Bux-
Maybe you should read for yourself before judging her or her writing? So sorry, but talk about lazy ignorance...

Bux, I don't understand you, are you trying to be funny? You admit you didn't read the Richman article, and obviously you have no interest in reading Abbe's book, yet you feel the need to comment insolently, but you can't tolerate responses. That is pretty narrow-minded of you, particularly considering these forums are titled "Read. Chew. Discuss."

Maybe you don't care for others' opinions, but I would be quite annoyed if I was a "society donor" (like wkl for example), and I discovered my perfectly good and valid questions had been tampered with, simply to serve your own petty purposes.

Citychef, perhaps it's you who should read before criticizing my words, as they're those of the author. Indeed I've read beyond that which I quote, but it should be obvious to any who have read as far as I did, that I've done my homework.

Yes, I have no interest in reading Abbe's book, but I would have thought that by quoting the author, I would have indicated to her loyal fans that I've read far enough to know why I wasn't intersted in reading further. There's a distinct difference between thinking poorly of someone's literary attempts and personal insults thrown at someone who doesn't share one's feelings.

So... Has anyone read Richman's article on Vongericten? What did you think?

I tried. But at my newsstand, the Jan '05 issue was already on the shelf

=R=

There's the rub. Imagine how much more relevance Alan Richman's often excellent food writing would have if the publisher of GQ would put it on the web. Ditto Jeffrey Steingarten's work in Vogue. These are two of the best food writers out there, yet they receive a tiny percentage of the play they could receive. Chances are, there are a negligible number of people -- a few hundred die-hard foodies at the most -- who are willing to buy GQ or Vogue on a regular basis just for the food articles. So there's no real commercial loss from putting some of that material out there. And putting it out there makes those magazines more relevant in food circles, as well as general tastemaker circles outside the world of fashion and related lifestyle issues. They could get thousands of extra web hits, they could be talked about online, and they could be read by the community of journalists who do so much online reading but don't have budgets for premium content.

Of course, I've said this all before and nobody at Conde Nast is listening. So discussions of Richman and Steingarten will always be difficult to have online, because we lack the critical mass of subscribers among our membership. Oh well.

Actually I was referring to her insight into the Richman story on JG, as a former employee certainly she has a side of the story that you, I or Alan Richman do not have privy to. Her stories about life at "murder kitchen" certainly offer a point of view on the thesis Richman puts forth in his article, and I for one, welcome it. Her story supports the ones I have heard from former and current employees I know and answers some of the questions posed by the GQ article. Seems as though you are trying to backpedal from your original insulting and uninformed comment implying JG's problem may stem from hiring people like the writer in question.

I am a farm girl, so I am going to step right into it and grind my heel to boot.
My business is 8' by 10'. Practically no one knows who or where we are.
My staff, however, are accomplished at dealing with people who may have a chip on their shoulder about us and our business model. We acknowledge their experience, and their concerns. We share what we have to offer that is positive. We prove in a friendly manner that we have the knowledge and experience to back it up.
You, abbe, have a book to sell. Therefore, you are not only proprietor but front-of-house for your own product. This is the harshest thing I have ever said online, but I'm saying it now. Girl, if you can't represent yourself with more dignity than this, please hire someone else to do it for you.

Your writing style is modern and spunky and the material can be fun, but marketing it as a "chip on my shoulder" product will not go far with anyone. Readers want to be entertained, not bludgeoned. If you truly have the charm to succeed as a maitre d', let's see it in your book marketing. Certainly people are going to question your material. If you were hosting a book signing party (with wine, I hope) and I were there and asked the same questions Bux has asked, would I be greeted with the responses you've typed above?

(And as for Richman and Vogue and GQ, I can hardly get through these articles past the overwhelming fumes from the perfume and cologne inserts. Richman needs to expand his horizons.)

Well, as a foodie who is interested enough in fashion to subscribe to Vogue and GQ for the fashion aspects alone, I have been familiar with Conde Nast's websites for some time and all of them are behind the curve. The best of them seem to be concierge.com--the site for Conde Nast Traveler--but even it has the search engine from hell.

Epicurious is also a Conde Nast production, and it has much to offer, although I think much of it is ill-conceived and represents standard corporate "not getting it" about the internet. Concierge.com actually used to be better than it is now, but at some point they ditched their best original content and became a more conventional portal-plus-recycled-content site. GQ (us.gq.com) and Vogue (style.com) have nice enough sites and even reprint some of their features and photographs online, but never (or at least close enough to never that I've never caught one) the Richman and Steingarten pieces, which is just silly.

Unfortunately, I was never able to convince Elle to commit to serious food coverage, so I have settled into a routine of just writing the occasional short food-travel or trend piece and that's that. But when there was hope that they might actually do some good coverage, I was at least able to convince them to put the food articles on the web. The relevance multiplier effect was tangible.

I would think having a ready-made web audience would also help increase Richman and Steingarten's book sales . . .

I realize you are addressing Abbe here, but I feel I need to to interject, as perhaps I am partly responsible; I was the one who invited Abbe into this discussion, and I was the one "marketing" her book so aggressively here.

I think you are missing certain facts. Look back in the thread and you will realize Bux's first post to Abbe was quite condescending. Abbe responded to him...and had no "chip on her shoulder," she was far calmer and cooler than surely I would have been. Her original answer can be found here.

Bux promptly deleted the post, with no explanation. After another member named wkl asked "What happened to Abbe's last post?" Abbe responded by linking to her site where she had stored a copy of her response. Again, Bux deleted the responses, which presumably led to Abbe's post which you quoted above.

If anybody feels this thread has degenerated, it is only because Bux was an instigator with no stomach for repercussion. But, no one realizes this because he has tampered with the thread so efficiently. Please read Abbe's original response before you accuse her of a lack of dignity. Interestingly, this phrase is one I would use to perfectly describe Bux's behavior.

Sorry for speaking on Abbe's behalf, but I did receive an email that indicated she might not return.