Molly O'Neill's new article "Food Porn"

[jogoode]

Molly O'neill spoke at my college a year or two ago and spoke rather candidly about her fall-out with the Times. I don't remember much of it, unforunately. She implied that the Times basically pushed her out b/c she wasn't willing to write the kind of stories that Amanda Hesser would, much the kind O'neill refers to in her cjr piece.

I have her email address, which I got from the prof who brought her to speak. I won't post it but will PM if it would help.

[Fat Guy]

We made contact with her a little while back and are trying to get her to participate. We'll see what happens!

[SFJoe]

helenas, thanks very, very much for posting that link. Unfortunately, for some reason, probably because it's so old and has lived through so many software upgrades and database migrations, that particular thread seems to have suffered from some sort of database corruption -- there are posts there attributed to me that I didn't write, etc.

So who do you suppose wrote the other stuff? Any way to figure out the original authorship, or have we been through too many versions? Perhaps it doesn't matter. Does this affect very many of the old threads?

Edited November 1, 2003 by SFJoe (log)

[Fat Guy]

We've been able to repair pretty much everything from September '01 going forward, but the August '01 material (the first month we were in operation) is for the most part impossible to sort out. It was our fault. When we rebuilt the database after an early server failure, we created all these accounts like "Fat Guy x" into which we poured the old posts -- we only had like 50 users at the time so it was easy to do this as a manual process. Unfortunately, we had several people working on the reconstruction and a couple of them didn't get the memo about how to handle replacing the old accounts with the new ones. So while some of us were adding posts, others of us were deleting the accounts under which those posts were being posted. You should have heard Jason scream when he realized what was happening. We came up with some sort of manual temporary fix at the time, but it never survived subsequent upgrades. Anyway, the long and the short of it is that any post that got caught in that vortex is now, after many upgrades and migrations, attributed to me (as user number 1, my account is the default for a post where that database field is missing). So if you do stumble across an interesting thread from August '01, the preferred course of action is to start a new, similar topic and link back to the old thread as a reference.

[srhcb]

My point is simply that if we are to get into a full-blown continuing discussion of Gastronomica, we should proceed with it elsewhere ...

"helenas, thanks very, very much for posting that link." ....  "Gastronomica: Is It Worthy" or some such, and the Food Media & News board would be the appropriate place for it I think.

Thank you both for your attention to my concerns. I really didn't intend to discuss Gastronomica, per se, but only siezed upon your dismissal of it as illustrating what I believe to be the general practice of proscribing the boundries of food writing in a fashion I think forcloses some impending interesting developments.

I'll read the proffered link and try to more clearly define my views either under that heading, in a new, similar Thread, or at some other venue that appears appropriate.

The sheer magnitude of all the discussions simultaneously undergoing on eGullet is impressive, but as a relative newcomer I can tell you it's a daunting task to venture forth with anything more than quick quips and general comments, let alone to consider innitiating new Threads.

THANX SB

[Fat Guy]

though i think food writers do have something to say about health and food safety issues, i think that's an area that should be stepped into very warily.

Russ, I can't imagine anybody disagreeing with that. At the very least, I know I wholeheartedly agree. But aren't you simply making the case for good journalism here? I think this comment applies to any journalist writing about anything, especially a new subject-area. And I think it goes without saying that most writers barely have enough talent to cover a narrow beat -- where over time experience can compensate for middling talent (this seems to be how most newspaper writers accomplish their jobs) -- no less branch out into science, health, or legal writing.

But I think a smart and conscientious writer can branch out, if he or she is willing to do the hard work of getting up to speed in a new area, as you do with so many of the science topics you cover in your newspaper articles and in French Fry. I think your commitments to good journalism and scientific thinking are far more useful to the reader than six advanced degrees in science would be. A reporter who is going to report on science needs to understand scientific thinking, not the actual science (except insofar as specifics need to be grasped for the purpose of writing about them). And scientific thinking -- aka the scientific method -- may take some getting used to, some experience, and some education (formal or informal), it is ultimately not very complex. It's a system of logical truth-seeking that focuses on verifiability. Once you get into the swing of things, your bullshit detector becomes pretty sensitive and you can be a good science reporter.

