That blog's still stupid, though.
Just thought I'd throw that out there.
5: "you're" s/b "your", "it's" s/b "its"
SWPL proves its worth yet again. Certain people are becoming desparate because SWPL has got their number.
5: No, you're wrong; it was never funny.
It seems almost sacrilegious that anyone should have commented before w-lfs-n. But it does lead to the obvious game: Quien es mas blanco: w-lfs-n o Ogged?
Is this blog getting too meta?
Discuss.
Quien es mas blanco: w-lfs-n o Ogged?
w-lfs-n's Jewish, so I gotta go with Ogged.
I do think the idea that people who aren't white don't care about spelling or grammar -- what with all those worries about starving or getting shot, the dear, poor underclass -- is adorably whimsical. That guy is funny!
Seriously, why doesn't that blog try just a little bit harder to figure out who it is they are making fun of. Because the inapplicability of half of it to 90% of actual white people I know really makes the attempted observational humor unfunny.
9: "w-lfs-n o ogged" s/b "w-lfs-n u ogged".
13: Mexicans are whiter than Jews? Wow, who knew?
Some of us white people have figured out ways to support our families being grammar Nazis*. I'm just sayin'.
*My employers: also white.
15: "Stuff white people with liberal arts college degrees like"?
15 to 5, maybe to 7, to the post. 15 to 14 sounds a little tacky, like, "Dude, the implicit racism/class condescension would be great if only the comic timing was better!"
Wow, who knew?
The Centers for Disease Control and the World Health Organization, for starters.
the inapplicability of half of it to 90% of actual white people I know really makes the attempted observational humor unfunny
White people love earnestly pointing out logical flaws in satirical fluff pieces.
Does anyone else think that blog gives off a certain "Canadian" vibe?
He has a very middlebrow view of The New Yorker.
24: But I don't find the pieces fluffy, I find them prickly.
Does anyone else think that blog gives off a certain "Canadian" vibe?
Good catch, IDP. The author is from Toronto.
26: because he's an overgrown, fratboy, TotalFark member, entitled dickweed, is why. If any of us met this guy in person we'd want to punch him right in the spotless white baseball cap, I wager.
Well, ogged would probably like him.
25, 28: Oooooh! Well no one really expects Canadians to be funny. Okay then.
It's not the content that's the problem, it's the style. There are no jokes on Stuff White People Like; there are only explanations of jokes that might have been written by a less-lazy humorist. That blog is its own Standpipe's Blog. But white people will continue to claim that it's funny, because if you pretend to like it it means that you're in on the joke, and thus that you're not like all the rest of the white people that the blog is ostensibly laughing at - or would be laughing at, if it contained actual jokes.
29: Only if he was holding it in front of his face.
It's not the content that's the problem, it's the style
It could be much better written, it's true. But it's very good at "naming," as it were, White People.
Sifu continues to hate any successful person under the age of fifty.
Because the inapplicability of half of it to 90% of actual white people I know really makes the attempted observational humor unfunny.
I thought the inapplicability was one of the jokes. The whole blog strikes me as a parody of reductionist takes on "African-American culture" or "Latino culture."
there are only explanations of jokes that might have been written by a less-lazy humorist
White people eat that shit up, stras. You should get out and meet some.
32: The few pieces of that blog I read gave off a rightwing "liberals are pussies and not down with the gente, like me" stench.
29: we'd want to punch him right in the spotless white baseball cap
Tweety reveals his inner Lee Siegel.
The blog is funny because you are supposed to recognize yourself in it. If you can't recognize yourself and laugh, then you shouldn't be offended by the content!
the inapplicability of half of it to 90% of actual white people I know
All this says is that you aren't in the blog's target audience, not that the blog is "wrong" or unfunny or whatever. It's just spot on for lots of people I know, including people who might be me.
39: Oh I definitely recognize myself and other white people in it. And I'm not offended by the content. I just don't think it's very well done.
Hasn't this already been discussed exhaustively? I'd much rather hear more Crazy Blind Date stories! Let's go back to that...anyone else make it into the 'elite club'...still trying to figure out if this categorization actually "means" anything.
But it's very good at "naming," as it were, White People.
No, it's very good at describing upper-middle-class professional types living in America and Canada, and making those very same upper-middle-class professional types feel good about belong to an even more-select group - i.e., the subset of upper-middle-class professional types who "get it."
I'm waiting for the "White People Like Eating Ass" post.
The thing is, of course it's spot on. It uses exactly the same mechanism as astrology; you pick some generically vaguely-mockable trait to name, and then "oh, yeah, I totally know somebody like that!" becomes "oh man he totally has [ everybody ] nailed" even though any given person really exhibits maybe 1 or 2% of the traits he lists on that site. But of course you can't say that, because then you're too square to realize you fit into this little cubby with all the other "white people".
This comment thread makes the Christ child weep tears of blood. How, how, did this not turn into extended mockery of w-lfs-n?
There's no way to get out from under it either: "oh, white people totally like complaining about Stuff White People Like, because it totally hits too close to home!"
42 makes my point nicely.
from the link in 42:
the blog takes a rare humorous poke at white liberals and their fascination with the trendy and organic. Emphasis added. Jesus, get out much?
I will note that sentiment is running stronger anti-SWPL this tome around. It's true, you can't post on the same blog twice.
(And overall merits of SWPL aside, the timing is pretty goddman sweet. Good find, good post.)
Hey, I'm eating a salad and wearing a collared shirt! Those are both things white people like! Haha!
Fuck, that site is stupid.
even though any given person really exhibits maybe 1 or 2% of the traits he lists on that site
This is just wrong, in my experience. He's up in the 80-90% range, and you can hear an interview where he's asked how much of it describes him, and the answer is 100%.
No, it's very good at describing upper-middle-class professional types living in America and Canada
Thanks for making that explicit, stras.
I didn't read the whole of the other thread on this, but can we identify what separates the haters from the non-haters?
52: the non-haters are totally hip enough to get that, hey, we can laugh at ourselves, whereas the haters are like, unable to see how ridiculous they look from the outside.
Thanks for making that explicit, stras.
You may not be aware of this, but the set of "white people" is not the same as the set of "upper-middle-class professional types living in America and Canada."
You may not be aware of this, but the set of "white people" is not the same as the set of "upper-middle-class professional types living in America and Canada."
Dude, you're killing me.
Ok, this topic just annoys me. I'll try to post about something more comity-inducing.
Ok, this topic just annoys me. I'll try to post about something more comity-inducing.
Success! Stras: high-five!
Wait, wait, no: fist bump! Plus explodey noise!
There are no jokes on Stuff White People Like;
The first quoted paragraph certainly has the form of a joke.
"There are no jokes on Stuff White People Like; there are only explanations of jokes that might have been written by a less-lazy humorist."
