TDG: Introducing The Chocolate Curmudgeon

stellabella · February 21, 2003

Stella--the thing is--this isn't a post. Don't confuse the two. You don't see "arguments" that focus on issues? Seems Dave doesn't have a problem focusing on issues--he thinks I missed an ultimately even greater point but then that's what opinion pieces are wont to do--and why people who care discuss them and see where they lead.

hm... i'm "confused." of course. for a moment there i was feeling very lucid, very intelligent, very rational. i thought klc's piece was a post. no wait, i thought it was a cover story on the web zine. no, wait, no, i thought i was making the point that a cover story on the webzine should stay focused on issues, not resort to ad hominem attacks. no, wait. stop. what i thought i was saying was that even in the heat of an argument people can stay focused on issues--people can be heated and provoked and stay on issues. we always have choices about what we say. but then i got an estrogen surge, and now i'm back to being perpetually addled. :smile:

oh, i'm being sarcastic. and when it comes to bitchy.... i could make schrambling look like St. Catherine. but i'm trying SOOOO hard not to be bitchy.

dave the cook, you did make my point, better than i was able to. now it seems like we might be able to draw forth the germane, unstated or half-stated points from mklc's story and begin to discuss and clarify. now that he's got all that ranting aside, let's talk, people. why is it that someone so half-skilled and caustic is in such demand?

short answer: "bitchy" is not a skill--it's a talent. i think that's what ronfland was trying to say.

**Dave the Cook** · February 21, 2003

Ok, Stella. I'd like to start here:

What tool is used to determine whether or not a food writer is good or bad for business?

If you can be bitchier than Schrambling, why aren't you writing for the New York Times?

SobaAddict70 · February 21, 2003

I think what El Gordo means is that controversy is good for business.

And god knows that this entire SITE abounds in controversies of all stripes. :blink:

'nuff said.

SA

Fat Guy · February 21, 2003

Yes, Soba, some controversy is good for business (though I think the term "business" is being applied in a somewhat laughable way here). Which isn't to say we ever create controversy for controversy's sake. But it can be a desirable side effect.

Keep complaining, folks. We're almost at page 5.

LaurieA-B · February 21, 2003

"Rambling with Schrambling" is a poor piece because it does not accomplish its purpose. The purpose was, apparently, to show that Schrambling is a crummy writer who does not deserve her present and past prominent newspaper positions. Klc also criticized her new website. The result of Klc's piece, however, is that Schrambling has been elevated to a position of greater importance than she deserves, particularly in the minds of people who hadn't heard of her before reading this article. Her website has received a lot of publicity now, and I suspect the nastiness of Klc's article has won sympathy for Schrambling. Klc has inadvertently elevated Schrambling and dragged himself down by writing a piece that I think is unprofessional in tone. I don't understand why he would want to associate himself with such a piece. I respected Steve Klc based on the knowledge he shared on the boards, but this article does nothing to increase my respect for him.

I looked at Schrambling's website and disliked much of what I saw there. Klc quotes some of the worst examples. A reasoned criticism (yes, I know he gives reasons and supports his points, but) would have been more appropriate and useful than this venomous piece.

After reading this thread I pulled out Outlaw Cook and read Thorne's essay on Paula Wolfert, which I hadn't remembered clearly. It's beautifully written and Thorne makes his points without viciousness. He also chose a writer who was very well known and influential. I suggest that anyone else planning a hatchet job re-read this essay first.

stellabella · February 21, 2003

Ok, Stella. I'd like to start here:
What tool is used to determine whether or not a food writer is good or bad for business?
If you can be bitchier than Schrambling, why aren't you writing for the New York Times?

I'm so glad you asked!

I am not writing for the NYTimes because I am .....lazy. There--I've said it. :sad:

Seriously. Why aren't you, Dave? Why isn't Ivan? Not to betray my prejudices, or anything. There are lots of skillful writers participating here. There are lots of good writers out there, too.

The question is: do they have audiences?

There's another slant, too. My students just read The Lovely Bones in their book club. They all asked me, "Why is this book, like, so, like, popular? I mean, it's like, good and all, but it's not, like, great." I agreed with them. But it sold in part because it got some good reviews and it was promoted. Had it been a matter of spreading by word of mouth, we might not have selected it for our club.