What I think O'Neill is saying -- and I don't think she'd disagree that most writers suck and that food writers need to learn something before writing about science, medicine, law, economics, the environment, etc. -- is simply that a food writer brings something extra to the table. Specifically, 1) a connection to the reader that a "hard-news" reporter is rarely able to achieve, and 2) the ability to bring a discussion of aesthetics to bear on a fact-oriented subject. For example, you will almost never see quality-of-life discussed in science articles -- they are all about quantity-of-life. But a commentator with a strong aesthetic sense can introduce into, say, a discussion of obesity, the notion that you may be able to live 17.8 months longer if you spend 50 years on a diet, but it might not actually be worth it. Or, in the case of a Schlosser-like project, it would be great to see such a treatment from a writer who takes a de-agendized scientific approach and has the ability to comment on the aesthetics of fast-food, which Schlosser (a non-food-writer) proudly announces are of no interest to him.

[Megan Blocker]

Per the request of some of the folks contributing to the thread "What is the Sound of One Hand Shopping?", I am starting a thread for a discussion on Molly O'Neill's article "Food Porn," which can be found in the 2004 edition of the Best Food Writing , edited by Holly Hughes.

Here's a link to the article itself: click!

I haven't read it yet (Though I do have a copy of the book!), but I'll start now...those who have, feel free to kick off the conversation!

[bourdain]

See the very funny article on Food Network as the New Porn in the new Harpers:

A veteran porn producer deconstructs FN frame by frame, comparing and contrasting with her own works--coupled with a bittersweet goodbye to Sara Moulton--depicted metaphorically as an aging porn star--cruelly replaced by the younger, "hotter" Giada and Rachael. Funny, even frightening stuff--and with quotes from FN honcho, very revealing of current NetThink.

[shelora]

See the very funny article on Food Network as the New Porn in the new Harpers:

A veteran porn producer deconstructs FN frame by frame, comparing and contrasting with her own works--coupled with  a bittersweet goodbye to Sara Moulton--depicted  metaphorically as an aging porn star--cruelly replaced by the younger, "hotter" Giada and Rachael. Funny, even frightening stuff--and with quotes from FN honcho, very revealing of current NetThink.

←

Yes. Great article. One for the archives. Debbie Does Salad by Frederick Kaufman.

A few days later after reading it, I was flipping through a woman's magazine and saw a full page ad for the Food Network. A rather bored couple are sitting on either end of the sofa watching TV. Upon switching to the FN, the couple were now sitting together, she with her legs wrapped around him, both with the look of bliss on their faces. The ad reads, "Sensuous. Try the new Food Network."

Strange.

Edited October 14, 2005 by shelora (log)

[John Whiting]

Plaudits to Columbia Journalism Review for making this article freely available. Molly O'Neill quotes the right people, including the virtually omniscient Andy Smith. I'm a bit surprised that she is so reverential to Claiborne, who was rather more intimately involved with the food industry than she suggests. (In writing his obit for the Guardian I turned up rather more nuggets than I could appropriately make use of.) It's also a shame that she doesn't mention John and Karen Hess, whose food columns were way ahead of the Times, in both senses. They're still in print after a quarter-century, which is more than can be said for most of the journalistic output of their contemporaries.

I hope that O'Neill's stimulating reflections launch a long and vigorous thread.

[SethG]

There was a previous thread on the Molly O'Neill article, back in '04. Perhaps the mods will find it and merge.

I read the Harper's piece and found it somewhat amusing, but ultimately facile and rather ridiculous. I also pitied Moulton, whose show is actually admired for its substance. She didn't deserve the literal porn analogy employed in the article.

Edited October 14, 2005 by SethG (log)

[Pontormo]

Megan, thanks for taking the initiative.

