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

[Bux]

So yes, the Internet allows anybody to write about food, or about foreign affairs. But a writer still has to rise above the pack in order to attract more than his mother as a reader. The difference is that in new media writers are chosen by readers, whereas in old media writers are chosen by editors who decide what's best for readers. I'd like to see William Grimes compete in the online marketplace of ideas -- do you think he'd be a major food writer without the fiat of the New York Times? There are advantages to each approach, but the big advantage comes from having a choice between many examples of each.

We could compare the advantages in theory and reality as well with the understanding that theory often has the opportunity of becoming reality. Our government is a representative one. We don't vote on every bill that comes before congress, the state legislature or the local city council. We elect representatives. There are all sorts of reasons why this was necessary then and why it's necessary now. The guy I vote for often doesn't win and all too often the guy I vote for doesn't vote the way I want him to on all the issues even if he gets in office. the deal for me, is that I don't have to be as well informed as I would be if I had to vote on every issue. In the same way, I trust major editors to choose the reviewers most worth my time to read. It is a tremendous expenditure of time for me to read everyone's reviews and then make up my mind which to heed in the future. Of course the major editors have failed me. There's a disconnect between the way things should work and they way they do. It's not the eGullet or the internet that makes the Times look bad, it's the Times who is responsible for that and for providing the need to be overtaken.

Most importantly, if you look at food journalism specifically, the Internet has been the best and most important improvement since Craig Claiborne created food journalism in the first place. Anybody who has spent an hour reading eGullet can tell you that: print and television totally lack the depth and interactivity that we can provide here. And to the extent new media are great at leveling hierarchies, we do more of that on eGullet than almost anywhere else because we put the Tony Bourdains and the Molly O'Neills in direct contact with their readers and, if they're smart, they accept the two-way exchange and it informs them and their writing (not to mention their readers benefit greatly from the interaction, and non-readers get converted into readers as a result of the dialog).

There's no doubt the potential has been here and to a great extend seized. If Gourmet or any other publication had run a feature on Molly O'Neill's article, it would inspire some people to get a hold of that particular issue of the Columbia Journalism Review. How many would actually read the article might be a factor of the interest stirred and the difficulty of getting a hold of the publication. Were a link provided, the difficulty factor would be decreased quite a bit, but no where near as much as it was when I read Andrew and Karen's post. All I had to do is click. I didn't even need to have much interest. There was no effort and little time invested in taking a peek at the article.

The problem now is that there are more threads on eGullet than I can follow, or even open and I have to stay alert. Any active media should be self correcting and there are already signs eGullet is aware of this and making an attempt to direct my attention on the front page and via e-mail notices, though I'm not posting just to blow our own horn.

Now, I should go back and edit this, but it I do, I risk letting in too many other posts which will take the thread in a different direction. Is that a fault? Whose?

[JAZ]

What publications are willing to pay for high-quality, thoughtful, journalistically oriented food writing?

I find it interesting that much of the best food journalism is appearing in non-food related magazines like Atlantic Monthly ("Frankenfood"). And don't forget that Fast Food Nation first appeared in Rolling Stone.

I know you're not a fan of Gastronomica, but at least it has potential, even if it hasn't quite lived up to it. For instance, it often has some good historical pieces.

But one point, which Ms. O'Neill only skirts, is that most people don't want to read that sort of food writing. Most people need some escapism, and for many, food is it. They want to dream about being Nigella (or being with her); they want to look at Jacques Torres' chocolate creations or Thomas Keller's delicacies precisely because they're so out of reach, so far from everyday life. They want to experience Bourdain's travels vicariously (how many fans would actually trot out into the jungle to drink homemade liquor and eat snake hearts, even if the opportunity presented itself?).

Ms. O'Neill describes the trend away from "news" stories and toward "foodie" stories in the press without really addressing the fact that journalists -- and all writers -- always face the choice of giving "the people" what they want and giving them what we think they need or should want.

Even here at egullet, where, of course, the best and brightest congregate, look at the threads that generate the most replies. It's easy to bemoan the lack of "serious" food writing and the pandering to the "lowest common denominator," but just look. For every Rick Bayliss/Burger King thread, there are countless "best spills" or "worst use of condiments" threads. A serious article on genetically modified plants generates no responses, in comparison with over 300 for "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy."

And there's nothing wrong with that. We're social animals, and we tend to be interested in the topics that allow us to socialize (for a really interesting look at the phenomenon, read Grooming, Gossip and the Evolution of Language by Robin Dunbar). Food is a big one, probably the biggest. I don't think the interest in food or the fact that this interest is so "superficial" is surprising at all.

