Plenty of opinions about Guy Fieri-Pete Wells royal rumble have been circulating over the past couple of days, including our own. One of the more practical assessments of the scathing review comes from J.M. Hirsch in the Washington Post, who notes that it probably won’t have as negative of an impact as you might think. That’s because the sheer negativity will gain the Food Network host sympathy points among fans and contrarians.
In a fight where the critic is seen “beating up on the blue-collar guy who just loves him a good feed of beer and wings,” Hirsch believes that the response to the review will allow Fieri to make like “Marilyn Hagerty [who] benefited from the equally viral good review she gave to an Olive Garden restaurant in North Dakota earlier this year.”
Hirsch sees the New York Times critic taking a path much traveled when he listed 51 rhetorical questions that iterated how he loathed his experience at Guy’s place. Bon Appétit files this under the “The Fish in a Barrel” genre of reviews—”almost purely an exercise in rhetorical abuse, written for the entertainment of the discerning reader.”
Still, Hirsch doesn’t support the idea of not reviewing the restaurant, because “to accept those arguments is to accept that the food served to Average Joes and Janes isn’t worthy of criticism, and that it shouldn’t be held to higher standards.”
[via The Washington Post]