Bunfight at the Virtual Beanery

[John Whiting]

As requested, here is my article written late in May for the July Newsletter of the Guild of Food Writers [uK]. Since then, eGullet has been showing symptoms of resuscitation.

###############################################

BUNFIGHT AT THE VIRTUAL BEANERY

John Whiting

Through the miracle of the Sparklist, many of us [in the Guild of Food Writers] have experienced the delights and dangers of electronic communication. The information flow is exhilarating, but even in this closed list of professionals the temperature sometimes approaches boiling point and when the stewpot is open to the public it can turn into a simmering blood bath. If you enter an internet newsgroup devoted to food you’re liable to discover a milieu closer to “La Grande Bouffe” than “Babette’s Feast”.

Chowhound, one of the most widely known food discussion web sites, has survived for several years and is still broadcasting occasionally useful if not consistently reliable information. But the signal-to-noise ratio is closer to short wave than to FM. The format is so open and access so easy that casual visitors may chime in with discordant or irrelevant drivel. The owner’s response has been to censor postings which he regards as unfit or inappropriate. But power corrupts and the criteria for exclusion are sometimes quixotic rather than sensible. A number of useful contributors have been declared persona non grata and shown the door.

LAST year a pack of pedigree ex-Chowhounds decided to set up their own kennel with the glottal-stopping moniker “eGullet”. Leaving little to chance, they mapped out a sophisticated web site partitioned off into a network of carefully thought-out culinary and geographical categories, each under the supervision of an expert moderator. “Members” could sign in under a nickname and automatically include a logo and/or signature block in their postings. Running statistics on their participation encouraged activity and continuity. As a vote of confidence in human nature, there would be a minimum of censorship.

This optimistic package attracted both dedicated amateurs and established professionals. Stephen Shaw, the “Fat Guy” whose web site won a James Beard award this year, was one of the founding directors. Among those who signed on, LA Times food writer Russ Parsons has made an occasional shrewd contribution and Jay Raynor, the Observer’s restaurant critic, submitted gracefully to a frat-house-type hazing. On a couple of occasions Anthony Bourdain has burst onto the scene like a crazed serial killer, sprayed the screen with a rapid-fire burst of obscenity, and retreated into his lair. You never know what glittering celebrity may show up next.

SUCH an exhilarating free-for-all invites the usual nutcases, but in addition to the official moderators, there is a formidable self-appointed cadre who set the tone for most of the high-traffic topics. A posse of vigilantes is constantly on patrol, laconically dropping private jokes and learned wisecracks that cow most of the trolls and wafflers. They can move into an unlikely topic and keep it ticking over for weeks, batting one-liners back and forth like ping-pong balls.

The membership numbers among its company an elite of big spenders with an encyclopaedic knowledge of the world’s most expensive restaurants, to which they return with a regularity no mere food writer could afford unless his name was Jeffrey Steingarten. Anyone planning to spend big bucks in a strange city would do well to put out an enquiry on the appropriate “board”, where they will soon gather information more detailed, reliable and up-to-date than the printed guides can manage.

These well-heeled punters tend to share a political and economic philosophy that’s altogether appropriate to their conspicuous consumption. In one popular exchange they asserted at length their moral right to spend a hypothetical $4600 on a single meal. They’re as American as a freshly truffled omelette.

As in trendy food magazines, the really useful stuff can be low key and soft focus. EGullet has a cooking page where you can go for detailed technical information, much of it from highly skilled practitioners. Such topics don’t lend themselves to wisecracks, and so here the jokers are mostly silent.

There’s also a regular feature in which a guest expert is available for a couple of days to answer questions. Shaun Hill made a noteworthy appearance, followed by Washington Post Food Editor Jeanne McMannus. Anthony Bourdain, when called upon to host, made a number of trenchant observations, responding appropriately to both serious enquiry and shameless sycophancy.

The ‘ethnic’ pages can produce unexpected riches. The moderator of the Indian section is Suvir Saran, a cultural polymath from Delhi who now lives in New York where he conjures up banquets for the great and the near-great. Questions concerning the history of Indian cuisine have drawn from him a continuing analysis of Indian and Pakistani cultures and their interrelationships, together with an awe-inspiring evocation of their gastronomic complexity and extravagance. It should be required reading for those world leaders who so clumsily attempt to intervene in Asian politics.

