TDG: Introducing The Chocolate Curmudgeon

[ranitidine]

I read the excerpts in Klc's piece and I don't see what's so terrible about them. What's wrong with noting that people who can afford to pay a dollar for three ears of corn may very well be elititists or that a city where GW Bush, Dicks Cheney and Armey, Donald Rumsfeld, Bill Frist and Dennis Hastert are the leading celebrities may have second rate food also?

[Steve Plotnicki]

Yes, I see two therapists each week. Dr. Loosen and Dr. Thanish who both make a fortune from me. But now I have worked out a deal with Loosen where after every 12 visits I get one for free. Thanish just gives me 10% off after 12 visits.

But actually I clicked the link. It was easy. You just move your curser over the words and click. Presto. It took me to that nasty article. I also actually started to read the Dave the Cook article last week but lost interest a few paragraphs in. I also once started to read Ivan's article on Blue Hill but I lost interest there as well. I haven't figured out how to program my computer to skip the loading pages and I scroll through both load pages each time I log on. So I'm stuck noticing the articles in the process. But I'm waiting for you to publish an article that I'm actually interested in. But then again, if I hadn't heard of Regina Schrambling until this thread (in fact I didn't even hear of her until somebody emailed me about this thread,) you are going to have a hard time getting my attention at the Daily Gullet.

[awbrig]

[tommy]

i have a flashing avatar so i can quickly go to my own posts without reading everyone else's mindless drivel. the bulldozer approach, but very effective.

[Suzanne F]

From the eGullet User Agreement:

Defamation

You agree that what you post is true to the best of your knowledge. If you make factual statements, you represent that you have confirmed their truth. Statements of opinion are, of course, unrestricted, provided they comply with the rest of this policy.

Perhaps the most common example on eGullet is the claim a user suffered food poisoning or similar symptoms from food consumed at the restaurant discussed on the site. This is a serious charge, and if you are not in possession of sufficient evidence to support it you may be defaming the restaurant in question. Though we allow wide latitude in expression of opinion, a claim of food poisoning is not a statement of opinion -- it is a statement of fact. The law in the United States (as well as most free countries) makes a clear distinction between statements of opinion (which are generally permissible regardless of their rightness or wrongness) and statements of fact (which can be considered defamatory and therefore subject to penalties if they are untrue or unproven). We can't allow potentially defamatory statements to be made on eGullet, for our own protection and yours. So unless you are in possession of certified medical proof that your symptoms are without a doubt the direct result of eating at a particular restaurant, don't say it. Don't even suggest it.

Likewise, if you say, "I heard a rumor that restaurant X is closing," you may be defaming that restaurant. It doesn't matter that someone else told you the rumor. You're the one spreading it. Before you spread a rumor, you have to ascertain its truth or likelihood -- otherwise you become responsible.

So which parts of this apply?

[Jinmyo]

Hm. Suzanne, it was an opinion piece.

[Matthew Grant]

I haven't figured out how to program my computer to skip the loading pages and I scroll through both load pages each time I log on. So I'm stuck noticing the articles in the process.

http://forums.egullet.org

[masterful]

You agree that what you post is true to the best of your knowledge. If you make factual statements, you represent that you have confirmed their truth. Statements of opinion are, of course, unrestricted, provided they comply with the rest of this policy.

Well it seems that the person who made this statement

Man, your therapist must be making serious FU money

would be in violation of the defamation portion of the user agreement if he didn't have any first hand knowledge or couldn't confirm it.

[ronfland]

Coming from the performing arts world, this thread strikes a familiar chord (no pun intended...really) in my heart. The beauty (or the ugliness) of both food writing and performance criticism is that it is totally a matter of taste, and does not necessarily have with it the moral imperative to edify. A column/piece that is entertaining (regardless of the perspective) is equally as valuable as one that is educative in my mind - depending on how the piece in question is presented.

In matters such as these, no one can ever really be sure that the author has the "qualifications" to pen their work (whatever qualification means). If passionately interested, the most one can do is sample the work reviewed to determine agreement/disagreement with the author (in this case, checking the website). In the arts, when our students reach the stage of their career in which they may be reviewed, teachers caution them that if they want to believe the good, they MUST believe the bad as well - so better to believe none of it. Reviewers too should be taught that whether through e-zines or in "letters to the editor", that their work too can be "reviewed". One need not do anything (right or wrong) to warrant critique.

For either food writing or performance criticism, there is really no reason for it to be done other than the enjoyment (or "potential" edification) of the reader. There are few, if any, critics or restaurant reviewers writing columns who actually effect in any way patronage in that which they review - critics no longer close shows, reviewers no longer close restaurants. Yet, articles abound for the perusal of those interested enough to read.

I enjoyed Mr. Klc's piece, and despite how he felt about her, I checked her website (and found that I agree with him). I doubt seriously that his piece will end her career. Is there a bigger moral question here (like "Is this e-gullet?")? NO. I also enjoyed Suzanne's piece on The Professional Chef. Was there any reason to submit this to e-gullet? Again, no. Anybody with two neurons bouncing knows that book is not for a novice cook (the title should clue the reader in, despite the pandering to home cooks in the introduction), and her piece hardly counts as a "review" per se. However, the premise was hilarious, and I'm sure many readers share my fondness for the piece.

