Diva Review

[*Deborah*]

Chris, perhaps you have not noticed that Jamie Maw and (newer at it, but still "pro") Andrew Morrison both post here, including notes about restaurants they are reviewing for their respective publications.

On a side note, many of us rank amateurs also post about repeat visits to various places, and comment on the rise or decline of same. Much as I love food, I don't think I have a particularly discerning palate, but many of the "amateurs" around eGullet are actually rather familiar with food and wine and what makes a restaurant worth eating in...

[ktbear]

Chris, perhaps you have not noticed that Jamie Maw and (newer at it, but still "pro") Andrew Morrison both post here, including notes about restaurants they are reviewing for their respective publications.

On a side note, many of us rank amateurs also post about repeat visits to various places, and comment on the rise or decline of same. Much as I love food, I don't think I have a particularly discerning palate, but many of the "amateurs" around eGullet are actually rather familiar with food and wine and what makes a restaurant worth eating in...

←

Well said

[Mooshmouse]

Pros? Excuse me?

You had me right up to your last sentence. I find it curious that you excoriate Gill for the things you do (a review based on one visit, lack of long food pedigree), then go on to say that you appreciate just the same qualities of writers on eGullet, home of the amateur one-vist review. You can't have it both ways.

Some obvious truths about Gill's Friday Globe and Mail reviews:

1. She reviews from a consumer, not a foodie, perspective. Her reactions as a consumer are as relevant as yours or mine would be if we were dining in the restaurant.

2. She likes to gossip and stir the pot (her reviews run alongside an industry gossip section, after all).

3. She is not big on sacred cows, and is not consumed with concern for bruised feelings. She knows that honesty makes for a good review. She also knows (perhaps better) that brutal honesty makes for good copy. Does she step over the line in an effort to make her reviews more "punchy?" Maybe. The Diva review reads a bit like a car wreck made into a train wreck.

←

On a side note, many of us rank amateurs also post about repeat visits to various places, and comment on the rise or decline of same. Much as I love food, I don't think I have a particularly discerning palate, but many of the "amateurs" around eGullet are actually rather familiar with food and wine and what makes a restaurant worth eating in...

←

Chris, there is a vast difference between the way that Alexandra Gill excoriated Diva in her 'professional' capacity and the way that we "amateurs" as you deem us relate our dining experiences at a restaurant.

First and foremost, we are paid neither to dine around town nor to share our experiences in print. We eat out because we love food and, in most instances, we love to gain new inspiration for our own home cooking efforts from the dishes that come out of restaurant kitchens. When we write, our aim is not to sell publications but, rather, to share our meals in a virtual way with others who may not have had the opportunity to dine at a particular establishment. For the most part, we are not vitriolic; on the contrary, I find us to be reasonable, intelligent adults who are rather measured and honest with our remarks. If a restaurant catches our fancy, then we'll return. If our dining experience was riddled with missteps, we'll either be truthful about it or opt to 'plead the fifth' on the eGullet boards so to speak, and we may give the restaurant a second or even third chance. But, come on now. Many of us are not of unlimited budget or resource and we have to maximize the benefit of our dining dollars when we spend them.

In short, we food enthusiasts congregate here because we relish the opportunity to share our collective dining experiences. And, let's face it. You post here. You take the time to read what the amateurs are saying... unless you skim through a topic until either Andrew or Jamie's or Neil's or Leonard's name catches your eye. The professionals write the reviews, but the amateurs' money pays the bills.

Edited to improve upon an amateurish choice of words.

Edited October 16, 2005 by Mooshmouse (log)

[chrisstearns]

Chris, perhaps you have not noticed that Jamie Maw and (newer at it, but still "pro") Andrew Morrison both post here, including notes about restaurants they are reviewing for their respective publications.

←

Not only have I noticed, but I greatly enjoy their posts. But I think you'd agree with me that the vast majority of eGulleters are enthusiastic amateurs, or industry types, just like you and me.

On a side note, many of us rank amateurs also post about repeat visits to various places, and comment on the rise or decline of same. Much as I love food, I don't think I have a particularly discerning palate, but many of the "amateurs" around eGullet are actually rather familiar with food and wine and what makes a restaurant worth eating in...

