AA Gill and Co

[Basildog]

I have been wronged, but i don't throw my toys out of the pram

I'd not fault you if you did. Just don't expect me to react with an appraisal and appreciation for the act.

.

Bux, i didn't post it for your appreciation, i posted it as an example that we all get bad breaks

[Adam Balic]

This is an open forum, so why not use [it] to to defend yourself against 'glib ignorance' etc, rather then simply venting spleen? 

Alas, I have nothing funny to say about this. From the little I've read from the very amusing Mr. Gill, I doubt he's made much of a positive contribution to culinary criticism and it's a pity this thread didn't take an enlightening tack.

Where were the other funny bits?

[Andy Lynes]

Oh and ANDY and MOBY you can stop sending me messages because much to your undoubted relief I resign me membership x

Going so soon? But you only just got here...

[Ian]

Going so soon? But you only just got here...

Aww... And I didn't get to point out that I'm a restaurant reviewer who trained as a professional chef. Drat. I really wanted to know from disgusted what he feels I am.

All the best,

Edited March 24, 2004 by Ian (log)

[Conor]

Having been the subject of reviews both good and bad by many critics (some of whom are members of this illustrious website) i can see both sides of the argument.

The problem for me is when reviews become personnally driven rather than an accurate description of facts. It is true that some restaurants are better than others and the "public" reading those reviews want to know who is good and who is not. This, therefore, is the job of the critic to tell the public this. It is how they do it that can cause offence. If a meal was bad, why was it bad, but tell us honestly and without prejudice. Too many reviewers see themselves as lifestyle journalists rather than restaurant critics and this is when the problem starts. They are not lifestyle journos and when people read a restaurant review the should read a full review of a restaurant not what the critic did on holiday with an emu!

Critics should also remember that there are a lot of people working very hard for little reward other than satisfaction in the restaurants that they so readily slag off. How will those people feel if their food/service is described as a "wet weekend" or "dog muck." Qualify "dog muck" and the other loose descriptions that are regularly used, but also praise the parts that were good.

Chefs/Managers/Owners would accept the criticism if it was balanced with praise but its often far easier to slag off to get headlines and soundbites. If it is any consolation, however, to those aggrieved by critics, I do think a good review does wonders for business, a bad one is forgotten quickly and soon becomes chip paper!

[Bux]

This is an open forum, so why not use [it] to to defend yourself against 'glib ignorance' etc, rather then simply venting spleen? 

Alas, I have nothing funny to say about this. From the little I've read from the very amusing Mr. Gill, I doubt he's made much of a positive contribution to culinary criticism and it's a pity this thread didn't take an enlightening tack.

Where were the other funny bits?

Obviously I meant to say "I have nothing funny to say about this, either."

[Bux]

I have been wronged, but i don't throw my toys out of the pram

I'd not fault you if you did. Just don't expect me to react with an appraisal and appreciation for the act.

.

Bux, i didn't post it for your appreciation, i posted it as an example that we all get bad breaks

This one was apparently lost in translation from Merkin to British.

What I was trying to say, was that I would not appreciate the act that you did not do, if you did it, even though I couldn't fault it if you did. There was nothing about your earlier post that I did not appreciate. Basically, I understood you to be critical of disgusted's posts and I joined in to say that I found disgusted's posts unworth of appreciation or appraisal. I thought I was reinforcing your side on this.

[Basildog]

OK

[Adrian York]

Reviewers such as Gill will often use techniques used in pop music journalism in the early 1980s by writers such as Paul Morley where the review turns into a baroque development of themes that are at best at a tangent and at worst completely unrelated to the subject under review. It is no coincidence that both Morley and Gill are failed authors. However those of us who have any relationship to the industry need to get real and accept that being prescriptive about reviewers is a waste of time. Consumers read reviews primarily for entertainment as most readers will not get to go to the places written about. I wonder if Jay could tell us what his editorial direction is and whether he could realistically fill his pieces with more detail about the food or whether it would start to read like an e-gullet report-great for obsessives like myself but maybe not for the casual reader!