That's why I think the attempt to divorce food writing from that personal, "foodie" (in Ms. O'Neill's terms) level is not only doomed to failure but a mistake. The best food writing, I think, takes the reader beyond what she knows and makes her think about something new or different, but it keeps at least a trace of the personal, social element that food plays in our lives.

[robert brown]

The nightmare scenario is that Molly O'Neill starts her own website. Who would like to try to get Faith Heller Willinger to come on over here. She's good at answering e-mail to her site, but that's hardly the same.

[Human Bean]

Excellent post, JAZ! I agree with everything you've said.

It is perhaps worth noting that most of the effusive praise on eG for this article has come from writers (pros and semi-pros). As a non-writer (barely even a typist), I don't find writers writing about writing to be inherently compelling, any more than writers would find find plumbers writing about plumbing to be must-read material.

All-in-all, I didn't dislike the article, I just didn't like it that much either. I'm not sure what it's trying to tell me. (Maybe as a non-writer, I shouldn't be expected to care. Chacun a son gout.) What is the intent of this article? Memoir? History? Essay? It's got elements of all those, but isn't really any one thing.

Not that there's anything wrong with that. But she raises her main point early on, "Will food writers pander to these readers or will they seize the chance to be better journalists?" After many thousands of often interesting words, she largey fails to answer her own question. (IMHO. YMMV.) Her answer appears only indirectly, and appears to be, "maybe." What is the point then? She certainly didn't make a persuasive case (to me) that pure journalism should win out over her definition of food porn.

Maybe the article ultimately has no point, except to document this perceived dichotomy, and 'stir the pot' (er, so to speak) among contemporary food writers. In this, it appears to have done an admirable job, judging from the replies posted above.

If you're a food writer, as the article (and JAZ) point out, food porn (entertainment) is What The People Want. There's your market. If you want to pursue serious food journalism, then just do it. There's a market for serious journalism. But it may not pay the rent as readily as the fluff.

[Oh, and JAZ, I printed out the Frankenfood article when the link was posted; it was longer and required more thought than I was able to give it at the time. Still haven't read it yet. Sigh. It's in the to-do pile.]

Edit: minor grammar clean-up.

Edited September 28, 2003 by Human Bean (log)

[Fat Guy]

Bean, I think it's worth pointing out that the article appeared in the Columbia Journalism Review, a journal dedicated to journalism about journalism. And, presumably, the intended audience is journalists and people who care strongly about journalism-related issues. That being said, I do agree that the article raises more questions than it answers -- though I don't see anything wrong with that.

[Human Bean]

Bean, I think it's worth pointing out that the article appeared in [...] a journal dedicated to journalism about journalism.

Thanks, FG, I was aware of that, but it was definitely worth mentioning.

[wally1]

Not a journalist. Not interested in journalism as such. Still found this history of food journalism interesting.

[Bux]

I don't find writers writing about writing to be inherently compelling, any more than writers would find find plumbers writing about plumbing to be must-read material.

It's one thing to be writing about writing and another to be posing that a specific subject is not well covered by journalists. That sort of criticism is likely to have some appeal to a cross section of the public interested in that subject. I'm concerned about how local politics and world news is covered in the media because I'm interested in getting the best information I can on those subjects. This holds true for food journalism, but I have far less concern about how poorly high school sports are covered.

[woodburner]

That article is award winning.

Thank you for sharing.

woodburner

[Human Bean]

It's one thing to be writing about writing and another to be posing that a specific subject is not well covered by journalists. That sort of criticism is likely to have some appeal to a cross section of the public interested in that subject. I'm concerned about how local politics and world news is covered in the media because I'm interested in getting the best information I can on those subjects. This holds true for food journalism, but I have far less concern about how poorly high school sports are covered.

Bux, I'm not saying that I didn't find the article interesting; merely that as a piece of journalism, or whatever it is, the editing seems to be lacking. It was an uncomfortable melange of memoir, persuasion, history, and straight reporting. Had it maintained a more consistent tone, I think I'd have liked it better.

Maybe I'm wrong or narrow-minded in wanting to neatly pigeonhole it, but I think it could have benefitted from some more work.

And as for my words that you quoted, I should have omitted that part entirely, or perhaps moved it away from the opening of my message. It's basically irrevant, and distracted both FG and you from what I was really trying to say (not that I was entirely clear myself about what I was trying to say at the time). Sigh.

