Eater

[Sneakeater]

16 minutes ago, backyardchef said:

I would probably survive. What if they didn't know who Richard Edson is? 

You know, I recently saw a promotional thing for some gig that Richard Edson was playing at, and he was identified as "drummer for Sonic Youth".  And I thought, that's not the half of it.

[Sneakeater]

But seriously, this is the problem:  every time you talk about something so-called "high", the so-called  "low" people all go, but what about the "low"?  And every time you talk about something so-called "low", the so-called "high" people go, but what about the "high"?

You've got to know, and be open to appreciating, all of it.  It's not like, James Joyce but what about Jack Kirby?  And it's not Jack Kirby but what about James Joyce?  You know?

Edited November 1, 2023 by Sneakeater

[Sneakeater]

And the "low" people who just reject the "high" out of hand are just as bad as the "high" people who just reject the "low" out of hand.

Beethoven isn't inherently more important than Chuck Berry.  But he isn't inherently less important either.

[Sneakeater]

(No matter what Berry himself had to say about that.)

 

[Wilfrid]

And Tchaikovsky can sit on it too.

[Sneakeater]

But let me do something REALLY weird and write something on-topic.

A year or two ago -- whenever it was -- when The Times brought back stars for restaurant reviews and Pete Wells changed the criteria so as to let different kinds of restaurants get evaluated on an equal footing, I was all in favor of the change.  Opposed were people here who said, "no, it's got to be a 'real restaurant' to deserve a starred review."  I think fuck that kind of category-mongering.

But it's JUST AS BAD to be like Sietsema, all "fuck fine dining" and "I can write about it without knowing dick".

It's bad BOTH ways.  And, I think, invalid as criticism.

Edited November 1, 2023 by Sneakeater

[backyardchef]

33 minutes ago, Sneakeater said:

But seriously, this is the problem:  every time you talk about something so-called "high", the so-called  "low" people all go, but what about the "low"?  And every time you talk about something so-called "low", the so-called "high" people go, but what about the "high"?

You've got to know, and be open to appreciating, all of it.  It's not like, James Joyce but what about Jack Kirby?  And it's not Jack Kirby but what about James Joyce?  You know?

A unicorn? 

[mongo]

it's not a question of high and low. (the analogue of rene clair in my comparison would be a long list of serious indian film directors.) it's a question of a canon.

i do agree with you that the state of food writing is generally quite dire these days. but the proof of that is not the fact that eater's editor-in-chief makes a flip comment about googling the name of a french dish in a listicle.

[Sneakeater]

Oh I totally agree @mongo.  That "chou farci" thing just happened to be right in front of me.

[Sneakeater]

49 minutes ago, Wilfrid said:

And Tchaikovsky can sit on it too.

Tchaikovsky is actually pretty telling in this context.

I myself would say that Tchaikovsky is worse than Chuck Berry.  But that's from evaluating each them on their merits.  Not by thinking that one is automatically generically better or more important than the other.

Edited November 1, 2023 by Sneakeater

[Orik]

1 hour ago, mongo said:

given that the vast majority of american film critics* show no evidence of knowing the names of more than 1 or 2 indian film-makers of the 20th century, i'm not particularly exercised if they don't know the names of every significant french film-maker either. 

The author studied in Paris and keeps going back there, she says.
 

[backyardchef]

3 minutes ago, Orik said:

The author studied in Paris and keeps going back there, she says.
 

Unfortunately she studied Drama and not Farce. 

[mongo]

chou farci person?

sure, it may turn out that given her biography (which, i don't know) she should know the names of more french dishes than she seems to know. but sneak wasn't responding to her biography (which he doesn't know either) but to the very idea of a food writer--even if the editor-in-chief of eater--having to google the term "chou farci" and that's what i was responding to. my point is that the horizon of culinary coverage in the u.s has expanded dramatically in the last 10 years and much as we might want every food writer to know every important term in every important cuisine, this is no more possible now than to expect a literary scholar to know every important writer/book in every major literary tradition--to take an analogy from my line of work. once upon a time, pretty much every professor of literature could have told you what an anapest is or rattled off an example of trochaic pentameter. now most would have to google. this is because the canon has exploded and the larger world of literary study has become impossible for anyone to keep track of.

