Jump to content

Welcome to the eG Forums!

These forums are a service of the Society for Culinary Arts & Letters, a 501c3 nonprofit organization dedicated to advancement of the culinary arts. Anyone can read the forums, however if you would like to participate in active discussions please join the society.



  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
1 reply to this topic

#1 Jinmyo

  • participating member
  • 9,879 posts
  • Location:Ottawa, ON, Canada

Posted 24 May 2002 - 07:56 AM

We've had many discussions about what a food writer did or did not know about a chef or a dish before writing their piece.

What kind of research would you as a writer tend to do? As an editor, how knowledgeable do you expect writers to be? As a reader?
"I've caught you Richardson, stuffing spit-backs in your vile maw. 'Let tomorrow's omelets go empty,' is that your fucking attitude?" -E. B. Farnum

"Behold, I teach you the ubermunch. The ubermunch is the meaning of the earth. Let your will say: the ubermunch shall be the meaning of the earth!" -Fritzy N.

"It's okay to like celery more than yogurt, but it's not okay to think that batter is yogurt."

Serving fine and fresh gratuitous comments since Oct 5 2001, 09:53 PM

#2 Jeanne McManus

Jeanne McManus
  • legacy participant
  • 43 posts

Posted 03 June 2002 - 02:51 PM

Are you talking about restaurant reviewers? I think they should learn as much about a chef or a dish as they can to convey their  opinion of it to a reader, which I guess means I don’t think they have to know if the chef trained with Paul Bocuse.

But as for any type of journalist, and his or her reporting, I think they should know as much as they possibly can before they even talk to a chef. We’re always surprised when we go to interview book authors and they’re surprised that we’ve read their book!