Fyi they used deepfake AI to have him say various things. Apparently it's not clear in the doc where it's a fake and where it's the doc makers guessing what he might say.
If ask me pretty disturbing the producers claim to know him and his mind so well that they're comfortable speaking for him.
Whilst I think the deepfaking of his voice is ethically sketchy, they did at least a) get permission from the family and b) (apparently) only use it on words he had actually written (like emails, etc.)
(I say 'apparently' because whilst one use for it was confirmed as reading an email, the producer seems to be refusing to clarify where the other deepfaked audio is.)
There are a lot of affairs that get passed along to family (or others) after someone death. It would be completely inappropriate for family to close someone's bank account while they still lived; we have no qualms about their doing so after they've died.
Publishing yet-unpublished works is another example that this is only a step out two away from.
To add to this, when yet-unpublished works are published posthumously, they are commonly edited. For example, several of JRR Tolkien's works were edited for posthumous publication by his son Christopher. And even if the text is totally unchanged there must be choices about what to include and how to present it.
IMHO it's not at all strange for the family (particularly the offspring) of the deceased to make decisions, including creative/artistic/editorial decisions, about how their loved one's work and life are used and portrayed.
In Tolkien's case, that's not just obscure stuff. The Silmarillion is widely considered "canonical", but it was published after his death, with countless editorial choices by his son. In most cases, later writings explicitly contradict the ones Christopher chose.
He chose them because they were the ones most compatible with the other published works, because his father could never revise them. (Unlike The Hobbit, which as revised to make it more compatible with upcoming The Lord of the Rings.)
He was specifically chosen for the job by his father, who may not have agreed with the choices but was unequivocal that Christopher was the one to make them. Christopher himself has said that he'd change some decisions if he were to make them again, but that's true for any author.
To me, I'd just as soon The Silmarillion bear Chrisopher's name. Not as a matter of honor, but as a matter of clarity to fans who want to know what's "really" Tolkien.
Is this not general control of an estate? Seems entirely within what we in the West consider normal. Whether it's "creepy" or not doesn't really factor into all the other decisions made on the behalf of a deceased person.
permission to have your family decide to "deepfake" you should be opt-in. also, the whole point of "deepfake" is to falsely present an object as true. In a documentary, this is troubling. personally, every instance of deepfake should come with a on screen caption of "deepfake notice of creation of event".
The difficulty is going to be who represents the deceased if the estate agrees to allow the deep fake against the deceased's permission. It's both of a question of who has standing to sue the estate and who is going to fund the legal costs involved.
I'm not convinced by the argument that it's okay to deepfake someone's voice because you're "just" reading their own words. A vocal performance is not the same as text: give me the clearest, most innocuous paragraph you can write, and I can easily change the entire meaning of it by delivering the same words with different emphasis, speed, tone, and so on.
This can happen on purpose or by accident. It happens in documentaries all the time, with actors reading primary sources. But, the difference is that using a facsimile of Bourdain's voice makes it seem like a legitimate historical record, and not the creation of the director, which is what it is.
That's certainly a lot of what I do as an actor. The words mean what I want them to mean. Or rather, what my director tells me they want them to mean. Whatever tells the story they want to tell.
It helps that I tend to work with classic texts, written with a minimum of commentary from the writer. Writers today tend to add a lot of extra stuff to their scripts telling me that they want the words to mean, and controlling every motion as if I were a puppet. Personally, I find that less interesting.
>If ask me pretty disturbing the producers claim to know him and his mind so well that they're comfortable speaking for him.
It was supposedly an email he wrote[0], but I can still sympathize with your point : my voice/dialect/vocabulary in person are different than the ones I use 'online', i'd hate for someone to make the assumption that I would ever speak 1:1 with the way I type to people.
It's weird, and it crosses the line into misrepresentation. The written word and the spoken word are different forms of communication. A deepfake is using his words but synthesizing his facial expressions, pacing, and tone.
Everything we know about how information is lost from face2face to text--why /s is a thing in the first place--should reinforce this. A deepfake is still a small fiction.
> the producers claim to know him and his mind so well that they're comfortable speaking for him
They aren't making up words though, they're "merely" having an AI read words we know he wrote. Is that ethical? I'm not sure. Neither is the filmmaker:
> Neville said. “We can have a documentary-ethics panel about it later.”
I'm comfortable saying it's not disingenuous though.
Refusing to reveal all the parts that were AI generated is very unethical IMHO. It's an extraordinarily bad precedent too: Imagine a world where this is the norm.
The only benefit to concealing this important detail is generating controversy and getting his film talked about. This is a very selfish move by the filmmaker.
> Refusing to reveal all the parts that were AI generated
I don't disagree but I think he's genuinely saying at some point he wants to have that documentary ethics panel.