←

My point was not to denigrate "amateur" opinion (which I find relevant and valuable), but rather to point out that criticizing Gill for certain traits while praising eGulleters for the same seemed contradictory. What's the difference?

Is it as Kurtis says, influence? With influence comes responsibility. Is part of that responsibility to be polite? It seems that most posters here who were upset by the review take exception to the tone of the piece more than the content. See my comments above about "stirring the pot."

[kurtisk]

Is part of that responsibility to be polite?

To me? Kinda. I mean it's The Globe And Mail, which I love dearly, and rarely do you see that kind of tone anywhere in it's pages. I dunno, being an industry guy or not, I think criticism is an excellent thing, I just don't like it when people are unnecessarily harsh, in any arena really. Is it her right? Totally. It's simply something that doesn't work for me, and obviously many others here. I think there's something to be said for civility, wittiness, criticism and the like without being just plain mean.

Interesting dialogue here, us all articulating what we want and don't want to see in a restaurant review. All of it valid, all of it fair.

k.

[jamiemaw]

I think that the same essential rules of the road apply here as they do for so-called professional critics or reviewers.

Thou Shalt Not:

1. Rant without explanation;

2. Heap praise without explanation;

3. Make flamboyantly emotional statements as if they were fact;

4. Inflict personal vendettas on a wider audience;

5. Judge a restaurant by the relative attractiveness (i.e. movie-idol looks or Cactus Club navel-gazing moments) of its personnel;

6. Be anything less than honest;

7. Forget one’s shoes.

Edited October 16, 2005 by jamiemaw (log)

[*Deborah*]

I suppose, yes, the perceived "snap for snap's sake" tone gets on my nerves, particularly, as Kurtis notes, in the Globe and Mail. (Blaming the server for bringing the wine you specifically asked for, which doesn't work well with the dish? Pardon?? I can only, cringeing, imagine the comments that would have appeared if the server had tried any harder to discourage her from her chosen varietal.)

Of course, the G&M's "Join the Conversation" campaign is based upon raising a reaction, which, clearly, they are doing

Normally I simply vote by not reading Ms. Gill's column at all, which is probably best for my blood pressure (the "crap" comment went beyond the pale for me, for a food review). I suppose that the intelligent response is to write the editor, though.

Yes, Ms. Gill can consider the pot stirred, but there's a great deal of distaste at the contents, and it hasn't raised my opinion of either her or her publication one whit.

[Mooshmouse]

7. Forget one’s shoes.

←

Especially if they're either Manolos or Jimmy Choos.

[bigdaddy]

Haven't read this article of Ms.Gill's, but I do tend to notice that her most scathing reviews seem to be reserved for the "big" operations (like Diva & Watermark) where (despite her "influence") there is little chance that she can/will destroy the business. I don't remember her making those sort of comments about any small restaurant that could literally be ruined by such a review.

Just an observation and possibly part of the rationalization...

[seanw]

"with influence comes responsibility" I like that.....but perhaps too vague(for me anyway). I find Gill to be useful because of her (perceived)distance from the industry, 'punters' perspective' so to speak. The actual content seemed fair enough as far as the Diva review was concerned UNLESS the dining partner & Gill lied about their reaction-but that would be absurd considering her position. So do people take exception to the publication of the free thoughts & opinions of somebody hired for that very purpose? Has Gill panned all the restaurants she has visited?Perhaps in this instance she had markedly higher expectations(which would be the case if i should dine their too!) & those expectations were not met so what!

Really with PR being somewhat pervasive in the higher echelons of fine dining(yawn, yawn i know) perhaps such reviews/reviewers are essential components in the dynamic scene here to provide some form of check to the generated propaganda. I see a more visibly detached press as an encouraging trend for the consumer, just need to ensure that the resume can back it up! and such faith takes a while to establish as egullet proves. It will be interesting to see how Diva responds to the criticism. I find it perplexing that a number of people want to somehow gag/edit/reform Gill through the channels of command- there already exists enough censure, surely the most effective response is to not buy the paper & allow those who do read her reviews to do so unadulterated.

cheers

[Jeffy Boy]

If you'd like to put Ms Gill's credibility into some perspective, check out her (official, I think) bio here.

