A critic's job

MJN wrote:...the important thing is to maintain a journalistic standard no matter what you do, i.e. be ethical in how you perform that role....

I try to take food writing as seriously as chefs do cooking. This isn't some lark for me or a sideline. I write very little about other topics, and this is a very conscious choice. The great chefs often come in for prep at 10 a.m. and stay until 1 a.m. until service is done. I try to ape that model as much as is humanly possible. I tend to write about food even in my spare time as a hobby, as I am now at 1 a.m. on a Thursday night, because I love what I do and I want to get better at it every moment.

I hope that by being serious, devoted, candid and fair about what I see, my criticisms are worth something...my way of working towards these goals is to use whatever talents I have….

Given Michael’s and my public and, in some cases, extended disagreements on several different threads, I think it’s only appropriate that I add a few words to the thread that began elsewhere. Because the substance of the MJN/Gypsy Boy disagreement is not about Schwa (or about Pat Bruno) but about the role(s) and responsbility/ies of a critic, I think a new thread is in order.

First and foremost, I not only agree with the quotes I’ve excerpted above, I applaud them. And I think others should as well. I do not expect to agree with everything that MJN writes (nor any other critic, regardless of discipline), but that seems beside the point to me. His is a voice—and a potentially valuable one—in informing and educating all of us. I do not have a vendetta against MJN. I criticize him as I would criticize anyone posting on these boards.

He and I share many ideas and opinions but that agreement rarely calls for affirmation. I post when I disagree with him—or anyone else—about what I consider to be the functions and obligations of a critic. I not only respect MJN’s point of view, I genuinely envy his enthusiasm and commitment. Indeed, I often wish other critics had a fraction of his passion.

I imagine he and I may well continue to disagree. I don’t find that to be a problem; I think that reasoned disagreement is healthy. I have never responded to anything he’s written with the intention of embarrassing or ridiculing him; I post when I have a genuine and deeply felt disagreement on a point or an issue that I believe to be of some moment. I have learned from his posts on LTH (and his writings elsewhere) and I think that his criticism and writing have improved, as he himself suggests, from both the critical and favorable responses he has received here and elsewhere. More to the point, he writes about interesting things, has worthwhile and sometimes important things to say, and deserves to be taken seriously. But for me to ignore or fail to address our disagreements would be irresponsible and wrong.

I look forward to continuing to read what he has to say and I look forward to a healthy, continuing dialogue.