Email Newsletters: 
Frodo in Penny Cluseshire
Today I decided to take my lunch at Penny Cluse. I say "take my lunch" because it sounds fancy. Like I'm a lady who lunches with endless free time and a husband who doesn't mind footing the bill. Ah, someday. For now I'm a workin' girl, just a step on the boss man's ladder. (Thank you, Dolly Parton.)
Anyway, as I walked into Penny Cluse, I was greeted with the most astounding information. It turns out that I had literally just missed Elijah Wood of Lord of the Rings fame. Apparently, Frodo dines at Penny Cluse on the regs, according to staff at the cafe. I bet, since he's done, like, a million other movies, he doesn't like to be called Frodo. Sorry, Frodo.
So, what's Wood doing in our state of verdant peaks? Turns out that Wood is besties with some folks up here, including former Penny Cluse employee James Bellizia, who happens to strum a guitar in the band Heloise & the Savoir Faire, a New York-based quintet on Wood's Simian Records. Lead singer Heloise Williams went to Middlebury and Joe Shepard, the group's lead dancer, soft-shoed around Burlington for a while. Are you seeing the connection now? It's all becoming clear.
Wood started coming in to Penny Cluse last year when he was up in Vermont for a wedding. His lady at the time was a bridesmaid for the nuptials, so he tagged along. And he got hooked on the Bucket-o- Spuds. Or maybe Mama Cruz's Huevos Rancheros. Or any of the eight million other amazing things on their menu. So now he's a regular. And by regular, I mean he's been in there a few times. He loves the joint like he loved that damn ring.
Frodo isn't the only famous person to get his or her Penny Cluse on while visiting Burlington. According to the restaurant's staff, Renee Zellweger made a cameo, as did Molly Ringwald and the members of the Black Crowes and Wilco. Ani DiFranco eats there every time she rolls into town, and minor music celebs such as Feist and Bonnie Prince Billy have also noshed there. Chelsea Clinton did some glad-handing there while on the campaign trail for mama Hill, though she didn't have time to actually eat any gingerbread pancakes or fish tacos. Former guv Howard Dean was whooping it up in there when he was in town in May to give the UVM graduation address.
Loads of famous people come through our fair city, and no doubt they all have to eat. Penny Cluse isn't the only spot where the most important among us go. Karl Lagerfeld chewed a few bites of veal saltimbocca at Trattoria Delia before spitting it into the napkin of one of his minions. Then he returned to the restaurant a few months later, sniffed some gnocchi and treated his entourage to the resto's priciest wines. I'm sure other famous people eat in downtown Burlington, but I'm not sure where.
I'm hoping that when Bob Dylan, John Cougar Mellonballs and Willie Nelson roll into town for their triple-bill show at the Champlain Valley Expo on July 17, they find their way to our downtown eateries. I would kill to see Dylan mumbling his way through a falafel pita from Ali Baba's, Mellencamp twirling some pasta at Three Tomatoes or Nelson gumming some sushi at Asiana House. But for now, I'll have to settle for the image of Frodo Baggins, wee hairy Hobbit, smacking his lips at a Penny Cluse lunch.
Wood has another Vermont connection: He's also besties with former Vermonter/Ukrainian New York sensation Eugene Hutz of Gogol Bordello. Plenty o' Frodo sightings at Higher Ground when GB played there recently.
Posted by: pamela polston | June 15, 2009 at 05:55 PM
Oh yeah? I saw Tina Yothers at Denny's. Someone then told me she went to the Sox Market on Church Street. Talk about celebrity sightings. Watch out Frodo!
Posted by: Velvet Patsy | June 15, 2009 at 07:17 PM
"Sorry Frodo?" Jesus Christ. You're just obnoxious.
Posted by: Haik Bedrosian | June 15, 2009 at 07:38 PM
Mr. Bedrosian, my good man, I respectively disagree with your assessment. My writing is not in fact obnoxious. It may be a bit hackneyed and even trite at times. But obnoxious? Methinks not.
Posted by: Lauren Ober | June 16, 2009 at 09:37 AM
"Respectively" can't be a typo. Elijah Wood is a nice guy, and it is obnoxious to continually refer to him as a character he played in a movie. 'Obernoxious.'
