Perpectives on the coining of the new term "Foodiots" from the NY Observer

[E Eto]

The food blogosphere has had something to chew on since the publication of the NY Observer article by Joe Pompeo (http://www.observer.com/2009/food-amp-drink/foodiots ). Jim Leff wrote a response in his slog that seemed pretty critical to the current makeup of Chowhound, agreeing with the gist of Pompeo's piece (http://jimleff.blogspot.com/2009/09/in-joe-pompeos-new-york-observer-piece.html ). I can't say I disagree much either. Perhaps the term "foodiots" is a further distillation of Jim's first differentiation of the Chowhound vs the Foodie, and perhaps an explanation of the "dumbing down" of the content on Chowhound. Others seem critical of Leff as was Josh Ozersky in his blurb on his blog (http://www.the-feedbag.com/incest/jim... ). It's an interesting discussion. I wonder if this does anything to improve the quality of discussions on these boards. Probably not.

[Ruth Lafler]

I'm not going to bother to read the follow-up articles, but my opinion is that this supposed phenomenon is just silly. On facebook and twitter lots of people are posting constantly about the minutiae of their lives. What the content is -- whether it's about what you buy, or listen to, or eat, or even see walking down the street -- is really irrelevant to the real phenomenon, which is, as the article mentioned tangentially, the delusion that people are actually interested in every passing thing you say or do.

[Jim Leff]

But sometimes it's the most everyday observation/expression that's most touching and telling. If such observations happen to be about food and they have that quality of truly individual expression, then there's nothing conceivably wrong with it. It's not about "Food", it's about expression.

And if you're helping people find edible treasure, that's great for anyone listening, as well as for the creators of that treasure (who need all the support they can get!). That, too, is about more than just "Food"; it's about refusing to settle for the pandemic crap. That, of course, is the very basis for this site.

And if you have anything insightful or interesting to say about food, that's great, too. Insight re: food is insightful and interesting - as much so as re: any other topic.

And if you have richly varied interests, and sometimes like to talk in a foodcentric way, what's wrong with that?

But if the center of your existence is what you put in your mouth, and you blurt about it to all comers in a compulsive, uninteresting, trendy, ditzy, unhelpful way, with no higher level anything......ugh. If you don't know people like that, you're lucky. There are tons of 'em. The original NY Observer article I was commenting on describes an expanding movement. And, sort of like wine lovers observing alcoholics, it can feel a little too close for comfort...hence my impulse to draw a distinction.

[Ruth Lafler]

It makes me feel better to think that the phenomenon is really only tangentially about food. It's really the form, not the content, that's the fad. Soon the novelty of twitter and facebook will pass; people will get tired of the infoclutter and these communication methods will subside to a more reasonable level that people actually use in less trivial ways. Sort of like email. I get a lot less email than I used to, because people no longer send out every hoax, or joke or chain letter or whatever. Or if they do, they do it via facebook <vbg>

[soypower]

Wow. I will go ahead and stop commenting on these boards then...Didn't mean to annoy people with my inane meanderings about food. Sorry. Consider me properly chastised and silenced.

[Jim Leff]

That might be the impression one might take away from reading other people's faulty interpretation of my point. Or from failing to read my clarifications above.

But it would certainly not be what I was saying.

[soypower]

It appears that whatever you are actually saying must be far above my intelligence level then. I have a huge aversion to being vocal in an arena where my opinion is either unwanted or not respected. I have gathered wonderful information from these boards and am getting the feeling that perhaps the greatest contribution I could make is to be a silent observer so as not to add to the noise part of the ratio.

ETA: Truly am not trying to get overly sensitive about this, just letting you know that I respect Chowhound enough to adjust my behavior to maintain it's integrity.

[limster]

(note: this is more a general comment rather than a specific reply to soypower)

The goal is not to silence those who are adding noise. The goal is to get them contribute signal instead.

