What do you think?
Rate this book
Einstein's Beets
Britney Spears loathes meatloaf and “all lumpy stuff.” Arturo Toscanini hated fish. Ayn Rand despised salads. Alexander Theroux’s Einstein’s Beets is a study of the world of food and food aversions. The novelist and poet probes the secret and mysterious attitudes of hundreds of people—mostly famous and well-known—toward eating and dining out, hilariously recounting tales of confrontation and scandalous alienation: it contains gossip, confession, embarrassment, and perceptive observations.
- GenresNonfictionFood
792 pages, Hardcover
First published May 9, 2017
7 people are currently reading
341 people want to read
About the author
Alexander Theroux
51 books189 followersAlexander Theroux is a novelist, poet, and essayist. The most apt description of the novels of Theroux was given by Anthony Burgess in praise of Theroux's Darconville's Cat: Theroux is 'word drunk', filling his novels with a torrent of words archaic and neologic, always striving for originality, while drawing from the traditions of Rolfe, Rabelais, Sterne, and Nabokov.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 13 of 13 reviews
Read
June 18, 2017I love food. Who doesn't? I mean aside from that one person I knew once who would pick off each and every individual eentsy bit of onion off her pizza. People like that should be either treated or locked up. Especially I liked at the time the pizza mit allem which included a nice egg in the center. Now I'll take my pizza in any traditional Neapolitan manner. But seriously, since having had pizza in Naples I can not find any good pizza in town. Oh sure there are a few places around that do a decent enough pizza (thank god I don't live in NYC--the whole town should be locked up for what they did to the innocent pie) but for the most part we're satisfied with making our own and dreaming of Naples where the wine was fine and the pizza as real as Plato's own idea of it.
As I was saying, I love food. I used to say I'd eat anything. But then I took an honest look at myself and said, Nah. I mean I still would eat anything but I don't in fact eat just anything. I'm maybe more a food snob than a food aversionist. I think food aversionists should be locked up. Or treated. Even though The Significant is averse to over half the menu (but not entirely ; we might get back to that point at a latter time). I mean, I will eat a fast food burger in dire circumstances like when you're on a four lane highway and it's about noon and you've been driving since five a.m. and due to poor planning did not have breakfast but for some hotel coffee and now you're beginning to shake with hunger, literally, and there's the stop-and-go clutch to deal with and no sign of civilization forthcoming but there is a McD's or BK at the next exit so you'll pull off and have a burger. Or maybe the pass is closed for an indefinite period of time (an hour, several hours, 'til midnight) and you happened to pull into the parking lot of a BK to await some news and so you munch one of their flame=broileds. Those may be literally that last two fastfood burgers I've eaten but who knows I'm not writing a food diary here confessing all my snob=shortcomings. Because I do love a good burger. But you know what they're charging these days for just an average pub burger? I think our local dive bar is now up to fifteen bucks for like just a bison burger with like cheese and something. But whatever. Let me tell you what I've (finally) learned to really averse (vis-a-vis burgers)--aioli. It's just fucking mayonaisse and put it on a burger it'll be the only thing you taste.... for hours. Yech.
But I've pretty much given up on having the side of fries with the burger. In the first place, every freaking establishment simply piles on waaaay too many. There's no need for that much 'potato'. And second is salt. I can't eat that much salt. I've trained my palate away for that tripartite evil of the Amerikkkan diet--fat, sugar, salt. Instead, I'll do a salad for an extra buck or whatever, usually with blue cheese because I'm not some idiot who can't eat calories. I'll take my calories in just about any form. But I'll avoid high-fructose corn syrup like the plague, not so much for any in-itself reason, but because everything made with it is not food; ie, not 'made' in the sense of 'made in the kitchen' but 'made' in the sense of 'manufactured'. It's not food. Like I said, I'll eat anything, but only food. Occasionally, like I said, I find myself in a situation where I've gotta eat something that merely resembles and imitates food. As to fries, even at Belgian beer bars you can't get good fries. You have to actually got to Brussels et al for that. Or, like with pizza, make them yourself.
