He should attend to his customers’ needs from the moment the customer is seated. He should never exude an air of pretentiousness or aloofness. He should know the menu thoroughly from cover to cover and he should have several recommendations for specialties of the house. He should visit his tables regularly without ever hinting that the customers need to rush through their meals. If the restaurant has a wine menu, he should know the wines well at all price points. In short, he should take pride in his job and treat his customers with respectful, attentive and friendly service.
Service sometimes breaks down when management is not supervising the staff satisfactorily. Also, some servers exhibit an unhelpful, casual attitude about their work. Managers should heed the complaints of customers who receive substandard service and either discipline of fire bad servers. A good restaurant with good food cannot thrive with a poor service staff. 3. A restaurant customer is within her rights to send poor food back to the kitchen, and it is advisable for the restaurant to satisfy the customer at the expense of preparing her food again.
One instance of poor food quality will cause many customers to cease their visits to that restaurant. Moskowitz may have decided to not send back numerous bad dishes because she thought that the chefs were invariably lacking and incapable of correcting their errors. I would not hesitate to send back food that was clearly prepared improperly. For example, if I requested a medium-rare steak and it arrived as well-done, I would send it back with no regrets whatsoever. 4. Ms Moskowitz displays fairness when she lauds the otherwise poor restaurant’s quality offerings.
By complimenting their desserts and wines, she proves that she is open-minded, even eager to find any possible positives that might appeal to her readers. Her praise in the midst of many criticisms shows her sense of balance and fair play for the restaurants she reviews. 5. Ms. Moskowitz’s tone in this review is matter-of-fact, casual, vivid and humorous. She does not hesitate to vividly describe the poor service and the poor food. Yet, ironically, she seems to laugh off her mostly inferior, unsatisfying dining experience. She writes in a casual, almost colloquial tone with frequent injections of humor.
This tone, in light of the poor dining experience that she endured, is fitting because it gives the reader a reason to read the entire review despite its many negative comments. Marrakech 1. This navvy, or workman, is referred to as “an employee of the Municipality” because he is so oppressed by his plight that he is incredulous that a man could be casually feeding bread to a gazelle while he and his brethren are perpetually poor and starving. Orwell paints such underprivileged people as helpless, even sub-human, and his pessimistic views of individual opportunity are depressing throughout this short story.
2. The average tourist in Marrakech is probably going to be busy and preoccupied with meeting an itinerary. As such, this average observer may not notice the plight of the native citizens. Orwell, with his dark, bleak outlook, searches for and finds victims everywhere he looks. He regularly assumes that the native working people are hapless and helpless to escape their seemingly dire circumstances. Orwell even notes that it took him some time there to begin to start noticing the natives in all their wallowing misery. 3.
The laborers in Marrakech are “partly invisible” because they are dark-skinned and tend to blend into the landscape. Tourists and observers there are much more likely to notice the natural scenery than the native workers. Orwell invariably paints these natives as helpless victims and their “invisibility” adds to that bleak assessment. In the United States, a land of undeniable opportunity, he would probably also paint menial laborers as invisible and pitiful. To the contrary, ordinary, hard-working citizens are the fabric and driving force behind America and its exceptional history of success.
Orwell would be in a difficult position if he tried to paint ordinary American citizens as poor victims who have little chance for success and happiness. 4. Orwell’s Marrakech is saturated with political messages. Chief among them is the supposed victimhood of average, working people. His bleak, pessimistic portrayal of their plight is depressing and debatable. His one-sided view does not mention the positive aspects of these natives’ lives. Despite living in very trying conditions, these natives must have some happiness and some opportunity to live, work and provide for their families.
It is sad and unrealistic how Orwell seems to always paint ordinary people as helpless, joyless victims of their environment. 5. The storks and “great white birds” are metaphors for the ruling white class that has power over the helpless Negro soldiers and slaves. The whites are going in a safe direction while the hapless Negros are forced to sacrifice and go in the other direction. His blanket view of white prejudice towards blacks is insulting and demeaning to honorable people who judge others based on their character and their actions.
Orwell cannot help himself as he belabors the dubious point of minority victimhood and helplessness. 6. The five sections in Orwell’s short story are somewhat incongruent, but are not difficult to follow. Invariably, the images of human nature and the strength of the human spirit are stifled and skewed by Orwell’s jaded, dark and pessimistic views. Evidently, he needed to visit and observe some people who had joy and happiness as part of their lives before he deemed most people as oppressed.