BUT following his fervent participation in a heated discussion of anti-Semitism and Islamic fundamentalism [now deleted], Suvir became the victim of a monomaniacal campaign to ditch him. He has returned by invitation from the Board but confines his contributions to the self-imposed ghetto of Indian cuisine. He would venture beyond it at his peril, for there is a pack of vociferous carnivores who would still relish his head on a platter.

Alas, the real victim of their machinations has been the site itself. The riding of obsessional hobbyhorses and the rampant personalizing of discussion has cast a mushroom cloud of sectarian fallout over every Board. EGullet threatens to become a gastronomic Big Brother, in which the exchange of useful information is drowned out by raucous games of “Let’s You and Him Fight.” Substantial food-centered threads are thinning out, to be replaced by culinary trivia; once-familiar names who could be relied on for thoughtful contributions are quietly disappearing. There has been some infusion of robust new blood, but how long will these promising new members put up with the clubbiness and the vitriol? If the wreckers continue to be given free rein, eGullet will disappear down its own oesophagus. Be they ever so crass, there’s a kind word to be said for editors.

EVEN as electronic communication accelerates, the travel budgets and expense accounts of hard-copy journalists shrink to a pittance. With virtual information flowing so freely, food writers around the world surf the net in search of the latest gossip. Thus, like the menus of anonymous fusion restaurants in luxury hotels, the food pages in periodicals thousands of miles apart grow increasingly interchangeable.

Is this the future? Are professional food writers doomed to become scavengers furtively scooping up scraps from under the virtual table? It’s time we went back to the wellsprings of our culinary traditions and let down our buckets. There are more important themes than the endless search for the World’s Greatest Chef. Take the wise words of Jane Grigson and carve them on the wall: “We have more than enough masterpieces. What we need is a better standard of ordinariness.”

©2002 John Whiting

[Jason Perlow]

Theres no such thing as bad press, they keep telling me.

[mynamejoe]

I wouldn't say it's bad. It just leans more towards objectivity. Nice article, John.

[Fat Guy]

John, you left out the bio:

John Whiting is eGullet's all-time poster #17

[John Whiting]

John Whiting is eGullet's all-time poster #17

Steve, I had no idea. I didn't even look at the league tables because it never occurred to me that I could be in such elevated company. This changes everything. Which part of the article would you like me to rewrite? [Certainly not the part that identifies you as a James Beard winner! ]

[jaybee]

Well written and droll, where called for. Do you include yourself in that cadre that posts about things other than substantial food-centered threads? What culinary contributions were made by Martin Luther? Oh, worms; right, the food of the simple folk.

[Jinmyo]

The Whiting Zone. Doo doo doo doo, doo doo doo doo.

[John Whiting]

Do you include yourself in that cadre that posts about things other than substantial food-centered threads?

It's a fair cop. I plead innocent on grounds of insanity.

[Fat Guy]

I don't want you to rewrite anything, but if you could add a few more paragraphs devoted to the subject of my brilliance, wisdom, compassion, and good looks that would be nice.

[jaybee]

Bravo, John. That's a better dance step than your banjo shuffle.

[Jason Perlow]

The Whiting Zone. Doo doo doo doo, doo doo doo doo.

All american ex-patriates should be dragged out and shot. Especially ones that write tabloid crap.

[jaybee]

These well-heeled punters tend to share a political and economic philosophy that’s altogether appropriate to their conspicuous consumption.

John, a point of enlightenment please. Is it the fact that these well-heeled punters eat in these expensive restaurants that you find so odious, or that they write about their dining experiences on eGullet? or both? If it is the latter, I'm sure that this cadre could be discouraged from doing so quite easily without any loss of self-esteem.

I can assure you that my enjoyment of eating the food of Troisgros, Lammelois, Gagnaire, Savoy, Pic, Baumaniere, Robuchon et.al would not be diminished one whit if my dinners were totally inconspicuous.

[Blue Heron]

John, interesting newsletter. Thanks for providing it. Regarding your comments about eGullet... IMHO, it seems to me that you had a particular agenda in mind when you wrote it. I didn't find it fair and balanced writing, but rather more of a critique (even if you thought it might have been well intentioned, I didn't interpret it that way). But that's your perogative, after all it's your newsletter.

