UD Case File #253-C: Fuel v. Alexandra Gill

In the real world there are people with serious problems.

Then there’s the tiny tiny rarefied world of Vancouver restaurateurs/their toadies/hangers on and of course detractors.

You can guess how I voted…..

I suspect that Fuels main reason was not that it hurt their business. Any good restaurant can learn and move forward after a review. If they are a great restaurant, as Fuel is, then it would not be a major problem.

I suspect that Fuel felt that they did not have to endure a review from a critic that they do not respect or feel worthy to eat their food.

Gill is a low quality critic. To start a review with a comparison to a shlong is bullshit. Bring on a serious critic or stay home…

Easy now… ;-)

She gets published because she’s a gifted writer. She might not be every food devotee’s favourite because of the whole Carrie Bradshaw style, but for every person who thinks it’s crap there are more than a hundred who totally dig it.

When she started up a few years back I couldn’t stand her reviews at first, but now I’ve learned to love her writing, even when I might not share her taste in restaurants. Her affection for the Cactus Club, by way of example, totally bumfuzzles me, but I know that judging food and restaurants is too subjective an exercise to take seriously. She likes what she likes, and there’s no stopping that. What remains, then, is the writing. It’s a job, one that she does very well.

And despite what some commenters might think, she’s very interested in food. It’s been said that she was one of Northwest Culinary Academy’s most diligent students. Very keen. Hell, at least she went to cooking school, which is more than most food writers can say, myself included.

Most importantly, she doesn’t shy from sharing her opinions, however unpopular they might be in what Sam so diplomatically called “the tiny tiny rarefied world of Vancouver restaurateurs, their toadies, and hangers on”. If I was running a magazine or a paper with the Globe’s demos, I’d poach her in a heartbeat.

I’m still on the fence about Fuel kicking her out. It’s their right, but once I got over the surprise at how they availed themselves of it (despite Rob’s tats and Tom’s secret Judas Priest fetish, they’re softees), I felt an empathetic pang of sympathy.

So naturally I voted that it “sets a scary precedent for food writers”. To be honest, I’d be absolutely mortified if someone kicked me out of their restaurant. I’d probably shrug it off and mumble something about immaturity and how I was “just doing my job”, but on the inside I’d be fuming fucking mad, crimson with rage and embarrassment. Hell hath no fury, et cetera.

But that’s not Alex. From what I heard, she handled it calmly and with class.

Yes, you are the one in your particular hundred. All I’m saying is that I get it. Fuel did was was right by them, and you, plus plenty of other folks. But it’s the Globe, not Gourmet. Alex’s writing is tailored to fit a mandate to entertain and sell papers, not to tickle the balls of a handful of food and restaurant fetishists. Witness Joanne Kates.

Let’s leave the criticisms and insults aside for a second and remember that Alex does exactly what she is tasked with doing, and that she does it well.

is there any way to get all food writers to amend there musing to explain what their particular mandate is or what they have been tasked to write about for the sake of a larger readership ?
Although most of us in the industry understand the game, the fact is the general populace actually takes these reviews as a serious, unbiased review. Her opinion is not what is at issue, it’s the fact that she is presented in a reputable paper and given the same credentials as those who are held to true journalistic standards.

I respectfully disagree with William’s comment that Fuel only has to prove to their clients and themselves how good they are.

If you wish to attract new clients and they have read a review that starts out by comparing the piece of meat served to a piece of male anatomy, that doesn’t create an impression of “I’d like to try that restaurant out”.

This was not a good statement on Ms Gill’s part. The audience she is writing for (or her employers) may be looking for a different style of commentary than other food writers, but there’s a difference between wanting to position your reviews differntly and the first couple of paragraphs of her review of Fuel.

I will go to new restaurants, even if I have read a negative review, if I think the food or concept interests me. I know I don’t always agree with a critics opinion, but their reviews give me some background. However, a lot of people do use the reviews to help them choose. But the negativity of those first few paragraphs was something vastly different.