Posted by: Haik Bedrosian | June 16, 2009 at 11:13 AM
Wait, why is it obnoxious to refer to Elijah Wood as Frodo? Referring to him as Video Game Boy from Back to the Future II would be obnoxious. Frodo just seems funny.
"Obernoxious" doesn't quite do it for me, Haik. I think "Ober" has to replace "over" for it to be funny. When you have to insert the two extra letters there, it's too much. Some might say it's oberkill.
Posted by: Cathy Resmer | June 16, 2009 at 11:31 AM
It's obnoxious because she continues to call him Frodo even after saying she believes he wouldn't like it. That's a clear indication she intends to be offensive. 'Oberfensive.' I know that doesn't do it for you either, but let's be real. There's not much I could do that would.
Posted by: Haik Bedrosian | June 16, 2009 at 01:09 PM
Ober, congrats... people are reading your words and reacting. Even negative comments still count:) Just ask Calvin Klein
Posted by: Karen McFarland | June 16, 2009 at 01:35 PM
I think you're oberdoing this, Haik. You sound oberwrought.
Incidentally, everybody, Haik has been blogging about Elijah Wood, too. If you want to read more respectful reports about Mr. Wood's adventures in Burlington, go on ober to Haik's blog, BurlingtonPol.
Posted by: Cathy Resmer | June 16, 2009 at 01:43 PM
I might be a little obersensitive. I met Wood last year and blogged it but I was getting so many hits from Elijah Wood stalkers around the world, I took the post down until it dropped off the page. That's not the kind of attention I want for my blog or for visitors to Burlington. Mentioning Wood's visit to the OP last Sunday in the middle of another post went unnoticed except by my regular readers, which is good. A famous person in town is notable, but we should be respectful about how we note it, and try to make all visitors feel welcome and comfortable.
Posted by: Haik Bedrosian | June 16, 2009 at 02:38 PM
"Obersensitive" -- good one, Haik! Now you're getting it.
Posted by: Cathy Resmer | June 16, 2009 at 04:38 PM
Ok, I've had it. I've always been somone who thought writing to complain about something in a magazine or newspaper was a waste of time. And I still feel that way. But I'm doing it anway.
There was the time you gave The Pants' "Eat Crow" a bad review because every other song supposedly sounded different from the song before it.
Then there was the time your paper called me for a quote on the greatness of The Pants and WOW, suddenly that review vanished from the face of the Earth. I guess because you were cashing in on a reunion show. How convenient.
Then there was the time you printed a piece by an agent working on a case that actually hindered a rape and murder trial. You didn't apologize for it, you took the freedom of speech approach to the situation, ignoring the fact that with that right comes great responsibilty. Mainly, you refused to admit to a really bad mistake.
Then there was the time your entertainment editor was never at any shows of actual importance, yet still alerted the world (and THE POLICE) of any shows that were of any importance (but technically illegal), ensuring that they'd get shut down. (I don't mean to get on Dan so much, but I really never see him at any shows and wish he wouldn't mention the illegal ones. Burlington word-of-mouth is very powerful and can get the publicity job done nicely on its own, thanks.)
Then there was the time that Rick Kisonak gave Drag Me To Hell a bad review. I mean, really? He found nothing humorous about a big white goat possessed at a seance and a dude puking a kitten? Well, fine. You are terrible at enjoying things, and not revealing spoilers. In fact, everything you wrote in your review made me WANT to see the movie.
Then there was the time that I opened up your paper to do the crossword puzzle and saw a little piece about me and a friend of mine having breakfast at Penny Cluse.
First, you weren't even there so why are you writing about it?
Second, if you had been there, you would have had a nice interaction with a very friendly and polite person. Certainly not someone you would ridicule wantonly.
But no. Third. You had to write some dumb shit about "Odorf" and blah blah blah. Repeatedly.
How can you even begin to defend this? I know he'll never read it (and probably wouldn't care), but to me it's clearly petty, lame, and disrespectful. Are you seriously trying to make my friend hate Vermont and never come back? What you wrote and then printed in your paper was just plain obnoxious.