This is about right. Only exception I've seen is the Obama Friends picture.
12: Ogged, the a non-hater, attempted to move on to a more harmonious topic.
why it should be only the white people
when i also sometimes if i feel like that point out mistakes in my language too
and i always have to translate white to yellow in my mind whenever i see the word b/c of our vocabulary i guess
the biggest frustrations are not hunger or poverty or something else and external
it's when you could do something and did not
and the chance just slipped away
it's not even could do better feeling coz you didn't
GREAT, now SWPL has hurt read's feelings.
See what you've done?
I look forward to ogged's post about Stuff Negroes Like, with hilarious observations about watermelon and shirking.
47: White guilt took over, as usual.
52: Haters: NO THAT IS NOT TRUE I PERSONALLY HAVE A TON OF WHITE FRIENDS WHO DON'T OWN STAND MIXERS. WHY IN FACT I DON'T OWN A STAND MIXER MYSELF THIS IS SO UNFAIR AND BY THE WAY IT'S NOT AT ALL FUNNY.
Non-haters: Heh, cute site.
That site makes me feel defensive and irritated.
Stuff Persians Like:
1. Cheating You On Carpet Sales
2. Suicide Bombing
3. Wars
4. Killing Jews
5. Killing Americans
B's 64, in a rare feat, was pwned by my caricature.
When I see a stand-up show, if a person goes into 'Black people do it this way and white people do it that way', I know there's no material. It's boring.
White guilt took over, as usual.
B, white guilt is the only thing that makes people pretend that it's funny.
It's doubly funny because it's just that true!
Wait, wait, no: fist bump! Plus explodey noise!
I maintain that Stanley is just making this up.
Y'all doth protest too much, man. The thing is, the site is only mildly funny, and I'm sure it's only meant to be so. "Heh, cute site" is about right. It's not laugh-out-loud funny, but some of the entries are amusing or at least have amusing bits.
Like this from the front page, on pirating music: "When they have finished talking, you must choose your next words wisely. It is considered rude to point out the simple fact that they are still getting music for free. Instead you should say: "Wow, I never thought of it like that. You know a lot about the music industry. What bands are you listening to right now? Who is good?"
This sentence serves two functions: it helps to reassure the white person that they are your local "music expert," something they prize. Also, it lets them feel as though they have convinced you that their activities are part of a greater social cause and not simple piracy."
See, that's amusing.
47 is right. Only funny people realize just how right.
Okay, Sifu, I get that you think the site's not funny. But there are many things that some people consider funny that others do not. So why does this piss you off so?
Why, rather that just being boring and not funny, is it worthy of scorn?
I mean, in addition to everything else, there are a lot of interesting things to be said about why music stealing is the primary mode of acquisition right now, and what's to be done, and what that means for the music industry...
Oh my God haha I'm so white! It's like I'm a parody of myself talking about these things! Remind me to feel kind of stupid next time I mention it!
White People Like: being pointlessly neurotic about everything.
Why, rather that just being boring and not funny, is it worthy of scorn?
Because I don't like being made fun of.
I've always (where "always" = "since I first saw the site") thought it would be better either if he just did less (title + photo only for every entry), or worked harder on the text (longer entries with more of a satirical/scientific bent, footnotes, etc).
As it is, it's very middlebrow humor, which I think is where its fault lies. You could pull the same thing off much more cleverly than he has done.
78: the glibness with which he treats things like poverty and relative privilege; the idea that "we", for some needlessly racialized concept of "we", can laugh at ourselves for pretending to care about poverty so can feel better bespeaks a great cultural sickness.
You know what I find funny. xkcd. I laugh my ass off just about every time. Some people don't find it funny. Let's talk about it.
And beyond that there's an attitude of glib, hipster thoughtlessness to the idea that anything this overprivileged white dude and his friends are interested in is necessarily something deserving of mockery (however gentle and self-serving) that just completely rankles me. You can lump environmentalism in with only sort-of caring about soccer if you want, but I will hate you for it.
Is this blog getting too meta?
The problem with this blog is that it is no longer meta enough.
White People Like: being pointlessly neurotic about everything.
See, Sifu, you could write the damn site yourself.
B's 64 nails it.
You may not be aware of this, but the set of "white people" is not the same as the set of "upper-middle-class professional types living in America and Canada."
Can this be true?
How, how, did this not turn into extended mockery of w-lfs-n?
White people enjoy endless quibbling over the details of political correctness more than good-natured mockery.
85: Bp never meta blog she didn't like.
85 is what's wrong with this blog.
it's very middlebrow humor
The horror!
it's very middlebrow humor
The horror!
Weirdly, today the Stuff White People Like RSS feed seems to have transformed into the Wordpress Update Blog RSS feed.
I think we should all just step back and take a deep breath and realize that when Mr. Lander, the humorist, gets to SWPL #207: The Baffler, it will be the nine billionth name of God and all the other SWPLs will start to wink out of existence, one by one.
82 and 84 get it right. Thanks, Tweety.
That said, you can make those observations about the guy's treatment without actually hating the site. There's always indifference. Or a mild interest in the possibility that some white people actually haven't asked themselves about these things, so it's, like, thought-provoking. A public service, then!
Since nobody wants to make fun of Ben -- a crying shame, in my view -- I would add that SWPL is a near-perfect embodiment of a kind of ironic detachment that does more harm than good. It's sort-of funny occasionally, yes, but the humor is only in one register. And that kind of humor, again so ironically detached as to be carefree, even thoughtless, about everything, has no consequences. It's just not very satisfying to me. Then again, I don't really care that much and just want to make fun of Ben.
Stuf White People Don't Like: Being told that they are like other white people, even if those other people are their friends and neighbors.
Sifu, I think you're misunderstanding the nature of the satire. It's not saying these are horrible self-serving things that white people do. It's saying: a)This subset of white people, who like to think of themselves as contrarian and not like others in fact have an identifiable set of characteristics; they are a culture like any other. b) Just because we/liberal middle or professional class white folk try do enlightened things doesn't mean that our/their privilege disappears.
Heebie: My wife had the same reaction to the site while also finding it funny. I think that we are just so used to thinking of racial characteristics as inherently deragatory that they're hard to take, even when they're coming from a different angle. If they did posts along the lines of "Dancing badly at parties," I might feel differently.
Holy crap, I didn't see 82 and 84. Dammit.
Some people don't find it funny. Let's talk about it.
My reasons for not appreciating xkcd:
1. I feel aggressively alienated from nerd culture.
2. I'm generally unimpressed with stick-figure and clip-art comics. Americans have forgotten that the cartoon is a visual medium, and that pictures as well as words can be funny; the rise of the stamp-sized newspaper strip is mostly to blame for this. I also think that if you're not putting much effort into the art, your writing better be really fucking hilarious, and when it's just nerd jokes, you fail.
