By New Times
By Connor Radnovich
By Robrt L. Pela and Amy Silverman
By Ray Stern
By Keegan Hamilton
By Matthew Hendley
By Monica Alonzo
By Monica Alonzo
But that's just what these animal-rights nuts are. Morons! Have you ever watched the animal channel and seen the misfits who are French-kissing their mutts all the time? These are people a whore wouldn't fuck for money. A fucking bunch of misfit freaks.
Wasn't it funny how the Wrigley claimed its chef had been threatened because of the New Times spoof, and then the Wrigley plasters his face all over TV? Not smart.
Lamont Williams, via the Internet
An extreme abomination: Your story on extreme cuisine is sickening. In America we do not eat dogs! For some "chef" to purposely be this obnoxious and for you to support it is an abomination.
While I realize other cultures eat animals we in America don't eat, I do not want people of these cultures trying to inflict their poor manners and taste on me in my country. I think this "chef" is more closely related to Jack the Ripper or some other sadist.
Patricia Bewley, Phoenix
A piece of journalistic joy: Your extreme cuisine piece provided me with more joy than I've received, journalistically, in quite a long time. We need more of this, and to hell with the detractors.
Not that this means shit, but I recently finished my MFA in Creative Writing at Arizona State University (so I guess I've been exposed to some talented writers), and was excited to see that a real writer can explore a journalistic avenue.
I taught undergraduate classes in argumentative composition and felt that your piece is an exemplary humorous argument. Given that the mainstream media provide us with harmful fictions on a daily basis, I'm baffled (and sickened) that many of your detractors are calling your journalistic ethics into question. What's more harmful, spinning a story to inspire fear via concealment, or spinning a story to creatively entertain?
Even further, your story is not entirely fiction. It is an inspired and veiled indictment of a wealthy, bored culture with a short attention span, forever "hungry" for the latest trend.
There's more truth in your piece than most. And if people don't get it, that's their problem. Their indictments against you are glaringly misplaced. You are doing something important -- making us laugh and think while providing us access to a rare intelligence. Writer Stephen Lemons is becoming the Andy Kaufman of the journalistic arena.
Oddly enough, I constructed an interview with a certain haiku poet a few years back and received similar indictments from the ill-defined ethics police (though the editors of Esquire liked it).
Matthew Frank, Tempe
Lenny Bruce, her friend ain't: I'm writing to express my horror regarding an article recently printed by New Times.It's supposed to be a satire that details a fictional gourmet restaurant wherein Bichon Frise is served, as well as other exotic animals, such as penguin.
It is my personal view that any editor, writer or publisher that finds humor in describing cruelty to animals not only has bad taste, but is suffering from a serious personality disorder, and needs counseling.
It was suggested by the editor of your paper that I simply don't have a sense of humor. In fact, I am grateful that I have evolved beyond the level of finding humor in butchering dogs.
Also regarding the inability of some folks to find humor in said article, I ran the New Times article by my roommate, who just happens to be a professional standup comic. He not only did not find the article remotely funny, but also remarked that he can't think of a comic who could use such lame material in his act who would not get booed off the stage.
A month late, and a few dollars short: All the way through Stephen Lemons' story about Chef Kaz Yamamoto's taboo culinary adventures, I laughed heartily while a question continued to nag at me with each succeeding paragraph -- "Is this some sort of month-late April Fool's joke?"
My initial incredulity quickly changed to admiration for Yamamoto's chutzpah and evident adventurism, despite my reservations about his whimsical attitude toward the plight of endangered species and his superior attitude toward the law -- I only wished there was some way he could be busted for that San Francisco sea-lion-hunting expedition, let alone cooking humans.
What I can't comprehend is the immorality of Stephen Lemons' investigatory technique and willingness to indulge and promote the disgusting and illegal activity of cannibalism. It's one thing for a journalist to report that Marlon Brando, the mayor of Phoenix, and one of Arizona's U.S. senators eat Mexicans, but Lemons tells us, based on personal experience, that "Mexican liver is exquisite, tastier than its bovine counterpart."
Surely, besides being a crude and callous racist remark, a reporter's eating another human being under such casual circumstances ("how could I resist?") crosses the line of journalistic ethics. Is the reporter investigating bank robbers allowed to pocket a few Benjamins? The real story here is: Whose human liver was Lemons eating?
Paul Rogers, Phoenix