Like I said, The Significant is a vegetarian. That's a serious food aversion. In some cases. I mean, I think vegans should be treated or maybe locked up. It's a serious human failure to fail to deal with our fundamentally violent relationship with nature. If you can't bring yourself to kill a chicken, or at a minimum, witness the killing of a chicken, well, I just don't know what to do with you. I mean, I'm sure vegans are consistent in their ethic, but I think their ethic is fundamentally anti-human, and thus maybe unethical. But anyway, as I was saying, this vegetarianism of The Significant is not exactly a food aversion, although there is a certain aversion. She actually does cook meat and enjoys doing so, enjoys the aromas (but she won't cook corn=fed beef because it stinks up the kitchen) and the appearance and the whole kit and kiboodle except the eating of it. Why? Well, fundamentally, she doesn't eat animal flesh (but does consume dairy, eggs, whatnot) because she does not need to. The vegetarian diet is perfectly sustainable where we live (and she has always lived). Were we to live in some other region of this planet, well, dietary practices may be different. Not eating animal flesh because one need not is quite different from not eating animal flesh because one is repulsed by it. A small point for you maybe. Not small for me because she can make a killer lamb shank!
I'll eat anything. But I don't need to. Probably the weirdest thing I've ever eaten is pig's brains. Yes, I myself witnessed the bullet into the brain of that particular pig we slaughtered. It was scrambled and resembled eggs. But I'm really not that into weird food. I like to think I'll eat whatever is put before me and whatever is generally considered a food by whatever cultural group might be presenting it. But I'm an old man now and don't feel the need to beat my chest and consume the most disgusting thing imaginable (or the hottest ; I detest the whole heat=culture). I don't need to eat animal organs. I'm not averse to headcheese but don't seek it out. I'll be as adventurous as any chef suggest I be, but I don't really need a mess of liver and onions at the local dive.
If I have a food aversion, it's the one I have the audacity to recommend to all and sundry who suffer under the Amerikkkan diet :: avert salt sugar fat.
Salt is fine for a ribeye, but you don't need salt=crusted fries with it. Sugar is fine in a chocolate bar, but do you really need to eat a pound of Hershey's manufactured junk weekly ; instead, get one of those delicious 70% things from the organic aisle which is made from fair=trade beans (seriously, if you like food). And when you want baklava, make it yourself. Fat is fine in a sausage, but do you need to eat a sausage daily? And if you make your pizza right, you'll only need a dozen slices of pepperoni (like I said, NYC destroyed the pie). Same with the cheese on your pie; you've the choice between a pound and a half of pre=shredded mozzarella or the fresh stuff (which, frankly, isn't very good in this country but miles above the pre=shredded stuff that comes in criminal 'resealable' plastic baggies ; don't buy food in resealable plastic baggies may be a minor food=rule). At any rate, salt sugar fat are fine ; but you have to do them right. And frankly, the only way to do them right is to eat traditionally ; avoid the manufactured, the branded, anything with a coupon. Pay more per pound use less per serving.
At any rate, I'm sure you too have some opinions on food. You probably take a stand. You may disagree with what I said about vegans. But you see, you'll want to read Theroux's latest.
As I was saying, I love food. I used to say I'd eat anything. But then I took an honest look at myself and said, Nah. I mean I still would eat anything but I don't in fact eat just anything. I'm maybe more a food snob than a food aversionist. I think food aversionists should be locked up. Or treated. Even though The Significant is averse to over half the menu (but not entirely ; we might get back to that point at a latter time). I mean, I will eat a fast food burger in dire circumstances like when you're on a four lane highway and it's about noon and you've been driving since five a.m. and due to poor planning did not have breakfast but for some hotel coffee and now you're beginning to shake with hunger, literally, and there's the stop-and-go clutch to deal with and no sign of civilization forthcoming but there is a McD's or BK at the next exit so you'll pull off and have a burger. Or maybe the pass is closed for an indefinite period of time (an hour, several hours, 'til midnight) and you happened to pull into the parking lot of a BK to await some news and so you munch one of their flame=broileds. Those may be literally that last two fastfood burgers I've eaten but who knows I'm not writing a food diary here confessing all my snob=shortcomings. Because I do love a good burger. But you know what they're charging these days for just an average pub burger? I think our local dive bar is now up to fifteen bucks for like just a bison burger with like cheese and something. But whatever. Let me tell you what I've (finally) learned to really averse (vis-a-vis burgers)--aioli. It's just fucking mayonaisse and put it on a burger it'll be the only thing you taste.... for hours. Yech.