Aside from apparently lacking any formal education or experience in the food or hospitality industry, her "career highlights" are identified as two penned articles:

Discovering Celebrities in Compromising Positions: Photographer Takes a Close-Up in Bathroom; and

Tycoon Tries Trick-or-Treating Among the Naked and the Fed.

[Feedbag]

"Sharp-eyed readers" might also notice Jamie hasn't

challenged that "enhanced experience" that Van Mag and

WL enjoy. What's that all about? Reference to contra deals,

per chance?

Secondly, the "snifter" in the biz relayed that Gill

was "drunk", which she often is. Libellous?

[McTee]

For those who have not read the review, here is the link.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/Art...tertainment/Idx

[chrisstearns]

Discovering Celebrities in Compromising Positions: Photographer Takes a Close-Up in Bathroom; and

Tycoon Tries Trick-or-Treating Among the Naked and the Fed. 

←

For those who didn't bother to check, those articles are both from '98, and so is the bio, when Gill was billed as an "Entertainment Gossip" reporter.

Funny, sure, but out of date. Gill started writing food reviews for the Globe in the summer of '02, if memory serves, filling in for Joanne Kates during a vacation.

[Jeffy Boy]

Whats the big deal about credibility, she got the job, and is doing it.

She chose to review places from the customer perspective, then would you want to scrutinize your customers credibility also.

I think her background is very relevant to how I interpret her critique. Her "qualifications" are no better than mine, and I've been eating food for about a decade longer than she has.

Edited October 16, 2005 by Jeffy Boy (log)

[bigdaddy]

For me, the most revealing/damaging part of the review is the observation that there were barely a dozen regular (as in "not on assignment") customers in the room at 7:30 on a Friday night (despite the season). If true, that should be getting someone's attention even more than a critic's opinion of the food on any given occasion!

[*Deborah*]

"with influence comes responsibility" I like that.....but perhaps too vague(for me anyway). I find Gill to be useful because of her (perceived)distance from the industry, 'punters' perspective' so to speak. The actual content seemed fair enough as far as the Diva review was concerned UNLESS the dining partner & Gill lied about their reaction-but that would be absurd considering her position. So do people take exception to the publication of the free thoughts & opinions of somebody hired for that very purpose? Has Gill panned all the restaurants she has visited?Perhaps in this instance she had markedly higher expectations(which would be the case if i should dine their too!) & those expectations were not met so what!

            Really with PR being somewhat pervasive in the higher echelons of fine dining(yawn, yawn i know) perhaps such reviews/reviewers are essential components in the dynamic scene here to provide some form of check to the generated propaganda. I see a more visibly detached press as an encouraging trend for the consumer, just need to ensure that the resume can back it up! and such faith takes a while to establish as egullet proves. It will be interesting to see how Diva responds to the criticism. I find it perplexing that a number of people want to somehow gag/edit/reform Gill through the channels of command- there already exists enough censure, surely the most effective response is to not buy the paper & allow those who do read her reviews to do so unadulterated.

    cheers

←

I expect a certain tone and level of discourse in the Globe and Mail. Talking about the "crap" coming out of a kitchen, taking the martyrish and self-congratulating high road upon the offer of a comped meal, and the tone, in general, of the snaps among the more calm commentary, I might not be surprised to see in another publication or in another medium.

There are plenty of places where informal, colourful and colloquial language and tone are normal.

Until now, I had not considered "The Nation's Newspaper" to be among them.

And I don't plan on adulterating anyone, whether or not they enjoy reading Ms. Gill.

[jamiemaw]

And I don't plan on adulterating anyone, whether or not they enjoy reading Ms. Gill.

←

Not over your shoulder, I trust.

[seanw]

Deb,

Sorry for the misunderstanding, i of course was referring to the content not the people. With all due respect if anybody is taking the high road, it is yourself not Gill. "The Nation's National Newspaper" according to yourself is not the proper medium for Gill's critique, the editor & a number of people(myself included) would probably disagree.

