I started out to try to write about authors like Matthew Pearl, whose style I had discussed in this post. I wanted to make the point that sometimes style is content, so that an elaborated style and obscure words can be used to try to impress the reader with the author's knowledge and skill. I thought that the menu analogy might help to get this across. It was a bit unfair to pick on the White Dog. They do have especially elaborate names of dishes, as I knew from frequent experience with their menu, and so it was a target of opportunity. And sometimes I'm pretty sure that their menu phrases are more of a ritual flourish than a real communication of content. For example "wild caught white albacore tuna" doesn't ring true to me, since as far as I know, farm-raised tuna doesn't exist. Perhaps in this case they mean "line caught" as opposed to netted. However, I do recognize that some of the elaboration of names on the White Dog's menu is a calculated attempt to persuade their clientele that patronizing particular (often local) farmers matters, for social as well as culinary reasons. As for playfulness, I guess it's also a form of showing off, but there's a difference between playful display of real linguistic skill, which I admire; ritualized unthinking reproduction of a standard cultural patterns, which I register for what it is; and tone-deaf deployment of fancy words to try to impress me, which doesn't work. I'd characterize the White Dog's menu as an example of the second case. I'm prepared to believe that years ago, the original White Dog menu author contributed creatively to the development of the patterns, but it's pretty routine by now. The examples that I cited from Matthew Pearl's novel seem to be examples of the third type. The subject matter and the plot are interesting enough to keep me reading, but the ostentatious thesaurus-mongering makes it tough going.