But I've pretty much given up on having the side of fries with the burger. In the first place, every freaking establishment simply piles on waaaay too many. There's no need for that much 'potato'. And second is salt. I can't eat that much salt. I've trained my palate away for that tripartite evil of the Amerikkkan diet--fat, sugar, salt. Instead, I'll do a salad for an extra buck or whatever, usually with blue cheese because I'm not some idiot who can't eat calories. I'll take my calories in just about any form. But I'll avoid high-fructose corn syrup like the plague, not so much for any in-itself reason, but because everything made with it is not food; ie, not 'made' in the sense of 'made in the kitchen' but 'made' in the sense of 'manufactured'. It's not food. Like I said, I'll eat anything, but only food. Occasionally, like I said, I find myself in a situation where I've gotta eat something that merely resembles and imitates food. As to fries, even at Belgian beer bars you can't get good fries. You have to actually got to Brussels et al for that. Or, like with pizza, make them yourself.
Like I said, The Significant is a vegetarian. That's a serious food aversion. In some cases. I mean, I think vegans should be treated or maybe locked up. It's a serious human failure to fail to deal with our fundamentally violent relationship with nature. If you can't bring yourself to kill a chicken, or at a minimum, witness the killing of a chicken, well, I just don't know what to do with you. I mean, I'm sure vegans are consistent in their ethic, but I think their ethic is fundamentally anti-human, and thus maybe unethical. But anyway, as I was saying, this vegetarianism of The Significant is not exactly a food aversion, although there is a certain aversion. She actually does cook meat and enjoys doing so, enjoys the aromas (but she won't cook corn=fed beef because it stinks up the kitchen) and the appearance and the whole kit and kiboodle except the eating of it. Why? Well, fundamentally, she doesn't eat animal flesh (but does consume dairy, eggs, whatnot) because she does not need to. The vegetarian diet is perfectly sustainable where we live (and she has always lived). Were we to live in some other region of this planet, well, dietary practices may be different. Not eating animal flesh because one need not is quite different from not eating animal flesh because one is repulsed by it. A small point for you maybe. Not small for me because she can make a killer lamb shank!
I'll eat anything. But I don't need to. Probably the weirdest thing I've ever eaten is pig's brains. Yes, I myself witnessed the bullet into the brain of that particular pig we slaughtered. It was scrambled and resembled eggs. But I'm really not that into weird food. I like to think I'll eat whatever is put before me and whatever is generally considered a food by whatever cultural group might be presenting it. But I'm an old man now and don't feel the need to beat my chest and consume the most disgusting thing imaginable (or the hottest ; I detest the whole heat=culture). I don't need to eat animal organs. I'm not averse to headcheese but don't seek it out. I'll be as adventurous as any chef suggest I be, but I don't really need a mess of liver and onions at the local dive.
If I have a food aversion, it's the one I have the audacity to recommend to all and sundry who suffer under the Amerikkkan diet :: avert salt sugar fat.
