Plotnicki and Bourdain: Together At Last, Monday 9:00 p.m.

The names of Steve Plotnicki (of the food board and restaurant guide Opinionated About) and Anthony Bourdain are frequently referred to on this board with a variety of emotions. Tonight (Monday March 8, 2010 CST and subsequently), they will be together on an episode of AB's "No Reservations" entitled "Obsessed" (on the Travel Channel). The episode features them dining at Txikito (a Basque restaurant in Chelsea in NYC). According to my cable provider the show should repeat at 10 p.m. if you can't get enough of these two gentlemen.

I think Perlow and Shaw are also going to be on the show too.

Just think, one meteor and...

For those not familiar with Food Board Politics - Steven Shaw and Jason Perlow were founders of eGullet, which at one time was a very influential food discussion board (since surpassed by LTH! ). Shaw and Plotnicki do not see eye-to-eye, and Opinionated About is an off-shoot of eGullet.

GAF wrote:For those not familiar with Food Board Politics - Steven Shaw and Jason Perlow were founders of eGullet, which at one time was a very influential food discussion board (since surpassed by LTH! ). Shaw and Plotnicki do not see eye-to-eye, and Opinionated About is an off-shoot of eGullet.

And Shaw and Perlow don't see eye to eye. And Perlow and Plotnicki don't see eye to eye.

Unfortunately, I don't think they're all going to be in the same place for this episode. Mike's dream of a well placed meteor strike might have to be deferred. Although, that would make for some interesting television for 0.001% of the population.

jesteinf wrote:
And Shaw and Perlow don't see eye to eye. And Perlow and Plotnicki don't see eye to eye.

And none of them are notable.

Wow, guess I shared one of Jason Perlow's last pizzas last year (as he's apparently now just eating salads), though the most satisfying aspect of that evening was watching GWiv anticipate Perlow's remarks, tell him why he was (going to be) full of bologna, and then sit back and roll his eyes.

That said, I found both Perlow and Shaw to be quite perceptive -- Shaw in particular was brutally honest with Bourdain about his obession, its genesis, and what he's all about.

I thought it was good stuff. I thought there was also bad blood between Bourdain and Shaw, but I guess they got over it.

I'm sure Gary enjoyed watching his BFF get his 15 minutes.

I felt that there was too much psychologizing: are we impassioned about food because there is something missing in our lifes? Are sculptors? Dancers? I suppose one could say that about anyone who cares about a subject, but it downgrades the role of aesthetic interest.

The show also made it seem as if the difference over ethics were mere trivial excuses, and see at a distance they certainly appear so, but when examined up close there were real issues about how one should write about food. Divisions that matter.

So, while it was interesting to see snippets of Shaw, Perlow, and Plotnicki, it was very surface-oriented.

GAF wrote:I felt that there was too much psychologizing: are we impassioned about food because there is something missing in our lifes? Are sculptors? Dancers? I suppose one could say that about anyone who cares about a subject, but it downgrades the role of aesthetic interest.

The show also made it seem as if the difference over ethics were mere trivial excuses, and see at a distance they certainly appear so, but when examined up close there were real issues about how one should write about food. Divisions that matter.

So, while it was interesting to see snippets of Shaw, Perlow, and Plotnicki, it was very surface-oriented.

I agree; there was a gloss over the most discussion-worthy elements. Not to harp, but this kind of analysis is why Gary passes the test.

GAF wrote:I felt that there was too much psychologizing: are we impassioned about food because there is something missing in our lifes? Are sculptors? Dancers? I suppose one could say that about anyone who cares about a subject, but it downgrades the role of aesthetic interest.

The show also made it seem as if the difference over ethics were mere trivial excuses, and see at a distance they certainly appear so, but when examined up close there were real issues about how one should write about food. Divisions that matter.

So, while it was interesting to see snippets of Shaw, Perlow, and Plotnicki, it was very surface-oriented.

Too much psychologizing and too surface? Maybe, but Bourdain only had a few minutes with each of his subjects, so I'm not shocked that some of the topics could have used more discussion. What did surprise me was Bourdain's remark, which I believe he repeated, that "It's only food." Coming from him, that seemed an odd assertion.

