Paper Palate

I’ve been asked by several people about the recent hub-bub surrounding Mr. Well’s piece about food blogs. For the six of you who haven’t been paying attention to the food blog community over the past week, you can catch up on the subject here, and here, and here.

Don’t worry, I’ll be here when you get back.

*whistles* *Taps foot* *looks at watch*

Caught up? Okay, let’s move on, shall we?

If the truth is be told, I didn’t want to write this editorial, for several reasons. One, neither the Well Fed Network nor Accidental Hedonist (my own personal food blog) claims to represent the community. While I love to advocate for and promote the food blog community, my opinions surrounding food blogs are my alone. and likely differ from many folks.

Secondly, Mr. Wells is as entitled to his opinion as any food blogger is of their favorite food, recipe or restaurant. Period. I don’t need to be a chef to know when I’ve been served either good or bad food, and readers who follow food blogs don’t need to be a food blogger to know their likes and dislikes.

From my perspective this is where the story initially ended. A man writes a piece in Food & Wine lauding some very deserving sites in 80% of the article, and in the remaining 20% of the piece gives reasons why he doesn’t like other food blogs. These reasons give credence to his support of the blogs he likes. There’s been plenty of stories lauding food blogs before, so what’s the big deal with this one?

The deal is that the traditional food media’s fascination with the novelty of food blogs is over, and people who are in the position to offer critiques of food blogs have begun to do so. We saw it initially with the LA Times piece a few weeks back, and we see it now with Mr. Wells’ piece in Food and Wine.

Some may question if such critiques are justified. As someone who has been critiqued both privately and publicly, let me answer that justification is never part of the equation. A person doing the critiquing wants for something better. If they get it, fine. If not, they tell their readers where the object of their critique was lacking. It’s up to the reader to decide if the critique was justified.

In my opinion, the real question is in how one responds to criticism. This is where the new story surrounding the Food and Wine article takes off. Because no matter how you slice it, threatening to send Mr. Well’s half eaten cheese sandwiches under the guise of protest and in the name of “community” is an unequivicol overreaction. This is but one of the suggestions that some in the community offered in the (now deleted) comments of a post on Food Blog S’cool.

It is said that the character of a person is often defined by their reaction to adversity. The same can be said of communities. Friends within the food blog community were criticized. What’s the proper reaction to that? Is it to accept the criticism graciously and learn from their words if it is decided the criticisms have merit? Do you organize a satirical response, playing the criticisms off for laughs? Or is it to recommend to all of your friends to cancel your subscriptions to Food & Wine and call Mr. Wells’ editor to voice your displeasure?

Whatever the response, the honeymoon of food blogging is clearly over; from both outside and within.