DML wrote:

Darren72 wrote:

DML wrote:What I found annoying about the Chicago Mag. thing was the overall snide attitude. I like food. I like talking about food. But I'm really tired of people who think they are witty with the little half-line insults.

Are you talking about "Fuck Chicago Magazine"?

No, that was not meant to be witty. It was not meant to be snide. It was not meant to show how important GEB is. That was meant to be an insult. It was very effective as such.

I like talking about food, as you do. I don't think there's a place for insults, even if they are made by a so-called important chef.

And I don't care if the article was about the people running a burger stand

It has nothing to do with the importance of the chef.

It has to do with people going for witty and producing only snide or tedious.

She makes a living ripping people like him. Good for her.
Now it is his chance to toss an insult back. If she doesn't like it, too bad. His first comment was just an outburst. Fine. At least he had an excuse. She produced short, snide and tedious. He produced short and angry.
In the end though, I think he was right to be annoyed.

How was she ripping him? I'm not trying to be difficult. She was invited to a press event. She wrote up the food. What did she say that was personal about him? What did she say that was out of bounds more generally?

I understand the debate about the propriety of the piece, but like others, what I'm puzzled by is the reaction to its purported tone. Is this a generational thing? Am I such a terrible offender myself that I don't even recognize it when I see it? There's snarkier stuff here on a daily basis. Hell, there snarkier stuff in this thread.

Maybe I'm an insensitive lout, but I never would have given that slideshow a second thought if I'd read it without context.

DML wrote:She makes a living ripping people like him.

I met Cassie Walker once a few years ago; I did not recognize her at the event; I've read several articles by her in Chicago Mag, and I do not feel this is in any sense a fair characterization of what she does for "a living." As I mentioned, I disagreed with much of what she said about the food, but please let's not get carried away with the invective.

Dmnkly wrote:Maybe I'm an insensitive lout, but I never would have given that slideshow a second thought if I'd read it without context.

I agree. Had I read that Chicago Mag piece by itself, I would have thought it was basically a puff piece.

David Hammond wrote:

DML wrote:She makes a living ripping people like him.

I met Cassie Walker once a few years ago; I did not recognize her at the event; I've read several articles by her in Chicago Mag, and I do not feel this is in any sense a fair characterization of what she does for "a living." As I mentioned, I disagreed with much of what she said about the food, but please let's not get carried away with the invective.

I don't think there is any invective there at all. She's a critic. That's what she does. Buy the ticket, take the ride.

I think that my objection (and I can't speak for him, but I assume GEB's) was the way she handled it. Initially, this was not the final product. I'm not sure that "The rough draft needs work" is ever fair. But she was invited, and since she is a critic, it is not unreasonable for her to comment on what she saw and tasted so the fact that she did decided to critique it is not that big of a deal. However, her short one line dismissals of the food did seem tedious. self-important, and improper. The chefs and cooks worked hard. They deserve more than one line catty comments. If she had written a serious review along the lines of "Lolla Food Need Major Upgrade" I don't think she would have gotten the same negative response.

So you think they held a press event to show "rough drafts" that shouldn't be commented on? That seems far-fetched. The more simple explanation is that they held a press event to get publicity for the food and the project. Bowles didn't like the negative press he received and over-reacted in a childish way.

Had she written a glowing review of the food, I'm sure no one would comment that her blog post was less than perfect in any way.

Darren72 wrote:

Dmnkly wrote:Maybe I'm an insensitive lout, but I never would have given that slideshow a second thought if I'd read it without context.

I agree. Had I read that Chicago Mag piece by itself, I would have thought it was basically a puff piece.

I've read it three or four times and I can't even find the part that he's pissed about. 80% of it is glowingly positive. The other 20% seems only slightly less positive. Is this really all about the fact she called one dish "too rich" or because she said a bun fell apart in her hands?

Honestly. What am I missing?

And how is this Chicago Mag piece "self-important"? This word "self-important", Chef GEB, I do not think it means what you think it means.

art wrote:Wow. Lollapalooza cuisine has come a long way since I saw Eddie Vedder drink a "bile beer" from "The Tube" of Jim Rose's Side Circus. http://www.twofeetthick.com/2007/07/lol ... ospective/ Would Chicago Mag go so far as to critique a bile beer? That would be hard core. That would be rock and roll journalism!

times have changed! All I've seen Ed Vedder swig on stage in the last five years is pricey Barolo...

DML wrote:I don't think there is any invective there at all. She's a critic. That's what she does. Buy the ticket, take the ride.

So, you believe "criticism" is only negative, a "ripping" of someone or something. We disagree. Is film criticism always ripping a movie? Does Roger Ebert never give a thumbs up?

eatchicago wrote:

Darren72 wrote:

Dmnkly wrote:Maybe I'm an insensitive lout, but I never would have given that slideshow a second thought if I'd read it without context.

I agree. Had I read that Chicago Mag piece by itself, I would have thought it was basically a puff piece.

I've read it three or four times and I can't even find the part that he's pissed about. 80% of it is glowingly positive. The other 20% seems only slightly less positive. Is this really all about the fact she called one dish "too rich" or because she said a bun fell apart in her hands?

