After reading “Gordon Ramsay: The Biography”, there is one word that summarizes my feelings for the man and the book: conflicted.
The writing is straightforward, easy to read, but disconnected. The best way to describe the writing style is a novel-length newspaper article. A lot of the references are interviews from TV shows, other people, and newspaper articles. The only time I remember the book being emotional is in the last two chapters. One chapter talks about how he’s a good dad during the weekends, lets his son have junk and not tell his wife (pretty funny and cute), and the last chapter gives a summary of his most recent future in TV and how he has fought for so much. It’s nice to see this, but I feel like this should’ve been throughout the book instead of stuck at the end.
The writer has a bad habit in leading with something that puts Gordon in a bad light and adding something in the end that is supposed to put him back in the good light. For example, it says Gordon refused to be there during labor and only held his kids for a short time at the hospital. It’s not mentioned again until halfway through the book where it mentions he and his wife talked about it. Wouldn’t it make more sense to add that when first mentioned? While I do appreciate a biography that shows the good and bad of a person, the way this one’s organized paints Ramsay in a bad light.
One thing I do like is the chapter titles. Instead of plain ones like ‘childhood’ or ‘career change’, the titles humorously hint at what’s going to happen like one is named ‘Welcome to Hell’s Kitchen’, hinting at talking about Ramsay’s Hell Kitchen days.
This biography is factual and slightly inspirational, but cringy and disorganized. But if you are looking for a book to pass the time and are somewhat familiar with Ramsay, try the book out and see if you can get past the imperfections.