I think it's far more interesting to wait a bit (after it's out on streaming/blu-ray/etc) and see if anyone can figure it out. I think he's actually INVITING that kind of discussion and analysis by giving everyone exactly the information they would need to do so.
A) here's a voiceover which was done by AI
B) obviously here's a lot of legitimate samples
C) here's how I did it
D) there are two other fakes, go find them.
"Throughout the film, Neville and his team used stitched-together clips of Bourdain's narration pulled from TV, radio, podcasts, and audiobooks."
I'd read that as using normal audio out of context.
All documentaries lie. A lot, not just a little. Bourdain's shows were never an exact truth either.
It's a new interesting way to lie though, I guess it comes down to what were are ok being lied to about.
"We worked with four companies before settling on the best. We also had to figure out the best tone of Tony’s voice: His speaking voice versus his “narrator” voice, which itself changed dramatically of over the years. The narrator voice got very performative and sing-songy in the No Reservation years."
Yeah different vibe but also his narrator voice wasn't developed at all yet with Kitchen Confidential. I found it fascinating comparing the two readings. Also Chapter 3 of Medium Raw - where he eviscerates the idle rich - is maybe the funniest thing I've ever read in my life.
Wow, I watched it and didn't realize. In retrospect, I think I actually did like the deepfake audio more than if a different narrator spoke, but it would have been better if there was a disclaimer in the beginning that he didn't actually voice them.
That's horrifying. Almost as bad is seeing that people think it's okay just because his family gave a thumbs up. Great example of people valuing convenience over principles. I would prefer simply making it illegal to use a dead person's image/voice/etc, at least for some number of years after their death.
Once you are dead, you no longer own your body, your voice or likeness. You cease to care about nebulous worldly concepts like intellectual property rights.
Those actions do affect your (living) family and friends. I would find it appalling if a relative or friend died and suddenly new works came out with "them" speaking via DeepFake/etc.
We could just dump corpses in an abyss and clean it up every so often, but we don't, for various reasons.
A few months ago one of the major Croatian news channels did an interview with a Croatian chef that was a host of Anthony Bourdain in Croatia while filming "No Reservations".
Amongst other things they talked about Anthony and his stay there. One of the things the Croatian chef said about A.B, that kind of stuck with me, is how different he was off camera and on camera.
Off camera he was very quiet and kept to himself until he would have few glasses of wine. His theory was that A.B was an 'introvert' acting to be an 'extrovert' and that (according to this chef's opinion) must have been taking a toll on him all these years.
I think the idea that performers and characters are not the same when they are not performing or playing their character is something that's quite common. It's not really an insight into introversion and extraversion, but about popular culture.
After all the only information about a person that we get is from what we see and hear. It's healthier to expect and notice that a celebrity is not the same when not performing.
One example where some people have difficulty realising that celebrities are not normal is when the celebrities play The Bad Guy and people encounter them in the street and get negative responses. Whereas if they usually played The Good Guy then any equally as false positive reactions could be attributed to their normal character.
Another example from last millennia which is similar would be fans of authors expecting their idols to be erudite dinner guests, founts of wisdom, or the swashbuckling hero of their work. The author would have to point out that their novel took 12 months to create and a further 6 months of editing and they were not the same person as the lead character and that they lived with their aunt and collected roses as a hobby.
There logically have to be lots of Tonies like this. I think people can move across whatever that spectrum of introversion and extroversion is, but for people who are truly introverted and prefer solitude but also really like people, it can be hard to balance because your internal and external lives are inherently different.
As a 100% introvert who enjoys presenting and being in front of an audience, I completely understand the behaviour the Croatian chef described. It's not that unusual.
I can't find the original source, but long ago in an interview Mike Myers (comedic actor, formerly of Saturday Night Live, and a string of over-the-top movies) described himself as a "situational extrovert". If you are aware of Mike's work, you might too be surprised to learn that he's an introvert.
Extroversion and introversion do not work like that.
In layman terms, it is where you "get your energy from". For introverts they spend energy when they have to interact with lots of people and be the "center of attention". But it doesn't mean they don't like it. Or that it's bad for them. It just means they have to go and be by themselves after to recuperate.
That’s some thing I hear a lot on the internet lately as if it’s truth, and I have no clue where it comes from.
Some people really do get stressed out with too much human interaction, just like there are people who suffer when they don’t get enough. And there’s a whole spectrum in between and going in various other directions.
I believe it comes from Meyers Briggs (sp?), the MBTI personality assessment. On some level it's not wrong to suggest this is an observable component of personalities. But it's a bit aggressive to assert that this is the sole definition of the word.
More pseudo-science touted as fact. It's the programmer's Horoscope. I know people (plural), IRL who laugh at horoscopes and then spout MB horseshit with a straight face.