Anyway, to add a little more balance to your article...I would just like to say, that although the majority of eGulleteers are in the NY area, and the fast paced topics may seem to revolve around the NY activities, and discussions, there are many other regional boards here, too, and the participation in those boards is just as important to those members as what else is happening within eGullet.

You are cordially invited to join in any of our discussions on the Pacific Northwest Board. On any given day you will find us talking endlessly and enthusiastically about every different type of bahn mi we can possibly find in Seattle, Farmers markets, various sushi spots we love to go and different types of sushi available, taquerias, burgers, Copper River Salmon...you name it. It's all done in a cordial and respectful manner. If we are clubby, it's only in that we are smaller group, but active none the less. It's made prominently clear everyone is invited to our events, including lurkers. To date, some of the things we've enjoyed as a group are 2 home potlucks, a dinner at a French Bistro, a dinner at a Mexican restaurant, numerous lunches at our favorite sandwich place Salumi, as well as bahn mi's, and perhaps some things I am forgetting or was not able to attend. None of these events would have occurred without the comraderie and interest in food that our group shares through our connecton to eGullet. I've poked my head into other regional boards and they are interesting, respectful and active as well..ie. interesting threads on Migas in Austin, groups busy organizing their own events, and so on.

I realize writing about something as non-controversial as our little PNW group does not create the splash or controversy on your newsletter you are looking for, but just wanted to let you know my perspective of eGullet is not the same as yours.

[Blue Heron]

John, I edited my post to indicate that although you may have thought your article was well intentioned, I didn't interpret it that way. (just in case I hadn't made that point).

[John Whiting]

. . . your newsletter . . .

To clarify any possible misunderstanding: It is not "my" Newsletter, but the monthly periodical of the Guild of Food Writers, an elective organization representing over three hundred members of our profession in Great Britain. I was asked to write the article by one of the directors, who had been following with interest what was happening on the site. He thought that I had accurately caught the essence of it in what was necessarily a very short piece and made no changes except slight editing for length.

[lizziee]

John,

I found your article slanted and biased as well as inaccurate. From what I can gather, e-gullet started in August of 2001. Up until this May, the tone was usually gracious, although sometimes contentious. Not until this May was there a major upheaval with a great deal of troll interlopers. Your article seems to suggest since May, it has been downhill ever since. I know you submitted your article in May for July publication, but you were so quick to comment and chastise on a brief period in e-gullet history that you ignored the majority of e-gullet's past and present.

Your statements concerning the population mix of e-gullet i. e. "these well-heeled punters tend to share a political and economic philosophy that’s altogether appropriate to their conspicuous consumption" or "an elite of big spenders with an encyclopaedic knowledge of the world’s most expensive restaurants," is just not true. First of all, it is because many of us do NOT have unlimited funds that we want to know if that special 3 star meal is worth blowing the budget on. Secondly, the France board which seems to lend itself to talking about Michelin stars is far from an extensive discussion of the high end exclusively. From July 4th to now the following topics have been discussed: Hotel Restaurants, Le Cerf, L'Ambrosie, Day Trips From Paris, US Cell phones, L'Ecole des Chefs, Best Neighborhoods, Bras, Bernachon, Michelin Price Policy, Auberge de I'll, Staggaire's story, L'Astrance, Dining's Hidden Cost, Roellinger, Where did the Americans go, French Rare Beef Breeds, Lucas Carton and Tetou.

There are over 250 very active posters on e-gullet, but you seem to have an agenda with a small number and use that agenda to paint all of us with the same brush. You took an incident that lasted for approximately two weeks and damned the future - "The riding of obsessional hobbyhorses and the rampant personalizing of discussion has cast a mushroom cloud of sectarian fallout over every Board. EGullet threatens to become a gastronomic Big Brother, in which the exchange of useful information is drowned out by raucous games of “Let’s You and Him Fight.” "

Finally, Blue Heron is correct. Look at other boards and I think you will find an e-gullet that you completely over-looked.

[tommy]

"wise cracks". hehehe. i'd be interested to know who the target audience of this (very well written of course) article is.

i think we need a poll of household income. there seems to be some feeling that a lot of us are really really wealthy, as opposed to my impression which is a lot of us choose to spend a good portion of our disposable income on dining. there is a distinct and important difference here.