What I was hoping in my original proposal is that we could choose a reading and set a date sometime in the near future to give everyone time to find a copy and read it. According to another society member, MX Hassett has been interested in discussions of books, too.

Since you've already expressed interest in "Food Porn", would it be possible for all interested parties to hold off discussion until two weeks from today, i.e. October 28?

I see someone else has already posted a new comment concerning previous threads. If they are not full-fledged analyses of the article, might we still consider doing this now?

That way there is the potential for a lively, concentated exchange. I am afraid if we invite everyone to talk now and jump in once s/he's found the article, comments will not necessarily address the reading nor be informed. The butler does not do it in the library with a candlestick (hmmm) anywhere on O'Neill's pages, but informed comments offered before others get to read the piece might spoil the fun for potential readers. I noticed in searching this site for Nigel Slater's Toast, that only a few comments were made, none about the book itself, simply because people had not read it at the time the thread was created and no one had the book on the desk in front of the computer.

This is sort of a democracy, but does that strike current readers as promising?

If so, let me offer a full bibliographic reference. There are two, really:

O'Neill, Molly. "Food Porn." In Best Food Writing 2004, ed. Holly Hughes (New York: Marlowe & Company: 2004): 2-19.

The article originally appeared in Columbia Journalism Review, September/October 2003. (That is the extant of the citation in the anthology, no volume or page numbers.)

Should you contemplate purchase, do note that there are articles & excerpts by egullet members Mimi Sheraton, Anthony Bourdain & Matthew Amster-Burton, perhaps among others. The work of the latter, "Learning to Cook, Cooking to Learn" was selected from eGullet.com.

[Gifted Gourmet]

Molly O'Neill's new article "Food Porn", Sept/Oct '03 Columbia Journalism Review

the eG thread is here

Might this be the article that you wanted?

[Megan Blocker]

My favorite quote so far:

Good food was young. It drank. It showed thigh. It probably rubbed elbows with the Beatles. "Food became, for dinner-party conversations in the sixties, what abstract expressionism had been in the fifties," writes [Nora] Ephron.

Clearly the inspiration for (or origin of, rather) for the great line from When Harry Met Sally (which Ephron also wrote):

Restaurants are to people in the eighties what theatre was to people in the sixties.

[Megan Blocker]

Molly O'Neill's new article "Food Porn", Sept/Oct '03 Columbia Journalism Review

the eG thread is here

Might this be the article that you wanted?

←

Oh, thanks! I didn't see that thread in my search...must not have combed back far enough.

[John Whiting]

My favorite quote so far:

Good food was young. It drank. It showed thigh. It probably rubbed elbows with the Beatles. "Food became, for dinner-party conversations in the sixties, what abstract expressionism had been in the fifties," writes [Nora] Ephron.

Clearly the inspiration for (or origin of, rather) for the great line from When Harry Met Sally (which Ephron also wrote):

Restaurants are to people in the eighties what theatre was to people in the sixties.

←

Charles Shere wrote, taking a longer view:

The art form of our time, the final thirty years of the twentieth century, has been the preparation of food. What the sonnet was to Elizabeth's London, the Lied to Schubert's Vienna, the easel painting to Impressionist Pontoise, the movie to the Nineteen-Thirties: that, to many of us, is the meal.

[zilla369]

Moderator's note: merged existing thread with newly created one. Carry on!

[Pontormo]

Let me add that Megan and I have been in communication and she's graciously offered to come up with questions to see if we can use egullet for a new type of more pointed discussion.

Since Gifted Gourmet has graciously and promptly made the article accessible to all of us, especially those who have not yet participated in the earlier thread, it would be wonderful if interested parties could try to read "Food Porn" over the weekend.

I am sure people will have things to say before next week, but I am going to wait around for Megan's lead before jumping in again.

[Jennifer Iannolo]

"Sensuous. Try the new Food Network."

←

WHAAAAT? I am...dumbfounded -- and would like to curse in many tongues right now. Sensuous my braised butt.