I wanted to create Stuff Asian American People Like, #1 of which would be "Acting Like White People" and written in the voice of An Aspiring White Person. But while funny to me and some of my friends growing up in Orange County, probably too easily misinterpreted and dangerous. Also, people tend to forget that I'm Asian, since I, you konw, act white. It's only funny if the author is a part of the target.
written in the voice of An Aspiring White Person
SWPL's co-author is a Filipino-Canadian.
I thought the inapplicability was one of the jokes. The whole blog strikes me as a parody of reductionist takes on "African-American culture" or "Latino culture."
I like this explanation. This is also part of the reason I think that SWPL had a better effect for me cumulatively than in single doses. The whole point is to build up this pseudo-scholarly anthropological study of "white people", and it is a pretty funny piss-take of the horrendous inadequacy of any outsider's take on a diverse populace, and the tendency to identify one especially visible subgroup and take them as emblematic of all members in the greater group. The connections to all the faux-down-with-the-gente that we've been seeing in this election cycle (and every other) are pretty obvious, but it's also a handy reminder of how impossible it is to understand any given diverse group, and how even members of that group will have biased and limited understanding of it.
But that just suggests 81 is kind of right, and it would be improved by an even better faux-sociological/anthropological tone.
Thank fucking God Jonathan Swift lived before the age of blogs.
'It's not at all funny to suggest that poor people eat their babies.'
'This guy doesn't seem to get that people can be poor without being monsters.'
'O ho! I can suggest that they also eat their own shit! I'm satirical too.'
'It's not just the Irish that are poor, you know. There are millions of children starving whom Swift just ignores. His solution doesn't generalize.'
It's not great satire, but given that the guy is one of the group that he's mocking (seriously, he's said in an interview 'yeah, that's me at the dim sum place, and my bicycle, and...') it's also not 'laugh at those other people.'
But my productivity seriously thanks you. It's one thing to idle the day away on stupid arguments. It's another thing to do on a fucking rerun.
Americans have forgotten that the cartoon is a visual medium, and that pictures as well as words can be funny; the rise of the stamp-sized newspaper strip is mostly to blame for this.
One of my favorite Calvin & Hobbes is the one on this topic, mostly because of the unexpected punchline:
"Your Grandpa takes his comics pretty seriously."
"Yeah, Mom's been looking into putting him in a home."*
I'm not actually hard-line like stras about over-simple comics, but I do think it would be nice for comics to be visual candy again. But, of course, we're surrounded by visual candy, so....
* I realize now it would've been much, much funnier had Calvin said, "Yeah, white people are like that."**
** This little post-script is not necessarily a definitive statement about my position on the presidential race.
101: Interesting. I didn't know. I figured that the main author was white, since, again, the glib superficial humor of it all would be only funny if it was self-satire.
My boyfriend's white, and makes white people jokes. I am not, so I make Asian American people jokes. Is it funnier because we're "allowed" and we're making fun of ourselves? Why can't I make fun of him being a whitey without feeling bad? Why can't he make fun of my Asianness without sounding like an asshole?
SWPL's co-author is a Filipino-Canadian.
Tancredo is totally right.
Probably because you're bad people.
Stuff English People Like
Jon Swift
1. Oppressing the Irish.
2. Expanding their Empire.
3. Explaining that their food isn't really all that bad.
"What do you mean you don't think it's funny? You're just defensive!"
I don't really want to get dragged into this dull discussion again, but seeing it replayed in fast forward, as it were, it becomes more clear: most of the haters complain that it's glib and not very funny. Most of the lovers defend it on the basis of being in some way insightful (and at least a little funny).
Point being, it's not the same conversation:
"It's not funny."
"But it's true!"
"It's still not funny."
"But it describes me! And people I know!"
As we've seen, non-conversations like that can actually be sustained for hundreds of comments at a go. But they still don't go anywhere.
In what strange world is xkcd NOT visual candy? I mean, it's not Spaceman Spiff or anything, but the guy (girl?) does a lot with the stick figures.
Besides, the Ballmer Peak is pure comedy genius.
As we've seen, non-conversations like that can actually be sustained for hundreds of comments at a go. But they still don't go anywhere.
And you know who likes that...
Why can't I make fun of him being a whitey without feeling bad?
Asian-American people love shame.
105.2 Power. Good racial/ethnic humor is often about power. It's just not very funny when those with more power make fun of those with less. Which isn't my half-assed effort to get into the power dynamics present in your relationship. I'm talking about the relative power of white people as a group.
The whole blog strikes me as a parody of reductionist takes on "African-American culture" or "Latino culture."
This was the most charitable explanation I could manage when I tried to understand why people like SWPL, but even it that were the intent, it's not clever enough to pull it off. Basically, I think Tweety's right, and the exposure SWPL has gotten is out of all proportion to its actual humor value, which I would put somewhere between Dave Barry and "Cathy."
Ari says you need to date a black guy.
How, how, did this not turn into extended mockery of w-lfs-n?
On behalf of other Mineshaft pedants, I protest! While perhaps not quite in w-lfs-n's league, one of them may have been on the grammar team in high school. One of them may even have wanted to demand a discounted rate every time her therapist said "between you and I."
/indignation
an Aspiring White Person
that's even more ugly concept
one aspires to be oneself, true and only
Wow. I think this resolves any doubt that SWPL was talking about the people who read this blog.
And if it hasn't been said: the very point of the blog is to make a certain group of people defensive about their tastes and consumption habits. And, what is hilarious (but not completely fair) is that efforts to make reasoned arguments taking issue with that blog usually serve to reinforce the point it tries to make.
116: That's not funny. (Okay, maybe it is.) I'd now like to say something smart about the fluidity of power dynamics and identity at Unfogged, and how the above relates to this being a pretty funny place, but I don't really know what I want to say. So instead I'll just call you a racist. Racist.
Ari tells me, lots of things, like how I should watch Fiddler on the Roof with my dad.
But Ari was right on about talking to my boyfriend about the disownment thing and predicted how sympathetically he'd respond, and for that I am grateful.
So, by extension, I should continue to listen to Ari and break up this guy, and yes, date a black guy.
When asking someone about their biggest annoyances in life, you might expect responses like "hunger," "being poor," or "getting shot."
I can't imagine describing getting shot as an annoyance, and I have a hard time thinking of anyone who would. Say problem, maybe?
Stuff White People Like: vocabulary nitpicking!
Hear that, haters, I'm incredibly wise.
I'm still not crazy about SWPL, but at its best, it does aspire to provide the kind of satirical commentary about perceptions of other cultures that is alleged above. I still feel like they're pulling their punches a lot of the time though. And how can you defend satire when it does that? Give me Swift or Bamboozled over this thin, white gruel anytime.