[MobyP]

I go off for my Sunday dinner (on a Wednesday), and look what happens! Thanks to everyone for not using the howitzers. Sniff, I'm feeling a bit emotional...

[circeplum]

well, i hope you come back, disgusted. you made life a bit more interesting.

x

[Andy Lynes]

well, i hope you come back, disgusted. you made life a bit more interesting.

x

On behalf of the eGullet.com management team and all regular posters on this site, I like to thank you for that comment.

[circeplum]

ooh andy dearest one, don't be like that. i love you all madly but you know i enjoy a good fight.

x

[bourdain]

From the marvelous (and often astonishingly heartfelt) "AA GILL IS AWAY":

" It's my voice, my view, my opinion. And just as no one's opinion is worth more than mine, so mine is worth no more than anyone else's. I'm often accused of being contentious. I suppose predictably and rather arrogantly I take that as a compliment. If my articles cause raised blood pressure, then good -- that's what first person journalism is for. We hacks do opposition. But while they may be the start of the argument, they're never the last word. There is no last word. No definitive view. The older I get the more I see, the more I'm convinced about nothing at all. Opinions, prejudices, theories and revelations are just the social and intellectual weather under which we live."

[Jonathan Day]

We heard something very similar from Ferran Adria the other day:

"I never ask people if they liked a particular dish. What if they say no? Then you feel bad. One person can hate it, while everyone else loves it. What does it mean? My taste may not be yours. I cook the way I like to eat. Taste is subjective."

Gill's view (which I increasingly agree with) is the other side of the same coin.

[MobyP]

I think Gill's view is that he wants the right to be Gill - it's like Dr. Jeckyl coming through the trauma of therapy to ask us all to accept Mr. Hyde - which is what I object to. For god's sake let's revoke his liscence. Let's stop him before it's too late. Between him and the plague of the 14th Century - I choose the plague.

[Jonathan Day]

So what do you want a critic to do, then? What is the critic's job?

[John Whiting]

Unless I'm reading purely for information, I want an author to posess a mind that I can admire or empathize with or at least be entertained by. In one review, A.A. Gill describes himself as "a spiteful no-mates old queen" and then uses the rest of the article to present his credentials. I remain convinced to this very day.

[Marco_Polo]

From the marvelous (and often astonishingly heartfelt) "AA GILL IS AWAY":

"It's my voice, my view, my opinion. And just as no one's opinion is worth more than mine, so mine is worth no more than anyone else's..."

Ah, but this is the crux of it. Critics like Gill and others of his ilk (present company excluded of course), with their undoubted wit; amusing and easy style of writing; knowing, snide, often arrogant comments; and cruel barbs, narrow-minded prejudices and personal vitriol, exist only because they have convinced others that their opinions are indeed worth more, far more, than anyone else's. To say otherwise, as Gill does in the above quote, is utter horseshit.

The only thing marginally more vomit-inducing than the cult of the celebrity chef (present company excluded of course) is the cult of the restaurant critic as Superior Being.

Of course, that is not to say that I do not, on many a Sunday morning (half asleep and in my slippers, over cappuccino and croissants), from time to time snort out loud in near uncontrollable laughter while reading Gill's column. There are far worse than him: at least most of what he natters on about has nothing to do with food or eating or even the restaurant he is supposed to be covering. And of course, it's easy to snort: I'm not on the receiving end.

I would only add that most restaurant critics (some of whom I number among my friends) have neither the column inches, nor the mass readership to wield such opinion-forming and potentially destructive power. Perhaps, as in everything in life, that's what it all comes down to the end: size matters.

MP

[MobyP]

I want a critic to do everything Gill tries to make us believe he does, but doesn't. He doesn't write about food, or service, or try to represent the artisanship or lack of coming out of the kitchen - because I think he can only write about himself.