[Pan]

Count me as unconvinced that the reading, listening, and viewing public is uninterested in "hard news" about food. Do you think people want safe food and water? Damn straight they do! Do you think people would be concerned with scarcity of food and water? Damn straight they would! Do you think that it bugs people to know that their food costs way more than market value because our government is subsidizing farmers not to grow crops? Do you think people want some reliable guidance (if possible) on what is healthy and unhealthy for them? Do they want to know when there are critical health violations in supermarkets and restaurants? Might they be interested in the working conditions of migrant laborers? (Many were interested in the 1970s.) Do they want to know how changes in climate may affect the price and availability of things to eat and drink? Etc., etc.

I think we'd all concede that people often like to escape from the travails of daily life, but I don't understand the assumption some of you are making that "hard" news stories on food will fall flat most of the time.

[Fat Guy]

I know you're not a fan of Gastronomica, but at least it has potential, even if it hasn't quite lived up to it. For instance, it often has some good historical pieces.

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.

[Bux]

And as for my words that you quoted, I should have omitted that part entirely, or perhaps moved it away from the opening of my message. It's basically irrevant, and distracted both FG and you from what I was really trying to say (not that I was entirely clear myself about what I was trying to say at the time). Sigh.

Interesting point, because I think it highlights one of the faults of the Internet and particularly a fault of interactive sites. Mayhaw Man said "I know that I spent alot more time composing when I had to use a typewriter, the words are much more valuable when you can't cut and paste and delete and carbon paper is involved)." I suppose that applies right here.

[maggiethecat]

But is Gastronomica even a commercial publication? I assumed it was a not-for-profit, part of a university press project of some sort.

Williams, I think.

[Fat Guy]

Of course the major editors have failed me.

So have your elected representatives, Bux. Do you think representative democracy is achieving the goal of expert representation (the goal relevant to this analogy)? Are our representatives in Washington the free-thinking Renaissance men envisioned in the Federalist Papers? Of course not. Representative democracy doesn't provide expert government. It provides mediocre government. But it has other benefits that can't be overlooked. The most important thing representative government avoids is the tyranny of the majority and the hasty tendencies of direct democracy.

But in the media context, there is no fear of the tyranny of the majority, because in the end the only thing the media can produce is speech. There's room for infinite speech representing all positions. That's not the case with laws. You can't have a law that prohibits the death penalty and a law that requires the death penalty -- they can't coexist in the same jurisdiction at the same time. But editorials for and against the death penalty can exist side-by-side on the same page of a newspaper.

Nor does making a judgment regarding the quality of someone's writing require any particular expertise. Any educated, intelligent reader can do it and can also judge the reputation of a publication or individual writer over time. Faceless, relatively anonymous and shielded editors, certainly, are not necessary for the filtering function. This function can just as well be performed by independent monitoring services that assemble the best of what's out there. Conversely, the job of most editors is emphatically not to go out and find the best writers. It is to generate and shepherd content that is uniform in style and that conforms to the narrow editorial mission of a given section within a given publication.

Getting back to the idea of indirect or representative action, in addition to all the theoretical arguments about representative democracy from Mill, Madison, and Toqueville (Jefferson, as I recall, favored as direct a democracy as possible), there was always an elephant in the living room: in the pre-industrial world, true direct democracy was simply impossible to achieve on any scale greater than that of a small city (and then only if you limited the franchise to the aristocratic property-owning men of the city). But today, the infrastructure for direct democracy exists. It still may not be a good idea, but it's possible. Likewise, the reason the media had to be controlled by an executive corporate hierarchy was always, at bottom, all about the cost of paper. With that variable eliminated from the equation, things look a whole lot different. Which gets back to one of O'Neill's points, which is that most media (and I'd add especially traditional high-budget media) are beholden to advertisers -- lots and lots of advertisers.

[Fat Guy]

Do you think people want safe food and water? Damn straight they do! Do you think people would be concerned with scarcity of food and water? Damn straight they would!

O'Neill makes a related point:

Some of the most significant stories today — the obesity epidemic, water purity, the genetic manipulation of the food supply as well as its safety and sustainability — are food-related. And while science and business writers, as well as general assignment reporters and a growing number of food scholars have and should continue to address these issues, food writers are uniquely suited to the discussion.