Give me Swift or Bamboozled over this thin, white gruel anytime.
Well, yeah.
I almost said, in response to m. leblanc upthread, that sure, I could do that site, but it'd be a fuckload angrier and probably not very popular.
coz you all never correct my mistakes i declare you all non-white-racists, non applying to the both nouns through defis
127: Jeez, read, whaddya think we are? Lawyers?
See, now this is funny.
I know that 1) it's old hat; and 2) it does allow the "I'm not like that caricature, so I'm totally cool and down with the gente" response, but at least it's funny.
mostly lawyers, profs and grad students
119: And if it hasn't been said: the very point of the blog is to make a certain group of people defensive about their tastes and consumption habits. And, what is hilarious (but not completely fair) is that efforts to make reasoned arguments taking issue with that blog usually serve to reinforce the point it tries to make.
Good lord, I initially took the first sentence to be describing this blog.
The second sentence: not true, though it sounds good. Some arguments against that blog wind up as defenses of stuff white people like. Others don't.
I cannot fucking believe that he got a book deal out of it.
Theoretically, with an editor, he could get the prose punched up, and it would be funny in at least one dimension. But I doubt that he's got the chops, nor the publisher the desire, to make it an actually-biting satire that would make it worthwhile.
I used to find xkcd funny, but I no longer do. Whether the fault is his or mine, I cannot say.
Give me Swift or Bamboozled over this thin, white gruel anytime.
Give me Jon Stewart, for that matter.
I used to find xkcd funny, but I no longer do. Whether the fault is his or mine, I cannot say.
Read it less frequently. This also works for SWPL.
Read it less frequently.
I suspect, in fact, that he should try writing it less frequently but to assert that for certain would be to take too firm a position on the his fault/my fault question.
I always enjoy the wacky comic antics of Kate Beaton.
"Heh, cute site"
If it were a one page bullet list, it would be "Heh, cute page". It's got 500 words of good content blown out to pages and pages and pages of tedious.
Oh damn. Po=Mo's 102 just made me sort of appreciate SWPL. Then Cala's 103 came along and made me feel like a dense 14 year old for not seeing that angle sooner...
I think xkcd has gone soft, and I suspect it's because he's in a better place lately, so I can't begrudge it. It's still funnier than most of the stuff out there.
SWPL should have been updated for about a week and then left. It's like the guy in the bar who starts telling a story and everybody shouts out the punchline.
A softer world, anyone?
Give me Swift or Bamboozled over this thin, white gruel anytime.
Actually, I'd love to talk about Bamboozled, which I only saw a few months ago for the first time. Really fucking intense, and well done. But what was up with Damon Wayans's horrendous affect? Wouldn't it have been better with an actual fake-educated-white-guy accent and idioms than some sort of hyperexagerrated arty/butchered-English accent that no one outside high school drama class would ever use?
Did Spike Lee really need to heighten the contrasts between Pierre and Sloan's characters and their comfort with their own racial/personal identities that much?
A softer world is usually good, and occasionally brilliant.
Is it even satire? Would anyone call it satire if it was "stuff yuppies like," or would we all be "yeah, no shit"?
131: I agree that one can defend the fact that they like fancy kitchen gadgets (#54), and succeed in doing so. But when it is accompanied, as it often is, by a certain surprise at being put under the microscope, my second sentence holds true. I bet without even looking that there is a 500-comment thread here about Bill Cosby's talk about poor black people, weighing the pros and cons of what he had to say -- about people who are always under the microscope. All that site does is turn it around. So again, when someone expresses surprise at that their hegemony being questioned, it is evidence that there is something worth questioning in the first place.
or would we all be "yeah, no shit"?
Yep.
144: No, sorry, I wasn't clear. I meant that arguments against the site like those in 82, 84 and 96 above aren't susceptible to your point.
It can be not funny & sound like David Brooks at the same time. The original David Brooks manages it.
So again, when someone expresses surprise at that their hegemony being questioned, it is evidence that there is something worth questioning in the first place.
Yeah, but I don't think the "not-funny" people are expressing "surprise at their hegemony being questioned." It's more like, "Wait, what? That's stupid." I think it's less about being defensive about liking kitchen gadgets. I think the reason is more because some of us look at that and go, "Nobody I know gives a shit about grammar. Or scarves. Or bicycles. Wait, why do people think this is funny." It's less about being annoyed by the site as it is being annoyed by the "OMG, that's so true!" proclamations. Um, no. No it's not.
Perhaps you are just not hegemonic enough, Di.
(I feel I should confess that I do actually like scarves, though I don't actually own any.)
Stuff Hegemonic People Like Turkeys!
151: Next you're going to tell us your birthday is coming up soon, aren't you?
146: Well, I guess I didn't think these were such good arguments. 82, 84 and 96 all take advantage, to one degree or another, of the fact that anything that looks like the pose of an ironical "hipster" merits criticism. I think this is a willful misread of that blog.
But taking those arguments on the merits defeats my point, that arguments against that site usually end up justifying/making its broader point. Look at the three posts you point out: to defeat or deflect the criticisms in the blog itself -- of white people -- each mobilizes the "the poor" or the "non-privileged" -- to defend white people. That is classic. "Your criticisms of white people are unfair to blacks! And the poor!" This conveniently misses the issue -- even if there is some merit to the substance of the argument.
Scarves? What's the thing about scarves? I do like them and have quite a few of them, but most people think it's just a weird thing about me.
But taking those arguments on the merits defeats my point
Good catch.
One of them may even have wanted to demand a discounted rate every time her therapist said "between you and I."
I feel for you Sir Kraab. I think that I once lost it and corrected a therapist (in group therapy, no less).
"Between you and I" is the worst, because the person is trying to sound educated whereas "Jim and me went to the store" doesn't grate nearly so much.
Can't we please just make fun of our grammar pedantry?
Look at the three posts you point out: to defeat or deflect the criticisms in the blog itself -- of white people -- each mobilizes the "the poor" or the "non-privileged" -- to defend white people. That is classic. "Your criticisms of white people are unfair to blacks! And the poor!" This conveniently misses the issue -
I think you're seriously misreading them.
The "white people" thing seems to convince some people that it's some kind of biting satirical critique of cultural hegemony instead of a conventional, obvious, Brooks-y list of "stuff yuppie liberals like".
153: I'm not sure I get your point. Oh, and I tend to look pretty good in rich, deep colors, in case you were wondering.
160 nails it. What else needs to be said ?
Don't you need to know what type of fabrics I like?
161: The scarf's in the mail, Di.
Re: making fun of rich white liberals, this is 40-odd years old and still better executed.
