The piece by Josh Ozersky does resonate with me, though Substack has made it possible for some of us home cooks/writers to get read and paid (so far I don’t charge, maybe because I never feel like I’m part of this exclusive club). I picked up MFK Fisher’s “How to Cook a Wolf” early in the pandemic and was really disappointed in the recipes and the observations. The world of food writing does seem to be a bit of an exclusive club. This statement struck home: “Write anything you want on your blog or your Tumblr; nobody will hear of you, and you won’t see a penny, until some important person in the magazine world knows your name.”
I agree with Nancy too. I didn’t think his writing was that bad, but the smugness of being dismissive of MKF Fisher and current writers as stereotypical is hilarious since he is a stereotype: the anarchical, meat-devouring man who wants nothing of this “dainty,” emotion-driven stuff other people are dishing out. His approach is a little reminiscent of Anthony Bourdain although I liked a lot of his writing and his shows. I don’t love MKF Fisher, but I enjoy her work, as I do some of the other writers he mentions, in disdain. They see food as an adventure and so do I. I don’t want to read about someone’s problems with a side-order of food; I want to get inspired by celebrating food in their writing. I gives me glimpses into worlds I’ll never know…like living in The Napa Valley before it was “Napa.”
I'd never heard of this person, which doesn't mean a thing because I'm not at all connected to any sort of world he inhabits. I read the story but only part way through, concluding that he really needed an editor. Then I tried watching the Youtube video thing and that turned me off completely. There's something grossly self-satisfied about him that comes across as unbearably boring, like the guest at the party who rants on and on and on and you can't get rid of him. And I couldn't! I actually had to turn off the computer to silence his voice. This is Bro Gastronomy and my world is much happier and far more interesting without it.
I hadn't known anything about Ozersky until my research and found he was all over the place during his lifetime. As I said, he stirred up a lot of issues in the food world and was celebrated, awarded, and very loathed for doing so. I disagree with a lot of what he said, especially his assement of Edmund Wilson, V.S. Naipaul and Susan Sontag, and his snarky comments about current well-regarded food writers. But it was a very talked about essay and I was curious about how it would be thought of now. I viewed it as part of food writing's literary progression, something to think about in the present. It's a blessing that food writing has exploded with so many more interesting voices from so many different backgrounds and perspectives. But threads of Ozersky's view remain. I'm like you, not part of whatever the current food world is, and content to be so, but it's good to be stirred up from the past every now and then .
I'm with you in everything you've said. It's why I was caught by Ozersky's essay. I came to realize after I published my last book that I probably will never be published again becayuse the things I wanted to write about didn't match up to the current food scene. Substack lets me continue writing what I want but I'll never be part of the club mainly because it takes so long to be recognized (I'm getting up in age) and the platform doesn't do anything to promote writers who don't have a good paid subscription base (I haven't gone paid yet either). But, you know, it's fine. We're writing and people are reading and that's more than enough for any writer!....and I love your newsletter!
I believe I read Josh's piece back when he wrote it. He put into words (maybe a lot more harshly than I might've - I give him points for an original voice) what I thought often. I tried to read MFK Fisher so many times but none of her books resonated with me. They bored me too death. As a reader we all have things that appeal to us and things that don't. But I would hear time and time again that I MUST read her.
I also read Anna Karenina and hated the book. We all don't have to like things that everyone says that we must!
What Josh was saying and I agree with him and many like him since, is that there are many ways of speaking about food. Being such a diverse country with such diverse people, we need to hear from more people than just privileged white women. And things have definitely changed since he wrote the article in 2014. We are making progress. I'm going to call that a win for all of us.
Oh the grilling is a sight you'll never forget
The piece by Josh Ozersky does resonate with me, though Substack has made it possible for some of us home cooks/writers to get read and paid (so far I don’t charge, maybe because I never feel like I’m part of this exclusive club). I picked up MFK Fisher’s “How to Cook a Wolf” early in the pandemic and was really disappointed in the recipes and the observations. The world of food writing does seem to be a bit of an exclusive club. This statement struck home: “Write anything you want on your blog or your Tumblr; nobody will hear of you, and you won’t see a penny, until some important person in the magazine world knows your name.”
I agree with Nancy too. I didn’t think his writing was that bad, but the smugness of being dismissive of MKF Fisher and current writers as stereotypical is hilarious since he is a stereotype: the anarchical, meat-devouring man who wants nothing of this “dainty,” emotion-driven stuff other people are dishing out. His approach is a little reminiscent of Anthony Bourdain although I liked a lot of his writing and his shows. I don’t love MKF Fisher, but I enjoy her work, as I do some of the other writers he mentions, in disdain. They see food as an adventure and so do I. I don’t want to read about someone’s problems with a side-order of food; I want to get inspired by celebrating food in their writing. I gives me glimpses into worlds I’ll never know…like living in The Napa Valley before it was “Napa.”
Im so glad I found your newsletter!
I'd never heard of this person, which doesn't mean a thing because I'm not at all connected to any sort of world he inhabits. I read the story but only part way through, concluding that he really needed an editor. Then I tried watching the Youtube video thing and that turned me off completely. There's something grossly self-satisfied about him that comes across as unbearably boring, like the guest at the party who rants on and on and on and you can't get rid of him. And I couldn't! I actually had to turn off the computer to silence his voice. This is Bro Gastronomy and my world is much happier and far more interesting without it.
The video is priceless. The camaraderie with the guys is such fun. I missed grilling on the roof when I got a phone call, so will revisit. Thanks!
I hadn't known anything about Ozersky until my research and found he was all over the place during his lifetime. As I said, he stirred up a lot of issues in the food world and was celebrated, awarded, and very loathed for doing so. I disagree with a lot of what he said, especially his assement of Edmund Wilson, V.S. Naipaul and Susan Sontag, and his snarky comments about current well-regarded food writers. But it was a very talked about essay and I was curious about how it would be thought of now. I viewed it as part of food writing's literary progression, something to think about in the present. It's a blessing that food writing has exploded with so many more interesting voices from so many different backgrounds and perspectives. But threads of Ozersky's view remain. I'm like you, not part of whatever the current food world is, and content to be so, but it's good to be stirred up from the past every now and then .
I'm with you in everything you've said. It's why I was caught by Ozersky's essay. I came to realize after I published my last book that I probably will never be published again becayuse the things I wanted to write about didn't match up to the current food scene. Substack lets me continue writing what I want but I'll never be part of the club mainly because it takes so long to be recognized (I'm getting up in age) and the platform doesn't do anything to promote writers who don't have a good paid subscription base (I haven't gone paid yet either). But, you know, it's fine. We're writing and people are reading and that's more than enough for any writer!....and I love your newsletter!
I believe I read Josh's piece back when he wrote it. He put into words (maybe a lot more harshly than I might've - I give him points for an original voice) what I thought often. I tried to read MFK Fisher so many times but none of her books resonated with me. They bored me too death. As a reader we all have things that appeal to us and things that don't. But I would hear time and time again that I MUST read her.
I also read Anna Karenina and hated the book. We all don't have to like things that everyone says that we must!
What Josh was saying and I agree with him and many like him since, is that there are many ways of speaking about food. Being such a diverse country with such diverse people, we need to hear from more people than just privileged white women. And things have definitely changed since he wrote the article in 2014. We are making progress. I'm going to call that a win for all of us.