Throughout my few intelligent years I have often wondered as to how one becomes a critic for anything. Whether it be a movie, music, or restaurant critic, what exactly are their qualifications for their “two thumbs up” or “five star” ratings? Especially for restaurants it seems as if every critic is twice my age and constantly considering the “finer things in life” as they frequently discuss the flavorful nature of the item that they ordered at the café. I can’t stand it when a waiter similar to my age tries to guess what I would enjoy eating by telling me their favorite dish which almost always seems to have an outrageous price tag next to it, (in hopes of a higher tip) let alone having someone my parent’s age tell me what I think would entertain my taste buds.
In a book titled The Fearless Critic; Austin Restaurant Guide, food writers rate and review three hundred and ninety places to eat. The book explains in depth a rating scale, in which they feel they have established some sort of ethos or credibility necessary to be able to tell me what I will and will not like about each and every restaurant in the Austin area. In my attempt to satisfy the conditions of rebuttal or to “send a strong signal to the audience that [I’ve] scrutinized [my] own position and can therefore be trusted” I must admit that many of my favorite restaurants are on this books “top 50” (Everything’s an Argument, 73). Although this still does not let the critics off the hook, as I cannot remember one time in which a total stranger has convinced me to drive across town and spend $50 on what he believes to be the best food ever. This book provides weak ethos as the judges are more celebrities than they are food critics. I am not quite sure as to when Bob Schnieder, John Kelso, or Mark Strama has ever been given an award for their magnificent casserole, however, their opinions are some how weighed into the final grading of each restaurant.
I believe after reading the first few chapter of Eveything’s an Argument, that ethos is the “must have” in an argument in order to keep the attention of an audience. Pathos as well as logos may lead one to act as a result of their persuasion, yet ethos establishes a credibility to allow the audience to become aware of a truth. The text states that “before we’ll listen to others, we usually must respect their authority, admire their integrity, and motives, or at least acknowledge what they stand for” and with the absences of ethos we as an audience begin to question all the information that the speaker is sharing, as I do in the food critics book regarding Austin restaurants (Everything’s an Argument, 61).
