[…]Weekly Dish » Blog Archive » What I Had for Dinner Last Night[…]…

[…]Weekly Dish » Blog Archive » What I Had for Dinner Last Night[…]…

I’m not a teacher, but I am a mother. I made a conscious choice from Day One to encourage rather than criticize; to support expression and creativity - in all its forms.

I have never approached food blogging with the ego or self-importance of a critic [or even a chef, for that matter]. For me, it’s all about passion; and my passions are home-cooking, comfort food, and creating great meals - for the pleasure of it.

I don’t read food blogs to be “impressed”; I read food blogs to be inspired, to share recipes and ideas, and have some fun along the way connecting with other cooks and readers in a [worldwide] community.

Like the statement I added to my blog the other day [after reading Mr. Wells article]… I do it for love. Not for money.

I find your blog - and all the other food blogs I love to visit - inspiring. Pure and simple. Thank you for sharing your take on this - I so appreciate it.

Karina

Rorie: Decadent is a good descriptor (which seems quite the opposite of boring, no?)

Kalyn: You know, you mentioned that we were both teachers, and I think it’s the teacher in me that is most offended by Wells’s methodology. For one thing, his research is lazy; I would never allow my students to prove a point with such flimsy, out-of-context evidence. But even more than that, as a writing teacher (and as a human being for that matter), I tend to affirm. Even when a student says something in class that’s wildly off the mark, I look for the one something in what she’s said that I can connect with before I show her how to think about her position in a different way. It’s not that I don’t criticize; it’s the way I do it (and I bet you’re the same way in your classroom). Obviously teachers and critics are serving different purposes, but I would be much more inclined to listen to (even if I didn’t agree with) Wells’ argument for blogging criteria if he was not so dismissive and condescending.

Jonathan: No, thank YOU. From the time I started this blog, you have been the single-most encouraging reader, and what you’ve just said I count as one of the biggest compliments I’ve ever received. I would always, always rather be the chef at the smallest restaurant with the simplest, freshest food whose customers come back to talk food AND feel like they can make it at home! Next time I visit NY, you’ll have to tell me how to find the place in the Village you mention.

Until then, thanks for coming here so often and talking food!

That was/is one of your best posts. I get Food & Wine (along with too many other food(ie) magazine, including several from the U.K. I had not read the column in question until I got Andrea Strong’s weekly email. And WOW, KBang!!. But then I sat back, and said maybe this is why I have not started a blog. That and a million other reasons like taking care of family members, etc. But your post has me thinking again. Good simple food is what cooking really is all about. Even in France — despite all the Foodiedom. I lived in NYC for 7 years and still visit friends there (mostly Godchildren). I read about all of the new places that they swoon over and debate about, and visit a few from time to time. But time after time i go back to the same small place in the Village that has been there for almost 20 years, run by a family from Nice. Simple, wonderful French food that is simply prepared with fresh ingredients and that is accessable to me — I can cook the stuff too!!! And the chef shares her ideas and listens to mine. So back I go and go and talk and talk. Your philosophy fits right into that. Thank you Thank you. A voice of reason. ANd once again…….. I should not (be and really am not) surprised… Thank you Your blog continues to be one of the best reads out there. ANd for that I am most appreciative (even if I can not type…) -JJ