Yep, that's me.
During my 16-year tenure as a restaurant critic at the Star Tribune, I've kept myself hidden behind the cloak of anonymity. Or tried to, anyway. No more.
It's a seismic change, one that runs counter to decades of restaurant criticism at this newspaper, reaching back to my 1970s predecessors at the Minneapolis Star and the Minneapolis Tribune.
I'm not the first restaurant critic to step out from the coat check's dark recesses. During the past 18 months, colleagues in Dallas, Los Angeles and New York City have undergone a similar unmasking. It's time for the Star Tribune to also make the change.
I've long maintained that anonymity is important in my line of work. After all, I want to have the same experience Star Tribune readers have when they're dining out.
But here's the thing: I'm a known quantity in the restaurant community, and I have been for ages. That's true for any restaurant critic who has been around awhile. Log some time in this dime-store Secret Agent occupation of mine, and being recognized becomes a given, despite efforts to the contrary.
Blame it on the fluid nature of the switch from one gig to another. Those who identify me at Restaurant A will inevitably spy me when they begin working at Restaurant B, and on, and on, particularly when I make repeat visits over a short period of time. Realistically, the only people incapable of pulling me out of a lineup are Star Tribune readers.
Yet, until now, I have continued playing along with this pretense of anonymity, even as it has grown to feel unnecessary. A lesson I've learned from all these years at the table is that remaining undercover isn't everything. The cooking isn't going to turn on a dime because there's a critic in the house. True, the service component is far more variable, but it's almost immediately obvious if it changes. Going forward, I'll continue to be watchful of the goings-on around me.