155: This conveniently misses the issue -- even if there is some merit to the substance of the argument.
No, it doesn't miss the issue, because the posts I mentioned are not out to defeat or deflect the criticisms of white people on offer. On the contrary, if I may be so bold, they are in agreement that white people suck in a number of ways. They disagree that it's funny.
What is the problem about scarves????
What is the problem about scarves????
They are #97 on SWPL.
I do not want to be a defender of that site, but it just struck me that the beginning of this thread had a sort of knee-jerk reaction I have seen before when the words "white people" are said around white people. (I assume that is why ogged left this thread). I think it is revealing that, however hackneyed, criticisms of white people are always met with statements suggesting that (1) not all white people are like that, (2) the critique isn't thorough-going enough, and doesn't address the "real issues" of poverty, or (3) this critique is "obvious."
That is, I have never seen any criticism of white privilege (or hegemony, unless that term invites further mockery) good enough for a lot of white people.
Many of SWTL's entries seem to follow the model "White people like X, when there are starving people in the world!", or the related model "White people claim to care about poor people, but they really don't!"
Now it'd be justly-targeted satire if I had any sense at all that the authors actually cared about the poor and wanted to goad white people into doing useful things to end poverty (as was Swift's aim). Instead it just seems to be a rhetorical stick wielded against the very idea that anyone can or should do anything about poverty.
169: right, the other thing is that "white people", or at least white liberals, get defensive referred to that way, & say things like: "not all white people are like that!" or "I'm not like that!", thus adding to the impression that it's biting social satire instead of a David Brooks rip off.
I have not read this thread, just the post. I am going to point out that when I went for my surgical procedure today, what I noticed on the consent form was that they do not understand the difference between Advance Directive and Advanced Directive.
I did not point this out to the nurse, because I was not raised by wolves.
In happier news, the anethesia turned out to be OK. It left me feeling a little dizzy and loopy, but I didn't actually say anything horrible. So that's nice.
Now I feel all righteously indignant that I have cushy health insurance and can have easy medical procedures with expensive drugs and competent, experienced doctors in a comfortable setting, while half the rest of the country can't basic healthcare.
169: That's not necessarily what people are objecting to. I couldn't give a shit what Christian Lander thinks about race; I don't like the site because it fails in the ultimate test of internetical value, which is whether or not it amuses me.
criticisms of white people are always met with statements suggesting that (1) not all white people are like that
I hate to make it sound like I actually care, but my point wasn't "not all white people" but "hardly any white people I've ever met" or "nobody I know." And it's not even "I hate the blog because..." It's "this is why I'm totally not seeing what's supposed to be so funny."
That is, I have never seen any criticism of white privilege (or hegemony, unless that term invites further mockery) good enough for a lot of white people.
Could it be because there's not alot of genuinely good criticism of white privilege?
Maggie T -- congrats (?) on coming through the surgical thing well. I'm sure there's a more appropriate well-wish, but hopefully you get the generally positive/supportive idea...
168: Ah, thanks. Totally right. Temperature control and ornamentation, baby.
169.2: I have never seen any criticism of white privilege (or hegemony, unless that term invites further mockery) good enough for a lot of white people
You haven't? You did say "for a lot of white people" -- and that might be true, depending on who you're counting.
That is, I have never seen any criticism of white privilege (or hegemony, unless that term invites further mockery) good enough for a lot of white people.
This says nothing towards whether this specific instance of criticism of white privilege is any good.
And when you say "good enough for a lot of white people", do you mean "critical enough" or "palatable enough"? A lot of people don't see or don't have a problem with with their own privilege.
165: Re: making fun of rich white liberals, this is 40-odd years old and still better executed.
Yes, this is one thing that irks me, the presumption that it is all so unique, "rare" in the linked article. This ground has been repeatedly plowed (with slightly changing targets as the culture evolves) for a long time.
And when you say "good enough for a lot of white people", do you mean "critical enough" or "palatable enough"?
I hope dan answers this.
(I've also been vaguely wondering whether he saw/read ogged's blow-out post after the first SWPL thread, and whether it's wise to point him to it, or whether it would just be confusing. I'ma leave that alone.)
177: I am not arguing for or against any particular critique. I am saying that it is awfully hard to tell the difference between resistance to a particular critique and resistance to *any* critique. I think the last line in 174 is pretty blunt about it.
I am saying that it is awfully hard to tell the difference between resistance to a particular critique and resistance to *any* critique. I think the last line in 174 is pretty blunt about it.
How about looking at the actual substance of the resistance as opposed to assuming that it's just a knee-jerk reaction?
When I said "good enough" I just meant something that meets the standard of legitimate criticism in the eyes of the person reading it. What I saw at the outset here is, essentially, that blog is dumb so I need not respond. What is interesting is that, despite this, there has been lots of responding.
I agree that privilege is something white people often do not see, which makes it that much more strange to write off SWPL. Doesn't that insight suggest that its notariety -- despite its shortcomings -- is linked to the fact that it calls attention to what (some) people (sometimes) fail to see? I say yes, and my point is that spending so much time on the blog's formal shortcomings looks like skirting the substance of it. I say looks like because perhaps no one here really is. But it can be hard to tell.
When I said "good enough" I just meant something that meets the standard of legitimate criticism in the eyes of the person reading it. What I saw at the outset here is, essentially, that blog is dumb so I need not respond. What is interesting is that, despite this, there has been lots of responding.
I agree that privilege is something white people often do not see, which makes it that much more strange to write off SWPL. Doesn't that insight suggest that its notariety -- despite its shortcomings -- is linked to the fact that it calls attention to what (some) people (sometimes) fail to see? I say yes, and my point is that spending so much time on the blog's formal shortcomings looks like skirting the substance of it. I say looks like because perhaps no one here really is. But it can be hard to tell.
There's no lack of good criticism of white privilege (COWP). What's lacking is funny criticism. And this is hardly surprising. It's a big topic, and hard to cover well. Humor can be incisive - finding small moments and blowing them apart - or broad. There is, in fact, lots of incisive, funny COWP - "Love me, I'm a liberal" is a pretty good example. It's incisive because its target isn't that big - the audience for liberal/left commentary ca. 1968 wasn't big, and it was useful and interesting and bitterly funny to point up their hypocrisies.
But that small target group is just a fraction of white privilege. Lay the blame however you will, you certainly can't say that they held the lion's share of white privilege, nor that they were the most egregious preservers of that privilege. And if you try to attack/mock/ridicule the whole enchilada, you lose momentum. How do you make a good joke that sends up both Grace Slick and Barry Sadler?
It's not hard to write earnestly and deeply about the ways in which latte drinkers, fancy cigar smokers, hockey fans and NASCAR fans all fuck up the world. But there's no common thread that makes ridiculing them likely to succeed. It can be done, but it requires a lot of skill.