Salt is fine for a ribeye, but you don't need salt=crusted fries with it. Sugar is fine in a chocolate bar, but do you really need to eat a pound of Hershey's manufactured junk weekly ; instead, get one of those delicious 70% things from the organic aisle which is made from fair=trade beans (seriously, if you like food). And when you want baklava, make it yourself. Fat is fine in a sausage, but do you need to eat a sausage daily? And if you make your pizza right, you'll only need a dozen slices of pepperoni (like I said, NYC destroyed the pie). Same with the cheese on your pie; you've the choice between a pound and a half of pre=shredded mozzarella or the fresh stuff (which, frankly, isn't very good in this country but miles above the pre=shredded stuff that comes in criminal 'resealable' plastic baggies ; don't buy food in resealable plastic baggies may be a minor food=rule). At any rate, salt sugar fat are fine ; but you have to do them right. And frankly, the only way to do them right is to eat traditionally ; avoid the manufactured, the branded, anything with a coupon. Pay more per pound use less per serving.
At any rate, I'm sure you too have some opinions on food. You probably take a stand. You may disagree with what I said about vegans. But you see, you'll want to read Theroux's latest.
Want to read
May 28, 2017Readers' Advisory
The one book you must read before you swallow, choke and die.
The one book you must read before you swallow, choke and die.
May 12, 2021
Okay first of all - I've never cared for the use of -phobia as a synonym for a hatred/aversion/etc, so right off I'm already annoyed. But that's pretty minor so let's move on to the author's "phobias." This book could have been great, or at least more interesting/less infuriating, if his extreme dislike of anybody who isn't a 1930s movie actress wasn't overflowing out of this already very overwritten book. You can feel his glee radiating off the page every time he describes just how fat someone is, or gay, or Jewish, or Black (and all of these things are just very oddly and blatantly called out every single time - I lost count how many times we're reminded that Anthony Bourdain is Jewish). At least he doesn't go out of his way to remind us how white everyone else in the book is, we'd end up with another six or seven hundred pages just from that alone (seriously, is there a single Asian person even mentioned in this book? Anyone from anywhere other than the United States or Europe? (and by Europe I pretty much just mean England/France of course - the good white Christian countries that don't eat anything icky).
You do get to know Theroux pretty well over the course of this mess, for better or worse, and his opinions on so many notable people: "Sexy starlet" Lindsay Lohan. Oprah: either a manatee or a dugong, I don't remember which and can't be bothered to look it up. Margaret Atwood? Shrill. Maya Angelou? One of the world's worst writers. The only people he seems to actually like tend to be Hollywood stars of the 30s and 40s, which for a book published in 2017 and clocking in at 779 pages, the sheer amount of focus really should have been mentioned in the blurb - though from the amount of grammatical errors, typos and uncut duplicate sentences (!) on almost every page, it doesn't seem like anyone from Fantagraphics even read this thing before sending it to the printers.
Conclusion: This book sucks & the author sucks even more.
You do get to know Theroux pretty well over the course of this mess, for better or worse, and his opinions on so many notable people: "Sexy starlet" Lindsay Lohan. Oprah: either a manatee or a dugong, I don't remember which and can't be bothered to look it up. Margaret Atwood? Shrill. Maya Angelou? One of the world's worst writers. The only people he seems to actually like tend to be Hollywood stars of the 30s and 40s, which for a book published in 2017 and clocking in at 779 pages, the sheer amount of focus really should have been mentioned in the blurb - though from the amount of grammatical errors, typos and uncut duplicate sentences (!) on almost every page, it doesn't seem like anyone from Fantagraphics even read this thing before sending it to the printers.
Conclusion: This book sucks & the author sucks even more.
February 9, 2022
The existence of this is absurd. Theroux quotes Family Guy as often as Plato, interviews William T. Vollmann on the topic of food, rants about why Rush Limbaugh is gross for 4 pages, and is able to keep it interesting for the full 800. The rapid speed at which he tube-feeds you trivia, along with his own satirical observations, means there's something worthwhile on every page.
Want to read
March 10, 2016December is too long a wait when a body and mind is already hongry for this 800-page feast.
