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

[Pan]

That being said, I would just point you to the "hit number evidence" and the subjects that garner the largest numbers. This very interesting discussion (the very one that you and I are conversing on now when I, for one, should be sleeping) is not going to be a leader on the "hit parade". Most people find this witty repartee about the quality of food writing over the quantity of food writing (I describe the subject with a broad brush, admittedly) dull as yesterdays  bathwater. 

Well, this thread has 699 hits already. Is that such a small number?

[Fat Guy]

This is a conversation, not a series of competing essays being hurled at one another.

It's an inescapable reality of the message-board universe (at least insofar as open-to-the-public boards are concerned) that intellectually challenging topics are going to draw fewer topic-views than discussions of "The Restaurant" reality show (and it's probably true even if you limit membership to people with Ph.Ds in food studies). The issue isn't whether a discussion of "The Restaurant" will get more hits than this thread; the issue is what management does about it. In a purely mercenary profit-oriented world like that of Food TV, the response would be to say, "Kill the boring intellectual crap, go with more stupid reality shows." Whereas, here, we have a strong commitment to pushing this type of content. For me at least -- and since I run this site on a day-to-day basis my opinion is essentially the corporate position here -- the more frivolous threads are mostly a recruiting tool. We know they bring us media attention, we know they get a lot of incoming links, and we know they get us new members. But our vision for those new members is to hook them with the easy stuff and then pull them into the more interesting stuff. In addition, when we have fun, easy, potentially frivolous threads, we try to make them as interesting as we can. For example, in "The Restaurant" thread, we had plenty of TV-groupie-type discussion. But we also had some weighty argumentation in the mix. I defy anybody to tell me, after reading Anthony Bourdain's posts on that thread, that there was no serious commentary there. I don't recall anybody in print (or elsewhere) doing nearly as good a job critiquing the show as our users (some of whom were insiders) did -- nobody was even playing in our league. Moreover, we covered additional angles in our Webzine in a more edited, journalistic manner -- TrishCT, who is a newspaper reporter in real life, did two interview/profile pieces with ex-restaurant employees and has been trying to get Rocco DiSpirito to agree to an interview as well (so far, no luck).

I think it's easy to confuse lack of editing and editors with lack of content or ideas. But editing is a multi-purpose tool. Setting aside the purely commercial aspects of what editors do (selecting content against which advertisements can be sold, etc.), much of what editing accomplishes has to do exclusively with form. Only in rare instances, and only at the very top level of the competence, do editors contribute to the actual development of ideas. And in many (or perhaps) most cases, editors are bad for ideas: they cut, they soften, they compromise. So I think that, while online discussions like we have here do tend to get a little messy (the so-called signal-to-noise ratio), the ideas are here and, while it's always helpful for people to self-edit and think things through, editing isn't the point here.

[Fat Guy]

Perhaps sometime in the near future we will see a site or a publication (easily available to anyone who wants to read, not just those in the food biz or academia) that aims a little more to the meat of the matter, not just  to pick at the crust. I hope so and look forward to that day.

The beauty of online interactive media -- and this is why I think the Internet is the future -- is that you don't have to sit idly by and hope for someone to create whatever it is you feel is lacking. You can proactively take aim at whatever "meat of the matter" you feel has been neglected simply by starting discussions that you think will be worthy. I can't promise that every worthy subject introduced here will gain traction and result in a really good debate -- we have too much going on to hope for that -- but I can guarantee that an atypically high percentage will because all the ingredients are here: we have a sizeable group of super-intelligent and literate users running the gamut from hardcore amateur/hobbyist to some of the very top professionals in the field, we have management that is committed to supporting serious food discussion, and we have the technology to support an infinite amount of it.

[Mayhaw Man]

Perhaps sometime in the near future we will see a site or a publication (easily available to anyone who wants to read, not just those in the food biz or academia) that aims a little more to the meat of the matter, not just  to pick at the crust. I hope so and look forward to that day.

The beauty of online interactive media -- and this is why I think the Internet is the future -- is that you don't have to sit idly by and hope for someone to create whatever it is you feel is lacking. You can proactively take aim at whatever "meat of the matter" you feel has been neglected simply by starting discussions that you think will be worthy. I can't promise that every worthy subject introduced here will gain traction and result in a really good debate -- we have too much going on to hope for that -- but I can guarantee that an atypically high percentage will because all the ingredients are here: we have a sizeable group of super-intelligent and literate users running the gamut from hardcore amateur/hobbyist to some of the very top professionals in the field, we have management that is committed to supporting serious food discussion, and we have the technology to support an infinite amount of it.

