5 comments

• 

  thefoodgeek

  1 year ago

  This was originally written for the podcast, as podcast fans will likely have figured out. The style and subject matter are far more consistent with that than with the main site, but I'm playing with bring some of these stories more to the written site than the podcast. Why? Mostly because it takes me forever to do a podcast. You may have noticed that this story broke months ago, and I didn't really add that much to it. It's been sitting in a bin waiting for me to record it, by and large, so it seemed like a better idea to publish it as text than to abandon it altogether.
  reply
• 

  Bobby Lentz

  11 months ago

  So what. The guy is a Chef and from what I see a damned good one.
  
  The sad part of all this is that he gave all the idiots a sword to attack him with. He seems more than qualified for his job on Food Network.....far more so than the vast majority they have that are in good standing. Look at what he's done that is proven to be 100% accurate. That is far and away more qualification than the man needs. Even the stuff he embellished wasn't anything that I see takes anything away from what he is or does. The man is indeed a great chef!
  
  He apologized. Let it go already. Or is this deep desire so many of us have today to bring down the successful just overridding rational thought?
  reply
• 

  thefoodgeek

  11 months ago

  Hi, Bobby,
  
  I pretty much covered it in the article, but the reason 'why' is because he made himself a public figure, and that means that you're going to be scrutinized. It is important to me because a) it's food related; and b) I also have a public face that I present, and though it's not of the scale of someone on the Food Network, I still get to make these decisions on my own. When I say, as I have, that I was mentioned in a James Beard award-winning book, I like to follow it with a mention that it was an acknowledgment with about 3000 other people, and I really didn't end up doing any work for it. I'm a fan of full disclosure.
  
  Incidentally, I have read his blog entry <http://www.chefrobertirvineblog.com/index.php/r...> containing his apology. The kings and presidents thing is interesting, but he didn't mention the Knight and James Beard things. He is under no obligation to address each and every one of the concerns that people raised, but I'm under no obligation to stop speculating about what it means, either.
  
  If I get a chance to taste his food and find that it's wonderful, then I will likely mention so on the site, so that the 300 people who read it will be know the truth of the matter. But whether he can cook or not is not really the question. One question is whether he puffed himself up in order to be made into a celebrity. I still suspect he did, and so I will say so. But being a "damned good" chef does not mean that one gets free reign to do what one wants with impunity, and apologizing doesn't make what one has done go away.
  reply
• 

  hkmouse

  7 months ago

  Re: Bourdain... "fowl-mouthed".... what's he got in there? Is it worse than his foul language?
  reply
• 

  thefoodgeek

  7 months ago

  Have you seen the bird parts that he's eaten?
  
  Though, yes, I probably meant "foul". Hmm. *Probably*
  reply