March 30, 2019
It is not my habit to offer thumbs-up or -down on a book until I've finished it. Makes sense, right? I mean, could one give an authoritative review of PSYCHO after abandoning the film before Miss Crane showers? Or after closing the book on MOBY DICK before the eponymous whale makes his appearance? This is Alexander Theroux, however, to my mind a writer who can make any subject interesting, entertaining, purely on the strength of his polygot prose, his polymath command of seemingly all subjects. (He published a small volume on THE PRIMARY COLORS [1994], another on THE SECONDARY COLORS [1997]). He is, just simply, challenging, entertaining, and fun to read, no matter the subject, whether his nonfiction books, like EINSTEIN'S BEETS, or his rarified fiction, DARCONVILLE'S CAT, or LAURA WARHOLIC. Okay, I'm a fan. Not ashamed to admit it.
But EINSTEIN'S BEETS is not a novel, no plot to divulge, no surprise ending to anticipate. It's a book to sample at one's leisure as much as to read cover to back, or even back to cover, not unlike Robert Burton's famous THE ANATOMY OF MELANCHOLY [1621]. Therefore at just over 100 pages read, I have an opinion on the whole that I will confidently share.
Fantastic. Not to sound overly Mary-Poppinish, “it's a delight.” With well over 600 pages yet to digest, I'm eager to see how Mr Theroux can keep up the pace – already the food anecdotes of famous people have been abundant, from Alfred Hitchcock to Pythagoras to Nicholas Cage, and one wonders how in the world did he manage to unearth all this extraordinarily oddball information. Even some of his own food phobias:
Heat in candy, an anomaly to me, seems absurd and does not belong in any confection. I would rather munch dead dung beetles than be subjected to even a small puff of peppermint. Margarine is always a disaster. No adult food involves – or should involve – marshmallows. Cucumbers are best cut paper-thin. Sad to say, most food actually is improved by the addition of sugar, no matter how unhealthy. [19-20]
Or those of famous people:
Scientist and inventor Nikola Tesla, a vegetarian, eventually limited himself to a peculiar diet of only milk, honey, bread, and vegetable juices, according to Marc Seifer, author of Wizard: The Life and Times of Nikola Tesla. He ate dinner in New York at the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel invariably by himself. At any hotel he would insist his room number be divisible by 3. He would telephone the hotel in advance, so that exactly 18 clean linen napkins would be stacked for him at his dinner table. While he waited, as Karen Ahn explains, “he would polish the crystal and silver with the napkins. The maitre d' would serve his food while the electrical genius calculated the cubic contents of the dishes before eating. Not a morsel of food would he eat until he had performed those calculations. He had to do it to enjoy his food.” [93]
Or:
British author and wit Sidney Smith, a founder of the Edinburgh Review, at a banquet table noticed that a lady seated next to him rejected an offer of gravy. “Madam,” declared Smith, smiling, “I have been looking for a person who disliked gravy all my life. Let us swear eternal friendship.” [128-129]
My final word is that anything by Alexander Theroux is worth the time. I can’t say it any better than author/chef Jacques Pepin, from the back of the book’s dust jacket: “Alexander Theroux dazzles the mind... his encyclopedic knowledge of eating habits and food aversions takes us from dishes, such as chakalaka of South Africa and the casa marzu of Sardinia, to comparisons of the eating habits of Alexander Dumas, Ludwig Wittgenstein, Brillat-Savarin, and James Beard. Very opinionated, erudite and often funny...”
But EINSTEIN'S BEETS is not a novel, no plot to divulge, no surprise ending to anticipate. It's a book to sample at one's leisure as much as to read cover to back, or even back to cover, not unlike Robert Burton's famous THE ANATOMY OF MELANCHOLY [1621]. Therefore at just over 100 pages read, I have an opinion on the whole that I will confidently share.