We (or at least I) would like to have "consumers of information" evolve to become "producers of information." It's easier than what one would think. Instead of reading through all sorts of information sources for where to eat, just go out, find an unfamiliar place and eat there. Take a slightly different route to work every other day and try a different place. Try a place because the food smells good. Forget about what the food media (including chowhound!) says, think critically about the food and come up with one's own opinion.

[soypower]

So it appears I was only able to feel badly about this thread for about 24 hours and have begun posting again.

It made me realize that our creations, be it art, books, music, children can only realize our intentions for so long before they take on their own meanings/personalities. Once a creation has been shared with the world, it will be subject to the audience's interpretations and manipulations. The best thing for the artist is to declare what their original intention was and then enjoy the journey of it's evolution.

[dmd_kc]

This kind of negativity is lame and very, very passé. These people have no clue about the mental state of anyone on these boards, and to anomically dismiss thousands as obsessive, neurotic or anything else is just so much trollish Internet bloviating, even if it's signed.

Chowhound has the best signal-to-noise ratio of any community I've ever followed in my 19 years on the Internet. I am sooooooo tired of this, and I eagerly await the Internet's coming into adulthood and leaving trolls behind for good.

[E Eto]

Wait. Where's the negativity coming from and who are the trolls? I don't get what you're trying to say here. From my perspective, what you might call negativity is what I would call being critical. Nothing wrong with demanding better quality.

[dmd_kc]

I'm saying Mr. Leff has no data to back up his charge that there are "untold thousands of giddily obsessive food crazies who've made chewing the very center of their existences," and I fail to see what's productive, and not simply snobbery, in this conversation.

Most of all, I am tired of people calling those they merely disagree with "idiots."

[Jim Leff]

Some would say I'm relatively tapped into the culture of food lovers in America. But, hey, you're welcome to think otherwise.

Also, trolling increases as a medium matures, I'm afraid. But I agree vehemently about our signal-to-noise ratio here. It may not be what it once was, but it's still remarkable. That's why Bob, the mods, and I worked so hard to try to keep this thing running all those years...

[JungMann]

Perhaps "untold thousands" overstates their number, but there are plenty of individuals willing to advertise their blogs and expertise both here and anywhere else they can find an audience.

No one doubts that they talk about food as much as anyone else here, but the platform they've chosen to represent their love of food appear to be little more than an altar to themselves. There is little depth to their writing and still less evidence of actual appreciation for the art and experience of good food, but it doesn't matter because these people are not writing about food so much as they are writing about themselves, not looking in a mirror, but touting their experiences and their perceived sophistication. They are merely dabbling in the fashion of food. There is little to gain from posturing in the hottest restaurant with a Nikon Necklace so you can parrot trendy consensus and proclaim, "I was here." The practice is as unseemly as any other form of superficiality and vanity.

And why not just turn away and ignore these posters? Well, for one thing, they've made themselves ubiquitous enough that it's hard to avoid them. But more specifically, by reinforcing trends, the "big shiny things," whether warranted or not, they amplify these trends; they become potent drivers of opinion. And at a certain critical mass, their consensus can have a peer pressure effect and distort opinion.

My major objection to foodiocy is to their critical illiteracy which has a far more deleterious effect than staged Facebook photos and Twitter namedrops. These blogs and bloggers rely on one another to optimize their sites and regularly link to and promote each other, driving up their Google hits, enhancing their visibility and establishing an appearance of reliability for themselves (and increasing ad revenue). The net effect is a degradation of the quality of writing that we deem acceptable or even exceptional. It wasn't long ago that a chronic mangler of the English language was the paid critic at the NY Daily News and I have little doubt cost-conscious media will turn more to bloggers for reviews in coming years. While I am certainly no Shakespeare, nor even a Rowling, I hate to contribute to the continued devaluation of language by sitting idly. We wouldn’t reward mediocrity by hesitating to post a review of a restaurant or allowing others to drive business there. Why then would we let the loud letdowns of illiteracy go unchallenged?