I find that Gill has made the concious decision to distance herself from the industry- what i believe you describe in part as "taking the martyrish(?) & self congratulating high road"(please correct if misunderstood). Gill is merely elaborating on the rules she has devised for approaching reviews. I appreciate & respect that, although only time will reveal how credible this approach is, but a good start nonetheless.

I used to enjoy the reviews of J. Meades, but an education in the classics was helpful to fully understand the whole content(Rushdie-ish ) . Really a thesaurus is not essential to restaurant reviewing, i value honesty & integrity more. Let's be honest there is little difference between describing something as yummy(a favourite of Robin Mines) or crap. Mr Maw is certainly more effective with constructive criticism here & is something that Gill could look into if she is interested in improving the dining experience generally(but is that her job??). Diva got caught with it's pants down(excuse pun), unless Coinoisseur was a member of the 10 who dined that evening then his take on Gill's review reveals nada.

[Andrew Morrison]

I've had a flood of PM's and e-mails over the last 24 hours, some of them lambasting me for calling out a fellow critic. Trust me, I took no pleasure in doing it! Chances are I'll likely see some trouble coming my way very soon (like a glass of white zin in my face).

I should admit that what I wrote on page 1 of this thread was a heavily edited and "cleaned up" letter to the Globe's editor. When I read her review, I was aghast and then quite angry. There was no intended malice in what I wrote, and though it reads as the product of shock, I mean Ms. Gill nothing but the best. Like her or not, she isn't going anywhere. She gives good copy.

That being said, there is some serious venom for Gill right now in Vancouver's restaurant community. I went out to several restaurants yesterday, and wow...she is about as well-received as a malarial gnat on a gnu back. Though it's doubtful a chef with balls will pull a Gord Ramsey the next time she walks in (throw her out unceremoniously), it just goes to show you the depth and reach of the Globe's circulation. My point? Waiters, bartenders, chefs et al might recognize a load of crap when they read it, but the majority of readers won't. This was what pissed me off, nothing more. The writing is great, but I take exception at the flippant methodology (especially because there are jobs at stake).

Look, I grew up in restaurants. It might be a tough business, but it's not a mean business. So when someone saunters in and starts using their bloody big megaphone to relate cruel tripe simply because it makes for copy easily wrapped in advertising, I'll call them on it. It wasn't a review. It was a murder.

I hope next Friday she does a better job.

Edited October 17, 2005 by editor@waiterblog (log)

[chrisstearns]

For some reason, I didn't see Mooshmouse's post #53 until after I posted my reply (#54).

Just to be clear, I was using "amateur" to connote non-professional or non-paid, not as "hack." There was no "deeming" involved. As I already said I happily consider myself an amateur as well--that is to say, a non-paid enthusiast.

To eat out because you love food is the best of all possible reasons! When you say that "we are not vitriolic; on the contrary, I find us to be reasonable, intelligent adults who are rather measured and honest with our remarks." I agree. Did I imply otherwise? (I didn't intend to.)

That "the professionals write the reviews, but the amateurs' money pays the bills" is true. This is why I like the idea of a consumerist slant to restaurant reviews--I think it serves as a good companion (and sometime counterpoint) to the "foodie" style (for lack of a better term) of review. A different viewpoint is expressed--one that I think is closer to the eGullet viewpoint.

Now tone, on the other hand...

[kontemporary]

For some reason, I didn't see Mooshmouse's post #53 until after I posted my reply (#54).

Just to be clear, I was using "amateur" to connote non-professional or non-paid, not as "hack." There was no "deeming" involved. As I already said I happily consider myself an amateur as well--that is to say, a non-paid enthusiast.

To eat out because you love food is the best of all possible reasons! When you say that "we are not vitriolic; on the contrary, I find us to be reasonable, intelligent adults who are rather measured and honest with our remarks."  I agree. Did I imply otherwise? (I didn't intend to.)