Fantastic. Not to sound overly Mary-Poppinish, “it's a delight.” With well over 600 pages yet to digest, I'm eager to see how Mr Theroux can keep up the pace – already the food anecdotes of famous people have been abundant, from Alfred Hitchcock to Pythagoras to Nicholas Cage, and one wonders how in the world did he manage to unearth all this extraordinarily oddball information. Even some of his own food phobias:
Heat in candy, an anomaly to me, seems absurd and does not belong in any confection. I would rather munch dead dung beetles than be subjected to even a small puff of peppermint. Margarine is always a disaster. No adult food involves – or should involve – marshmallows. Cucumbers are best cut paper-thin. Sad to say, most food actually is improved by the addition of sugar, no matter how unhealthy. [19-20]
Or those of famous people:
Scientist and inventor Nikola Tesla, a vegetarian, eventually limited himself to a peculiar diet of only milk, honey, bread, and vegetable juices, according to Marc Seifer, author of Wizard: The Life and Times of Nikola Tesla. He ate dinner in New York at the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel invariably by himself. At any hotel he would insist his room number be divisible by 3. He would telephone the hotel in advance, so that exactly 18 clean linen napkins would be stacked for him at his dinner table. While he waited, as Karen Ahn explains, “he would polish the crystal and silver with the napkins. The maitre d' would serve his food while the electrical genius calculated the cubic contents of the dishes before eating. Not a morsel of food would he eat until he had performed those calculations. He had to do it to enjoy his food.” [93]
Or:
British author and wit Sidney Smith, a founder of the Edinburgh Review, at a banquet table noticed that a lady seated next to him rejected an offer of gravy. “Madam,” declared Smith, smiling, “I have been looking for a person who disliked gravy all my life. Let us swear eternal friendship.” [128-129]
My final word is that anything by Alexander Theroux is worth the time. I can’t say it any better than author/chef Jacques Pepin, from the back of the book’s dust jacket: “Alexander Theroux dazzles the mind... his encyclopedic knowledge of eating habits and food aversions takes us from dishes, such as chakalaka of South Africa and the casa marzu of Sardinia, to comparisons of the eating habits of Alexander Dumas, Ludwig Wittgenstein, Brillat-Savarin, and James Beard. Very opinionated, erudite and often funny...”
May 19, 2025
Author, eccentric and genius Alexander Theroux takes us through a world of celebrity food eccentricities, from hatred of salt, sugar, spices to exotic meats, and lots of oysters. Fruit worship to worthlessness, low calorie to fatty capricious, celebrity chefs to cheats, gourmands to gluttons, scientists to scamps, and whatever there is in between.
The prose is hypnotic with, about 800 pages of food phobics and phrenics, the topic has limited potential to be engaging but it does, hooks you in for a few hors d'oeuvres, and then presents a full 27 course meals that goes on for days. Jumps ages, topics, and presents a rich menu of food facts, factoids, history and humour.
Don’t know what type of person might enjoy it, but it is closer to sumptuous homely meal than a typical short order cooking.
Rating: 5/5
The prose is hypnotic with, about 800 pages of food phobics and phrenics, the topic has limited potential to be engaging but it does, hooks you in for a few hors d'oeuvres, and then presents a full 27 course meals that goes on for days. Jumps ages, topics, and presents a rich menu of food facts, factoids, history and humour.
Don’t know what type of person might enjoy it, but it is closer to sumptuous homely meal than a typical short order cooking.
Rating: 5/5
October 8, 2021
I'll tell you one thing. If you have a dinner invitation from Alexandre Theroux, it might be better to take a rain check and offer to grab a coffee lest you be unfavorably portrayed in a sequel to this book, or are forced to suffer hearing endless antidotes about uses for cucumbers and what's in bologna.
Einstein's Beets catalogues the eating preferences, and aversions of hundreds of acquaintances and public figures. Like Gargantua and Pantagruel this has a grotesque amount of description of food, and like Rabelais, Theroux is a man of lists - he's maybe even _the_ modern list man. You could, really, describe this book as a giant list about food. Unfortunately Theroux doesn't compare well in this cook-off. For me this book lacks the triumphant humor and imagination of the earlier work (but this describes most books).