[Silverjay]

Agree. The internet has created a society of obsessive blogging-shutterbug virtual narcissists. Sitting in front of a PC in your underwear for 19 years or not, it's completely ridiculous to ask for data or peg as negative a lament at the deterioration of the signal-to-noise ratio over the last few years. Jim's right. The story telling and the sheer pleasure of discovery/ enjoyment of new restaurants- Jim's intreprid treasure hunters- have been creepingly challenged in volume by people who get their rocks off seeing there 2000 word photo exposée of Babbo in HTML. The contention is that the same signal-to-noise ratio that makes CH a more compelling resource, is increasingly becoming noisier. Call them food crazies, call them foodiots, call them something that makes you warm and fuzzy- they're not going to help you eat better.

[cimui]

Without getting into a conversation about who is or is not being condescending or pompous, I do think it's probably true that the longer this site is around for and the larger it becomes, the more nodes of power and authority develop. Some of these nodes develop around a poster's actual knowledge, but some also develop around how entertaining a poster is or how "loudly" she speaks (i.e. by putting down the opinions of other posters or cowing opposition). I think this is a big reason behind why some restaurants become practically untouchable on this site, to the detriment of free discussion, and why some wonderful newcomers don't receive as much attention as they ought.

If one is to interpret what Jeff (er, I mean, Jim) is saying in its best light, I think it is a good reminder that we (as Chowhounds / foodies / food lovers, whatever) ought to challenge conventional wisdom a bit more than we maybe do. I certainly am guilty of buying into conventional wisdom all too often, especially when I'm traveling to a new place and want fast/easy answers so I don't waste meals on known duds.

Also, as a side point, I actually think a lot of this discussion relates to something E_Eto pointed out a while back about how more established posters sometimes ignore even excellent, well informed, interesting posts by relative newcomers--to everyone's detriment.

Thanks for a thought-provoking post, Eric et al.

[cimui]

Some additional, nerdy gibberish since my mind seems to be fixated on the subject:

Since it's probably inevitable that nodes of power / board favorites develop, in my book, it's ok to flock to these places [and maybe even follow one's chosen leader(s)] so long as one also branches out from there and does one's part in contributing to new knowledge... and one doesn't privilege old knowledge *too* heavily over new knowledge. I don't agree with limster that the solution is to ignore established conventional wisdom altogether (by ordering nothing that others have already tried) but do agree with what was maybe his implied point that many of us could do a better job of balancing respect for (interest in) the known / old and the spirit of exploration.

To respond to Pompeo's observation, as I take it, that we've become too fixated on food... maybe... but I am what I am. If you don't like it, I'll keep it to myself, but inside, I'll still have a raging food-on. :)

[Gigi007]

Well said, cimiu. You've articulated what I've been thinking concerning attitudes about certain restaurants on this site as well as the impression I sometimes have about how long-time, more established posters sometimes ignore relative newcomers' insightful reviews and opinions. I think this is particularly true on location-specific boards, but it could also be happening on other boards as well. In my short tenure here, I'd say that there's more of a healthy give and take (one might even call that "respect") on the non-location boards, but then again it might depend on the specific topic and the posters involved.

[chris2269]

Good points. My main beef is someone maybe new asks for recomendations about "insert food or restaurant type here" someone makes a few recommendations based on the posters requests.

there will be at least one or two inevitable posts simply stating " there are no good (again insert food or restaurant type) here"

Really how does that help? the worst offenders are BBQ and Pizza. OK NY has the best pizza ...get over it. Some one in Orange county asks for good pizza a few people try to help them out and then there ia a lambasting about how could anyone suggest eating pizza outside of NY...I mean really?...Really?

I think that is far more elitist and damaging than anything mentioned in the article or critisism of food sites.

