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?

Set’s a scary precedent.

I guess what makes me think that it was the wrong thing to do is that it makes the restaurant appear unwilling to face criticism, so much so that they won’t allow a critic to take a second look. (Not that anything that I’ve done has been worthy of a public review.)

It also makes me wonder if I won’t be allowed back in some restaurant if I let them know that I didn’t like the food, service, experience, etc. (Paranoid, I know; I don’t write reviews of restaurants, so my comments would be between me, the staff, and my friends.)

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.

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.

yours,

david pierson

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. !