Hacker News Reader

Comment by mcv | Hacker News Reader

I find it odd that he prefers losing all three stars over losing only one star. If he's willing to lose stars, can't he just ignore Michelin and simply cook the way he wants?

I'm reminded of Ron Blaauw, a Dutch 2-star chef who was also tired of the pressure of his 2-star fine-dining restaurant (not sure if it was Michelin or just the kind of restaurant), so he started his more informal "Gastrobar" for just a quick bite instead of Michelin-level dining, and was immediately awarded a star for it.

View on HN

If he just continues on and loses one or more stars then, no matter how public he is about the restaurant's change of direction, it will be widely regarded as a demotion. Opening a second, more informal eatery might not appeal to him for any number of valid reasons.

It seems reasonably clear that the ongoing cost in terms of anxiety and, to some extent, the freedom to change or loosen up things is simply not worth the accolade to him anymore. The article states: "because of the huge pressure of being judged on every dish he serves... and the anxiety over Michelin’s anonymous food judges, who could arrive at his restaurant at any moment... “You’re inspected two or three times a year, you never know when. Every meal that goes out could be inspected. That means that, every day, one of the 500 meals that leaves the kitchen could be judged. “Maybe I will be less famous but I accept that,” he said, adding that he would continue to cook excellent local produce “without wondering whether my creations will appeal to Michelin’s inspectors”."

So, he's quitting on his own terms. Assuming it's not a rash decision borne from burn-out or some temporary phase or state of mind then I think it's admirable.

That level of obsession is necessary for ensuring that every non-professional eater is receiving the meal they expected. What is the difference? “I’ll put on a show for the critics, and mail it in for everyone else”? Or “The quality we’re delivering is unsustainable”. Saying the first is being a jackass, while the latter is fine. But put it that way rather than blaming others.

There are several comments in this discussion talking about you would want to lose all stars instead of just one. If you lose one star, it will sound like the quality has changed for the worst. Losing all them sounds more like being outside the system.

Even if you've got only one or two stars, you're still regarded as an extraordinarily good restaurant.

A do understand how receiving a Michelin star can bring in different clientele that changes the atmosphere of the restaurant for the worse.

It seems that cheffing is a lot about acting "rebellious" (food rebel revolutionizing how apples are served) and creating big theatre and drama.

At this level, not at all. 3 stars means that every single serving is perfect by itself, the quality of the ingredients, the texture, the taste. Everything.

You cannot allow yourself to not be perfect. For example, you cannot serve something new where you know it is really good but fails a bit on the texture side or it is hard to produce so the quality varies a bit, not a lot, but a bit.

If he goes out of the system, he can reintroduce this little bit of freedom.

As a programming analogy, 3 stars is like every single piece of code you produce is perfectly structured, integrates nicely in the software, respects the conventions and idioms, has no code debt. You cannot just patch a bit and see how the users react and refactor later. It must be perfect for the user from low level code to the interaction as soon as you put it in the hands of real users.

I am full of respect for such decision.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com