Thursday, April 8, 2010

Pet Peeve explained

Some readers didn't understand this, but I'm not actually comparing myself to Michelangelo or John Keats. The piece is satiric. It's a joke. I'm making something that really isn't a big deal and I'm blowing it out of proportion... on purpose. Thank you.

8 comments:

Daniel King said...

Reading your blog is a true joy and in spite of people who are less literarily-inclined, I do hope you keep posting and keep cooking and all of that wonderful stuff. I am not a great chef; nor was meant to be, am an attendant cook, one that will do to stir a pot, start a fire or two...

Mandoline said...

Screw them. It's a funny, satirical and really well-written post. Although it's absolutely true that "would you cook for me" requests are motivated by self-interest; a compliment would not take that form, now would it?

shelle said...

Glad you cleared it up for the, erm, allegedly "less literarily-inclined" among us (really?). Though the piece was well-written, there was very little that made it obvious as satire or humor.

Kudos.. I'm off to try your candy blondies.

craigkite said...

Oh...satire...I get it now! Does that mean you won't be whoring your skillet for some scallops for me?

Anonymous said...

I don't find it a small thing at all, although I did get the satire and enjoyed it thoroughly. People who haven't talked to me in years have come out of the woodwork wanting me to coach them through their cooking. Since I got married to a computer geek, even more came out of the woodwork thinking he was going to fix their computers for free.

DrKoob said...

Oh man, I can't believe people didn't get that. I loved it. I liked it so much I tweeted it as the best thing I had read that day. You keep writing. Good stuff.

Tags said...

Yes, there was little to tell us this piece was satiric, besides you mentioning that the piece was satiric.

James said...

ha ha - did someone have a sense of humour bypass? I blame the back to back 120+ hour weeks.