Well said as usual. This type of forum is clearly one of the best (and most entertaining and informational as well) in the history of man (short of face to face conversation). Where else would one be able to converse with such a wide spectrum of intelligent individuals who, if not of like minds, are at least of like interests.

Thanks for the forum and the work you and everyone else do to keep people involved and active on the site.

Brooks

Edited September 29, 2003 by Mayhaw Man (log)

[timothycdavis]

I doubt it pays very well either. Nor -- with a few noteworthy exceptions -- are the best people writing for Gastronomica. Most of them are unknowns in the world of food writing, and for good reason.

Pay: It doesn't, but it's not the kind of place to go if you want to get rich, anyway. It's an academic journal, for people who like (ostensibly) academic, less glitzy/glamorous/hot-new-chef stories on food. Most of the writers are pretty with-it cats, though most have more credits in the journal/academic world than the write-for-pay world. That said, I'll definitely admit to liking some articles more than others. (I have a piece on -- no shit -- livermush coming out on there sometime soon, so I think they're trying take some cool chances from time to time..)

Tim D.

( hoping he's in the "notable exception" category, and admiring Steven for name-dropping Toqueville)

[Mottmott]

Many of the topics discussed on eG contain hidden within them serious political, social, economic, environmental, and health issues. I believe that some people may shy away from exploring these, as suggested above, because many of us come to eG for info, infotainment, or just entertainment: escape into food, escape into a witty conversation about food and peripheral issues. But that's only one side of it.

I think that many people, like Pan (who eloquently raised this question), are aware of these hidden and often unexplored topics and are very interested in them. We find them completely relevant to discissions of food. And I think that in many cases we self-censor, leaving them unexplored, not raising issues likely to become contentious, even rancorous. It's a little like imposing upon ourselves the old injunction against discussing religion or politics at a dinner party. We avoid arguments about the half empty vs half filled glass when we can agree to raise it in toast to the joys of good food and good wine.

Personally I'd like to see more of such discussions, perhaps in its own category. the food periphery. Many of the eG participants are well informed in areas beyond culinary issues and could bring their knowledge to these discussions.

[eliotmorgan]

People always want things they aren’t willing to work for—should cooking be different? Four-star food in 5-minutes or less, 20-minute meals, and relative anger at any cookbook that released that can’t be instantly used by the novice?

I remember reading an article by Jonathan Gold in Gourmet Magazine a little over a year ago on Dim Sum in NYC. Gold even made the”E” train ride sound romantic. Having lived in Hong Kong I knew what he was writing was BS from beginning to end, but like a lotto ticket there was that romantic chance that outstanding Dim Sum—the kind you not even readily available in HK—was waiting for my wife and me. I wasn’t surprised when the place turned out to be very ordinary, yet I was disappointed.

The food writing paradox.

Has everyone forgotten the lynching Chef Ducasse went through when he opened ADNY in the Essex House? It angered me to no end, and it was in Commentary Magazine that I discovered The Fat-Guy who wrote an article called “Culinary Correctness.” Ducasse’s crime was doing it right and doing it best without faux-democratic pretenses. At only 65 seats and no turns, there were a hell of a lot of folks professing to have eaten there early on, but the more specific you were questioning these experiences the angrier the crowd that professed to have them became. Anthony Bourdain’s success comes from his assuring culinary voyeurs that the four star restaurants are full of short cuts and second rate products. I’ve met many writers that wanted to be him, but never a cook.

It’s food porn because you can possess it on some level. The general public won’t take anything else without a fight, and I’m not so sure they should. A solid news food article is like picking up a porn magazine and having a quote from the women in a multi-page spread say, “I would'nt undress for you,” and after flipping through the entire layout she’s still fully dressed. Is that any fun?

Food writing is all about possibilities and fantasies. No one calls repeatedly for weeks to book a table 3 months in advance at Tru, Trotter’s, Ducasse, or The French Laundry because they figure they’ll be hungry by then.

Edited October 7, 2003 by eliotmorgan (log)

[Fat Guy]

admiring Steven for name-dropping Toqueville

He's on my name-dropping list that I keep in my Palm Pilot. I'm actually due for an Atlas Shrugged reference by midnight and Eliot's mention of the Ducasse debacle may be just the right opportunity.

[alacarte]

Apparently I'm the last person to read the O'Neill article (how'd I miss this thread?) but it was worth the wait. Excellent article.

