This is not a thought. This is a question. After being called a foodie at family gatherings over the weekend, I have come to resent the term. But what choice do we have? Let me outline a few and try to define:
Foodie: this term is too generic. Usually, used for anyone who loves food and may be, takes photos. Given the rampant usage, it has also come to refer to someone with a mucked up cerebrum and eats compulsively. This guy does not necessarily write.
Food Reviewer: The guy who takes a few pics and says whether it tasted alright or not. A reviewer is a taste meter, to put it simply.
Food critic: You can’t be a critic unless you are knowledgeable enough to write a critique. Because, then you are only a reviewer. A critique, on the other hand, takes considerable amount of knowledge of context, origin, components, cooking methods, ingredients and must be a good researcher. I am not sure but a critic should primarily be related to a restaurant setting.
Food writer: Someone who does not fall into any of the above categories but writes about food anyway. The writings can be reviews, street food experiences, general commentary about trends or memories. A food writer can write chronicles and experiences without it being a review or a critique.
Most of us fit into one description or another better. I, for one, would choose to be seen as a food writer.
Do you think the definitions hold and which one are you?