The scale and girth is there though. This is more than a feast or smorgasbord, it's literary overeating, or more-so: extreme gluttony. Sweet victuals are brought out praising some healthy eaters and neat food facts, but the real entrée is weird food aversions (by the reefer truck), spicy barbs are thrown amusingly at occasional victims such as Andrew Zimmern (maybe a little too spicy), rocks missed by the management: criticism of the Jewish state, and we are forced to chew fermented rotten shark: through name-calling and lobbed tomatoes at Oprah and others, which reads like a vulgar string-up-Hillary campaign.
Through this culinary cacophony my reading pace slowed further and further as I bloated. At a certain point you've just had enough food and need a change of diet.
Einstein's Beets catalogues the eating preferences, and aversions of hundreds of acquaintances and public figures. Like Gargantua and Pantagruel this has a grotesque amount of description of food, and like Rabelais, Theroux is a man of lists - he's maybe even _the_ modern list man. You could, really, describe this book as a giant list about food. Unfortunately Theroux doesn't compare well in this cook-off. For me this book lacks the triumphant humor and imagination of the earlier work (but this describes most books).
The scale and girth is there though. This is more than a feast or smorgasbord, it's literary overeating, or more-so: extreme gluttony. Sweet victuals are brought out praising some healthy eaters and neat food facts, but the real entrée is weird food aversions (by the reefer truck), spicy barbs are thrown amusingly at occasional victims such as Andrew Zimmern (maybe a little too spicy), rocks missed by the management: criticism of the Jewish state, and we are forced to chew fermented rotten shark: through name-calling and lobbed tomatoes at Oprah and others, which reads like a vulgar string-up-Hillary campaign.
Through this culinary cacophony my reading pace slowed further and further as I bloated. At a certain point you've just had enough food and need a change of diet.
July 8, 2022
I never thought I would enjoy listening to a frustrated man's frustrated diatribe about other peoples' food preferences this damn much, but I did. So much so, in fact, that I read the entire thing three times.
Mr. Theroux has a lot of strong and acerbic opinions. Wading through this absolute chunk of a book is much like perusing a toxic internet forum. Unlike browsing through the internet, reading this made me feel a bit better about humanity rather than worse. I understand that this work is not everyone's cup of beets, but I have been thoroughly entertained. In this cold, denuded world of ours, entertainment is all we can really hope for.
Mr. Theroux has a lot of strong and acerbic opinions. Wading through this absolute chunk of a book is much like perusing a toxic internet forum. Unlike browsing through the internet, reading this made me feel a bit better about humanity rather than worse. I understand that this work is not everyone's cup of beets, but I have been thoroughly entertained. In this cold, denuded world of ours, entertainment is all we can really hope for.
January 12, 2019
The author must have an incredible card file of quotes about foot hatred across history. Divided into thematic chapters, he archly describes and comments on hating foods through the ages. Incredible.
November 14, 2023
Unsurprisingly, there are verbatim quotes from wikipedia - without commas need I say it. Ditto for at least one Amazon editorial review's excerpt - don't remember what I was trying to say. Anecdotes and sentences reappear, which confirms the fact that Theroux's books haven't been proof-readed and edited for a while. Not that it should really matter in this day and age and considering the - relatively modest - purpose of the book. Guy is a wanton antisemite as well (sue me): thanks to him, the kosher tax lingers in my mind.
Want to read
May 1, 2017This book is up, on Google books. Go read it! Before the dead tree paper version comes out.
*beat it*
*beat it*
Read
October 26, 2018hnnnnng as much as i'd like to give a full-throated recommendation here the truth of the matter is that fantagraphics did it a real disservice w/ catastrophically poor copy-editing. there's factual errors (the prize for winning an episode of chopped is not $10 million), there's sentences w/o periods, there's unfinished paragraphs, the same anecdote will appear in consecutive chapters as though it hadn't been brought up before... it's like the winchester mystery house up in here. i mean, is it interesting that wittgenstein used to exclaim "hot ziggety!" when john maynard keynes's wife served him his favorite meal of cheese & bread? duh. but you'd be much better served pretending this is a manuscript your erudite friend asked you to look over, instead of a release by a major publishing outfit
Displaying 1 - 13 of 13 reviews