[bloviatrix]

I finally had a chance to read the article tonight. It was fascinating.

Her discussion of olive oil went from being used primarily in ethnic markets to being universally embraced was extremely interesting as it shows how we all are so influenced by marketing and public relations. I have a feeling that I will be looking at much of the food writing I read in a new way -- primarily questioning the external influences on a piece.

[Fat Guy]

Skepticism will serve you well as a consumer of food (and all other) writing. At the same time, don't let it make you crazy. The reality is that influences and motivations are only part of the picture -- sometimes an insignificant part in the end. Olive oil is, after all, a great product that deserves its prominence. And very few products or regions get widespread publicity without an actual marketing effort.

One thing I think is unfortunate about most journalism, however, is how vigorously it tries to hide the marketing behind the stories. Personally, I think a story is better if the marketing is discussed openly. If I'm writing on assignment, I have to pay by the rules of whatever publication I'm writing for, but here on eGullet where I get to make the rules I encourage our contributors to be open about the relationship between publicists, marketing organizations, industry groups, and us as media. For example, when our NY News Team gets a press release about a new restaurant opening and writes a short news report announcing the opening, you will see at the end of that report something along the lines of "Source: press release from Bullfrog & Baum publicists." Our team does follow-up research, calls the restaurant, tracks other media mentions, etc., but they still give credit for the lead. It seems like plain old common sense to do it that way, yet in the mainstream traditional media considerable effort is expended every day on pretending that publicists have nothing to do with anything you're reading.

[Schneier]

Really good piece of writing. Thanks.

[srhcb]

That Gastronomica is the only publication of its kind makes it the proverbial exception that proves the rule. But is Gastronomica even a commercial publication? I assumed it was a not-for-profit, part of a university press project of some sort. I doubt it pays very well either. Nor -- with a few noteworthy exceptions -- are the best people writing for Gastronomica. Most of them are unknowns in the world of food writing, and for good reason.

I believe your dismissive attitude towards Gastronomica Magazine concerning its credentials "in the world of food writing" are based on a mistaken assumption. Why that journal has to be a "food magazine" by some arbitrary definition of the genre is an open question.

Gastronomica as a publication actually expands the realm, or, more accurately completes a circle begun by ancient priests and philosophers who were the original food writers. In attempting to define one's own being they discussed food in all its manifestations as a component of self.

Bypassing prehistoric cave drawings, which featured the hunt, and Egyptian heiroglyphics, which were largely involved with documenting the production and storing of food, a good example of this can be found in one of the earliest actual writings extant. As Mark Kurlansky points out in the Introduction to "Choice Cuts", much of the Old Testament is devoted to how "the Hebrews were to define themselves as a distinct people" through specific diet. Kurlansky's book also contains several other sections dealing with early philosphers as "food writers".

On the other hand, most of the earliest acknowledged food writers, Brillat Savarin, Escoffier, Larousse and especially Dumas tended to treat their primary subject as de facto philosophers.

This existential view of food, (you are what you eat expanded to its absolute limit), conveys the idea of food being of greater importance to us than just for the fuction it provides to the rest of the plant and animal kingdom. Food thus becomes one of the defining aspects of human existence.

The broad scope of articles presented in Gastronomica offers a venue for authors not necessarily even aware of the boundaries of modern food writing, and interesting fare for readers wishing to explore categorical expansion of their own consciousness.

As such, Gastronomica, even in "dead tree" format, is perhaps a more modern purveyor of "food writing" than even eGullet, which, with all due repsect for its educational and entertaining Forums, is still only a faster method of relating information within the same old 20th Century perimeters.

Whether it is part of the University of California Press, and for-profit or not, seems rather irrelevant. It's not unusual that an eccentric publication produced to such high standards wouldn't be immediately presented as a commercial proposition, but if enough people are willing to accept the philosophical undertones of Gastronomica's style it may indeed prove to be a harbinger of what comes to be defined as "food writing" in the 21st Century.