I actually was referring to Molly O'Neill's Food Porn piece when expressing the food philosophy of my magazine, as her words really got me thinking. While I do disagree with some of what she says (regarding personal viewpoints and food writing vs. objective journalism), I do think there is too much schtick in the marketplace about orgasmic dishes and hottie chefs. It makes me yawn.

"Schtick" is exactly what comes to mind with this new TVFN tagline (no surprises there).

Edited because I'm still livid, but wanted to express it more clearly.

Edited October 15, 2005 by Jennifer Iannolo (log)

[Megan Blocker]

I actually was referring to Molly O'Neill's Food Porn piece when expressing the food philosophy of my magazine, as her words really got me thinking. While I do disagree with some of what she says (regarding personal viewpoints and food writing vs. objective journalism), I do think there is too much schtick in the marketplace about orgasmic dishes and hottie chefs. It makes me yawn.

←

Jennifer, I'm curious as to how your opinions of food writing vs. journalism differ from O'Neill's - would you mind elaborating? You always have such interesting ideas to share!

[Jennifer Iannolo]

Hi Megan.

Thanks for that compliment -- it seems I've been doing a lot of ranting lately, so I'm relieved that "interesting" could be applied to said perspective vs. a host of other descriptors. In the future, however, I've decided to take out my anger on my chai spices instead (I beat them into a gorgeous powder after I posted last night).

If I recall correctly, Molly was concerned that the more prevalent food articles now available are personal reflections on food, or journalistic articles infused with too much personal perspective to be considered objective. It seemed she was eager to see more hard-core journalism about important food topics.

I do agree that such articles are necessary and relevant, particularly concerning the food supply (production issues, organic farming, world trends, etc.), but I got the sense that she saw less value in those who waxed lovingly about food as an aesthetic subject.

Now, it may be that I interpreted her incorrectly, or was more focused on that part of her article because my writing is much more on the personal side of the spectrum. I do believe there is a valuable place for such writing: Brillat-Savarin's (and MFK Fisher's) writings were intensely personal, and very engaging.

Some balance in the genre would be welcomed, however. It seems we've gone too far toward the personal across the board in major media, and the academic journals (i.e. Gastronomica) are the ones covering the very "serious" food topics much of the time. That could be a result of our ADD media culture where "serious" has fallen out of fashion.

In the end, it may be that I do not disagree with her as much as I originally thought. Whatever my ultimate conclusion in all of this, I find her piece extremely thought provoking and well written.

[srhcb]

Well you've lost me, both figuratively and literally.

SB

[Steven Blaski]

Hi Megan. 

Thanks for that compliment -- it seems I've been doing a lot of ranting lately, so I'm relieved that "interesting" could be applied to said perspective vs. a host of other descriptors.  In the future, however, I've decided to take out my anger on my chai spices instead (I beat them into a gorgeous powder after I posted last night).

If I recall correctly, Molly was concerned that the more prevalent food articles now available are personal reflections on food, or journalistic articles infused with too much personal perspective to be considered objective. It seemed she was eager to see more hard-core journalism about important food topics.

I do agree that such articles are necessary and relevant, particularly concerning the food supply (production issues, organic farming, world trends, etc.), but I got the sense that she saw less value in those who waxed lovingly about food as an aesthetic subject.

Now, it may be that I interpreted her incorrectly, or was more focused on that part of her article because my writing is much more on the personal side of the spectrum. I do believe there is a valuable place for such writing: Brillat-Savarin's (and MFK Fisher's) writings were intensely personal, and very engaging.

Some balance in the genre would be welcomed, however. It seems we've gone too far toward the personal across the board in major media, and the academic journals (i.e. Gastronomica) are the ones covering the very "serious" food topics much of the time. That could be a result of our ADD media culture where "serious" has fallen out of fashion.

In the end, it may be that I do not disagree with her as much as I originally thought. Whatever my ultimate conclusion in all of this, I find her piece extremely thought provoking and well written.