All my friends in journalism have told me the same thing: the slant is key. Schrambling must have one--

Sandra Levine · February 21, 2003

The purpose was, apparently, to show that Schrambling is a crummy writer who does not deserve her present and past prominent newspaper positions

Ah, now I know. :blink:

**Dave the Cook** · February 21, 2003

There's another slant, too. My students just read The Lovely Bones in their book club. They all asked me, "Why is this book, like, so, like, popular? I mean, it's like, good and all, but it's not, like, great." I agreed with them. But it sold in part because it got some good reviews and it was promoted. Had it been a matter of spreading by word of mouth, we might not have selected it for our club.
All my friends in journalism have told me the same thing: the slant is key. Schrambling must have one--

Commercial success is easy to measure if you're talking about books. And it's clear, I think, that the best writers don't always sell the most. Grisham outsells Turow, for instance, though Turow is the better writer. So "slant," whatever it is, has some resonance.

But how can you apply this to newpapers? Do you think Schrambling (or Grimes, or Russ Parsons) is responsible for selling an appreciable number of papers? EGulleters don't count; even in New York there aren't enough to make a difference.

Schielke · February 21, 2003

In my opinion, this thread has diverted far from food.

Ben

Fat Guy · February 21, 2003

I suspect the nastiness of Klc's article has won sympathy for Schrambling.

I suspect you are wrong. Who here has developed sympathy for Schrambling, and why? I would just love to hear the reasons.

The Thorne-Wolfert comparison, by the way, is entirely off base. Klc is not Thorne. Schrambling is not Wolfert. And I don't just mean they're four individuals composed of different molecules. I mean there's no justification for attempting to impose the Thorne writing style on Klc and there's no meaningful basis for comparison between Schrambling and Wolfert's defects.

So Steve K didn't write the piece the way some of you would have written it. Some would no doubt have been harsher. Some would have adopted a more analytical, moderate-toned approach. Some people seem to feel on principle that the tone and/or subject matter would never be justified, so they'd have chosen a different subject altogether. I think they're wrong, but they're of course entitled to their opinions and those who have made reasoned arguments have my respect as well as, I'm sure, the respect of Steve K and all those who disagree. The people who complain about everything else on the site, and who are just continuing that pattern of complaining here, probably wouldn't have written anything anyway -- they're just complaining and helping out our business. Thanks.

Charles Smith · February 21, 2003

But how can you apply this to newpapers? Do you think Schrambling (or Grimes, or Russ Parsons) is responsible for selling an appreciable number of papers? EGulleters don't count; even in New York there aren't enough to make a difference.

At least 50% of all newspapers in a typical market (NYC is not a typical market) on any given day are sold for the ads. The major reason for the remaining 50% is germaneness to one's life in one way or another- "localness" or editorial slant, or best sports, or whatever, so when it's all broken down, no one single writer is ever responsible for a significant number of papers being sold. Comics, on the other hand, are very valuable in maintaining readership.

Wilfrid · February 21, 2003

Where else can you go where the author will engage the readers in this manner? It's unprecedented in the media.

Except in those journals and newspapers which devote much of their space for readers' letters to this kind of discussion.

Unofficial Site Pedant.

(P.S. Good thread. I suppose I'll have to read the article now.)

SobaAddict70 · February 21, 2003

No, I mean that controversy, with respect to Steve's article is good for business, at least insofar as people will pass on "word of mouth" whether for good or for ill, to people who might never have heard of e-gullet in the first place. Such people will most likely peruse Steve's article and either a) move on, perhaps dismissing the rest of the site, or more likely b) investigate the other articles and message boards. A few might become resident lurkers, and perhaps eventually, members.

The net effect would be more or less positive, at least with regard to the site's outward development, and might potentially outweigh any perceived negativity by the current membership.

SA

Liza · February 21, 2003

Where else can you go where the author will engage the readers in this manner? It's unprecedented in the media.
Except in those journals and newspapers which devote much of their space for readers' letters to this kind of discussion.

Or to nearly any author's reading.

Just helping Wilfrid.

SobaAddict70 · February 21, 2003

I just realized I'm never going to catch up to Liza's post count. :sad:

SA

Fat Guy · February 21, 2003

Where else can you go where the author will engage the readers in this manner? It's unprecedented in the media.
Except in those journals and newspapers which devote much of their space for readers' letters to this kind of discussion.

Absolutely not, Wilfrid. How about you tell me how many of these posts would have made it as letters to the editor in a publisher-controlled environment? How about you show me a single example of a print publication that devotes, in response to every single article in a given issue combined, as much space as we have already devoted to the exchange on just this one article? Show me who does this in real time, with unfettered access and comprehensive responses from the author and editors? You can do better, Wilfrid.