THANX SB

[Fat Guy]

I enjoy some of the articles in Gastronomica and I appreciate that there's a place to publish readable articles that don't fit into the commercial food media. We have quite a few Gastronomica contributors who also contribute to eGullet, so I'm well aware of overlap in content. At the same time, I think the case you make for Gastronomica, I'm sure unintentionally, reads like a parody of a pretentious academic publication. In reality, though, I think Gastronomica is fairly lightweight by academic standards. If you compare it on point to something like Alan Davidson's Petits Propos Culinaire, it really comes up short in the writing department. And of course if you look at real academic food journals like Food & Foodways, International Journal of Food Science & Technology, Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, Flavour and Fragrance Journal, Nutrition & Food Science, British Food Journal, or the Web journal Anthropology of Food, I think you can see that there's not much in the way of new ground being covered in Gastronomica. Rather, I see Gastronomica as trying to present a more publicly palatable (some might call it dumbed down) version of what academic food journals have been providing for years. And while I think there's a place for that, if it's done well, I don't think Gastronomica is necessarily doing a very good job.

[Suvir Saran]

That Gastronomica is the only publication of its kind makes it the proverbial exception that proves the rule. But is Gastronomica even a commercial publication? I assumed it was a not-for-profit, part of a university press project of some sort. I doubt it pays very well either. Nor -- with a few noteworthy exceptions -- are the best people writing for Gastronomica. Most of them are unknowns in the world of food writing, and for good reason.

I believe your dismissive attitude towards Gastronomica Magazine concerning its credentials "in the world of food writing" are based on a mistaken assumption. Why that journal has to be a "food magazine" by some arbitrary definition of the genre is an open question.

Gastronomica as a publication actually expands the realm, or, more accurately completes a circle begun by ancient priests and philosophers who were the original food writers. In attempting to define one's own being they discussed food in all its manifestations as a component of self.

Bypassing prehistoric cave drawings, which featured the hunt, and Egyptian heiroglyphics, which were largely involved with documenting the production and storing of food, a good example of this can be found in one of the earliest actual writings extant. As Mark Kurlansky points out in the Introduction to "Choice Cuts", much of the Old Testament is devoted to how "the Hebrews were to define themselves as a distinct people" through specific diet. Kurlansky's book also contains several other sections dealing with early philosphers as "food writers".

On the other hand, most of the earliest acknowledged food writers, Brillat Savarin, Escoffier, Larousse and especially Dumas tended to treat their primary subject as de facto philosophers.

This existential view of food, (you are what you eat expanded to its absolute limit), conveys the idea of food being of greater importance to us than just for the fuction it provides to the rest of the plant and animal kingdom. Food thus becomes one of the defining aspects of human existence.

The broad scope of articles presented in Gastronomica offers a venue for authors not necessarily even aware of the boundaries of modern food writing, and interesting fare for readers wishing to explore categorical expansion of their own consciousness.

As such, Gastronomica, even in "dead tree" format, is perhaps a more modern purveyor of "food writing" than even eGullet, which, with all due repsect for its educational and entertaining Forums, is still only a faster method of relating information within the same old 20th Century perimeters.

Whether it is part of the University of California Press, and for-profit or not, seems rather irrelevant. It's not unusual that an eccentric publication produced to such high standards wouldn't be immediately presented as a commercial proposition, but if enough people are willing to accept the philosophical undertones of Gastronomica's style it may indeed prove to be a harbinger of what comes to be defined as "food writing" in the 21st Century.

THANX SB

A great post.

I have missed you on eGullet and shall look forward to reading your posts.

You write beautifully. Thanks!

[Bux]

A great post.

I have missed you on eGullet and shall look forward to reading your posts.

You write beautifully.  Thanks!

One of the things that's particularly beautiful about the post is how srhcb used the quote feature to focus attention. Not only does it do that, but it uses our bandwith economically in a socially responsible way by treating it as a sustainable resource. One can't help but have the impression there's thought behind the post.

[russ parsons]

i'm late to this thread as well, i was on deadline when it started. but i'd like to offer a slightly opposing point of view to molly. 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. the fact is, these are arguments that do deal with facts. and just hearing one side and thinking "wow, that sorta makes sense" is not a subsitute for informed critical thinking. i'm hesitant to leave all of these issues to the "experts", but there is a lot to be said for having the scientific background to be able to weigh all of the opposing arguments.

just as pure science writers look foolish when they tend to talk about cooking, so do most food writers when they talk about science. At best, you get a well-meaning "he said; she said." at worst, i'm afraid, you wind up with a polemic like "fast food nation," which i absolutely detested. take the germ of an idea, fertilize it with a compost of half-truths and then frame it in cultural superiority (just because i don't choose to eat at mcdonalds doesn't mean that everyone who does is an ignorant dupe).

The safety and future of the food supply is a serious issue and should only be addressed journalistically by those who are willing to take the time to get the background in order to study it seriously. i mean, really, since most of the discussion of journalism on this board seems to revolve around how most writers can't even get a restaurant review right, do you really want the same folks writing about an issue this serious?