[Basildog]

And there are some of us who rarely eat out,have never eaten at a Michelin starred establishment ,but do cook/serve people all day long

As far as income goes, my last car cost me £750, so count me in the high rollers club

[Bux]

To clarify any possible misunderstanding: It is not "my" Newsletter, but the monthly periodical of the Guild of Food Writers, an elective organization representing over three hundred members of our profession in Great Britain. I was asked to write the article by one of the directors, who had been following with interest what was happening on the site. He thought that I had accurately caught the essence of it in what was necessarily a very short piece and made no changes except slight editing for length.

I am relieved by your attempt to reassure us that this article did not reach a very important or influential group.

[Jinmyo]

The article just presents eGullet as John sees it. As with his earlier article on his own site, no surprises. John is certainly much more than upfront about how he views the world in general, and eGullet in particular, and certain members in specific.

It's a place we call: the Whiting Zone.

If you think that the article is a hatchet job, well, he's been brandishing it and sharpening it since he arrived. If you agree with John, then you do.

[Blue Heron]

John,

I just remembered another significant (informal) PNW eGullet get tother that I forgot to mention earlier. In Feb., the PNW eGullet group was lucky enough to have Tony Bourdain join us for 3 hours at a neighborhood pub when he was in town for a book signing. He was gracious, charming & witty (and never even used the eff word). Although he can speak for himself, I can assure you that he is no crazed serial killer, nor does he come from a lair. (just to clear up another mis-statement in your article).

[mamster]

On the contrary, BH, I got the impression that Tony did come from a lair, but I consider that a high compliment because I like the word "lair". As for your assertion that PNW is one of eGullet's finest corners (i.e., lairs), I cannot argue with that.

[Blue Heron]

On the contrary, BH, I got the impression that Tony did come from a lair, but I consider that a high compliment because I like the word "lair".  As for your assertion that PNW is one of eGullet's finest corners (i.e., lairs), I cannot argue with that.

[=Mark]

John, 

I just remembered another significant (informal) PNW eGullet get tother that I forgot to mention earlier.  In Feb., the PNW eGullet group was lucky enough to have Tony Bourdain join us for 3 hours at a neighborhood pub when he was in town for a book signing.  He was gracious, charming & witty (and never even used the eff word).  Although he can speak for himself, I can assure you that he is no crazed serial killer, nor does he come from a lair.  (just to clear up another mis-statement in your article). 

This is one aspect of eGullet that has been lacking in coverage by most of the articles I've seen. The number of actual gatherings of people from the list who have gone out of their ways to attend eGullet events. I've been to 5 or 6 gatherings from ethnic dinners to a potluck to a street festival in NYC. Every one of these was enjoyable and only a minor percentage were marred by Tommy and I drunkenly duking it out in the parking lot...

[John Whiting]

I’ve no desire to perpetuate a tempest in a carafe, but a couple of matters should be cleared up. I was not asked to write an essay on the essence of eGullet, but to report on a certain sequence of events. In spite of this, I chose to begin in a positive way rather than going straight to the story with a sensational lead-in, as any proper “tabloid” journalist would have done. I dealt facetiously with what is indeed an ongoing debate between those whose primary interest is in simple domestic cuisine and those for whom eating is an opulent adventure. I went out of my way to point out that the most useful content was liable to be in the low profile boards. Only towards the end did I bring up the recent history about which I had been asked to write in the first place. Furthermore, hearing from behind the scenes that there was about to be a resolution, I persuaded my editor to allow me to hold the final copy until Suvir had returned. It could have been much more deliciously nasty if I had left him in limbo, but that wasn’t the kind of story I wanted to write. Believe me, if a genuine tabloid journalist had taken an interest in this drama, he would have dug out further unsavory details that I chose not to make use of.

There are those who privately agree with me and apologize for not going public, thus subjecting themselves to similar abuse. I entirely sympathize and suggest that they keep a low profile. As for the moderators, anyone who gave me any hint of support after the site owner had publicly called for my execution would be invited to join me before the firing squad. In any public debate, the loudest are not necessary the wisest, nor the wisest the loudest.