I am aware that I'm a newbie, and probably not have written this much, but the last thing I want to see on this site is any of the contributors thinking "Is this e-gullet?" I love the no-holds-barred articles and discussions. I love the fact that Mr. Klc could write that brazen piece and subsequently take the heat of the colorful debate that ensued. I also love the fact that when called on to be informative, a man of his demostrable skill and career achievement will participate in this forum on all levels. I am sure that this is the case with many of the participants here. Moralizing on the state or identity of e-gullet in light of one "curmudgeonly" article is, if I may say so, sorely mis-spent. Is this piece insulting (or in any other way damaging) to any of the participants here (savvy or not)? I think not.

[Steve Klc]

oh, the bad boy in public.

What's important is is the article right? that will help determine whether it's appropriate

Steve P. has never heard of her before and g.johnson doesn't recall any of her articles. I look forward to you catching up if you're so motivated.

Suzanne--you've gone from "the most mean-spirited, unnecessary piece of vitriol " to "Okay, lots of evidence of how she is "gratuitously bitchy" and other similar descriptions. And references to other negative reactions (here and elsewhere) to her "bitching and moaning." All the research seemed focused on digging up more dirt on her.

But never a mention of why this Schrambling-bashing is necessary. Just because she is what she is? Surely she must have done SOMETHING besides be her incompetent, nasty self to deserve such lambasting. And surely there are plenty of other targets out there, with skills as limited and attitudes as bad"

So Suzanne--and those of you "as always" with Suzanne, glad to have you move forward as well. We're left with why.

Why? For that, you'd have to realize who we're talking about here--a very influential, very powerful, #2 person as deputy editor and feature writer for the most significant, most widely read food section in the most significant food city in the US. That's who. There are certainly food writers--as there are chefs--with widely varying skills and attitudes and these are discussed on a daily basis at eGullet--by everyone posting on this thread. And as I said earlier--there's no one that I know of with that kind of profile, with that kind of obvious self regard, who has just debuted a website of their own with a blog and who also screws up, gets the stories just a little bit wrong or is repeatedly hostile toward their subjects as much as she does.

g.johnson still needs more, needs to be convinced of the evidence, after a few posts we get it. What I don't get is if you've followed like Suzanne and made up your own mind on something you might have read. It comes off looking vindictive only if you aren't willing to read and follow like Suzanne and engage on the merits g. Come back with your reading of what's been linked to or discussed and engage on how you feel this has been misread. I look forward to it.

See if you see what Suzanne found. Plus, why is it so hard to grasp that one of many ideas for the webzine--and something which distinguishes this media format vs. others--is to generate discussion HERE and to interact? If you want the seriousness of the Nation or the Economist, well, you're going to be disappointed.

Still we're left with why bash? Do you have such short memories? Why did Amanda see fit bash Emeril? Why did Amanda and Steingarten bash Bourdain and his book on Slate? Why ask why?

Dig into the examples referenced here--and ask if I and all the others who have posted about this on various threads are right in feeling this way about Schrambling? The thing with Schrambling is I think we've traced a pattern of behavior worth commenting upon that's coupled with very high self regard.

As I wrote earlier, I'm hard pressed to think of anyone else with this profile that could be questioned like this. That's why.

[Steve Plotnicki]

Steve Klc - I feel that both you and Ronfland miss the point. For all I care, you can pick away at her scabs until she bleeds to death. But it isn't your intent people are objecting to, it's your tone. But I made my point on this topic about as clearly as can be. This is the last you will hear from me about it. I'm going back to not knowing who she is.

[maggiethecat]

But it isn't your intent people are objecting to, it's your tone.

Thanks, Steve. That is exactly it. I trust (other) Steve in his perceptions and point of view. But the tone? Nah, you have to be Bourdain to pull that off.

Not Steve Klc's fault, necessarily. There must have been some editorial review. The mean-spirited tone detracted from the substance.

[stefanyb]

The mean-spirited tone detracted from the substance.

What exactly was the substance other than trashing the woman? Sounds a lot like sour grapes to me. Didn't she occupy a position any one of the blue and red people here would give their eyeteeth for?

[mamster]

As Shaw mentioned, I copy-edited this piece, but I changed very little; Klc is a pro who writes clean copy.

I never particularly noticed Schrambling either, although I remember that Deborah Madison review. Why didn't I cry foul? Because I think it's to TDG's credit that we let our columnists get away with this sort of thing. It's not libelous, it's a curmudgeonly opinion piece, and it doesn't reflect on all of us.

I'm not going to defend TDG further, since I obviously have a vested interest. But c'mon, folks, did anyone get this far without realizing that Klc doesn't pull punches?

[Rail Paul]

In general, I haven't found Schrambling's pieces worth reading, so I don't read them anymore. In contrast, I like Hesser's pieces, and have mentioned that on several occasions here. Her pairings article yesterday was first rate. First person, detailed, passionate.