AND THE PUNS. My God. No more puns. No more puns. No more puns.
I know you're free, but fuck, NO MORE PUNS.
Posted by: Jason Cooley | June 20, 2009 at 03:22 PM
Dear FoEW,
So you’re friends with a famous actor. Big whup. Pin a rose on your nose. And wait, there were precious puns in this post? Where?
FYI, your “friend” was in not one, not two, but three Lord of the Rings movies as the same flipping character, so he's got to know he's in for some playful ribbing for taking a few turns as a Hobbit. I certainly wouldn't ridicule him for his work. I respect his talents. Plus, a brother's gotta eat, right?
I was writing about Wood visiting Burlington for the same reason that about 900 other local bloggers wrote about it: because people are interested in celebrity, like it or not. Because we want to know what people who are cooler and richer than us are up to. We want to know that there are lives that are less miserable than our own and that maybe one day if we happen to run into a casting agent at a party, our lives could be less miserable, too.
I was also writing about it because Penny Cluse seems to attract a "celebrity" clientele. And that's sort of cool, if you're into celebs. It's like Burlington's version of The Ivy. And frankly, when you're a celebrity, when you CHOOSE to be a public, visible figure, people are going to write about you and take your picture and be interested in your life and create all kinds of creepy fan Web sites. You lose some privacy by the nature of your work. But that's the trade-in for making the big cash.
Posted by: Lauren Ober | June 20, 2009 at 07:16 PM
about 900 other local bloggers wrote about it
They did? I'm not aware of any others except you and me. Name some more.
Posted by: Haik Bedrosian | June 21, 2009 at 01:46 AM
"You lose some privacy by the nature of your work."
Correct, and you lose yours by the nature of your work as well. When you write stupid sycophantic things of this nature and publish them in public, you will be criticized for it. Take it in stride! (sarcasm)
Actually, I don't know how he feels about being called Frodo, because I'm not the kind of asshole that would ever call him that. I personally think it's lame.
And Seven Days is notorious for their ungodly usage of horrible puns. I think I can safely speak for all of Vermont when I say we've all had enough 'pun'-ishment from you. Haw haw haw.
Posted by: Cooley | June 21, 2009 at 01:05 PM
"Pun"-ishment! Good one, Jason.
Funny thing about the puns — some people love 'em, and some people hate 'em. I gotta say, I'm a fan, in case you hadn't noticed.
We get our share of hate mail at Seven Days, but we get some compliments, too. And one of the things we hear most frequently from people is that they like our tone. So while I appreciate your opinion of our wordplay, I also have to point out that "all of Vermont" does not agree.
And who's being sycophantic here? I don't think it's Lauren. According to my dictionary, sycophantic means subservient, deferential, toadying — "a servile flatterer." Which, as you've so strenuously pointed out, is pretty much the opposite of Lauren's tone. Or did you mean that sentence to be sarcastic, too?
I guess I just don't see what the big deal is. It's not like we stalked him. It's not like we're paparazzi. It's not like we even said anything BAD about him. Lauren just pointed out, in a clever way, that he likes Penny Cluse. Where's the harm?
Though now that I'm thinking about it, maybe we should set up a celebrity webcam at Penny Cluse... Just kidding.
Seriously, guys, thanks for your impassioned comments. Have you considered writing a letter to the editor? Here's the link:
http://www.7dvt.com/feedback
Posted by: Cathy Resmer | June 21, 2009 at 03:55 PM
I consider all of this a letter to the editor. Sorry, but I'm not spending money on a stamp to mail this to you.
You left out "fawning parasite."
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sycophant
Really? You get letters actually praising you for all the witty puns you push into every orifice of your paper? Why don't you print them?
It's not a big deal. It just pissed me off, along with the other things I mentioned. I think you're all nice and well-intentioned people, but sometimes you make me mad.
Posted by: Cooley | June 21, 2009 at 04:06 PM
Rick Kisonak's review of Drag me to Hell was so insanely out of touch with not only the horror and comedy genres, but reality in general. I know I'm not the first person to wonder, does he even watch the films he reviews? I mean he gets basic facts wrong. Does he watch screener copies at home while cooking dinner? Because that would explain a lot.
