Diva Review

[Andrew Morrison]

Bravo to the Globe for daring to ruffle feathers.

edited for the sake of restraint

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

[*Deborah*]

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.

←

I hope that you do not refer to me as far as character assassination: I am criticising the writing, not the person. And since the writing is published in a newspaper, I am by extension criticising the editor. If I have not made that clear, I do apologise.

If you want to see character assassination, I will refer you to the Doug Psaltis thread in Food and Media.

[seanw]

Andrew,

Ramsay ejected Gill(AA not A) because of what he wrote about his establishment, in case you are confused(i dont think Ramsay is in the habit of ejecting people based on career choice! not yet anyway).

Can you explain what you mean by 'flippant methodology' & how this endangers jobs. Such a shame about all that venom though, i wouldnt want Alexandra to lose her job

Edited October 17, 2005 by seanw (log)

[transfattyacid]

Andrew,

    Ramsay ejected Gill(AA not A) because of what he wrote about his establishment,

←

Correct me if i`m wrong, but i thought Mr Ramsey threw AA Gill out because he was making personal attacks on the chefs character, not about his work.

[seanw]

Yep the old 'failed footballer' tag (which happened to be quite true!)

[chrisstearns]

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.

←

True, many consumers form their opinion of a restaurant based on just one visit (I know I have). That's the diner's right, and it is a restaurant's job to win over each and every table or risk losing their future business.

But a restaurant reviewer must work from a larger sample size. A reviewer is in a position of some responsibility (there's that word again). Not because a negative review can result in a significant loss of business for a restaurant. I think a reviewer has the same responsibility of any journalist: to get their facts straight. This means sampling many dishes, over repeat visits, to fairly and accurately gauge the sum quality of the restaurant.

And if it's bad, fine, they will receive a deservedly bad review.

[kontemporary]

If there had to be a thread of the year on eGullet, I'd have to say it is this one right here. I've never seen so many well expressed criticism, opinions, arguments/rebuttals and the likes in the three pages so far.

I find it great how much controversy is coming up over the DIVA review... now I'm even wondering if it was Ms. Gill's intention to do so

[transfattyacid]

If there had to be a thread of the year on eGullet, I'd have to say it is this one right here.

Au Contraire. its getting very boring.

[seanw]

Chris,

Now you are contradicting yourself. Earlier you say that you appreciate Gill's consumer approach now it's her responsibility to behave like other reviewer's in the city. Can she not get her facts straight on the particular night she dined their? which way do you want it?

[kontemporary]

If there had to be a thread of the year on eGullet, I'd have to say it is this one right here.

Au Contraire. its getting very boring.

←

But threads that don't get boring tend to be ongoing, and in that case, turns repetitive. And also 10 pages long.

[chrisstearns]

Chris,

          Now you are contradicting yourself. Earlier you say that you appreciate Gill's consumer approach now it's her responsibility to behave like other reviewer's in the city. Can she not get her facts straight on the particular night she dined their? which way do you want it?

←

I don't think I've contradicted myself at all.

I alluded to my concern about Gill possibly only making one visit in my very first post (#27). Actually, I put a question mark then because I don't know for a fact that she made only one visit. The review reads that way, though, and it seems others have made the same assumption.

A consumerist perspective isn't synonymous with "one visit." You can write from the viewpoint of a consumer (approach the restaurant like an everyday diner, with all their attendant concerns) while practicing responsible journalism, making multiple visits, and checking facts. Gill did it in her Watermark review (not to dredge that up again, but it's a germane example).

I think the danger of visiting on an atypically bad night--and reaching wrong conclusions--is too great to risk only going once. Opinionated? Fantastic. But it's important to be thorough, and accurate.

I hope my point is clear.

[MightyMrQ]

After reading Ms Gill's review I felt like I just had a really bad meal at a restaurant that I really liked.

So what was the story?

maybe the chef wasn't working that night (who is this Morrow person?)

maybe fresh product wasn't available (deadline approaching?)

maybe old recipes were attempting to be reworked (gossip columnist?)

maybe the room was too cold (...)

Who knows?

I'm not going to let one bad experience dissuade me from dining again at Chez Gill. Two experiences, likely.

That said, I'm sure as hell going to book a table at Diva and let Ray Henry, Damon Campbell, Annette Rawlinson et. al. prove to me that, contrary to the shrill review of a diva at the met, it's still one of the best meals in town.

[Andrew Morrison]

seanw

I doubt she'd lose a job over criticism on an internet board, almighty though this site may be. Besides, everyone loves her column, so a few "Hey, that's not fair" type of reactions are piss in a mud puddle. None of this really matters. Remember, we're a backwater.

As to the "flippant methdology": I'll quote Stearns.

I think a reviewer has the same responsibility of any journalist: to get their facts straight. This means sampling many dishes, over repeat visits, to fairly and accurately gauge the sum quality of the restaurant.