Edited November 1, 2023 by mongo

[mongo]

so, once upon a time it would have been truly shocking if an american food writer working for a major publication did not have an intimate knowledge of the terminology of french cuisine. now it's not really the end of the world and to behave like it is is perhaps to reveal an unexpected nostalgia.

and speaking of unexpected things, sneak, your talk of "high and low" when i gave the analogy of american critics not knowing the names of more than 1-2 indian film-makers seems revealing as well. it would seem to suggest that you automatically think of indian cinema as "low" and french as "high" when you say that i am privileging one over the other (which i'm not anyway: i'm saying it's hard to keep track these days because people have to know a lot more).

Edited November 1, 2023 by mongo

[Sneakeater]

That might be valid if the author had demonstrated any expertise in several other kinds of food than French.

[Orik]

33 minutes ago, mongo said:

and speaking of unexpected things, sneak, your talk of "high and low" when i gave the analogy of american critics not knowing the names of more than 1-2 indian film-makers seems revealing as well. it would seem to suggest that you automatically think of indian cinema as "low" and french as "high" when you say that i am privileging one over the other (which i'm not anyway: i'm saying it's hard to keep track these days because people have to know a lot more).

India has cinemas?

You could view the change as broadening of coverage, but in reality the change has mostly been that authors (and chefs) are encouraged to sell their supposed heritage rather than become knowledgeable about what lies beyond. Thus the author recommends Taiwanese bubble tea from an international chain to Paris visitors. It's nice to learn about Taiwanese food but it's also nice if a publication would send someone familiar with French food to cover a restaurant where even the water stains on glasses were imported from France. 

[Sneakeater]

53 minutes ago, mongo said:

so, once upon a time it would have been truly shocking if an american food writer working for a major publication did not have an intimate knowledge of the terminology of french cuisine. now it's not really the end of the world and to behave like it is is perhaps to reveal an unexpected nostalgia.

and speaking of unexpected things, sneak, your talk of "high and low" when i gave the analogy of american critics not knowing the names of more than 1-2 indian film-makers seems revealing as well. it would seem to suggest that you automatically think of indian cinema as "low" and french as "high" when you say that i am privileging one over the other (which i'm not anyway: i'm saying it's hard to keep track these days because people have to know a lot more).

WAIT A MINUTE.

That stuff was responding TOTALLY and ONLY to @backyardchef's raising Richad Edson as a corrective to René Clair.  It had NOTHING to do with anything you said.  REALLY.

Edited November 1, 2023 by Sneakeater

[Sneakeater]

I mean how could you POSSIBLY think I privilege European food over Indian?  (Or European culture for that matter?)

Edited November 1, 2023 by Sneakeater

[Sneakeater]

(You have no idea how much time I spend making sure every broad general assertion I make in my newsletter is qualified to limit it to Western or European art.)

Edited November 1, 2023 by Sneakeater

[mongo]

ah, okay. hard to tell in the flow of disjointed forum conversation. i did say it was unexpected.

[Sneakeater]

Sorry then!

[backyardchef]

1 hour ago, Sneakeater said:

WAIT A MINUTE.

That stuff was responding TOTALLY and ONLY to @backyardchef's raising Richad Edson as a corrective to René Clair.  It had NOTHING to do with anything you said.  REALLY.

This guy is gonna blame me for Momofuku Ko closing next..... 😉

[Sneakeater]

Where WERE you that day?

[Wilfrid]

11 hours ago, Sneakeater said:

Tchaikovsky is actually pretty telling in this context.

I myself would say that Tchaikovsky is worse than Chuck Berry.  But that's from evaluating each them on their merits.  Not by thinking that one is automatically generically better or more important than the other.

Just because he was in the song and Chuck didn’t stop at Beethoven.

[Wilfrid]

10 hours ago, Sneakeater said:

That might be valid if the author had demonstrated any expertise in several other kinds of food than French.

Her resume is good. The misstep as I said was not so much not knowing something basic as broadcasting that she had to Google it. How about “confit”? Should she know that without googling it? It’s French, it’s basic.