David Hammond wrote: What did surprise me was Bourdain's remark, which I believe he repeated, that "It's only food." Coming from him, that seemed an odd assertion.

Robert Parker says the same about wine when thing get complicated over on the wine board... (and sometimes Plotnicki is a part of that discussion too.... or, at least used to be, he might have been kicked off that board? not sure...)

With only 15 or so minutes to devote to "Food Bloggers", I'm not sure the time would have been well spent if it delved any deeper into the Great Millennial Internet Food Message Board Wars. I just don't think the average viewer would have cared. The show was about obsession. Exploring what drives three pretty darn obsessed guys was, I thought, appropriate.

Santander wrote:Not to harp, but this kind of analysis is why Gary passes the test.

For the record, a document compiled by my son.

In response to David, the problem is that from the outside - where the content is airbrushed out - these disagreements seem alternatively silly and psycho, but from the inside, people are really disagreeing about things that matter. Perhaps the time would not have been well-spent for AB's audience, but it would have captured some of what is at stake in the blog wars.

The movie is rarely better than the novel....

Santander wrote:

GAF wrote:I felt that there was too much psychologizing: are we impassioned about food because there is something missing in our lifes? Are sculptors? Dancers? I suppose one could say that about anyone who cares about a subject, but it downgrades the role of aesthetic interest.

The show also made it seem as if the difference over ethics were mere trivial excuses, and see at a distance they certainly appear so, but when examined up close there were real issues about how one should write about food. Divisions that matter.

So, while it was interesting to see snippets of Shaw, Perlow, and Plotnicki, it was very surface-oriented.

I agree; there was a gloss over the most discussion-worthy elements. Not to harp, but this kind of analysis is why Gary passes the test.

You can either keep busting that one out, or you can write a Wiki entry about what ever it is you'd like to write a Wiki entry about. Once it's pulled, or not, can we just let it go?

jesteinf wrote:

Santander wrote:

GAF wrote:I felt that there was too much psychologizing: are we impassioned about food because there is something missing in our lifes? Are sculptors? Dancers? I suppose one could say that about anyone who cares about a subject, but it downgrades the role of aesthetic interest.

The show also made it seem as if the difference over ethics were mere trivial excuses, and see at a distance they certainly appear so, but when examined up close there were real issues about how one should write about food. Divisions that matter.

So, while it was interesting to see snippets of Shaw, Perlow, and Plotnicki, it was very surface-oriented.

I agree; there was a gloss over the most discussion-worthy elements. Not to harp, but this kind of analysis is why Gary passes the test.

You can either keep busting that one out, or you can write a Wiki entry about what ever it is you'd like to write a Wiki entry about. Once it's pulled, or not, can we just let it go?

I'm actually agreeing with you, I think, with regrets for the detour, though this all is very much about bloggers and obsession. My point being, I believe all personages above, and sites mentioned, are worthy of the public record and debate. I'd gladly read Wiviott and LTH articles (and see those names mentioned alongside Bourdain, for that matter) alongside eGullet material, and feel that this broadcast is the kind of notice needed for heightened recognition for all involved. It can only be a good thing that this sphere of experts is being drawn on by a show of this profile, and I know they have a lot more to say than was covered tonight. That's editing, though.

GAF wrote:I felt that there was too much psychologizing: are we impassioned about food because there is something missing in our lifes? Are sculptors? Dancers? I suppose one could say that about anyone who cares about a subject, but it downgrades the role of aesthetic interest.

If when Tony asked the question they had answered with something about missing career passion or a father who gives hugs, perhaps the show would have left it out. But they said sex! You can't expect that to be edited out. This is television, after all.

Clearly, Orson Welles and a certain sled have a lot to answer for.

In response to David, the problem is that from the outside - where the content is airbrushed out - these disagreements seem alternatively silly and psycho, but from the inside, people are really disagreeing about things that matter

Maybe. A lot of the time they seem to be mainly concerned with status battles within a tiny community, which is not something that matters at all, and which the relative meritocracy and the certain degree of antipathy toward sycophancy of LTHForum are important inoculations against.

