"Quirky" perhaps best describes Leslie Miller's writing style. Several years ago, someone applied that descriptor to the sense of humor revealed in my blog. At the time, I didn't know if it was a compliment or a pejorative. I still don't know, but now I understand what might lead a reviewer to use the term. It is a good, vague word to use when your reaction is neutral or so mixed that it is impossible to wildly favor or to disapprove a piece of cake - I mean writing. I am leaning toward liking Let Me Eat Cake, but am often enough confused or not comprehending, so I wonder about it and its writer.
Let Me Eat Cake could be as dry as some of the pastries Miller describes (after all, I think it began life as an academic work, a thesis to win an M.F.A. from Goucher.) However, the chick-lit touches, embarrassing self-revelations, and occasional dips into the roiled stream of the author's mind and memories are cake-saving icings, if sometimes tasteless. Aw, it's really sweet, I guess. Just behold all the cutesy chapter titles (both in word and decorative images, like the word CAKE in the title on the cover - probably the publisher's fault, not the writer's.)
Because I usually read the back matter first, I thought Let Me Eat Cake would be an in-depth review of the history of the confection. The extensive references were the first clue about the genealogy of the book. "This looks like my thesis bibliography," I thought. Then I noticed most items were Internet citations. I was impressed until I realized some sources were unreliable - Wikipedia and anonymous blogs. I mean, what kind of primary source is "Old Foodie"? For this she got an M.F.A.?
Article comments
1 - Leslie F. Miller
Thank you for reviewing the book. I think. You really only spoke about the things you didn't like, so I wouldn't call it mixed or ambivalent.
I do want to point out that times have changed, and this is evidenced no more by a bibliography that shows ample internet research (also ample personal interviews and ample book researchâ€"ample everything, with that many notes) than it is by the fact that you are writing a review for a blog and not a newspaper or magazine.
All research these days begins with a simple Google search. It doesn't end there, but scholarly journals and magazines and online food librarians should not be discounted because they are online any more than your review should because discounted because it is online.
I'm still curious to know what you might have liked about the book!
2 - Leslie F. Miller
(Sorry about the glitch aboveâ€""than your review should be discounted because it is online."
Darn the laptop.
3 - Georganna Hancock
@ Ms. Miller:
The system ate my earlier comments. They went something like this:
Thank you for your comment, which is fair enough. I think I mentioned liking some parts. But for more: I enjoyed the parts about your cooking legacy from your family, especially bits about your grandmother.
Couldn't you tell I really, really love the references in the Notes?
I certainly don't discount experts online, just citations of anonymous sources; and I'm crushed, simply crushed that you assume I won't review your book in a paper publication.