Use of first person in Food Writing

[Suzanne F]

The first review William Grimes had in the NY Times included a phrase something like "The rice pudding had too much nutmeg." That immediately made me dislike him. It sounded as though he were setting up as the ultimate authority on how much nutmeg there should be in rice pudding -- oh dear, what other pronunciamentos might he now make? If he had simply said, "The rice pudding had too much nutmeg for my taste," I would have trusted him more at the outset.

Sometimes use of the first person can remind the reader, "Hey, this is my opinion, but I trust you to make your own judgment," which might not be a bad during the honeymoon between a new reviewer and his or her audience.

(Please note, once again, I am talking only about reviewers as distinct from critics. To me, a critic is an expert deserving of attention for the knowledge she or he imparts on a subject.)

[maggiethecat]

"One" is the etymological equivalent of the latex glove. It keeps one a layer removed.

Bill: I have never, ever read a better explanation of "one."

Nailed it in one.

[Busboy]

(Please note, once again, I am talking only about reviewers as distinct from critics.  To me, a critic is an expert deserving of attention for the knowledge she or he imparts on a subject.)

A fine line indeed. Especially in a discipline like food writing, where there few formal credentials to separate the former from the latter.

And, critical essay or review, isn't the "in my opnion" understood, the only unassailable authorites on nutmeg in rice pudding being God and Ducasse?

[Mebutter]

Maggiethecat wrote: "Bill: I have never, ever read a better explanation of "one." Nailed it in one.''

Thank you for the kind words.

Suzanne F wrote: "Please note, once again, I am talking only about reviewers as distinct from critics. To me, a critic is an expert deserving of attention for the knowledge she or he imparts on a subject."

Why are reviewers distinct from critics? Why can't a reviewer be an expert?

[Suzanne F]

I didn't say a reviewer can't be an expert. But I guess I'd better explain what I DO mean. That seems to me to warrant a separate thread. I will come back here and link to it once I get it going.

I'm back. This is the thread.

Edited April 30, 2003 by Suzanne F (log)

[alacarte]

The first review William Grimes had in the NY Times included a phrase something like "The rice pudding had too much nutmeg."  That immediately made me dislike him.  It sounded as though he were setting up as the ultimate authority on how much nutmeg there should be in rice pudding -- oh dear, what other pronunciamentos might he now make?  If he had simply said, "The rice pudding had too much nutmeg for my taste," I would have trusted him more at the outset.

Sometimes use of the first person can remind the reader, "Hey, this is my opinion, but I trust you to make your own judgment," which might not be a bad during the honeymoon between a new reviewer and his or her audience.

(Please note, once again, I am talking only about reviewers as distinct from critics.  To me, a critic is an expert deserving of attention for the knowledge she or he imparts on a subject.)

I think this is another important point in the first person debate: If you are using "I," there has to be a reason for the reader to trust in your opinion.

Perhaps that's why first person is verboten for so many newbie writers: editors (and readers) need to be convinced that your views are worth trusting. (as opposed to russ parson's point that your views also should be interesting -- which I agree with as well). Simply having a viewpoint isn't enough.

If the answer is no to either -- your views are not trustworthy and/or interesting -- well, then you should at least be reporting (in the objective voice) on people who do hold trustworthy & interesting viewpoints....and even that sometimes is easier said than done.