[Gigi007]

I hear what you're saying The vitriol in pizza discussions in some locales is just crazy. I learned my lesson to not express my humble opinion on one of NYC's revered pizza establishments. Some jerk (who couldn't be bothered to read or follow a thread) jumped down my throat for agreeing with another poster's characterization of a favoiite pizza place's extremely oily pizza pie. And now I live in Washington, DC where we get the NYers (I can say that b/c I used to live there!) who complain about our fair city not having any good NY-style pizza. Actually it's true, we really don't have good NY-style pizza here but so what---we have two great Neapolitan-style pizza establishments recognized by associations in Italy. In general, I find hounds in DC to be quite patient and tolerant w/ that oarticular issue, but not necessarily with other ones.

For sure, most people want to help, but at the same time some of these people also have a need to show off--to be the authority on certain subjects. That is not to say that there aren't local hounds whose opinions I respect b/c there are; but rather that some people seem to know it all without any sense of openness to other people's perspectives, differing opinions, preferences or lifestyles. As an example, some hounds have a lifestyle that will allow them to travel 1-2 hours from home to eat the perfect ____ [fill-in-the-blank], but these people need to consider that not everyone has the lifestyle/means/interest in travelling that far to get X food item/have a certain food experience. At times, they are quick to judge or disparage another person's preference without considering his/her particular circumstances. One size does not fit all! (Rant over.)

And I agree, elitist, superior attitudes are a real problem and are far worse than the discussion in the article.

[queencru]

I think we get those types of posters in all regions. I'm in FL and we get people from NYC/CA and other areas complaining about certain types of food being terrible. It's the most annoying when people are visiting and want a replica of what they find at home. Can't you survive without NY-style pizza for 3 days? Sorry, that's just one of my little rants.

I agree completely that suggesting a person go 1-2 hours out of the way for a place may not be practical. Especially in larger metropolitan areas, when you ask for advice about one area, it gets frustrating when someone says "Everything's awful there, but if you can drive 45 minutes, there's a great place."

[limster]

>>there will be at least one or two inevitable posts simply stating " there are no good (again insert food or restaurant type) here"

Sometimes that's because that's just not the specialty of the particular region, at other times it can be because the person hasn't looked hard enough. e.g. In cities with hundreds of pizza places, going to tens of them would be considered undersampling, and the likelyhood of finding the "best" isn't going to be super high.

[E Eto]

Here's the thread Cimui referred to in the post above. Maybe you have something to add to it.
http://chowhound.chow.com/topics/519145

[Gigi007]

Thanks, E_Eto. I actually saw that thread early on, but didn't post there so lost track of it. Btw, as I'm still learning site features, how can I follow a thread that I haven't posted on? I think it's possible, but don't know how to do it. Thanks in advance.

[Caitlin McGrath]

Check the box next to "Favorite Topic" above the original post in the thread. In the menu across the top of your profile page above your recent posts, click Favorites, and it'll show you any threads, stories, recipes, etc. you've favorited.

[Gigi007]

Thanks, Caitlin! I would have never figured that one out on my own. It seems like the featur should be called "Following" rather than "Favorites".

[flourgirl]

I absolutely agree with you, Cimui.

[chris2269]

Much ado about nothing IMO.

One of the responses to the second article made a comparison to sports talk. I can relate, I hate basketball but work with a lot of people who love it and love to talk about it. Some times I have to listen to long conversations about the Lakers or engage in smal talk about the playoffs. You know what I do it as a social grace. No real harm. If I want to have a conversation about Ham with someone who also wants to have that conversation ...who cares.

As to maybe is someone jumping on the foodie band wagon because its the new hot thing ...again who cares?

As for " Some people follow the hype (and pass on the hype) -- e.g. the latest openings, the trendiest ingredients, VS "Some people explore to find deliciousness - they try a whole bunch of dishes in a whole bunch of places to find something delicious."

I think this is just an example of cultist elite-ism (and not saying its yours just the theory's

[limster]

If it was just another form of elitism, it wouldn't be that important, but I do think that there are more practical ramifications. Hype (for better or worse) is a powerful marketing tool, and thus it means that people end up eating and spending their money at places that have bigger PR/advertising budgets. If the advantage goes to those with the biggest signboard (so to speak), rather than those with the most delicious food, those who put their heart/soul/expertise into creating delicious food would not necessarily be rewarded for their efforts, and we end up losing something good.

