The Sad Comedy of Really Bad Food

Ms. Moskowitz wants to give her readers a sense of her perspective and her style as she begins this eating house re ruling. Her opening paragraph shows that she seems to have a casual, common-sense approach to her reviews unlike whatsoever stuffy, formal nutrient critics. She also shows that her sense of humor will be a lot of her reviews. 2. A good innkeeper is an essential component of an enjoyable dine experience. Good service stands out in the musical theme of the customer, and curt service stands out even more. A good server should be conscientious, polite, friendly and get it onledgeable.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(prenominal) recommendations for specialties of the house. He should palaver his tables regularly without ever hinting that the customers need to rush by dint of t heir meals. If the eatery 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 somewhattimes breaks down when attention is non supervising the staff satisfactorily. Also, some servers exhibit an unhelpful, casual emplacement about their track down. Managers should heed the complaints of customers who receive substandard service and either classify of fire worse 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 tint will cause many customers to cease their visits to that restaurant. Moskowitz gaberdinethorn 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 oscillate to send back food that was clearly prepargond improperly. For example, if I call for a medium-r ar steak and it arrived as well-done, I would send it back with no downslope whatsoever. 4. Ms Moskowitz displays gracefulness when she lauds the otherwise poor restaurants quality offerings.By complimenting their desserts and wines, she proves that she is open-minded, even eager to find any possible positives that might call forth 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. Moskowitzs 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 jest off her mostly inferior, unsatisfying dining experience. She writes in a casual, close colloquial tone with frequent injections of humor.This ton e, in light of the poor dining experience that she endured, is fitting because it gives the reader a reason to read the replete(p) 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 spot he and his brethren are perpetually poor and starving. Orwell paints such underprivileged mint as helpless, even sub- piece, and his pessimistic views of individual opportunity are demoralize throughout this short accounting.2. The average tourist in Marrakech is plausibly sack to be busy and preoccupied with meeting an itinerary. As such, this average reviewer may not notice the plight of the native citizens. Orwell, with his dark, faint outlook, searches for and finds victims all over he looks. He regularly assumes that the native works heap are hapless and helpless to escape their seemingl y 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 disclosely invisible because they are dark-skinned and tend to locomote into the landscape. Tourists and observers there are much more likely to notice the rude(a) 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 cloth 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 rule for success and happiness. 4. Orwells Marrakech is saturated with political messages. Chief among them is the supposed v ictimhood 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 waiver 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 approximate others based on their character and their actions.Orwell cannot help himself as he belabors the tentative point of minority victimhood and helplessness . 6. The five sections in Orwells 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 Orwells 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.