I don’t always like Ms Gill’s reviews, but I look for the content in them. I applauded her comments when she wrote in other restaurant reviews about restaurant music volume as I hate not being able to talk to my companions. Not many other reviewers (not just in Vancouver) have addressed this issue.

But I still feel that she set a tone in that review that was very distasteful, by starting out as she did. I don’t believe the owners over reacted, it was their decision as to how they wanted to handle her visits There is a way to critique food that doesn’t have to involve shock value and still be interesting in your writing.

I did visit Fuel after the review was written, but had I not had other information and if that been my ownly source of info, I might have chosen somewhere else, as there are many excellent choices in Vancouver.

I did have a great meal. !

And there was me thinking that she got the job because of who she was related to , how wrong can one get :)

They did what a lot of restaurant owners wished they had the nerve to do. The clear message to me is they took a stand against a single individual, not against food critics.
The big thing to remember, her job is to sell papers, not to portray an accurate description of an establishment.
Fuel did the right thing for their situation.

To me this is an interesting development, in terms of how food and wine writers achieve their platforms, what readership they serve, and in the end, what the purpose of any published journalism is.

Any PR person would say, I am sure, that Fuel made a tactical error, in some vital way giving the hammer back to Alex. After all, she cannot possibly do anything but gain, in terms of notoriety, from this. and after all, the Globe, like any publication, needs readers, and apparently she delivers on that count.

As for the BC food scene, which is now on the cusp of international recognition, and does not in fact require Daniel Boulud’s blessing, though he will be a welcome addition, food writers, or even self-professed critics, owe it to their readership, and to themselves, to stay educated, current, and above all honest. It will always be reader beware, though, so I would not ever, if were Warren Graghty or any one of the dozens of diners in West over the past night or two, worry too much about Alex, who is doing a job, whether any of us likes how she does it or not. It is always about what is on the plate, with nods to service and decor, in that order. So if I tell you that Chambar is totally hot right now, can do no wrong, that does not mean it will be the best for you, or even for me next time I am there. So, a food writer is a guide, nothing more, but nothing less.

That is why I would likely have served Alex, even though the chef would, understandably, have less than good incentive to cook for her. Trumping her, is the chef’s professionalism, and any chef is doing his or her work not for one solitary food writer.

full stop.

“You don’t become a food critique by eating out often and writing for a paper.”

Hardly any of the food critics in the world have formal chef training, or any restaurant experience whatsoever. As I said up top or somewhere else (I’ve turned into a comment whore this week!), at least she’s interested enough to go to cooking school.

So I respectfully disagree, especially with your last line. It’s never a shame when someone reads, and she also just happens to be highly readable too.

Kates should be put out to pasture as she never deals with the beverage side of things unless someone neglects to refill her mineral water. She, like many from the T dot cannot acknowledge anything from beyond the hallowed boundaries of Ontario. When she did venture to Whistler ages ago her review was completely riddled with factual errors.Alex and Andrew should be applauded for breaking the traditional “free meal,lovely place”reviews Vancouver has been plagued with for years. As Andrew has stated at least Alex has taken the time to go to cooking school and take wine courses to have a firmer grasp on what she seeks to critique while the majority of so called food “critics” barely can grasp the notion of critical thought as they sing or blog for their supper.

I have to say, I can relate to the sentiment behind refusing Gill a chance to dine and review Fuel again but no matter how I look at it, it was a short-sighted decision on their part.

Frankly, Fuel is a great restaurant. And everyone around knows it. Gill is simply putting egg on her own face by relishing in a review to the otherwise. And if the currency of a food reviewer is reliability and credibility, she’s shooting herself in both feet by fostering a reputation for being sensationally bitchy.

If on the other hand her first dining experience at Fuel wasn’t all that then an opportunity to reprise that ill-fated “slowly poached loin of heritage-breed organic pork” should be a welcome occasion for both reviewer and reviewee.

As for the stand-off now, Fuel’s actions could easily be interpreted as those of an overly defensive and insecure establishment by pro-Gill-ers. And Fuel missed a golden opportunity to prove Gill wrong in her initial judgement of the place. Silly silly.

The makings of “Pride & Prejudice” foodie styles perhaps?