[chris2269]

"Hype (for better or worse) is a powerful marketing tool, and thus it means that people end up eating and spending their money at places that have bigger PR/advertising budgets." Agree but if you are talking about board sites...like chowhound how does the marketing come in to play? I agree with some of the article and your quoted post but in the same breath I relate a lot of it to (again the article not your post) like someone discovering a band from thier latest CD and someone who has followed the same band from thier first album and making the judgement that the newer person isn't a real fan. Maybe I read it wrong.

[limster]

"...if you are talking about board sites...like chowhound how does the marketing come in to play?"

People who post on CH or other boards will likely be exposed to other sources of media as well. Several (non-comprehensive) examples:

1. Marketing/PR = web presence & viral marketing (e.g. twitter, facebook, a website, invites and free meals to bloggers)

2. Marketing/PR = press releases, which leads to the press knowing about them and reviewing them (or saying they're about to open etc.).

3. Ads, the old fashioned way.

etc.

If one uses the web to do research, it's quite likely that one would be exposed to any of these media sources. And because there are companies pumping out that information, a search is more likely to pull them out than some restaurant without any serious PR budget. How many people have eaten at a place because they read about it online and then came to CH to post about it? I know I have on occasion (and I cite those sources when I do).

By actively seeking out restaurants on our own, we have a chance to find places that haven't used any form of PR, or hasn't been mentioned on the web. Option 2 that I raised is at that end of the spectrum.

[Jim Leff]

--------------
Chris2269 said:

Much ado about nothing IMO.

One of the responses to the second article made a comparison to sports talk. I can relate, I hate basketball but work with a lot of people who love it and love to talk about it. Some times I have to listen to long conversations about the Lakers or engage in smal talk about the playoffs. You know what I do it as a social grace. No real harm. If I want to have a conversation about Ham with someone who also wants to have that conversation ...who cares
--------------

Chris, quite right. Completely agreed.

I don't think people should be put in jail, or stoned, or otherwise punished for or prohibited from ditzily obsessing over their ingestion. I'm not lobbying for a law to be made, nor am I demanding (as if I were in a position to demand!) that they cut it out RIGHT THIS INSTANT.

I'm just saying that I find it tedious and embarrassing, generally. And embarrassing to me, specifically, because I egged it on (never having intended to egg it on in quite this way, but isn't that always the case?). Nothing more than that. Just expression of a view - one I thought readers might find interesting, given my unusual background and the part I played in all this. Offering views is what I do as a writer. That's my stock in trade.

People can and will go on doing what they do, and engaging in whatever small talk and obsession they deem fit. No harm in it, you're right! This is not the primary scourge facing our society. But it IS a new and interesting one, worth analyzing (hence Pompeo's article, my reply, and this discussion).

Why should anyone's behavior be affected by what I think? Some have offered pointed responses to my thoughts. That's fine and proper. We're exchanging views. That's a good thing. You yourself have just offered your view. We're all offering views.

As for there being no effective difference between following marketing hype and boldly making your own consumer finds...I'd have to disagree with you quite strongly on that one. It makes all the difference in the world, in my way of seeing things. If you have the patience to check it out, this article expresses my feelings on that: http://jimleff.info/panera.html

[limster]

The articles make several overlapping points. The point that I care about most (but is perhaps an aside in the articles) pertains to how people are making choices about where to eat -- there are largely two possibilities/polar opposites that these articles contrast (there perhaps some intermediates in between):

1. Some people follow the hype (and pass on the hype) -- e.g. the latest openings, the trendiest ingredients, the places with the most buzz or those that have been "anointed" by the food media is their criteria for eating at place. They decide on where and what to eat based on what the (PR-driven) food media says. Something is worth eating because everyone is talking about it.