That "the professionals write the reviews, but the amateurs' money pays the bills" is true. This is why I like the idea of a consumerist slant to restaurant reviews--I think it serves as a good companion (and sometime counterpoint) to the "foodie" style (for lack of a better term) of review. A different viewpoint is expressed--one that I think is closer to the eGullet viewpoint.

Now tone, on the other hand...

←

Excellent post - I have to wholeheartedly agree. I often find myself not just anticipating reviews from restaurant critics in the paper, but on "amateur" media as well - food blogs, eGullet reviews, etc. There are always different viewpoints, different stances, and different slants.

Even to a certain extent "eGullet" seems too "professional". I find myself often trying to think of what the average Joe thinks of restaurants such as West. It's definitely not a surprise to see many people believing that West is not worth it for the money, or that the food wasn't great for them. You can see it on amateur review sites where the public is encouraged to "submit a review." And of course, there is always a wide range of opinion. Some people say Cactus Club is top-notch, some people say Blue Water Cafe has bad seafood.

And of course, it's best to be open to the all the opinions out there.. just don't forget to form your own personally.

[*Deborah*]

Deb,

        Sorry for the misunderstanding, i of course was referring to the content not the people. With all due respect if anybody is taking the high road, it is yourself not Gill. "The Nation's National Newspaper" according to yourself is not the proper medium for Gill's critique, the editor & a number of people(myself included) would probably disagree.

        I find that Gill has made the concious decision to distance herself from the industry- what i believe you describe in part as "taking the martyrish(?) & self congratulating high road"(please correct if misunderstood). Gill is merely elaborating on the rules she has devised for approaching reviews. I appreciate & respect that, although only time will reveal how credible this approach is, but a good start nonetheless.

←

The self-congratulatory high road to which I referred:

This isn't the first time I've been recognized and offered a complimentary meal. And though it's common practice in Vancouver for critics to accept them, it is certainly not something I'll abide. If I don't pay for a meal, I won't review it.

She could say that her practice is to pay for her meals. Hyperbole, thy name is Gill.

I also just noticed that she referred disparagingly to "thin consommé"...perhaps she expected it to be jellied?

***

We will have to agree to disagree on the appropriate amount of snark for a restaurant review in the Globe and Mail. I don't think anything needs to have been sugar-coated, misrepresented, or lied about, but I think that her catty tone would be more appropriate in another publication...

That would explain why I am not the editor of the Globe and Mail.

[Beychevelle]

While Ms. Gill's review wasn't consistent with my recent experiences at Diva (admittedly only for business lunches, all of which have been good, though not mind-blowing), as a consumer I was happy to see a review that dares to criticize.

Most "reviewers"in this city are little more than cheerleaders for their pals'endeavours, or worse, hyping restaurants that appear to reciprocate by buying ad space. I've given up relying on any recommendation from our local media so-called reviewers.

Most troubling is that this thread has degenerated into character assasination of Ms Gill, as opposed to meaningful rebuttal.

Bravo to the Globe for daring to ruffle feathers.

Edited October 17, 2005 by Beychevelle (log)

[canucklehead]

That "the professionals write the reviews, but the amateurs' money pays the bills" is true. This is why I like the idea of a consumerist slant to restaurant reviews--I think it serves as a good companion (and sometime counterpoint) to the "foodie" style (for lack of a better term) of review. A different viewpoint is expressed--one that I think is closer to the eGullet viewpoint.

Now tone, on the other hand...

←

I agree - I think that the consumer focused POV is a good one. I know that many have criticized her single dining experience review. But that is how most of us eat. I won't go back to a place that I have had a bad experience - even if others have had a good meals. There are too many places and too few dining dollars to do otherwise.

But - I also agree that the tone of the review may not have been so hot. If you read the review - there really is'nt very much being said - just alot of snarky complaining. I think that for me - it was'nt a useful review and not really great copy - just came off kind of dumb.

Look, I grew up in restaurants. It might be a tough business, but it's not a mean business. So when someone saunters in and starts using their bloody big megaphone to relate cruel tripe simply because it makes for copy easily wrapped in advertising, I'll call them on it. It wasn't a review. It was a murder.

Well said dude.