Rendered at 16:54:30 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Cloudflare Workers.
arjie 43 minutes ago [-]
An interesting read but from what I have experienced of his work it seems to reinforce what I’ve come to believe he is: a good essayist and travel journalist (one who brought uncommonly-traveled-to places to a TV audience) mythologized by tragic romantics who primarily experience him through a one-sided parasocial view of his itinerant life. His death (and perhaps the manner of it) canonized him for these people.
Perhaps he’d reject such a role but it’s fairly typical of such posthumous worship that saints have their desires and humanity stripped in exchange for being transformed into a two-dimensional shadow that validates the worshippers' beliefs.
There’s also the other fan club of food maximalists but those seem to just be looking for a food tour with little of this false intimacy with a public figure. For all that people allege shallowness there, it seems far more healthy, in that what he did can actually give these people what they want.
FinnLobsien 13 minutes ago [-]
I do think there’s a bit more depth here.
One is that he worked as a middling chef for decades and only had his breakout success in his 40s. I think this made him much different than your generic essayist/journalist, and also let him speak to different kinds of people. He became a symbol that international travel, trying new things, and living life to its fullest doesn’t have to be an early 20s thing followed by decades of monotony.
He was also uniquely principled (he’d finance some episodes himself) and speak to people on all sides politically, without pandering to either.
Isamu 4 hours ago [-]
Maybe controversial, but I think it’s always a mistake to idolize people instead of strictly something that they did. That’s enough, you enjoy their work, you don’t really need to turn it into an obsession about the person. You can just let the person be who they are and not some projection of your imagination.
FinnLobsien 4 hours ago [-]
I guess the question is always to what degree one can do those things without being the person.
You may admire the reckless behavior and carefree attitude of the rockstar in part because you’d like to worry a bit less about what other people thought or whether that party will compromise your sleep score.
Not because you’d like to do the exact same thing they do.
dyauspitr 22 minutes ago [-]
I believe the people begin to get idolized when they can repeatedly pull off interesting work. Then they themselves become interesting because they have some internal mix of factors going on that enables them to do what most people can’t and this makes them fascinating.
tcp_handshaker 3 hours ago [-]
Maybe controversial, but your comment hints that you did not read the article.
It´s not about Bourdain being unpleasant at all, much by the contrary, its about the author realizing Bourdain path was not for everybody, and it seems, not for the author at the end.
Isamu 3 hours ago [-]
I did read the article, all the way to the end. I liked the article the more that I read.
And I didn’t imply Mr Bourdain was unpleasant or anything else. My point is that you cannot conclude much accurately about a person based on their works.
woopah 53 minutes ago [-]
It was a pleasant surprise to see that the article wasn't about bashing on Bourdain at all. I was a little scared when I opened it.
Like the author, I'm also a little conflicted about travel and tourism. I love seeing how other people live life differently than mine, but I wonder to what extent this becomes a weird poverty fetishization. I also haven't fully decided how to feel when a once-niche place becomes big. On the one hand, it brings life to the local economy, but on the other hand, somehow it loses "authenticity", whatever that means. I currently only travel when I have a specific reason for being there like a certain event or attraction because I find it rather hollow to just be going from tourist attraction to tourist attraction, but maybe that's just a me problem.
delis-thumbs-7e 7 hours ago [-]
I missed out on the whole Bourdain-thing, but being a huge fan of The Stooges is was literally sobering for me to read Iggy’s biographies and understand why the Rock’n’Roll animal really is not a thing to be, no matter how self-destructive your tendencies as a youth.
FinnLobsien 4 hours ago [-]
I think the same happens with startup founders and other tech types who get idolized and speak at conferences.
You can admire their dedication to the mission, their wealth, ingenuity, etc.
But it’s easy to forget that for many of them, it comes at the expense of seeing their kids, spending time with their spouse, and their own health.
I’d much rather sell a company for $20m and have a happy marriage than be a billionaire stuck in a cycle of divorces and estranged children.
__s 1 hours ago [-]
Haha I'll be lucky if I can gather 2m & still have sacrificed much work life balance just because my type of stupid is an obsession
euroderf 2 hours ago [-]
But you would have the freedom to give your children absolutely ridiculous names.
Obscurity4340 5 hours ago [-]
It all seems so punishingly and unendingly overstimulating.
Perhaps he’d reject such a role but it’s fairly typical of such posthumous worship that saints have their desires and humanity stripped in exchange for being transformed into a two-dimensional shadow that validates the worshippers' beliefs.
There’s also the other fan club of food maximalists but those seem to just be looking for a food tour with little of this false intimacy with a public figure. For all that people allege shallowness there, it seems far more healthy, in that what he did can actually give these people what they want.
One is that he worked as a middling chef for decades and only had his breakout success in his 40s. I think this made him much different than your generic essayist/journalist, and also let him speak to different kinds of people. He became a symbol that international travel, trying new things, and living life to its fullest doesn’t have to be an early 20s thing followed by decades of monotony.
He was also uniquely principled (he’d finance some episodes himself) and speak to people on all sides politically, without pandering to either.
You may admire the reckless behavior and carefree attitude of the rockstar in part because you’d like to worry a bit less about what other people thought or whether that party will compromise your sleep score.
Not because you’d like to do the exact same thing they do.
It´s not about Bourdain being unpleasant at all, much by the contrary, its about the author realizing Bourdain path was not for everybody, and it seems, not for the author at the end.
And I didn’t imply Mr Bourdain was unpleasant or anything else. My point is that you cannot conclude much accurately about a person based on their works.
Like the author, I'm also a little conflicted about travel and tourism. I love seeing how other people live life differently than mine, but I wonder to what extent this becomes a weird poverty fetishization. I also haven't fully decided how to feel when a once-niche place becomes big. On the one hand, it brings life to the local economy, but on the other hand, somehow it loses "authenticity", whatever that means. I currently only travel when I have a specific reason for being there like a certain event or attraction because I find it rather hollow to just be going from tourist attraction to tourist attraction, but maybe that's just a me problem.
You can admire their dedication to the mission, their wealth, ingenuity, etc.
But it’s easy to forget that for many of them, it comes at the expense of seeing their kids, spending time with their spouse, and their own health.
I’d much rather sell a company for $20m and have a happy marriage than be a billionaire stuck in a cycle of divorces and estranged children.
Meeting Bourbaki would have been quite a feat!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolas_Bourbaki