number of local publications and some websites, mostly having to do with food, travel, and local human interest stories.

I gave up posting to my blog here (Lainie's Last Stand) because I just didn't have time to create recipes for free anymore. But then a funny thing happened: I discovered I still had lots to say on a variety of topics and that my paid outlets weren't giving me a place to give expression to those things. So I'm back here on Blogger to see if anyone cares about my opinion. And to respond to my alma mater's (Gettysburg College) student blog, Surge, (http://surgegettysburg.wordpress.com/) on its most recent topic. That's where I'm starting out; let's see where it goes from here.