←

I think you're right, Jennifer -- that the gist of what O'Neill is calling for is a balance. She seemed to feel that food writing had swung too far in the direction of fantasy. Here's what she says toward the end:

"There is a place in newspaper food sections, and food magazines for cheery, revisionist, nostalgic waxings, for songs of dew-kissed baby lettuces, for Proustian glances back, and for personal opinion. It is impossible, after all, to write about food without writing about the self. But there is a line between soothing readers' anxieties and becoming the Victoria's Secret of the Fourth Estate."

I don't think she's against the "personal" as you call it, or the subjective. Well, let me qualify that. I believe she approves of the *universal* -- which of course isn't necessarily the same thing as the personal, which can become so private that it's nothing but self-indulgent babbling. I don't think she's saying that every single article one writes needs a news peg. The individual POV is fine -- but it ought to be rooted in the universal and at least somewhat relevant to some of the larger issues. She seems to have come full circle to what Craig Claiborne advised her as she was taking over from him at the Times:

"He told me that although I might want to write like Proust, my audience just wanted to eat dinner. He advised me never to run a column that lacked either a news element or an anecdote that touched a universal chord. 'When you remove the news you lose the vitality of a story, its ability to touch real lives, its slow and incremental way of reflecting the world,' he said. 'Before you know it, you have the god-awful pretension and solipsism that trivializes the entire subject and can only, in the end, compromise the reporter.'"

[Jennifer Iannolo]

"There is a place in newspaper food sections, and food magazines for cheery, revisionist, nostalgic waxings, for songs of dew-kissed baby lettuces, for Proustian glances back, and for personal opinion. It is impossible, after all, to write about food without writing about the self. But there is a line between soothing readers' anxieties and becoming the Victoria's Secret of the Fourth Estate."

I don't think she's against the "personal" as you call it, or the subjective. Well, let me qualify that. I believe she approves of the *universal* -- which of course isn't necessarily the same thing as the personal, which can become so private that it's nothing but self-indulgent babbling.  I don't think she's saying that every single article one writes needs a news peg. The individual POV is fine -- but it ought to be rooted in the universal and at least somewhat relevant to some of the larger issues. She seems to have come full circle to what Craig Claiborne advised her as she was taking over from him at the Times:

"He told me that although I might want to write like Proust, my audience just wanted to eat dinner. He advised me never to run a column that lacked either a news element or an anecdote that touched a universal chord. 'When you remove the news you lose the vitality of a story, its ability to touch real lives, its slow and incremental way of reflecting the world,' he said. 'Before you know it, you have the god-awful pretension and solipsism that trivializes the entire subject and can only, in the end, compromise the reporter.'"

←

Thank you, Steven. I knew there was a spot in there where she mentioned the value of first-person POV (and now you've saved me a few precious minutes!). She is indeed correct that universal themes and anecdotes are necessary for such kinds of writing -- otherwise, who on earth would care about said babbling?

I think the Victoria's Secret line is fabulous.

[MarketStEl]

My post on the pre-merger second thread seems to have gotten lost in the coding, so I will try to approximate it.

While it was not one of the main points she dwelt on, O'Neill's mentioning of the influence of advertisers and promoters in some categories of food writing is another area worth exploring. After all, if the writers breathlessly describing baby vegetables are pornographers, then the ones who serve as conduits for promotion are prostitutes.

Her tale of how olive oil went from ethnic curiosity to all-American pantry staple is instructive here, and yet another example of how, in the end, it really is all PR. The people who did the mentioning that got reporters singing the praises of olive oil's health benefits and the "Mediterranean diet" in which it plays a prominent role achieved the sort of result that marketers and public relations professionals would kill for: promotion that is so unobtrusive that it seems almost organic.

I note that historically, even as the "hard news" sections of the paper became more impartial in their recounting of events, the "softer" sections--including the sports and former "women's" pages--remained deferential to the interests of the subjects they covered, be they fashion designers, football teams or food processors. Except for the restaurant reviews, today's food sections still carry a whiff of this deference.