White privilege is not the preserve of the yuppies mocked by SWPL. By limiting the mockery (such as it is) to that subgroup, it can't be said to be mocking white privilege. By suggesting that yuppies are coterminous with privileged white people, it can't be considered a very good observer. And by droning on endlessly about semi-amusing foibles, it can't be considered very funny.
You people are insane. I don't know why SWPL drives you so nuts. It;s a joke blog that specifically targets people who are doing alright in the world. I'm not sure that it's possible to be more purposely ineffectual.
To me it's not very funny because it's really all about yuppies. People around here are completely white and mildly racist but share almost none of the site's traits.
We voted for Obama, though. Wobegon is a highly-educated Obama town, which in political demographics means that the HS graduation rate is higher than 80%.
So Grace Slick and Barry Sadler walk into a bar . . .
What is interesting is that, despite this, there has been lots of responding.
I believe that this blog has featured 300 comment threads about Slurpees. It doesn't take much for us to respond.
185 gets it exactly right, crackers.
I agree that privilege is something white people often do not see, which makes it that much more strange to write off SWPL. Doesn't that insight suggest that its notariety -- despite its shortcomings -- is linked to the fact that it calls attention to what (some) people (sometimes) fail to see? I say yes, and my point is that spending so much time on the blog's formal shortcomings looks like skirting the substance of it. I say looks like because perhaps no one here really is. But it can be hard to tell.
I would say that the vast majority of commenters here know all about white privilege. It's possible that, in the larger world, SWPL has opened some white dude's eyes. But around here, its putative political content is old news.
So we're left with bickering about whether it's funny. In the Yes camp we have the Unfoggedtariat's most humor-challenged member, and its trolliest. In the No camp, we have to coblogger of the funniest blogger on the Internet. I know how I score it.
187: presumably the punchline involves a white rabbit in a green beret.
I agree that privilege is something white people often do not see, which makes it that much more strange to write off SWPL.
You're succumbing to the soft bigotry of low expectations.
I don't think it's actually effective, in particular because one of the things it seems to be trying to mock is giving a shit about things like the environment, poverty, racism. As I said above, it takes aim at liberal hypocrisy from the point of view that caring in the first place is the problem (as opposed to the problem being not putting enough into what one professes to care about).
I hate SWPL because it made me feel bad about my Bertoia chair. My cat still likes it, though.
Your cat likes SWPL? What, is your cat stupid??
Having already grown tired of writing off that blog as being not-funny and sort-of-annoying, I will now write off dan for similar reasons, plus not having read the archives. Presto!
In the No camp, we have to coblogger of the funniest blogger on the Internet.
Note that this doesn't actually mean that I'm funny, just that I know coattails when I see 'em.
Sifu make a mean eggnog too. So there's that.
(surely eggnog is one of the entries on SWPL, right?)
Sifu's cob-logger *used* to be funny.
surely eggnog is one of the entries on SWPL, right?
Next thing, you're gonna tell us that drunkenness is SWPL.
Was it Sifu or Sifu's co-blogger that wrote the thing about covering pots when you boil water in them?
Drunkenness is SWPL.
Hey, you were right! Uncanny!
191's first paragraph makes assumptions I cannot. But I don't know anyone here.
193: I think it takes issue with people for whom "giving a shit" is fine so long as the basics of their own lifestyle are not threatened.
It is ironic to have a group of white people acting as the gatekeeper on legitimate criticism of white privilege. This group could have a blind spot or two, no?
White people like boiling water. Spring water. In their AllClad pots. On their Viking brushed steel ranges.
Hey, you were right! Uncanny!
Freud is SWPL!
Come to think of it, being right is also SWPL.
Hugging their stand mixers, motherfuckers.
203: shivbunny has praised that post as 'the smartest thing on the entire Internet.'
(That acronym has started being read as 'swipple' in my head.)
It is ironic to have a group of white people acting as the gatekeeper on legitimate criticism of white privilege.
I should follow Sifu's advice. But anyway, how is discussing an issue and stating personal opinions "acting as the gatekeeper on legitimate criticism of white privilege"?
191's first paragraph makes assumptions I cannot. But I don't know anyone here.
This group could have a blind spot or two, no?
You seem to be assuming that anyone here is actually defending white privilege, as opposed to stating their personal like or dislike for a particular instance of someone commenting (sort of) on white privilege.
203: Can we have a link, please? I missed that somehow.
Seriously, dan, if you want to be non-trollish, site-search for white privilege (may as well check out male privilege while you're at it) and see what you get. It may make your comments more apposite.
213: My cat wrote that. She's so stupid.
193
I don't think it's actually effective, in particular because one of the things it seems to be trying to mock is giving a shit about things like the environment, poverty, racism. As I said above, it takes aim at liberal hypocrisy from the point of view that caring in the first place is the problem (as opposed to the problem being not putting enough into what one professes to care about).
I'd say what it's trying to mock is the air of self-satisfaction that often comes with giving a shit. Why not mock the self-satisfaction that comes with being a born-again Christian? They're entirely deserving, but on the other hand they're probably too far gone to be reached.
More interestingly, why not write every entry in such a way that leaves out people who actually do put a lot into what they profess to care about? First of all, I'd say it's because they're relatively rare. My dad and I had an impassioned talk about politics recently -- no offense to my dad, he's a great person, etc. -- and he asked why there weren't demonstrations and strikes and protests going on to try to do something about Bush, and I said that in his case, he's not doing so because it would endanger his job. There are a lot of people who make careers of making a difference, and I know some of them are around here and maybe I underestimate their numbers, but there are a lot more people (like me) who would say they care, or at least would agree with you about what the big problems are, but don't actually do anything about it other than recycle and donate money to politicians.
I guess I can enjoy most of the entries on SWPL taken individually, but as a hundred separate posts, not so much. The joke gets run into the ground just by repetition, not because they go downhill when the author starts running out of ideas, I think.
(That acronym has started being read as 'swipple' in my head.)
Every time I see it, I have to remind myself that we're not talking about the Socialist Workers Party something or other.
Why not mock the self-satisfaction that comes with being a born-again Christian?
Oh, but I do.
We're always talking about the Socials Workers Party something or other, Sir Kraab. Always.
203: shivbunny has praised that post as 'the smartest thing on the entire Internet.'
Is it a post that says, hey, by the way, gang, put the lid on your pot when you are bringing water to a boil, because not doing that means that you in fact fall into the proverbial category of those who do not know how to boil water?
Ah, I see, so it is. Elitist that I am, it never occurred to me that this could be worth mentioning.
Mysteriously, it leaves out the important instruction to put some fucking salt in your water before you add the pasta.