Why are food writers uniquely suited? O'Neill says:

In addition to training and experience particular to the edible world, food writers enjoy a rare and intimate bond with readers. Shared tastes imply shared values and aspirations. A food writer is, therefore, trusted to disseminate the issues that can affect what readers put in their mouths.

Setting aside for the moment the reality that only about 1 in 100 full-time professional food writers has the intellectual mettle to write seriously about anything more than trends and recipes, this is an important point because it marks the distinction between food writing and food writers. JAZ pointed to Eric Schlosser's work in Rolling Stone, which later became his book Fast Food Nation. This is, without a doubt, food writing. But Schlosser is not a food writer. And if you want to see the difference between what a food writer does and what a non-food-writer does all you need to do is look at how Schlosser defines his mission. "The aesthetics of fast food," he writes in the book's introduction, "are of much less concern to me than its impact upon the lives of ordinary Americans, both as workers and consumers." Too bad, because without a discussion of those pesky aesthetics -- a discussion that would benefit from having a real food writer on the case -- Schlosser's book only does half the job. (As for how competently it does that half, well, that's another thread.)

[Human Bean]

And as for my words that you quoted, I should have omitted that part entirely, or perhaps moved it away from the opening of my message. It's basically irrevant, and distracted both FG and you from what I was really trying to say (not that I was entirely clear myself about what I was trying to say at the time). Sigh.

Interesting point, because I think it highlights one of the faults of the Internet and particularly a fault of interactive sites. Mayhaw Man said "I know that I spent alot more time composing when I had to use a typewriter, the words are much more valuable when you can't cut and paste and delete and carbon paper is involved)." I suppose that applies right here.

You are completely right. "...I think it highlights one of the faults of the Internet and particularly a fault of interactive sites." I could have waited a few more hours before posting my first message in this thread; in the intervening time, I could have sharpened the words to be much more clear and succinct.

Instant communication is a fault. It's also a virtue.

For instance, if I'd expressed myself clearly and succinctly the first time, we woudn't be engaging now in this (possibly) interesting little digression.

[Fat Guy]

There's a time and a place for heavy editing and highly polished writing, and there's a time and a place for off-the-cuff spontaneous unedited conversation. A message board is about the latter, and to fault it for not being about the former makes as much sense as faulting blue for not being red.

[Human Bean]

Too bad, because without a discussion of those pesky aesthetics -- a discussion that would benefit from having a real food writer on the case -- Schlosser's book only does half the job.

Not necessarily; he did the whole job in his self-limited scope. The aesthetics of fast food is another job entirely. Both concepts could co-exist in the same book, but another entire book at the same level of detail could certainly be done, and might even be compelling.

By the way, how's your book proposal for "The Aesthetics of Fast Food" coming along?

[Mayhaw Man]

[ JAZ pointed to Eric Schlosser's work in Rolling Stone, which later became his book Fast Food Nation. This is, without a doubt, food writing. But Schlosser is not a food writer. And if you want to see the difference between what a food writer does and what a non-food-writer does all you need to do is look at how Schlosser defines his mission. "The aesthetics of fast food," he writes in the book's introduction, "are of much less concern to me than its impact upon the lives of ordinary Americans, both as workers and consumers." Too bad, because without a discussion of those pesky aesthetics -- a discussion that would benefit from having a real food writer on the case -- Schlosser's book only does half the job. (As for how competently it does that half, well, that's another thread.)

While you are certainly correct that Schlosser's work belongs in another thread, you do bring up an interesting question.

If Schlosser had included aesthetics in his book, and not just primarily consequences, don't you think it would have muddied his already (clearly this is in my opinion) somewhat unclear arguments?

Or, could the inclusion of a discussion of the aesthetics of fast food have made his point stronger and more cogent (even though I am still a little unclear of what he was getting at ... even after a re-reading)?

If I stick with my usual thought, Schlosser should have covered more in his book. This probably has more to do with the fact that I like to see the cause of the problem, before I am hit in the head over and over with the results. I think that that the average information seeker and opinion former fels the same way (let's face it, most people would never go to a junk yard to see a wrecked car, but plenty of people will pay to see the car wreck).

That being said, I am perfectly capable of seeking out the information that will fill in the blanks, but shouldn't one make an attempt to fill them in for me if they are going to present something like "Fast Food Nation".

I get the feeling that several of you think that most people won't read serious food journalism because it might not keep them entertained. Well, you're right. But those of us that seek out good writing about food will and while you might not get rich writing about it, it is entirely possible that one might end up making a good living at it.