2. Some people explore to find deliciousness - they try a whole bunch of dishes in a whole bunch of places to find something delicious. They decide where and what to eat, either because (a) their own prior experiences was good, or (b) they don't know anything about a given restaurant/dish and want to try it to learn more about it ("going where no one has gone before" - vbg, but I couldn't resist). Something is worth eating because it's delicious.

Of course not everyone falls into either extreme, but the hope was to have more of 2 than 1.

One could do 2 by (a) not reading the food media at all, or (b) following the food media and then actively not eating the things they recommend. (b) sounds counter intuitive, but is a useful mechanism for finding NEW delicious stuff, since it allows more ground to be covered in total.

[greygarious]

To tweak the old chestnut a bit: "He's a Leffgend in his own mind". ;>)

[buttertart]

Mmm hmm. Recent postings have been a bit off the mark it seems to me.

[buttertart]

That was a provocative article - my feelings lean much more toward Ozersky's commentary on Leff's endorsement than to Leff's. Who gives a rat's about who started this? And crediting oneself for initiating a discussion about food and its promulgation over the web is a bit much.

[Jim Leff]

buttertart, you've both missed the point and mis-paraphrased me. It's daft to say I've credited myself for starting discussion of food over the web. I said (and did) no such thing. What I did start was the practice of maintaining a public ongoing diary of daily ingestion. I did so for specific reasons (interesting stories to tell, a credo to proselytize, etc). More and more others have been doing similar activities out of sheer ditzy compulsiveness, leading to the obnoxiously fixated behavior and foodie frothiness Pompeo properly decries.

I wasn't "expressing contempt for chowhounds". In fact, it has nothing to do with chowhounds. First of all, the people I'm talking about are foodies, who, as Eric notes in his OP, have creeped me out all along. And trading good chow tips, as we do here, is awesome, because it's USEFUL (and makes the world better, as we help the good guys win and encourage consumers to seek out treasure). Writing or talking interestingly about food is awesome, too, because it's entertaining and insightful - not because it's about food, but because it's, again, INTERESTING. And having a varied and rich life in which the appreciation for good food ranks high is a good way to live.

But being obsessively cuckoo for cocoa puffs about food (no subtext....just FOOD, as in the stuff you gobble every day) as the center of one's existence? Less so. Yeah, I affected a cocoa puffian stance to promote a web community (though with an underlying wryness that was lost on a lot of people). It boggles me that anyone would make straight monomaniacal food zaniness a deliberate lifestyle choice. Shudder.

The many serious chowhounds on this site - as well as the many who've never stopped in here - invariably show a keenly ironic perspective, and well-roundedness as they passionately discuss the topic. Many are passionate and knowledgeable in many other realms, as well. They're intrepid treasure hunters, not daffy artichoke worshippers. It's a community I've always been very proud to be a part of.

But the foodiots? Yech.

ps - if you guys haven't already, read the comments beneath my article for some interesting discussion http://jimleff.blogspot.com/2009/09/i...

[buttertart]

Your clarification noted. I perhaps misread your intent in your comment on the article. I am however not daft, thank you very much, and am entitled to both my opinion and my interpretation of what I read.

[Jim Leff]

Sure, you're entitled to conclude that I pompously claimed to have invented food discussion on the internet. Or that fairies make the light bulb burn. Or anything else. Am I not equally entitled to deem your misinterpretation daft?

The difference between our respective conclusions is that yours, which you've chosen to broadcast indignantly to a large crowd, and which does not stem from anything I actually wrote, makes me look like a complete shmuck, whereas I was just pointing out a flagrant and insulting misinterpretration.

Yet, remarkably, you're the one icily offended. Do you believe you're due greater consideration than I am? If so, please let me know what I've done to forfeit the same thoughtful consideration you yourself demand.

[buttertart]

I apologize for offense caused.

[Jim Leff]

LIkewise. And, fwiw, I say or do daft things several times per day (as do we all). Though I'm not myself chronically daft.