Posted by: Molly | June 21, 2009 at 05:11 PM
I tend to agree with Mr. Bedrosian and Mr. Cooley on this one.
For one thing, how is where an actor eats newsworthy? It's just basic gossipmill crap. You didn't even meet the guy. The whole piece is a group of people 2nd or 3rd hand telling you a list of famous people who've eaten in VT. How is that news? Did he also use the bathroom, because that would be just as newsworthy, which is to say, not at all.
For another, it is really rude to intentionally refer to someone as a character they portrayed years ago. Would you refer to Govenor Schwarzenegger as "Conan The Barbarian" or Jim Carrey as "Fire Marshall Bill"?
Lastly, as you continued to defend your piece you quickly dropped all pretense at being honorable and in turn criticized your own readers. With no offense directed to Haik, his blog is not a newspaper read by thousands of people. As a journalist, it's your JOB to be accurate and of interest. In this piece you have failed in that endeavor. You not only intentionally got Mr. Wood's name wrong and rudely at that but also Mr. Mellencamp's.
This wasn't even a fluff piece, you simply wrote down gossip you heard as though you were in High School.
As a longtime reader, I'm deeply disappointed.
Posted by: Lee Ann Place | June 21, 2009 at 07:52 PM
If it really bothers you that Elijah Wood is referred to as Frodo in what's clearly intended as a humourous, tongue-in-cheek piece, then you take everything much too seriously. You people desperately need to lighten up.
Posted by: Comment Ombudsman | June 22, 2009 at 08:17 AM
Thank you Lauren for reminding us that Frodo has good taste in food - which is an important characteristic for a hobbit. I'm gonna meet my fammy-fam ober at PC for some yummy luncheoning today.
Posted by: Ita | June 22, 2009 at 09:46 AM
Though I've learned it's usually better to refrain from engaging in blog comment nonsense — a lesson you taught me on my first blog post, Jason — I do feel compelled to respond to one of the ever cheery Mr. Cooley's accusations:
I don't write about secret/illegal/underground/whatever shows without first checking with the event organizers to make sure it's OK. And, in instances when I'm approached about coverage (usually the case), I try to make it clear that press in 7D may shed unwanted interest from the boys (and girls) in blue. I should note that hasn't ALWAYS been the policy. Only for the last two years or so.
Oh, and Jason, you actually don't need a stamp to file a letter to the ed via the website.
As you were . . .
Posted by: dan bolles | June 22, 2009 at 11:10 AM
People and the press continually refer to Arnold Schwarzenegger by the name of one of his past roles-- "the Governator." Don't know if he minds...
Re: Drag Me to Hell — I haven't seen it yet. Rick's review aside, I suspect I'll enjoy it. Thing is, I'm pretty sure Rick was genuinely excited about seeing that film (he wrote our blurb that calls it one of the most buzzed-about horror films of our time). I think he had highly inaccurate expectations (of being scared) that led to disappointment, or maybe he just doesn't like gory black humor. It happens... what did surprise me was his analysis of the film's PG-13 rating. PG-13 horror has been around for quite a while, making a bundle (at least since The Ring), and Raimi's innovation, if the movie's as good as I've heard, is in giving that little subgenre some legitimacy.
Posted by: Margot Harrison | June 22, 2009 at 11:19 AM
"As you were"? The float at the end of Animal House should be enough to explain my stance. And THIS:
"Jason -
If you'd like to write a "letter" to the editor, we'd be happy to publish it in the paper.
But excerpting your Blurt comments isn't going to work."
Again, you are all decent folks, but damn. Sometimes...
Posted by: Cooley | June 22, 2009 at 08:57 PM
And okay, if the organizers gave you the green light, I apologize.
Posted by: Cooley | June 22, 2009 at 09:06 PM
Cooley is a pop culture genius. You have no idea who you're messing with. He's right about the puns. It's too much. I'd prefer more reliable facts and fewer puns. Seven Days is going to have to evolve.