Liza · February 21, 2003

Oh you will, Soba. I'm slowing with age. :wink:

Wilfrid · February 21, 2003

So, her web-site's quite funny isn't it? At least, the Bites section is. She's right about Esca as well as Otto. Or have I missed something?

Now, Steve, I am not trying to do well or average or bad, I am just attempting to rein in your hyperbole. Among the background noise, side comments and gags, several members here have made points about Steve Klc's article (the tone of which gave me no trouble whatsoever, incidentally), and Steve has written three (is it four?) replies to those comments. I expect this thread could schramble on for another ten pages, but so far it is by no means out of line with the kind of debate a contentious article will attract in the pages of literary/arts and political journals. Yes, the e-format is faster and unedited, and different from print media in many ways. Is the degree of engagement between an author and his/her readers seen here unprecedented? Give me a break.

Put your trumpet down, get your nose out of the NYT, and read something serious for a change.

Edit to remove unnecessary indefinite article.

Edited February 21, 2003 by Wilfrid (log)

SobaAddict70 · February 21, 2003

Well, if anything, I'm sure we'll all hear from Regina sooner or later.

Maybe she's lurking even now... :blink:

*hums the theme music from the Twilight Zone*

SA

Wilfrid · February 21, 2003

Why doesn't someone just e-mail her at her web-site to check us out?

stellabella · February 21, 2003

shaw, i just realized that your avatar...it really scares me. you look like you could kick my *mm*.

the letters to the editor sections in both harper's and the nation are often as interesting to read as the features. sometimes the readers really get down and dirty with the authors. but, it is true, we are getting a broader forum here.

i trust that steve klc is feeling appropriately chastised. or maybe he's feeling confused, like i am. or maybe he's rolling chocolate truffles in cocoa powder and licking his fingers. :rolleyes: this, IMO, would be the best way to handle the whole situation.

Fat Guy · February 21, 2003

Is the degree of engagement between an author and his/her readers seen here unprecedented? Give me a break.

I don't see you giving any counter-examples, Wilfrid. This thread is now running up close to 20,000 words and will likely double. Steve Klc has posted four times so far, and at length. I have posted 15 times and many of the members of our contributor and editorial team have posted -- vigorously and on both sides of the issue, I should add. When you're ready to show me a periodical that does this, I'm ready to look at it.

Fat Guy · February 21, 2003

i trust that steve klc is feeling appropriately chastised. or maybe he's feeling confused, like i am. or maybe he's rolling chocolate truffles in cocoa powder and licking his fingers. this, IMO, would be the best way to handle the whole situation.

No Stella, Steve K stands by 100% of what he wrote and so does his editor (that would be me). I'm sure he considers this piece an incredible success, as do I. I appreciate all the enthusiastic commentary here and hope we'll do many more pieces that elicit this kind of response -- and we've added first-time readers who said they never read us, no less. This is great.

**Dave the Cook** · February 21, 2003

At least 50% of all newspapers in a typical market (NYC is not a typical market) on any given day are sold for the ads. The major reason for the remaining 50% is germaneness to one's life in one way or another- "localness" or editorial slant, or best sports, or whatever, so when it's all broken down, no one single writer is ever responsible for a significant number of papers being sold. Comics, on the other hand, are very valuable in maintaining readership.

We might differ on whether or not NYC is a typical market. I would agree that the Times is not a typical urban paper. First of all, no comics. No Ann Landers.

But your exposition begs the question. If no single writer is reponsible for selling papers (and I think you are correct), then why choose one writer over another? Why choose Regina Schrambling when Steven Shaw is available?

mmm...truffles

Edited February 21, 2003 by Dave the Cook (log)

russ parsons · February 21, 2003

without getting into the validity of either point, it does occur to me that what so many people are objecting to about steve's piece is exactly what he was objecting to in Regina's pieces.

as someone who has complained before about the meanspiritedness and ad hominem vitriol that occasionally crops up on the board (usually, it seems to me, without protest), it's interesting that when the context switches from contributing poster (one of the crowd) to featured article (one of them, er, us), readers' perceptions change. even in such a subtle shift as this case, it's good to to be reminded that being published carries a certain responsibility. would that everyone remembered it.

Sign In

TDG: Introducing The Chocolate Curmudgeon

Recommended Posts

Similar Content

Recently Browsing 0 members