Honestly. What am I missing?

Yeah, passing by today, goodness knows I get sucked into this thread since, you know, I rarely actually eat in Chicago any more. But yeah, I'm still not even sure I read the piece that generated controversy because I couldn't find anything controversial.

David Hammond wrote:

DML wrote:I don't think there is any invective there at all. She's a critic. That's what she does. Buy the ticket, take the ride.

So, you believe "criticism" is only negative, a "ripping" of someone or something. We disagree. Is film criticism always ripping a movie? Does Roger Ebert never give a thumbs up?

First, don't mention her and Roger Ebert at the same time. One is a great writer who happens to be a critic. The other is not.
Done well, sure there is more to being a critic than ripping somebody. But in this case she went with the "witty little insults." Except there was nothing witty at all about her writing.
And that may be it. It may be that personal critique of her writing is that she isn't a very good one.
And now she can go tell me to go screw myself.
And I'm fine with it. We all have our opinions.

DML - what did she write that qualifies as an insult?

ChefGEB wrote:What was supposed to be a fun gathering of Chefs, foodies, bloggers, writers and musicians celebrating the fact that our town now sports the best food offerings of any music fest in the country, ....

I should let it go, but I can't. The quote above is ridiculously disingenuous, and either the writer is a fool or he's making us all out to be fools. Either way, I am calling big, giant, runny, smelly, BULLSHIT on that quote, GEB. It's insulting for you to make this event out to be a "celebration" rather than a (poorly?) calculated public relations investment.

Anybody else see the irony that Chicago Mag is apparently allowed to critique GEB, but GEB is not allowed to offer hs view of Chicago Magazine? "Hey, WE are the critics. Not you. Your job is to just sit there and take it."
GEB doesn't see it that way, and that's good.
By the way -- this reminds me of a scene from Top Chef Masters, which involved Rick Bayless. One of the chefs was critiqued and he stated that he cares what Bayless thinks more than he cares about the critics/judges.

Kennyz wrote:

ChefGEB wrote:What was supposed to be a fun gathering of Chefs, foodies, bloggers, writers and musicians celebrating the fact that our town now sports the best food offerings of any music fest in the country, ....

I should let it go, but I can't. The quote above is ridiculously disingenuous, and either the writer is a fool or he's making us all out to be fools. Either way, I am calling big, giant, runny, smelly, BULLSHIT on that quote, GEB. It's insulting for you to make this event out to be a "celebration" rather than a (poorly?) calculated public relations investment.

I was talking to a restaurant guy the other day and he told me advises chefs to never respond to criticism in this or any online forum (particularly, he said, THIS forum, because we're a tough crowd, which I took as a kind of compliment). When chefs respond to a criticism of their art, it's just too easy to come across as defensive and petty, and honestly, these guys are usually not (like some of us) on computers all day and savvy to the ways of the online discussion: they end up saying stuff they probably didn't intend and they open themselves up to all kinds of close readings that yield interpretations that they are then obligated to justify. I feel sorry for chefs who come onto the board, make some statements, then bow out saying in effect that they don't have time to engage in long backs-and-forth conversations -- I'm sure they don't, but when they don't, it sometimes appears as though they chickened out and can't back up their positions.

Kenny, I think your focus on "celebration," is an example of the kind of rigorous reading that earns us the reputation for being tough (and as a student of New Criticism, which now seems like kind of Old School Criticism, this obsessive attention to individual words is almost second nature to me). That said, it seems a false choice to have to pick between a foolish writer or the writer taking us as fools, and there seems no reason why an event like this cannot be both "celebration" and a PR event.

Darren72 wrote:DML - what did she write that qualifies as an insult?

DML, I'm with Darren72. Still looking for the insult. Can you quote it for me?

David Hammond wrote:Kenny, I think your focus on "celebration," is an example of the kind of rigorous reading that earns us the reputation for being tough (and as a student of New Criticism, which now seems like kind of Old School Criticism, this obsessive attention to individual words is almost second nature to me). That said, it seems a false choice to have to pick between a foolish writer or the writer taking us as fools, and there seems no reason why an event like this cannot be both "celebration" and a PR event.

Maybe, but I think GEB provided enough context in that post (which - to your point about how chefs sometimes use online forums like this - is merely a copy and paste of something he posted all over the internet.) and his twitter feed to make my interpretation valid.

Though I quoted a word, my interpretation of his attitude does not stem from that one word, or that one post, or from the large handful of his tweets about the matter. It stems from all of those things combined, plus a history I believe he has of other disingenuous efforts at public relations.

because we're a tough crowd, which I took as a kind of complement

A more philosophical point, when you spell it that way, but possibly just as true ...

Katie wrote:

because we're a tough crowd, which I took as a kind of complement

A more philosophical point, when you spell it that way, but possibly just as true ...

Ha, thanks for catching. Will correct. Looks like I wasn't paying as much attention to individual words as I thought I was.

As Wallace Stevens once wrote, "Philosophy before breakfast sticks to the eye."

eatchicago wrote:

Darren72 wrote:DML - what did she write that qualifies as an insult?