[EWSflash]

Jim, I got a subscription to Bon Appetit in the oh, late 1970s, I guess. I read it for several years, with increasing ennui, because of all the photos of shiny overmadeup overlighted overdressed people that were smiling too hard whilst eating the Next Best Thing without getting fat. At the time, Gourmet had muted, almost clandestine-looking photos taken on scene in restaurants and quite frankly didn't show people very much. In the late 1980s I acquired a wonderful mother in law (really- I really lucked out) that renews my Gourmet scrip every year for my birthday. I dropped Bon Appetit a long time ago and never looked back.

Those photos from the early '80s food mags seem to me like how you differentiate foodes from chowhounds. Or am I wrong? Kindly define or explain the difference, since the term foodie predates chowhound, except in country terms. It seems like somebody wants to redefine an old term, so how a bout you spell it out? I'd be much obliged, just for the sake of current definitions. Thanks-

[Jim Leff]

Not being a connoisseur of food magazines, I'm not sure I can tie it together in the way you ask. A foodie is like pornography: you know it when you see it.

Simply put, there is a vast amount of money spent in the creation of tastes...for food products, restaurants, chefs, cookbooks, brands, yadda. Same in realms like fashion, cars, travel, music, etc. That money isn't all directly pushing product; cottage industries have sprung up (e.g. entire niches of journalism and publishing) to suck money out of that same tap and extend its influence by proxy. It's like a huge "show", fueled by marketing money, and it inherently tends to ignore the vast realms of deliciousness that won't or can't pay to play. It's contrived, and it's about "sizzle" rather than "steak".

For foodies, the stuff pushed at them via this shiny spotlight is exciting! They're just DELIGHTED to hear about the latest star chef, to buy the big new cookbook and eat at the hot new restaurant. They buy lots of stuff and they buy INTO lots of stuff. They are the manipulatees targeted by a marketing machine (and its legions of intermediaries and beneficiaries), and they revel in it, sucking down manufactured, highly commercialized opinions like nectar. They eat where they're told, they follow trends, and they allow their tastes to be made for them. They are passive and shallow. They are foodies.

Chowhounds understand that conventional wisdom is bought, period. They love food, so they've sort of self-identified as foodies, but always felt alienated by the shiny food scene; often disappointed by (and disconnected from) food media, conventional wisdom, and the various Big New Things. They intrepidly make their own discoveries and draw their own opinions about things.

They're accustomed to dodging all sorts of misdirection; they focus on the high and low shelves in groceries, they look past the gringo fodder offered by restaurants of other nationalities. They appreciate fine ambiance and decor and service, but they're not hypnotized by it. They're trying to find treasure, and have learned to never expect it to be thrust upon them. If they do it long enough, they start to notice that the sort of thing they're into at any given time tends to catch on years later. Chowhounds are a type, and they've been around for a long time. Not all chowhounds have even heard of this site. But they're out there.

A chowhound lives to go investigate some random unfamiliar nabe and try to make finds, which they brag about and evangelize (which is why this site fit quite nicely). A foodie, by contrast, lives to try all ten of the Zagat guide's top 10 restaurants (and probably blogs about the "adventure").

To me, it's a pretty clear distinction. And I find that most of the people who fail to grok it are foodies, who naturally feel less than flattered when the mirror's held up. What makes me happier than anything is when foodies (or even non-food lovers) get a whiff of the chowhound (not necessarily Chowhound) spirit and discover their true calling. This web site is the most effective engine I could think of to achieve that transformation. I've also been pleased that lots of food lovers who felt alienated by the big shiny hypnosis machine have been able to gather here and find kindred spirits.

Here's a "Tale of Two Chowhounds", a piece I wrote at the very dawn of this site, to explain the credo. Please give it a read, the real world examples therein explain what I'm talking about: http://www.chow.com/stories/10323

[EWSflash]

Beautifully put. Thank you.