I want someone who so clearly loves what they're doing, and has such an appreciation for what the kitchen is attempting, that it suffuses every sentence they write. I want rejection to be written in terms of disapointment, not bile. I want a critical appreciation of failiures, as well as successes. That doesn't mean being protected. I want generosity and intelligence and humour, even when they're disgusted. They can be angry. They can be offended. They can even have a terrible meal - they just have to travel some short distance to show me they don't view the entire process as a necessary conspiracy simply to make them - out of all the people in the universe - happy.

Oh, and they can't be called Michael Winner either.

[Jonathan Day]

I'll repeat my question. Let's take it as a given that mainstream media food critics will continue to be employed -- hence ruling out any response like "The first thing we do, let's kill all the food critics."

And let's take the negative statements about food critics as read. They have a lot of power. An ignorant food critic can seriously harm the fortunes of a restaurant, with little or no chance of redress. Granted.

So what do we want food critics to do? What does good food criticism look like? Is it the sort of byte-by-byte description of menus that we sometimes see in eGullet? Should it try to paint a more impressionistic picture? What does it look like?

(edit: crossposted with Moby)

Edited March 25, 2004 by Jonathan Day (log)

[Basildog]

Critics sell papers. Thats it.

I think people give critics to much credit.They don't shape opinion, close restaurants or make places succesfull in the long run.Sure a rave review can pack em in for awhile, raise a profile to a different level, but in the end, Restaurants will get the customers they deserve.

AA Gill is a columist, playing at reviewing resturants.He sells papers.

[SobaAddict70]

Suddenly, I don't feel so bad for Amanda anymore.

If only Gill were the NYTimes critic. Wouldn't that be fun. hah.

Critics, in my humble opinion, are the gardeners who pull up the weeds that threaten to devastate a carefully planned garden. They're the innocent children who point out that "the emperor has no clothes on". They may sell papers for those who are cynically minded (and with good reason, no doubt), but they also serve a useful function in lending legitimacy to those establishments that are deserving of such legitimacy. That said, there are good critics and bad critics. There are critics worth their salt and critics whose salt is so worthless as to be mere grains of sand on a well-trod beach. For every good food critic, I'm pretty sure we can name five bad ones and just as many mediocre ones.

Would that every food critic could be as good as Craig Claiborne.

Soba

[John Whiting]

What Gill and Winner both display in their writing is a profound disrespect for human thought. Bourdain can be annoying, disgusting, flippant, but at his most outrageous there's a sense of playing an intellectual game -- building an intellectual structure which doesn't actually misuse or abuse the tools he's working with. There's a logical progression which, if followed, brings the reader to a vantage point that provides some sort of new perspective.

Gill is totally destructive both of his subject matter and of himself. I find him painful to read, just as I would find it unpleasant to watch a man beating his head against a stone wall until the blood flowed. If allowed into a kitchen, he'd pour a bag of salt into the cassoulet.

EDIT: At the simplest level, what I ask of any writer I read for pleasure is that I enjoy his company.

Edited March 25, 2004 by John Whiting (log)

[oldschooltie]

What Gill and Winner both display in their writing is a profound disrespect for human thought. Bourdain can be annoying, disgusting, flippant, but at his most outrageous there's a sense of playing an intellectual game -- building an intellectual structure which doesn't actually misuse or abuse the tools he's working with. There's a logical progression which, if followed, brings the reader to a vantage point that provides some sort of new perspective.

Gill is totally destructive both of his subject matter and of himself. I find him painful to read, just as I would find it unpleasant to watch a man beating his head against a stone wall until the blood flowed. If allowed into a kitchen, he'd pour a bag of salt into the cassoulet.

not to mention a large helping of self-disgust?

My predominant emotions are sadness and pity.

sadness that a larger public is deprived of the opportunity to read the sort of material (well some of the material) that appears on a board like this or are inspired to learn about, experience and engage with something that gives me a huge amount of satisfaction and pleasure.

The pity is for people who choose to produce something, as part of their living, that is generally so irrelevant, so negative, so lacking in warmth and, presumably, fail to see just how bleak a picture it paints of their own characters.

On the other hand, given the "a spiteful no-mates old queen" quote above, perhaps they see all too well.