'Globe & Mail' Critic Needs Enlightenment

I didn't know what the word "fey" meant before just a couple of minutes ago, and now that I do, I'm more than a little angry that a fellow writer chose to use it while critiquing a new television show.

John Doyle of The Globe & Mail was penning an article about his take on the latest food competition program on CBC - The Great Canadian Baking Show, starring Schitt's Creek star Dan Levy and British actor Julia Chan. As a fan of several Food Network shows, I am well acquainted with the format; a few people are pitted against each other in order to try and have their food deemed the absolute best by the judges and ultimately, the host or hosts. The hosts are always very peppy, filled with cheesy jokes and big smiles.

#DanLevy is no exception to this, and as the son of Canadian comedy legend Eugene Levy (and, of course, his mother, Deborah Divine), this is a man with humor in his blood. In the episode which Doyle likely reviewed, Dan Levy is cheery, friendly, and charming. He is no different than, say, John Catucci of You Gotta Eat Here! or the equally energized Guy Fieri. "Fey" is not a word that comes to mind, yet John Doyle opted to pursue that adjective when describing Levy's role as host.

In fact, Doyle wrote, "Into the judging roles defined in Britain by Mary Berry and Paul Hollywood, CBC welcomes Vancouver pastry chef Bruno Feldeisen and Montrealer Rochelle Adonis. Neither is what anyone would call a natural in the reality-TV racket. Both are a tad stiff and nervous and little wonder — at any moment, they know they might be swarmed by the feyness of Levy...."

"Swarmed?"

"Feyness?"

The last I looked, swarming was a really bad thing. Bees swarm. Gangs might swarm. Good looking guys with charm and class typically don't.

"Fey," for those who might not know (I certainly did not prior to this evening) is defined by Oxford Dictionaries as "Giving an impression of vague unworldliness or mystery," for starters. Merriam Webster defines it as "campy" or "precious," and as far as the LGBTQ community is concerned, neither definition is particularly flattering.

It appears that while offering his particular brand of acerbic criticism regarding The Great Canadian Baking Challenge, Doyle forgot that he could be acerbic without being completely derogatory. Those in the LGBTQ community have fought for years to overcome the stereotypes associated with being gay, and Doyle has only demonstrated a lack of understanding of the harm associated with the particular stereotype involving those who are gay.

For years, those television personalities in shows that were gay were shown as being very flamboyant to the point of being campy and yes, there may have been a sort of "vague unworldliness" associated with their respective characters. These sorts of representations of the LGBTQ community are unacceptable and for Doyle to use such terms when referring to Levy highlights a lack of understanding and even of ignorance that still remains even now in the 21st century.

I am not saying that Doyle should not have criticized Dan Levy's performance. I understand the need to critique, and Dan Levy indicated, via his Twitter feed, that he understood and appreciated any criticism that came his way. Certainly, not every performance is worthy of plaudits. However, it's important to note that there is a difference between offering criticism and being derogatory. The two terms aren't interchangeable and they should not be.

Words matter. Ask anyone who has been called names for any one of a number of reasons and they will certainly be able to tell you that their experiences with harmful words have taught them that words are entirely too important to not be considered during the writing process.

Perhaps John Doyle needs to be reminded of that.