Mike G wrote:Clearly, Orson Welles and a certain sled have a lot to answer for.

In response to David, the problem is that from the outside - where the content is airbrushed out - these disagreements seem alternatively silly and psycho, but from the inside, people are really disagreeing about things that matter

Maybe. A lot of the time they seem to be mainly concerned with status battles within a tiny community, which is not something that matters at all, and which the relative meritocracy and the certain degree of antipathy toward sycophancy of LTHForum are important inoculations against.

mmmmmmmmmm

Clearly, when Steven Shaw went on about the need to defend dearly your restaurant selections, he hit on some essential truths.

Overall, I did not much like yesterday's episode. I though it came across as creepy and voyeuristic. God knows there's tons of ego involved in food blogging/food message boards, but there is also a huge desire to share and engage in a shared participation. For all the strum un drang that can surround our enterprise, at the end of the day it's mostly about eating good foods, something not so hard to understand.

I think there's been more discussion of the show here than on eG and OAD combined.

jesteinf wrote:I think there's been more discussion of the show here than on eG and OAD combined.

After getting their sad insight which exposed how narcissistic they really are (they care more about themselves than the restaurants they love), would you want to be anywhere near them? That includes virtual proximity.

I wonder how Shaw's wife felt about his claimed inability to pull the ladies.

The editing done to highlight the annoyance of photo taking at the table was awesome. I was saddened to see no one broke out a full frame DSLR. To debase egullet down to a "food blog" was worth the time spent watching boob tube.

I thought the ep was fantastic (and snarky, and hypocritical). Instead of going to Eleven Madison Park during the next NYC trip, I'm thinking a quick plate of crudo at Esca would be great.

Here, Gawker weighs in on last night's show and calls AB "hypocrite"

[errata: Perlow did bring a DSLR, missed that cut]

bibi rose wrote:I wonder how Shaw's wife felt about his claimed inability to pull the ladies.

I didn't see this episode, but I have seen men say these kind of things in front of their wives. If she was smart, she would laugh herself silly right after it was said on television as if to say, "Dream on."

Regards,

jesteinf wrote:I think there's been more discussion of the show here than on eG and OAD combined.

I maybe getting too psychological, or being too worried about surface issues, but pehaps that is because of our insecurity with our "Second City" status.

Steve commented on the show on one of the wine boards...
http://dat.erobertparker.com/bboard/showpost.php?p=2888450&postcount=15

One commenter on that thread made me chuckle with the comment
that that the show had a "Judicious use of Plotnicki"

Plotnicki now "tells" the kitchen to cook for him. I guess that was the problem at L20, he "asked". I'm going to sleep better tonight knowing that he's taken his douche level to a higher level since his Chicago trip. Good for him.

Overall I found this episode way too scattered. Personally I would of preferred 30 minutes watching that guy raise his cattle or the other guy making his dough.

TonyC wrote:I thought the ep was fantastic (and snarky, and hypocritical). Instead of going to Eleven Madison Park during the next NYC trip, I'm thinking a quick plate of crudo at Esca would be great.

Here, Gawker weighs in on last night's show and calls AB "hypocrite"

I don't know that I agree that Tony was being hypocritical. I didn't get the impression he was really worried about the bloggers blogging. When he said "it's only food," he appeared to be talking about the intense in-fighting, ruined friendships, and the comment by the one fellow (Perlow?) that if people disagreed with him, he wanted them dead. For that, I too would say "it's only food." It's worth enjoying and writing about, but not ending friendships or people's lives.

That said, I agree with pizano345, that more could have been done with the cattle and the dough.

Actually, for more on the guy raising the wagyu cattle in Tasmania, there was a great episode of Diary of a Foodie that you can watch online that covers both this guy and another who has successfully introduced truffle growing to Tasmania.
http://www.gourmet.com/diaryofafoodie/v ... 7_tasmania

Plotnicki strikes back at Bourdain