What's For Dinner? Answer better suited for "Lost" survivors than the rest of us
Nobody expects penetrating journalism to emerge from Men's Fashion supplements. But it wouldn't hurt if the copy that's strung between the ads would have at least some substance or relevance to some readers.
The N.Y. Times fails to understand this. Yesterday's male fashion book -- and it had enough ads to qualify as such -- was replete with pitches for clothing that even many Times readers either couldn't afford or wouldn't be caught dead in, assuming they weren't like the androgynous, underfed models who donned the duds in question.
But the supplement also featured ostensible lifestyle pieces, including a food piece that focused on eating wild boar, as if that was something available at the local Gristede's to whip up for the gang.
Even if you were going to schlep to a gourmet butcher for some boar, the recipe itself warns that it's not easy, will take hours to execute, and requires equipment most kitchens don't have.
So what's the point? Exactly.
How about putting in a recipe for something that even the above-average guy has a chance at pulling off? But that would be too easy. That's not in keeping with a fashion spread replete with $3,000 suits, $200 t-shirts and $500 ripped jeans.
Which can only mean the Times never had any intention for anyone to follow through actually making this gamey abomination, let alone expect anyone to read this unmasterful missive penned by someone named Oliver Schwaner-Albright except for his name-dropping a few celebs who enjoy a good hunt for their dinner.
And you can be sure they're not wearing any of the clothes featured in the supplement when they're blasting that boar to bits. Somehow, Ted Nugent and Versace in the same sentence just doesn't sound right.