Like many, this article slightly rubbed me the wrong way and I initially struggled to identify why.
Tamar Haspel is a known and accomplished food columnist for The Washington Post, where this article was first published. Her writing style is known for being witty and especially in using humor to make a point. She generally succeeds at that, but in this opinion piece it just didn't land.
I think it's the subject matter. Lettuce here is a proxy for our food supply in general and there is a very real fear about the current and future safety of the food supply in the United States right now.
Haspel's piece parodies that a bit and I think that is what is irking us. The food recalls over this summer have been frequent, confusing, sometimes contradictory, and certainly a bit frightening. No one is irrational, foolish, or dumb for being worried that the food they are eating might not be safe.
Her article makes fun of this, at least indirectly, and that comes across as a bit insulting. When you're the aim of the joke and not in on the joke, the humor doesn't land. That's why her absurd points, intending to be witty (such as asserting that lettuce has no value because it is next to nothing) just don't work here.
I'm also not sure what to make of the carbon footprint section (which is also where she tries to pivot to seriousness). I think she thought it was going to be more compelling than it actually was....and that she may have been writing a bit outside of her own expertise (which she admits as much). I recognize that in my own writing. I'll write what I think is an ironclad argument and then realize it isn't fully working and my essay just fizzles out at that point, exactly the way her article did.
(Although, I've never exhorted a reader to buy lentils, but then again, I'm not a food writer.)
Some of her other work we've republished here has been quite good, but this one was a miss.
Tamar Haspel is a known and accomplished food columnist for The Washington Post, where this article was first published. Her writing style is known for being witty and especially in using humor to make a point. She generally succeeds at that, but in this opinion piece it just didn't land.
I think it's the subject matter. Lettuce here is a proxy for our food supply in general and there is a very real fear about the current and future safety of the food supply in the United States right now.
Haspel's piece parodies that a bit and I think that is what is irking us. The food recalls over this summer have been frequent, confusing, sometimes contradictory, and certainly a bit frightening. No one is irrational, foolish, or dumb for being worried that the food they are eating might not be safe.
Her article makes fun of this, at least indirectly, and that comes across as a bit insulting. When you're the aim of the joke and not in on the joke, the humor doesn't land. That's why her absurd points, intending to be witty (such as asserting that lettuce has no value because it is next to nothing) just don't work here.
I'm also not sure what to make of the carbon footprint section (which is also where she tries to pivot to seriousness). I think she thought it was going to be more compelling than it actually was....and that she may have been writing a bit outside of her own expertise (which she admits as much). I recognize that in my own writing. I'll write what I think is an ironclad argument and then realize it isn't fully working and my essay just fizzles out at that point, exactly the way her article did.
(Although, I've never exhorted a reader to buy lentils, but then again, I'm not a food writer.)
Some of her other work we've republished here has been quite good, but this one was a miss.
Comment