There are plenty of literary magazines in this country that have small circulations, but a few people are making reasonable livings (not to mention making decent reputations as writers and editors) putting them out. Maybe good food writing is one of those things that will need people who are as interested in the writing (no matter the format) as in the money to be made. There can be a balance. Both can be had and I think that the medium we are currently communicating in may well be the way it happens.

I would gladly PAY to be in daily contact with a discussion such as this. Egullet, Chowhound, etc. are all fine and good, but there is a distinct lack of the discussion of the forces guiding the way we eat and the food we choose for ourselves. I think it probably has more to do with the fact that the average user of this site,and others like it, consider computer bulletin boards such as this to provide a form of infotainment, rather than information.

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.

Edited September 29, 2003 by Mayhaw Man (log)

[Pan]

Egullet, Chowhound, etc. are all fine and good, but there is a distinct lack of the discussion of the forces guiding the way we eat and the food we choose for ourselves. I think it probably has more to do with the fact that the average user of this site,and others like it, consider computer bulletin boards such as this to provide a form of infotainment, rather than information.

Do you want to take a poll on that?

Sure, I find this site entertaining, but I come here to receive and share information at least as much as to entertain myself. Most of that information is about restaurants where I might want to eat and such-like, but it's still information I can use. And I'm certainly interested in topics like the one we're talking about in this thread, but I lack expertise to contribute original content in this area, just as I lack expertise in the techniques a French chef has to master before going out on his/her own - another fascinating topic on these boards. So I read about these things and think about them, but don't say too much (I hope). What I do know about is the restaurants I eat at and such-like, so that's the information I can share.

[Mayhaw Man]

Egullet, Chowhound, etc. are all fine and good, but there is a distinct lack of the discussion of the forces guiding the way we eat and the food we choose for ourselves. I think it probably has more to do with the fact that the average user of this site,and others like it, consider computer bulletin boards such as this to provide a form of infotainment, rather than information.

Do you want to take a poll on that?

Sure, I find this site entertaining, but I come here to receive and share information at least as much as to entertain myself. Most of that information is about restaurants where I might want to eat and such-like, but it's still information I can use. And I'm certainly interested in topics like the one we're talking about in this thread, but I lack expertise to contribute original content in this area, just as I lack expertise in the techniques a French chef has to master before going out on his/her own - another fascinating topic on these boards. So I read about these things and think about them, but don't say too much (I hope). What I do know about is the restaurants I eat at and such-like, so that's the information I can share.

As do I. I enjoy reading about the scene on the coasts as much as the next guy, and since I get to travel a bit in Ireland and the UK I seek information here as I consider this to be the site to find incredibly well formed and thoroughly researched opinions on places to eat, both new and old.

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.

[Bux]

You are completely right. "...I think it highlights one of the faults of the Internet and particularly a fault of interactive sites." I could have waited a few more hours before posting my first message in this thread; in the intervening time, I could have sharpened the words to be much more clear and succinct.

Instant communication is a fault. It's also a virtue.

For instance, if I'd expressed myself clearly and succinctly the first time, we woudn't be engaging now in this (possibly) interesting little digression.

Indeed, and when I responded to this point, I had forgotten how I closed my first post in this thread. For reminders, here's what I said:

Now, I should go back and edit this, but it I do, I risk letting in too many other posts which will take the thread in a different direction. Is that a fault? Whose? 

The smiley was part of the original post and it was a long post, that if delayed might well have been lost in the momentum of the thread. The nature of the medium will change how we think and how we express ourselves. It's probably done that already.

[Bux]

I would gladly PAY to be in daily contact with a discussion such as this. Egullet, Chowhound, etc. are all fine and good, but there is a distinct lack of the discussion of the forces guiding the way we eat and the food we choose for ourselves. I think it probably has more to do with the fact that the average user of this site,and others like it, consider computer bulletin boards such as this to provide a form of infotainment, rather than information.

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.

I think you sell us short if you think conversations such as you seek cannot happen right here. Whatever the average user considers, there's no reason every thread need be devoted to the average user's interest. For starters, the average thread on this site is so different from what I recall on Usenet not so long ago. For another thing, I find the dicussions here far more ranging than on other public web sites devoted to food. The remarkable thing for me, is not how much or how little infotainment, or just plain entertainment is provided by threads, but how many threads there are with real meat and how often these threads aim for the core.

[Human Bean]

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.

I believe that some of what you seek is partially embodied in the concept of The Symposium on eG.

Whether it is succeding at that, I leave to others to say.