Oh, I keep meaning to mention this. You people on the "SWPL is even slightly funny" camp need to explain
If a white person were to catch a mistake in The New Yorker, it would be a sufficient reason for a large party.
That is painfully unfunny. It's a complete flub of the setup. There's no verbal wit, no sense of word rhythm, no surprise Zing! It would only take a dozen monkeys with typewriters a couple hours to improve on it.
The evidence is staring you in the face, and still you don't see it.
222: One of my family's most treasured stories is of my mom's roommate (improbably called Truff) who could not, in fact, boil water.
224: Is fucking salt anything akin to rubbing alcohol?
||
Sir Kraab, in light of the NARAL endorsement's not going down well out in the field offices, as GFR and Dana Goldstein have noticed, is this something you saw coming and collectively agreed with?
|>
Mysteriously, it leaves out the important instruction to put some fucking salt in your water before you add the pasta.
Ho ho. Fighting words. Put some fucking oil in the water first, thanks.
as an example of why SWPL is not satire I offer the following:
http://stuffwhitepeoplelike.wordpress.com/2008/04/04/94-free-healthcare/
Its limitation is that it has no point of view. It pretends to be written by the "other" of a certain urban/urbane whiteness, but that perspective has no political content: it's aware of race but that's all it's aware of; all it can do is reveal the arbitrariness of white taste over and over again. When it tries to become political, it ends up mouthing various dull received notions....
or would somebody want to argue that this particular "argument" on healthcare actually represents a trenchant criticism of liberal orthodoxy?
225: I can get not finding it particularly funny, because it's worth about a chuckle. I can't get getting offended by the premise.
Speaking of white privilege, the very funny movie "the miracle of morgan's creek" has one character say "that is mighty white of you" to another character. This is the only time I ever saw an non-ironic use of this phrase.
231: Probably best not to worry about it.
Let me earnestly say that in a course (20 years ago) on women & development policy, I was questioning whether I had a legimate critique or perspective or what have you about something or other because I'm white and middle class and otherwise privileged (look, I was young), and my prof said yeah, that's all true, but you also have an analysis. I have always found this a helpful construction.
While looking at demographics and correlations to everything from incarceration rates to wealth to a zillion other important things matters quite a lot, it's really not useful to reduce individuals to their demographics nor to pretend that white privilege subsumes all other forms of non-privilege (class and queerness and gender, par example).
I can't get getting offended by the premise.
Did anyone get offended by the premise? That seems crazy.
What was potentially much more offensive was the idea that any `meh, not very funny, and not very original' response simply *had* to be an expression of white privilege, and couldn't possibly be anything else. From my recollection, that's what actually drove the previous thread, not the site iteself.
Ho ho. Fighting words. Put some fucking oil in the water first, thanks.
(a) No, I shall not, as I prefer to give the sauce a better opportunity to adhere to the pasta, but you may, if you like.
(b) If you want your pasta to taste insipid on the inside, feel free to leave out the salt.
Is fucking salt anything akin to rubbing alcohol?
More like AbsorbShun.
228: Once Edwards dropped out, that's where I thought he'd go, and it's been clear within CWA that he would make the endorsement at some point. I'm not sure if the timing is tied to Edwards' announcement. Possible, because our membership really is split on the candidates.
The small ads in the new yorker always crack me up. Your money/sense ratio has to be pretty high to buy some tilley endurables or a poke boat. It doesn't reflect well on the new yorker reader demographics.
The small ads in the new yorker always crack me up.
Me, too. If it weren't for the big words and very nearly perfect copy-editing, I wouldn't go near that rag.
(a) No, I shall not, as I prefer to give the sauce a better opportunity to adhere to the pasta, but you may, if you like.
Ah, so. With longer-type pastas, I experience a sticking-together tendency. I will admit that I give this oil-adding advice to newbies who are prone to dump the done pasta in the strainer and let it sit there for 20 minutes. You understand. I am trying to minimize the damage. Maybe I should tell them something else.
(b) If you want your pasta to taste insipid on the inside, feel free to leave out the salt.
Well. Well.
231: 235 gets it exactly right. Offense was always ascribed, never taken.
Ah, so. With longer-type pastas, I experience a sticking-together tendency. I will admit that I give this oil-adding advice to newbies who are prone to dump the done pasta in the strainer and let it sit there for 20 minutes. You understand. I am trying to minimize the damage. Maybe I should tell them something else.
Better, perhaps, would be something along the lines of "Use lots of water, and don't let the pasta sit in the strainer." But sure, oil in the water won't make their pasta crummy, though letting it sit until it congeals will, oil or no.
Well. Well.
Well, you said they were fighting words! (And I'm right.)
newbies who are prone to dump the done pasta in the strainer and let it sit there for 20 minutes.
But you can always just run hot water over said clumps of pasta, helping to both separate and reheat, without imparting unnecessary flavors/textures.
Also, of course, you should save some cooking water if needed to perfect the consistency of the pasta/sauce combo.*
* Not applicable to cream sauces, dio mio.
Maybe I should tell them something else.
Like: lots & lots of water. Salt the water. Full boil before you throw pasta in. Drain quickly and immediately add a little sauce & stir. There, no sticking.
Before this thread goes completely to pasta cooking (and the previous thread on SWPL also ended up with cooking and cookware IIRC—no comment), I just want to reiterate that although I am mostly on the "hater" side, that given Ben's post last night and the specific reference to grammar and the New Yorker, Ogged was right. This was a very good post and the timing was perfect.
It's bad enough that this thread failed to mock Ben; do you now want it to praise ogged? Never! I'll sooner buy the SWPL book.*
* Not really.
Okay, moving on to cooking, then. I'm back in a cooking mode, and itching to buy a new cookbook. Right now I've got Joy of Cooking, How to Cook Everything, and Deborah Madison's Vegetarian Cooking for Everyone. I use the first a lot, the last almost never, and the Minimalist now and then. What should I buy?
Alternately, tell me that we've had the cookbook discussion here a million times and to check the archives. But I want personal advice! For meeee!
What do you want? Comprehensiveness, precision, cooking instructions, exciting new recipes?
I think I've got comprehensiveness with Joy of Cooking. I don't need cooking instructions. I also don't bake much, so that would be lost on me. So I guess I'm looking for exciting new recipes.
Like: lots & lots of water. Salt the water. Full boil before you throw pasta in. Drain quickly and immediately add a little sauce & stir. There, no sticking.
If people follow this advice, all would be fine. They do not. It's puzzling, but there it is. No worries, just a fact of life.
Yes, now that I think about it more, something exciting. Outside of the comprehensive workhorses, I'm lost about what to buy, and I don't trust just any random cookbook at the store.
Does exciting mean show-offy/whimsical, or does it mean encourages you to use unusual foods, or does it mean new-to-you combinations of tastes?