Hell, I'm a neophyte of the pre-pubescent order and no Julia Child, but all critics (even those with vernex behind their ears) know they're are playing with livelihoods when they put pen to page. I don't think Annette, Henry, Haas, or the poor sap who served these two will get canned, or even reprimanded simply because the review read...as it did. As I remarked upthread, though, these aren't the folks who patronize Diva's. Rather, it's the Globe readers. And nothing cleans out a desk in this business than the consistent lack of bums in seats.

Like the Ring (that in the darkness binds us), wielding a quill for an ad rag or a leading daily is a weighty responsibility, and in reading her review I felt she didn't appreciate or respect that responsibility. That was my gut reaction, but the truth hinges on whether or not she fairly and accurately gauged the sum quality of the restaurant. So, get back OT. Did she or didn't she?

BTW. I'm always confused by Ramsey, but in this instance I was bang on.

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

[~cayenne~]

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.

←

You couldn't have said it better.

Edited October 17, 2005 by ~cayenne~ (log)

[bigdaddy]

Considering the costs involved with multiple visits...that concept is not particularly realistic and would relegate reviewing to the largest publications only!

Can't comment on the situation today...but "in the old days" the West-Ender, for instance, did not have a "reviewer's budget" and would only send RM (Mr. Morrison's predecessor?) to a restaurant if they agreed in advance for the reviewer to be their "guest for the evening".

I've always considered restaurant reviews to be no different from theatre reviews.

One bad review may be a piss-off...but a worthwhile production will find an audience.

[~cayenne~]

"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

←

Very true, and I'm very interested to see.

Edited October 17, 2005 by ~cayenne~ (log)

[~cayenne~]

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).

←

Very, very true!

Edited October 17, 2005 by ~cayenne~ (log)

[mangez]

I find the writer too full of herself in a review that lacks in substance. Is she supposed to be a good food critic? Couldn't tell from her writing at all.

Who cares where the owner is and who greeted her, who cares if folks recognized her, who cares if she normally pays for the bill or not.

"When restaurant chef Damon Campbell is shuffled out to say hello... cynic in me wonders if he was brought out to show us that Henry (owner) wasn't in tonight."

Give be a break, what a rude and ungrateful person. Sounds like a gossip columnist than someone passionate about food.

Edited October 17, 2005 by mangez (log)

[~cayenne~]

Give  me a break, what a rude and ungrateful person.  Sounds like a gossip columnist than someone passionate about food.

←

Yes, mangez, I agree.

Edited October 17, 2005 by ~cayenne~ (log)

[sushi boy]

I've read the review several times now and here's my problem. It smells like she called the restaurant up and said "Hi, I'm Alex Gill of the Globe and Mail newspaper and I'd like to make a reservation for dinner so I can write a review"

Sure she might not have enjoyed her experience there and her review certainly reflects that, but to make a big deal about paying for the meal herself or more likely on the Globe's tab seems to be a little much as it seems - and I have no evidence than my own suspicion - that she tipped them that she was coming for dinner.

[nwyles]

If there had to be a thread of the year on eGullet, I'd have to say it is this one right here.

Au Contraire. its getting very boring.

←

agreed, boring indeed

Edited October 17, 2005 by nwyles (log)

[bigdaddy]

I've read the review several times now and here's my problem. It smells like she called the restaurant up and said "Hi, I'm Alex Gill of the Globe and Mail newspaper and I'd like to make a reservation for dinner so I can write a review"

From a restaurant point of view...I got the exact oppposite impression. It seems like she was recognized and then given special attention (dishes being sent out that weren't ordered, etc.), thereby elevating Ms. Gills expectations and the resulting annoyance level when things didn't "work" for her. Treating a reviewer like anything other than a regular customer is a risky move that, in this case, backfired. My general impression was that the hotel mishandled the situation.

Diva does bill itself as "vancouver's premier dining destination"...another questionable move that almost invites potshots.

[bigdaddy]

If there had to be a thread of the year on eGullet, I'd have to say it is this one right here.

Au Contraire. its getting very boring.

←

agreed, boring indeed

←

and yet over 3000 views in 3 days...we should all be so fortunate to be so boring...

[nwyles]

If there had to be a thread of the year on eGullet, I'd have to say it is this one right here.

Au Contraire. its getting very boring.

←

agreed, boring indeed

←

and yet over 3000 views in 3 days...we should all be so fortunate to be so boring...

←

I must admit that many of those view are mine. It is like a car wreck, as much as I try, I still can not look away. I think it is turning into an obsessive compulsive disorder. I will have to go to a twelve step program for this.

[Chef Metcalf]

I must admit that many of those view are mine. It is like a car wreck, as much as I try, I still can not look away. I think it is turning into an obsessive compulsive disorder. I will have to go to a twelve step program for this.

Records show that your disorder started on July 4th, 2003.

Edited October 17, 2005 by Chef Metcalf (log)