
A few days ago I wrote about recent drama in the foodie community. My post was sparked by reading AJC critic John Kessler's rumination about the epidemic of "lashing out" in the foodie community, specifically citing blogger Foodie Buddha's recent review of Cardamom Hill.
A few commenters to my post took Kessler to task for using Foodie Buddha's actual name. I didn't even mention the outing because, honestly, I think it's kind of crazy to presume you can write controversially and not eventually be exposed. It wouldn't even occur to me to think otherwise.
I did, however, make note in the comments section that I don't know of any publication that allows critics to write under a pseudonym. Well, as it turns out, I'm wrong. The AJC itself allows one of its food bloggers to use a pen name. Doh!
So, I stand corrected.
Interestingly, it turns out that the Buddha addressed the question of his own anonymity in an essay last August: part one, part two.
I disagree with a good bit of the essay. Some of his concerns seem quite exaggerated to me. Bottom line, the reasons for coveting anonymity are also good reasons not to undertake criticism at all.
Showing 1-2 of 2
As a food blogger, I just don't get the whole pseudonym thing. It strikes me as pretty vain to think that restaurants are going to google your name until they find a photo of you...and then what? Post it at the hostess stand so they can keep an eye out for you on the off chance you might come in? Sure, I don't put my photo on my blog, but if someone cares enough they can track down my picture. I'm a food blogger, for goodness sake, not a CIA agent, so who really cares if someone figures out who I am?
When a food blogger becomes well-read and influential enough to have the lead dining critic of the city's major newspaper devote an entire post to you, it would be imprudent for a restaurant not to keep an eye out.