Posted by: Haik Bedrosian | June 22, 2009 at 10:38 PM
Margot - I didn't understand the PG-13 thing either. PG-13 horror movies have been around for over 20 years, and there have been many good ones (although most horror fans will vigorously dispute this). Why would a horror movie have to meet the MPAA's arbitrary gore/nudity/language standards to be good? H. P. Lovecraft didn't use any profanity, sex, or explicit gore and his work is scary as fuck. And I think we can all name plenty of blood spattered, expletive laden, T&A fests that are absolute shit.
The thing that mystified me even more was that he specifically referenced Raimi as being the director of the Evil Dead trilogy, and was then shocked and dismayed that DmtH was a campy, over-the-top horror comedy. Whuh? That would be like a music reviewer being shocked and dismayed that the new Tom Waits album features some guy with a weird, gravely voice.
P.S. I love 7D, but I am also not a fan of the punning. I like puns that are clever or just so spectacularly bad that they become hilarious, but those are very rare. Most puns are just obvious and lazy.
Posted by: Molly | June 23, 2009 at 09:38 AM
Molly — I didn't understand the Evil Dead business either. But I think many people who haven't actually seen those films assume they are the height of terror because of their rep among horror fans. I myself thought they'd be scary for years after reading a plot summary in some cult movies book (tree rape, book made of human skin, blah blah blah). Then I actually saw the first movie and realized how deliciously silly all those things can be. (And I'm sure some people out there are shocked by the very suggestion that you can have fun with obviously fake bloodshed — it's a genre thing.)
I agree about good PG-13 horror, too... but since The Ring, it seems to have turned into this genre aimed at teen girls that's mainly full of bad remakes of better J-Horror films. Eyes Without a Face is a terrifying film, but I doubt it would merit an R today.
I have no comment on puns.
Posted by: Margot Harrison | June 23, 2009 at 11:03 AM
Wow. Sweet commenting going on in here. Sheesh. Sometimes I think my life would be better if I was unemployed and could spend all my time reading blogs and commenting on them. Some of you need to cool it. If you don't like reading about entertainment news, here's a simple solution: Don't.
Posted by: Jeff Primeau | June 23, 2009 at 11:04 AM
Haik, we do know Jason. And Molly. And you. And Ita. And I wouldn't be surprised if I knew the other anonymous commenters, too. C'mon -- this is Vermont.
Ok, I hear you about the puns. I'll take what you've said to heart. But this just may have to be something we agree to disagree on.
Jason, it's not like we're asking you to type a letter and put a stamp on it. We just want you to write something to us that's meant to stand on its own and appear in print. Cut and paste your blog comment if you want. But don't ask us to do that work for you. We have enough to do, thinking of all those clever puns.
Besides, do you really want us to edit your thoughts for publication? Why not just do it yourself?
Posted by: Cathy Resmer | June 23, 2009 at 11:18 AM
Wow. A hobbit comes to our village and now it seems our good people are under some sort of spell.
And sorry Jason, I like the groaners. Those punny headlines remind me that 7D is a small town newspaper. You'd never catch those headlines on a Gannett product.
Posted by: Adam | June 23, 2009 at 11:45 AM
just wanted to tell ya that I really enjoy your writing & I think it's too funny that people are getting so worked up about a blog post about where a celebrity ate lunch
Posted by: Kathlin | June 23, 2009 at 01:57 PM
I didn't have time to read this until now (Tuesday afternoon), as I was too effin' busy editing, and writing, that clever, controversial copy.
Thanks to Jason for kicking off these furious, funny and free-ranging comments. (Yep, we like alliteration, too--gotta complaint about that?) Thanks also for admitting that we are basically good people here at 7d, which is true. Basically.
I appreciate "Adam" for noting the diff between corporate media and small-town papers. Small, local and independent DO make a difference. You may not always agree with us, but you know you can talk to us.
I have to respond to Haik about one thing, though: Seven Days IS evolving, and has been doing so continuously since 1995, thanks to an incredibly dedicated and hardworking staff. Reporting accurately has always been paramount to us--that's one thing we take seriously, even if our sense of humor and irreverence might make you think otherwise.