I've enjoyed my big-ass Gourmet Magasine cookbook.
So I guess I'm looking for exciting new recipes.
Do you want to go ethnic? This is a superb into to both Indian and Thai curries - pretty authentic, but not obsessively so. I've made at least half the recipes in the book, and have had no more than a couple failures. I also have a Thai cookbook that I love, but would have to go get to find online. Marcella Hazan is good for Italian, if you want a stern kitchen coach.
More water almost always helps with pasta, to wash away the exuded stickiness. People don't use enough water (myself included) because it seems to cook just fine in less water, until it clumps.
256 and 257 are the kind of advice I'm looking for. I just want something new, but don't have many particulars in mind, so I'm wondering which ones you like.
258: The real problem with not enough water is that it comes off the boil too much. You want to dominate the cooling effect of pouring in room-temp pasta with lots and lots of mass of boiling water. In a perfect world, pasta water would never, ever, dip below boiling. The more time it spends in cooler water, the worse it cooks, basically.
259: This is really good and a little different.
||
248: Ogged was not only right, he was meta-right.
|>
OK, back to cooking.
If this is the advice thread, I need advice on DC. My sister is up and moving there, and we're (everything in my family is a group project) trying to get a sense of the city and how much money she'll need to get by in a relatively modest lifestyle. We've looked at online cost-of-living translators, and she does seem to have her own potential Flophouse set up in Alexandria, but I guess what I'm looking for is sort of general newcomer advice: can she get by without a car? are things expensive? what are things about it which you had wished you'd known? are the only people who are young and living there surviving due to trust funds?
If anyone can point me towards a resource, or just blather on about DC, that would be great.
Is it reverse-snobbish to say that I have no interest in (non-ethnic) restaurant cookbooks? I have no fear of elaborate recipes with lengthy shopping lists and intensive procedures, but I feel that Contemporary American cuisine just doesn't translate well at home. In practical terms, it tends to rely on perfect ingredients and preparation, including things like ultra-hot ovens and split-second timing, but more than that, it's just not something I want to serve at home. I love it out, but somehow not at home.
Perhaps I'm a bit of a Philistine at heart.
That said, the Balthazar cookbook is gorgeous, with yummy, bistro French food. I made the cassoulet (with my own confit duck legs!), and it was pretty amazing.
Cala, that question clearly belongs in the climate apocalypse thread. Come on, now.
264: My dad bought a bunch of the Moosewood cookbooks years ago, and wow, have they not aged well. The 'Sundays at Moosewood' is particularly bad, Sundays being the night they used to cook 'ethnic' food.
JRoth: I had a last minute oportunity to choose a place for a business meal yesterday and opted for The Bigelow Grille. It seems that they are in a transition, Alchemy is done and Sousa is supposedly heading to someplace in Highland Park. But this may well be old news to you.
</Pittsburgh-specific content>
263: Getting by without a car is simpler in neighborhoods well served by transit, which are more expensive than those without it. Alexandria is big, so it's hard to say if she can easily live carless there (in old town it's pretty easy, but some people do stretch the meaning of "old town"). In DC certain neighborhoods make it really easy, others, not so much. Zipcar is also pretty ubiquitous now, so as long as you don't need a car *much* it's cost-effective.
Things are expensive, but I know a bunch of actors who manage to get by on what they make with their part time jobs. Group houses are the way to go.
The only thing I wish I'd known up front is that the suburbs aren't worth it. You pay a cost premium to live in the desirable parts of Arlington or Alexandria that more than offsets the lower taxes, and you still have to commute into DC. There's no tax benefit at all to living in Maryland. She shouldn't live outside the Beltway unless she's going to work out there.
Also: traffic sucks. If she has a suburban commute she should expect to lose at least two hours a day to it. If you live in DC (*anywhere* in DC, even the awful parts) the time it would take to walk is equal to or sometimes less than the time it would take to get there via transit or in a car.
My dad bought a bunch of the Moosewood cookbooks years ago, and wow, have they not aged well
I have a bunch of the Moosewood cookbooks, but the only ones I use with any regularity (I have roughly 75 cookbooks, many vegetarian or specialized) are the originals: the Moosewood Cookbook and the Enchanted Brocolli Forest. The first has a receipt for eggplant and/or zucchini parmesan I still use.
268: Yeah, heard about it a couple weeks ago. It's a shame, b/c the Bigelow Grille had really become a special place downtown, and I'm not all that interested in an all-Alchemy menu. It's like we need 2 Sousas, one doing the innovative-but-mainstream stuff that made the Grille great, and the other doing the wacky science food stuff.
No tears over the loss of the old Red Room menu; it was fine and all, but certainly not unique.
JRoth is right about Marcella Hazan.
Paula Wolfert's Mediterranean Cooking is supposedly masterful, but I don't have it. My ma and pop have a lot of good cookbooks but the only one whose name I can remember now is Cucina Ebraica, Sephardic Italian recipes, because it has a great lamb stew.
Oh, hey, now that I'm at AB's computer, within arm's reach of the cookbook shelf, let me add a couple:
THAI, by Judy Bastyra and Becky Johnson; gorgeous and almost all hits (it's the one I mentioned above). The recipes are right on the edge of too brief, but if you're already familiar with some Thai techniques, it's awesome. This would probably be a desert island cookbook for me (the kind of desert island that features the panoply of Thai ingredients)
best-ever CURRY cookbook, by Mridula Baljekar is by the same publisher as the above, and looks really good. I've only made one thing in it so far, so I can't really vouch for it. Like the curry book I recommended above, it spans from India to SE Asia, plus the Philippines. Lots of Indian bread recipes.
Patrick O'Connell's Refined American Cuisine is an exception to 2 things I said above - it's fancy American, and it's a restaurant cookbook (Inn at Little Washington). But lord, is it good. It's a very beautiful book, the writing has a nice, friendly tone, and the recipes I've tried have all been great. One thing I like is that there's a section in the back with building block recipes - quick veggie stock, tarragon vinaigrette, etc. It's the only restaurant cookbook I've used as a general reference cookbook (it's not super-extensive, but it's nice). Part of the appeal to me is that it's Southern-themed (not exclusively), and I do loves me some Southern food. Macaroni & cheese made with aged gouda and Virginia ham? Sign me up! Oh shit, and the apple-rutabega soup is amazing. "Looks and tastes like liquid autumn." Damn right it does.
Oh, and for the record, I like Rick Bayliss. I have his Mexico One Plate at a Time, and like it a lot. Nice balance between authenticity and practicality, and some real winning dishes. AB requests his Mexican chocolate streusel coffee cake for her birthday every year.
Thanks for all the suggestions, JRoth. I have the feeling I may end up with several new cookbooks now, instead of just one.