Thursday, February 16, 2006

tell me you're just here for the coffee

as long-time readers recall, i began this blog at the urging of a geek pal of mine who noted that i had various writings -- such as lists of artisan chocolatiers -- that the rest of the world would care about. at the time, i told him i really doubted that anyone else wanted to mail-order handmade chocolates from around the planet.

but it turns out he was right in y2k and i was wrong. so here we are.

at the time artisan chocolates were hard to find and hard to find out about. this is no longer the case. same with artisan bread.

thus nowadays i spent a lot of time here reviewing rare coffees that are hard to find out about and determining how best to brew 'em. i don't consider myself a "foodie" blog, and i think the foodie blogs also don't consider me a member of their world.

thus i am behind in the whole "empires of boredom" thing. because frankly, i don't think it speaks to me, since i try to avoid talking about what i had for dinner unless i'm trying to talk generally about a larger food point or coffee personality, and i rarely post pix of my bread, my pizza, my yoga poses, etc. unless directly requested.

because frankly, i hope you're just here for the coffee. ok, mostly for the coffee.

stories about me should only illustrate larger points about our topics, imvho. as i said over at dining, i, like the writer at food & wine, remain unimpressed by 99% of food blogs, and of course, foodies weird me out.

at the same time, i completely stand by my statement that most foodies and foodie bloggers can't cook, don't travel enough to be able to evaluate restaurants and chefs properly, and don't understand how to think about ingredients or recipes.

my recommendation: hop over to the local culinary institute for some cooking classes. and that's the last i have to say on this subject, because so much happens in coffee every single day. . .!

still, a big bccy congrats to long-time pals bruce of sautewednesday and josh at foodsection. they deserve the praise!

as for the nytimes food critic frank bruni and his satirical stalker, why bother?

does anyone expect the "journal of record cluelessness" to say anything useful about food, or even if it did, could say it in a direct, simple, manner? isn't the whole rap about all the ny times' stupid food pages that they're completely self-absorbed with their own supposed importance?

my attitude will alter a bit perhaps when they change that section from "dining & wine" to "dining & beverages" and ask an scaa member to write a weekly coffee column! hah!

posted by fortune | 8:52 AM | top | link to this | email this: | links to this post | | 0 comments

Links to this post:

Create a Link