If we do screw up, we appreciate zealous readers such as yourself to set us straight.
And now if you'll excuse me, I need to think up some punning cover teasers for tomorrow's issue. If anyone can think of something funny to say about being 'green,' please let me know asap.
Posted by: pamela polston | June 23, 2009 at 02:49 PM
It's not your sense of humor and irreverence that make me think 7D is error prone. It's your errors.
Seven Days makes many errors of fact, in print and on this blog. Even in this thread Lauren Ober reported that "about 900" other local bloggers wrote about Elijah Wood in Burlington. That's more than an exaggeration. It's just totally wrong. In her 'Sound of Music' post she made a point to say all seven former child actors from the film would be in Vermont, when the very website she got that from said it would only be five. And she recently biffed on which branch of the military Clarence Davis served in.
Ken made a bunch of errors in his mayoral candidate profiles this year, which I did tell Cathy about- but I cut him some slack because he's new at covering local politics.
Here's a post I wrote about being totally mis-attributed by Kevin Kelly a while back.
www.burlingtonpol.com/2008/01/misattributed-by-seven-days.html
I'm sure the list could go on and on.
And of course you don't need to listen to me, Jason and Molly about the puns- but you should think about it what we're saying. We can't be the only ones who are sick to death of them.
Posted by: Haik Bedrosian | June 23, 2009 at 04:42 PM
This is why I felt I should comment again:
"So you’re friends with a famous actor. Big whup. Pin a rose on your nose."--Lauren Ober
The above is offensive. You are speaking about a regular reader of 7D. One of those people that not only you but also your advertisers want to reach, (unless your plan was to blog to yourself). Simple rule of thumb: if you wouldn't say it to your Mother, don't say it to a reader.
"I guess I just don't see what the big deal is. It's not like we stalked him. It's not like we're paparazzi. It's not like we even said anything BAD about him. Lauren just pointed out, in a clever way, that he likes Penny Cluse. Where's the harm?"--Cathy Resmer
Cathy, the harm is that it's not newsworthy that EW likes Penny Cluse and there honestly wasn't anything clever about it. It was rude. Flat out rude. Instead of acknowledging even the slightest possibility that your reporter may have stepped a bit out of bounds with her piece, you guys went on the offensive 1st attacking Haik Bedrosian for his blog and then Jason Cooley for basically having a negative reaction to the ridiculous piece in the first place.
--Lee Ann
P.S. Yes they do refer to Govenor Schwarzenegger as the "Governator," which is not "The Terminator", or "The Barbarian." It blends what he is with what he has been. It's still rude.
Posted by: Lee Ann Place | June 25, 2009 at 03:37 AM
Register my exact opposite reaction to the above comment. Mr. Bedrosian and Mr. Cooley seem to be oddly fixated on Elijah Wood. And they and Ms. Place seem completely humorless and overly sensitive.
Posted by: WhyDoYouCareAboutElijahWoodSoMuch? | June 25, 2009 at 09:46 AM
I'm just curious, is 7 Days trying to be Gawker.com?
Posted by: Keith | June 25, 2009 at 11:50 AM
Please don't call actors by their characters names. That should be beneath people who "write" for a living.
Posted by: Michael J. Nedell | June 25, 2009 at 02:37 PM
Cathy wrote in Lauren's defense "Frodo just seems funny." I think calling people names other then there names is not funny.
I think referring to people by names other then their names starts fights. I do not think it should be condoned.
Witness this blog, for example. Had you not referred to him repeatedly by the character he played in a movie, I think it could have been considered a (vaguely) news worthy story on famous people eating at the cluse.
Though arguably, telling the readers of the 7D - Burlingonians mostly - that the Penny Cluse serves good food - is like saying that water is wet so I am not sure of its 'news worthyness' - but hey - its a blog! It's not like its real news...
Posted by: Michael J. Nedell | June 25, 2009 at 02:47 PM
Holy moley frodo! As I live and breathe, 39 comments for this? Haha.