[srhcb]

Bux,Oct 30 2003, 12:42 PM] "One can't help but have the impression there's thought behind the post."

I just wanted to try out the old saw, "You can fool some of the people .....".

THANX SB (gotta learn how to use the little smiley faces some day)

[srhcb]

I think the case you make for Gastronomica, I'm sure unintentionally, reads like a parody of a pretentious academic publication.

While it was not the overt intention of my Reply, neither was it entirely unintentional. I have never read Petits Propos Culinaire, (Timely Little Food?), nor am I familiar with the academic journals you cite. Since I'll readily admit that the more scholasticly toned articles in my collection of Gastronomica will probably lie unread forever, I'll grant your point that the magazine may not be "doing a very good job" in that regard.

Perhaps my comparative unfamiliarity with academic food writing enables me to sense an altogether different theme at Gastronomica that might not be obvious to better educated readers, and we can avoid arguing about our personal tastes in reading material and initiate a more expansive discussion?

Although it may seem preposterous to offer the comparison of an upstart like Gastronomica to such an august journal as The New Yorker, that publication's reputation is not based on anybody being able to define "what it's about", but rather on how "it" is presented.

{In an aside, I'll point out that Gasto's cover art does evoke comparison to one of The New Yorker's most salient features in what I believe to be a most credible manner}

If, in consideration of your time and (cyber)space, you will allow me to stipulate that there are particular examples I could cite to illustrate my point, I'll purport to note the evolution of a "voice" in Gastronomica's eclectic articles that speaks to the development of a more inclusive basis for what food writing is considered be, harkening back to the ancient philosopher/food writers, which was the point I had wished to stress in my original Reply.

THANX SB

[Fat Guy]

I think that would be well worth doing, but as its own topic -- at this point the discussion of Gastronomica doesn't bear directly on Molly O'Neill's article. So go for it: start a new topic and we'll see you there.

[Bux]

If, in consideration of your ... (cyber)space

I trust I've not led you astray with my earlier comment. You offered a citation that was just long enough to give focus to your reply. I felt the need to point out your post as the excellent example it was. My objections are to others who cite entire long posts only to add "I agree" or "nice post." Those comments are just as effective without the accompaniment of the the full text of the post that immediately precedes the supporting post. I'm not sure why experienced users do that.

[Mayhaw Man]

That being said, I would just point you to the "hit number evidence" and the subjects that garner the largest numbers. This very interesting discussion (the very one that you and I are conversing on now when I, for one, should be sleeping) is not going to be a leader on the "hit parade". Most people find this witty repartee about the quality of food writing over the quantity of food writing (I describe the subject with a broad brush, admittedly) dull as yesterdays bathwater.

Well, since it has hung on this long, I stand corrected. What do I know about the interests of the food reading public?

[srhcb]

I think that would be well worth doing, but as its own topic -- at this point the discussion of Gastronomica doesn't bear directly on Molly O'Neill's article. So go for it: start a new topic and we'll see you there.

Thank you. I've yet to initiate a Discussion on this Board, partly due to unfamiliarity with the protocol.

After rereading this Discussion, I have to think that although the Thread seemed to fray somewhat on the second page, my allusions to alternate definitions of food writing, using Gastronomica Magazine as an example that had already been introduced, helped to weave the topic back together. (Sorry about the cheap literary trick. It is Halloween?)

So, operating within your domain, would you suggest the subject be introduced as a General Food Topic, as it's one of the broader categories available, or moved to the Media section, which seems obvious but I'm afraid could serve to constrain me later in expanding my thoughts, similar to what appears to have happened in this instance?

THANX SB

PS: Bux, got ya!

[helenas]

So, operating within your domain, would you suggest the subject be introduced as a General Food Topic, as it's one of the broader categories available, or moved to the Media section, which seems obvious but I'm afraid could serve to constrain me later in expanding my thoughts, similar to what appears to have happened in this instance?

You might consider expanding your thoughts on one of the already existing Gastronomica threads, like the one here.

[Fat Guy]

srhcb, I think your comments thus far have been 100% appropriate to this topic. My point is simply that if we are to get inot a full-blown continuing discussion of Gastronomica, we should proceed with it elsewhere, in part because nobody will find it here and in part because there's still more to focus on directly in O'Neill's piece.

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. We could probably at this point live with a new thread: "Gastronomica: Is It Worthy" or some such, and the Food Media & News board would be the appropriate place for it I think.