So, it took Steve Klc 900 more words to say what I said in the first sentence. OK, and he gave more reasons. If Schrambling wants equal time, she's got it, and I'll probably read it here.

We return to our normal programing at this time....

[Steve Plotnicki]

I never particularly noticed Schrambling either, although I remember that Deborah Madison review. Why didn't I cry foul? Because I think it's to TDG's credit that we let our columnists get away with this sort of thing. It's not libelous, it's a curmudgeonly opinion piece, and it doesn't reflect on all of us.

Let me come out of retirement here for a moment. This reasoning, while well intended, reminds me of the arguments my recording artists used to make about which songs should go on recordings. They used to want to put the songs they liked best on the CD's. But I used to remind them that it wasn't that easy, that if the audience didn't like their choices, then we both wouldn't be able to afford to eat at places like Trio and then post about them on eGullet. So they would compromise. And I think the next time, based on the negative reaction you are getting now, maybe you should consider the audience and what they might find objectionable. Okay, I'm going back to my shuffleboard game now.

[Robert Nesta Marley]

I haven't figured out how to program my computer to skip the loading pages and I scroll through both load pages each time I log on. So I'm stuck noticing the articles in the process.

http://forums.egullet.org

thanks, matthew grant.

[ronfland]

Nah, you have to be Bourdain to pull that off.

Sorry - I don't buy this for a moment. You don't have to be "anybody" to pull this off. The proof is in the pudding (again - no pun intended) - look at the amount of discussion on this article already taken place (not to mention all the visits to the "witch's" website). THAT my friends is what this is all about.

Can any of you for a minute deny that bitchiness (curmudgeon-ness if there is such a thing) is entertaining on a certain level - especially when its substantiated? Many of the bitchiest critiques/reviews have sent audiences/diners SCURRYING to the source of the vitriol - often at great expense (intelletual/financial or otherwise).

What, a couple of books and a tv show qualify Bourdain for being a bastard (pardon me AB - but I love your stuff) and a score of international pastry prizes, a website that probably makes Torres wet, and other honors don't entitle Mr. Klc? No - I'm not buying it for a moment.

BTW - can someone give me an IPA/phonetic description as to how to prounounce Mr. Klc's name accurately?

[ranitidine]

"gratuitously bitchy", "bitching and moaning"--Would Mr. Klc use such phrases in commenting on a male food writer?

[Steve Plotnicki]

You pronounce it like Kelsh. Yeah I know.

Your assessment would be correct if most people felt like you. But if you read through this thread, it seems clear they don't. So what potentially stands to happen by staying this course, is you can alienate potential readers. That's why the argument you are making is great for graduate school, but not such a great argument for success in in the business world.

[Jason Perlow]

"gratuitously bitchy", "bitching and moaning"--Would Mr. Klc use such phrases in commenting on a male food writer?

Yes. He describes me as this way all the time.

[Steve Plotnicki]

What, a couple of books and a tv show qualify Bourdain for being a bastard (pardon me AB - but I love your stuff)

Wait I missed this. But I don't think of Bourdain as a bastard. With all his mishegas, in the worst moments he sounds like a sweet guy. Crazy maniacal yes, but not mean-spirited. This came across as mean-spirited. Now maybe Steve didn't mean it that way, but it reads that way. If people thought AB was a mean-spirited guy, I don't think people would like his books very much.

[ronfland]

That's why the argument you are making is great for graduate school, but not such a great argument for success in in the business world.

Graduate school long behind me I can assure you - e-gullet ain't the business world.

[ronfland]

Wait I missed this. But I don't think of Bourdain as a bastard. With all his mishegas, in the worst moments he sounds like a sweet guy. Crazy maniacal yes, but not mean-spirited. This came across as mean-spirited. Now maybe Steve didn't mean it that way, but it reads that way. If people thought AB was a mean-spirited guy, I don't think people would like his books very much.

Did you miss all the discussion of Emeril and Bobby Flay and the derision of tv celebrity? Obviously, the readers of e-gullet didn't - hence why there were those questions during his Q&A as to how he feels now that he is indeed one of those "celebrity chefs".

The bottom line is - you don't have to do ANYTHING to have the right to criticize (although it is nice if you do) . You have to know something to substantiate it successfully. You have to know even more to discuss it upon grilling.

If you dismiss Mr. Klc's right to his opinion (regardless of the tone - and no, I don't think it was mean-spirited, merely rough) you might as well shut e-gullet down, and all the posts about the quality of a particular knife and the fab meals at Blue Hill from people who may or may not know about either, with it.

Edited February 21, 2003 by ronfland (log)

[Steve Plotnicki]

If you dismiss Mr. Klc's right to his opinion (regardless of the tone - and no, I don't think it was mean-spirited, merely rough)

You must be getting desperate because I don't think anyone on this thread said Steve isn't entitled to his opinion. What they did object to was the way he stated it.

There is no right or wrong here. Only whether you gain or lose readers. And if they lose, they are wrong in spite of the umpteen arguments you can make that say they are right. Put your finger up and check which way the wind is blowing here.

Okay, time to go to my earlybird dinner.