DML, I'm with Darren72. Still looking for the insult. Can you quote it for me?

Tough to answer. No single statement standing alone is outrageous. However, taken together, they have a condescending air.

(David, just trying to inject a bit of comic relief. As you know, it's one thing to stand still; it's another thing to be stationery. )

Setting a mood: "Lolla will be like Taste of Chicago—but with good food!"

Reviews: formulaic- one dig and one compliment per dish. The disses below:

Big Star: "Taste: 2 ½. On the bland side."
Ge: "Taste: 3. Meaty, but, with the sauce slathered on, too rich."
Kuma's: "Fest friendliness: 2. Abundant toppings make it hard to eat, and do you really want egg yolk dripping down your chin?"
The Southern: "Fest friendliness: 2. It’s portable, but shellfish in the hot sun? Nah."
Sunda: "Fest friendliness: 2. The flimsy Bao bun fell apart almost immediately."

Predictable, in its +1/ -1 structure [either the food itself or the fest friendliness had to be the weakness]. Kuma's and The Southern are the ones that read more hack-ish to me--- the tone reminds me of a college friend that often says 'really?' or 'seriously?' in a sarcastic way/ it is just smug, imo, and not amusing.

That said, reading these again, I don't think they're so awful. I have def. read much more irresponsible food journalism. As I said before I think both sides deserve their opinions and both are shades of incorrect, I just happen to agree with one far more [chef bowles & other chefs trying to bring cuisine to lolla] than the other in terms of intent/creativity. @Chimag an individual's opinion is not hers alone, and lots of mainstream deadtreemedia-only readers visit Chicago magazine's site that don't aggressively research elsewhere...lots of responsibility goes along with poo-pooing the suitability of the effort before it's off the ground.

Big Star: "Taste: 2 ½. On the bland side."
Ge: "Taste: 3. Meaty, but, with the sauce slathered on, too rich."
Kuma's: "Fest friendliness: 2. Abundant toppings make it hard to eat, and do you really want egg yolk dripping down your chin?"
The Southern: "Fest friendliness: 2. It’s portable, but shellfish in the hot sun? Nah."
Sunda: "Fest friendliness: 2. The flimsy Bao bun fell apart almost immediately."

Does anyone else sense a more than vague resemblance here to the critiques one customarily hears at the Top Chef Judge's Table?

They're usually much politer in the Master's version but perhaps an exposed nerve was sratched?

DML wrote:

eatchicago wrote:

Darren72 wrote:DML - what did she write that qualifies as an insult?

DML, I'm with Darren72. Still looking for the insult. Can you quote it for me?

Tough to answer. No single statement standing alone is outrageous. However, taken together, they have a condescending air.

Thanks for answering. This confirms my suspicions about this whole fracas.

What suspicion is that?

jbw wrote:

Big Star: "Taste: 2 ½. On the bland side."
Ge: "Taste: 3. Meaty, but, with the sauce slathered on, too rich."
Kuma's: "Fest friendliness: 2. Abundant toppings make it hard to eat, and do you really want egg yolk dripping down your chin?"
The Southern: "Fest friendliness: 2. It’s portable, but shellfish in the hot sun? Nah."
Sunda: "Fest friendliness: 2. The flimsy Bao bun fell apart almost immediately."

Does anyone else sense a more than vague resemblance here to the critiques one customarily hears at the Top Chef Judge's Table?

They're usually much politer in the Master's version but perhaps an exposed nerve was sratched?

Yes, and more to the point, it reminds me a lot of Toby Young.

DML wrote:What suspicion is that?

The suspicion that Chef GEB's response was outrageously disproportionate. There was no insult. No one can quote one. In fact, I can't find a quote that even halfway meets the definition of "self indulgent".

So, we're talking about the tone of the piece, or the writing quality or something. Clearly a subjective measurement since I thought the piece was generally very positive toward him and the food.

Unless there's a hidden insult in there, I'm being told that he didn't like the tone of a blog post about a private party he threw to show off some fancy food for a $200/ticket rock concert. Because of that, the writer deserves a public "F--- YOU" and a smear campaign across every food-related site in the city that'll let Chef GEB post.

It's beyond absurd. It's immoral.

DML wrote:Anybody else see the irony that Chicago Mag is apparently allowed to critique GEB, but GEB is not allowed to offer hs view of Chicago Magazine?

Ironic? Perhaps but it is the very nature of the relationship, which is long-established and should come as no surprise to anyone, especially those who cook for a living and those who frequent this web site. Of course he's allowed to criticize CM but as others have posted, it doesn't make him look very good and it probably isn't good for business, either.

Looking back, wouldn't GEB's greater purposes been better served if he'd just said nothing about this and let it fade away? I believe so because now many who may have never seen the criticism (and I use the word very loosely) have been alerted to it by his comments and the comments themselves make him appear fairly defensive, which cannot endear him to (prospective) customers. As Hammond inferred above, most industry people I know generally avoid on-line dust-ups. It's almost impossible to engage in a favorable way and they are generally vortexes.

=R=