Crooks and Nannies

I had a conversation tonight with an intimate friend about my writing style.  It developed into a discussion about writing with emotion, separating thoughts from feelings... and I have found something that I can write VERY PASSIONATELY about.  

The Associated Press.

This trite piece of reporting from the AP found its way onto Yahoo! this evening.  "Nooks & Crannies Lawsuit" caught my attention, and in my suburban ennui (is anyone else ironically excited for Arcade Fire's new album?) I clicked the link.  

The head-line, "English Muffin-maker guards 'nooks and crannies'" smacked me in the face like a ton of toasty bricks.  Now, I'm sure you all remember those commercials where grandma butters the delightfully toasted bread crowing about the way the butter runs and seeps into the nooks and crannies so deliciously.  Creepy, but in a she-probably-doesn't-know-what-she's-saying way.  But now that a guard is involved, the breakfast table suddenly doesn't seem so wholesome.  I'm feeling wary, but I plow on.

The opening paragraph immediately sets me off.  The author (Maryclaire Dale- holy God, a name could not reek more of southern bell trophy wife) lovingly describes the way english muffins enhance the butter and jam experience, "the way they cradle butter and jam, and after a good toasting, produce just the right crunch".  Is she a paid advertiser?  Does she realize she's talking about bread, an object that cannot possibly cradle anything, let alone runny churned cream?  I am one sentence in and already seething.  Strap yourselves in or leave now, it's going to get bumpy.

The next two paragraphs establish what we need to know.  The makers of Thomas' English Muffins guard the recipe because it's big money.  Fair enough.  Not good writing, not bad writing, just necessary exposition.  

Next, the problem.  Allegedly, some board member (she calls him "one of the trusted seven,"- does elvish script appear on the muffin when toasted just so?), weighed down with the impressive knowledge of a dough to moisture ratio, "bolted" to a competing food company, Hostess.  What he was afraid of, we do not know.  So what did the maker of Thomas' Muffins do?  Sued the pants off Hostess.  Thank God for that.

Ah, but wait!  Maryclaire divulges more information about the malodorous muffin man.  He has been charged with copying files onto a flash drive and has seen recipe books for more of the companies products.  

On a side note, the article mentions that Thomas' is owned by Grupo Bimbo and made at Bimbo Bakeries.  Worst.  Name.  Ever.

Maryclaire manages to present the other side of the case (I'm not arguing she's stupid... not exactly).  The rogue board member had a salary of $250,000 as vice president of Thomas' and was leaving for Hostess at a salary of $200,000.  No bonus, doesn't look to me like dubious foul play.  I would guess he snapped thinking about nooks and crannies and working for bimbos all day.

Just when I think the article is over (we know the problem, the accusation, the defense, and the case hasn't been decided yet), Maryclaire marches on, trumpeting the good name of Thomas and his damned good muffins.

"The butter melts and those craters catch the butter, or anything else, whether it's jam or honey," said Elise Bauer, who operates simplyrecipe.com and has been eating the muffins since she was a child. "The honey can swim in the butter. It doesn't drip through."

With this, I am thoroughly disgusted.  The author is attaching a mystical quality to the product, turning the situation into a dramatic courtroom debate where boardroom members dash off in the night with zip drives loaded with secret recipes, passing along the information in a back alley, where Thomas just wants to bake delicious muffins packed with butter catching caverns for his devoted "fans".  There is no substance to this article.  A boring situation involving a product (because that's what the muffins are, a control-group tested product that has gone through many revisions through many scientists and ad sharks, far removed from a real baker, just like a McDonald's burger) and a few whiny board members had to be fluffed up with meaningless advertisement.  Are people expected to read this?

And the final paragraph summed up my feelings.

"It's a horrible situation he finds himself in," said one of his attorneys, Elizabeth K. Ainslie. "If the assistant coach of the Philadelphia Eagles moves to the Dallas Cowboys, is he supposed to forget all of the plays that he learned while at the Eagles?"

She had to resort to a football analogy to make me understand the situation.  Are Americans so dumb and tuned out?  Jesus Christ, maybe everything should be explained using football metaphor; obviously I'm not smart enough to start and operate a computer, surf the internet, and read.

But maybe I'm the sucker, because I read the entirety of the filthy, pointless article.