Post 1: My favorite pieces of literature I read for this class was Pete Wells’ article titled “As Not Seen on TV” discussing Guy Fieri’s new restaurant in Times Square and the “Elemental Odes”, specifically the “Ode to Tomato”, by Pablo Neruda. The Fieri article was my favorite bit of assigned reading because of its humorous and sarcastic nature, mixed with the short paragraphs that allow the article to read as if the author is doing a comedy routine. This article began to expand my view on writing and show me that the way I revised my writing to look would affect the way it was read. Pablo Neruda’s “Elemental Odes” was my favorite reading that was not assigned, although it was suggested to me by Thea, it quickly became my favorite selection of reading I had read all year. Reading these odes helped me not only analyze the genre of poetry, but it helped me create poetry in a way that I had never done before.

.

Post 2: When I started this course, I thought that the rhetoric of food were the words used around cooking and eating food. Coming to the end of this course I have learned that the rhetoric of food is much more than that. The rhetoric of food describes the way we understand, express, and experience food and all its constituencies. We use the rhetoric of food to analyze not only what the author is saying, but who the author is, where they are coming from, what they are trying to portray, and how they are trying to portray it. Instead of simply describing food itself, the rhetoric of food is the entire combination of all these elements into texts to then express points the author is trying to make about society and culture. I have learned that the rhetoric of food is as much about understanding the text meaning and depth as it is the literal words that the author uses to describe food.

My favorite text from class was definitely Consider the Lobster by David Foster Wallace. I found this text to be insightful and informative. This writing required me to think in a way that I’ve never thought before about lobsters and brought a very unique perspective on this specific food. I appreciated his style of writing and how he wasn’t forcing his point of view and opinions on the reader, but instead merely coming to the audience as a confused individual. His perception of certain things such as the type of people who attend these festivals also made me laugh.

My favorite text that I read outside of class was The Truth About American Sushi No One Wants to Hear by Hannah Cooper. There were several aspects that I liked about this text. For one, I really enjoyed the format that she utilized. She made it organized and easy to follow while also numbering her list. I also thought that this piece was helpful when it came to writing my bibliography on the difference in sushi in Japan and America. This was a short, yet enlightening text that gave me an idea on what specifically is different in each region.

The rhetoric of food is an attempt to put into words what we eat and all that is food. It is a very broad term, but it can cover countless aspects such as the history of food, food culture in certain regions, the production and consumption of food, or the taste of food itself. There are many ways in which to write about food: recipes, reviews, memoirs, blogs, etc. I have also learned that food writing doesn’t have to be presented in the form of words, but can also be viewed as videos. Throughout the semester we have covered and researched many different types of genres and looked at the specific meaning and purpose behind each one. I have learned about different styles of writing and how each style can commence different feelings or thoughts within the reader. In general, I believe that the rhetoric of food should make the reader feel emotions whether it be happiness or sorrow through telling a story about food.

What are you learning about the way writers express their ideas about food? Something that I have learned about the Rhetoric of Food is that writers have so many different ways to express their ideas about food. The mediums can be short stories, they can be poetry, videos, restaurant reviews, blogs, and movie trailers. Being able to use all of the literary mediums and a multitude of delivery forms allows many types of people to read about the rhetoric of food. “Food Cultures” are important  to each person, for me they different for each person as they are significant to each person, and their cultural heritages and the important to the foods that they can consume. When we worked on the annotated bibliography and we learned so many ways food connects to power, history, politics, race, gender, nationality and other identity markers. Cookbooks can be geared towards genders, the kitchen is considered to be a “feminine space”, burgers/wings are considered to be masculine foods, and how certain foods seemed to be racial and other certain people have the power to cook those things.

The Rhetoric of Food, I believe, means something different to everyone.  The act of debating, discussing, praising, or just consuming food is a different experience for every person, and each experience builds that person’s feelings about food.  How they express these feelings depends solely on the person: they can spread their ideas through conversation, through multimedia, through art or through writing.  Writers express their ideas about food through careful consideration of their audiences and the broader social context of their piece.  The rhetoric of food is extremely complex, with intentions for writing ranging from sincere love of a food to the ethics of killing animals for consumption to absolute hatred of a restaurant.  If there is one thing I have learned this semester, it is that food is hardly just a part of sustenance: food is power, food is culture, food is love, food is a core piece of so many people’s identities.

Part I:

Of the many texts assigned on the syllabus this semester, I believe the two that stuck with me the most were the Guy Fieri review and the piece about lobsters.

The Guy Fieri review was so memorable, in my opinion, because the writer was ripping the restaurant, Guy’s American Kitchen and Bar, to pieces. Pete Wells, while seeming like a pretentious prick in his writing, used only questions to break down his experience in Fieri’s restaurant. His style criticized each and every aspect of the 500-seater restaurant in Time Square and simultaneously kept entertainment alive. I will say, however, I’m glad I’m not Guy Fieri.

I suppose this particular review stuck in my brain because it reshaped the way I considered restaurant reviews. Prior to this particular review, while I understood there were good and bad reviews, they were fairly straight forward, almost boring, simply written short snippets of text. By using only questions and stinging sarcasm, Wells changed the game in reviews.

The piece that I chose as part of my outside reading that I found most memorable would have to be heat maps, the subject of my original composition. After spending so much time researching a number of heat maps, their physical traits, and their greater significance, I find myself having a greater appreciation for food writing, or ‘writing.’ What these heat maps taught me was that food writing does not necessarily mean you are reading words on a page about food; rather, food writing can be videos, short stories, and even a text-map hybrid, like the heat maps.

Part II:

I think the major take-away I’ve had from the Rhetoric of Food course is that the rhetoric of food does not limit itself to analyzing writing on a page. Rhetoric of food forms itself depending on the author, the situation, and the audience.

For example, if a college student is looking to create some sort of food writing for fellow college students, it is likely that the author will first take time to understand the style and taste of his/her audience, and then take steps from there. If students prefer not to have a lot of extensive reading, perhaps the food writing prepared for the college audience will result in a video rather than text on a page.

The rhetoric of food also looks beyond what is being served on the plate in front of you. The rhetoric of food, in whatever medium it is being delivered, explains who the food is for, what the purpose of the food is, and usually the places the food came from—the “food cultures” bring life to the food and allows audience members to hear its story.

Favorite in class text: My favorite in class text was Tacopedia by Deborah Holtz and Juan C. Mena. I liked this text because it was accompanied by a class discussion that forced me to consider how food connects to history, culture, race, and identity. Instead of simply thinking, “This corn tortilla was made somewhere and now I have a taco”, I  was exposed to not only the history, but also the importance of corn as a staple food in the Mexican culture.

Favorite out of class text: My favorite out of class text was Perfect Neapolitan Pizza, a clip from TV show, No Reservations, with host Anthony Bourdain. I really appreciated this ‘text’ because it was a multimedia text and I had never before considered that the written word and the multimedia version could be one in the same. This text might have also been my favorite because it is linked to my favorite class project, the annotated bibliography.

What does the Rhetoric of Food mean? I now know that the rhetoric of food is incredibly broad. It is meant to bring joy to people the same way that food itself does. Whether it’s a multimedia platform, poetic piece, food review, or recipe, texts are published to insight a feeling within the reader or viewer. The rhetoric of food is meant to tell a story. We can use the rhetoric of food to look at everything we already know through a different lens; whether that be history, socio-economic status, culture, and so on, food provides a new perspective into these dense aspects of the human world.

Read about the battles here!