Posted by: Jay Vos | June 25, 2009 at 04:31 PM
DEAR People, you have to get out and enjoy the summer that has finally arrived in Burlington. Talking about Frodo in 7days OR ON THE BLOG is basically the same thing. You are only getting more people interested in the whole situation. The man's got good taste in food like MANY other hungry folks. And Penny Cluse has mad windows, honestly if he truly was freaking out about his privacy he'd go to the dungeon of Magnolia's alright? Damn, son, I understand if Wood is your buddy but he's famous and starred in possibly the most famous trio of films ever. He's amazing and I speak on behalf of everyone, ever, thanks for coming to Burlington buddy and enjoying the wonders with us!
Posted by: PC Fan | June 25, 2009 at 07:20 PM
"I think calling people names other then there names is not funny."
Did you e-mail to Peter Freyne objecting to his use of "Ho-Ho" for Gov. Dean, "Mayor Moonie" for Mayor Clavelle, "Queen Madeline" for Gov. Kunin, "Ol' Bernardo" for the ubiquitous Sanders, "Doobie Doo" for Lt. Gov. Dube, and a whole host of other juvenile knicknames over the course of 20 or so years?
Posted by: Well Did Ya? | June 26, 2009 at 11:31 AM
I don't want to start (or continue) a fight either, but there is a long journalistic tradition of calling people by names that aren't theirs. Peter Freyne made up creative — and often unflattering - nicknames for everyone in his column. I could be wrong, but I think readers were more entertained reading about "Jeezum Jim" and "Gov. Scissorhands" than they would have been otherwise. Some of those people came to his memorial service and spoke of him with affection.
Of course it's not OK to refer to some guy by a nickname or his character's name in "straight," objective reporting, but it's pretty common in chatty, informal opinion pieces (which is what blog posts often are). Back in the '80s, Spy Magazine used to refer consistently to Donald Trump as "the short-fingered vulgarian." I'm sure he wasn't amused, but I confess I was.
I'm not saying you have to like name calling, just pointing out you tend to see it in reporting where the author has a strong personal voice, and there's a place for that in columns and on blogs. Of course, part of the reason media outlets struggle with establishing blogs is that they can be used for many things — objective reporting, opinionated commentary and everything in between. Readers may expect one thing and get something else. Me, I enjoy reading irreverent blog posts about pop culture. No, they're not serious news — but that's why we have tags like "serious news" for ones that are.
Posted by: Margot Harrison | June 26, 2009 at 12:03 PM
Some guy named Bill summed it up best:
"Life is a tale, told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."
Posted by: Ken Picard | June 26, 2009 at 03:54 PM
Well, the next time I see you I'll refer to you as "A Tale Told By An Idiot." Or even better, "Signifying Nothing". You quoted it in public, might as well be your name for the rest your life.
Or maybe even "Some Guy Called Bill".
Posted by: JC | June 27, 2009 at 03:37 AM
I mean, I know what you're saying. But we all have the right to get angry or passionate about things in life. Otherwise, your paper wouldn't exist. Art wouldn't exist. You can look at life as all noise that ends in nothing but meaningless pain and furor, or you can ride it like a roller coaster and just not realize (so seriously) that we're all going to die, and that life is completely meaningless because death is always immenent. With both stances, you can say "who gives a flying fuck?" and get on with it. Love your spouses, protect your friends.
Although, I think Shakespeare wouldn't have liked being called Bill, (actually, he would have been a little confused, right?) we all know Thomas Bacon wrote all of those plays. Sorry, "Tommy" Bacon.
Posted by: JC | June 27, 2009 at 03:53 AM
I think you mean Frankie Bacon.
Posted by: Molly | June 27, 2009 at 12:11 PM
Mmmm. Bacon. If I were in Burlington right now, I might head over to Penny Cluse and have some...
Posted by: Cathy Resmer | June 28, 2009 at 09:03 AM
Yeah, Frankie. Where the hell did Thomas Bacon come from? It was late.
Posted by: JC | June 28, 2009 at 01:36 PM
I regret having pointed that out because I totally agree with what you're getting at and didn't mean to in any way deflate your good post with a silly fact check. I'm sorry.
Posted by: Molly | June 28, 2009 at 05:28 PM