Is the cult of the anonymous restaurant critic dead? I think it probably is. What read like a death notice appeared this week in The New York Times.

Foodies will know that the Times has long prided itself on anonymous reviewers. Part of the legend surrounding reviews by such former critics as Mimi Sheraton and Ruth Reichl was that they were never recognised at restaurants. Some even wore wigs and other disguises to remain unrecognisable - and then, published books about their adventures in anonymity.

Well, all that’s in the past.

Two days ago, The New York Times announced that it had finally appointed full time successors to Pete Wells, its respected reviewer who stepped down in 2024 after trying to preserve his anonymity (with varying degrees of success) for years.

The new critics are Tejal Rao and Ligaya Mishan. Both are well regarded food writers but they are hardly unknown or anonymous: For instance, I have praised Rao’s writing in this column before.

Sensibly the Times has decided to come clean. The announcement was accompanied by pictures and videos of the new critics.

So, what happened to Ruth Reichl’s disguises and Mimi Sheraton’s masks (yes, she actually wore one to appear on a TV show angering a chef who was also on the show and tried to pull it off)? What happened to all that stuff about how reviewers had to be anonymous so that they could have the same experience as the average guest?

Well, the Times conceded that the lack of anonymity could make a difference. “It is true that there are things restaurant staff members can do once they realize a critic is in their restaurant,” it wrote.

Also Read | The Taste by........

© hindustantimes