I think the MB framework is decent. The issue is that the test is noisy, is context dependent, unstable, and a middle value isn't well defined. But the tail ends are very interesting, relevant ways to categorize personality.
If you forget the test and just consider the ideas, it's useful
The idea isn't new; it came from Carl Jung [1], who coincidentally also coined the terms "introvert" and "extrovert". I don't believe his notions of "psychic energy" are taken seriously by the scientific establishment of today.
Is there any evidence people are actually wired this way? Because as far as I can tell people mostly gain/lose energy based on whether they like the people they're interacting with, and everyone likes some time alone. Extroversion strikes me as liking the average person over anything else, and extroverts stop being extroverts when they're interacting with people they find objectionable. A person who exclusively gains energy from being alone is likely schizoid, which is an outright disorder (and relatively rare).
As a mostly introvert I can say that I lose energy from interacting with a group, and gain it back when I can be alone. But at the same time being social relieves stress. So it's a push/pull.
I actually really like most people. But I like them one on one when I can have a real conversation. I hate party chit chat because I'm terrible at it.
I have a couple friends whom I'd call extreme extroverts. One big difference between them and me is if they try to initiate talking to a stranger (at say a bar or some other reasonable location) and get rebuffed or otherwise have a bad experience, they instantly forgot about it and move on - whereas I'm still thinking about it years later.
So yeah maybe introversion is just social anxiety.
Social anxiety (and selectiveness) in general seem like better descriptions to me. The introvert/extrovert framing seems off to me, I feel like it's misdiagnosing the problem.
>Because as far as I can tell people mostly gain/lose energy based on whether they like the people they're interacting with
I was responding to this comment, which seemed to imply that introverts don't have a problem spending time with people they like. Or, at least, they don't have a problem with it any more than non-introverts.
I'm saying that's not the case (but it's possible I misunderstood what you were saying to begin with).
I think introverts both gain energy from interactions with loved ones, and gain energy from being alone, and I think that's the same for extroverts. It's different types of "energy." I just don't buy that the simplified dichotomy is a good way of categorising, even if it's in some sense a spectrum. It misrepresents how human psychology works.
No ... as an introvert there's no limit to how much time I can spend with my best friend. If he's invited others I'll usually politely decline. I'm suggesting that we actually prefer being the center of attention when it involves few people.
I suspect introversion and extroversion are just two different sets of competences and are not mutually exclusive or unlearnable. Attempting to do something you are not good at is tiring.
I used to watch Bourdain on the Travel channel. I've never traveled, Bourdain was my escape. Sidnote, has anyone seen what the Travel channel has turned into? This thing where every show is about UFOs or bigfoot (bigfeet) or goatman. I can't tell if they're scripted or they are genuinely taking advantage of the people they are interviewing. Then they'll drop an ad for you to subscribe to Discovery plus every six minutes (they do this on all their networks). Kind of interesting to watch whatever that business model is.
Well, enough of why Bourdain killed himself. Bourdain was brilliant. He was witty, charming, but more importantly you genuinely knew that he cared about every single person he was sitting down and talking to. He always, always respected them and his audience and he never treated you as anything but a friend.
When the news came out about his death I was not surprised. I know what depression is like, the secret suffering (I don't want or need pity comment)s. You can be open and loving and happy on the outside but every hour wonder what's the point of helping people hurt other people, which is ultimately what most of us do. I mean, we couldn't all eat and travel like Bourdain without destroying the planet (worse) and you know he was self-aware to know that. He probablys aid it. Bourdain lived a very large life, he'd seen enough like Hemingway and Wallace and Bennington and...there's a pattern here but I'm sure I'm leaving lots of people out...had before him.
But the way the world reacted to his death. The absolute incomprehension, the continued downplaying of issues like depression even on "educated" places like HN, the conspiracy theories (happy people don't kill themselves - ergo child trafficking), the way we as people and societies bicker about the smallest and stupidest of things and will kill each other over it...I'm certain that's why Bourdain was the person he was, and I thank him for all he taught me and others.
The incomprehension with his death for me was what he came from in his 40s and his daughter. I was depressed and addicted most of my 20s and Bourdain was like some kind of mythical hero in that regard. You could still be a junkie in your 40s and soar to having beers with Obama.
His death still worries me in a sense for my own life that I still want to do a ton with my life but I don't want to do quite everything. There needs to always be something to dream about, something needs to be left unfulfilled.
I can completely get for Bourdain that at the end there was no fix left. He had literally done everything in his life possible to do. What could he possibly dream about at the end? I am sure that is a much darker place then what it would seem on the surface. "Instead of killing myself, I can do anything so I should do X." He literally ran X dry.
Balance. Not to be flippant, and I also enjoy AB's work, but no one thing or set of things is never the answer to sustainable peace of mind.
Ironically, one thing that made AB's character so appealing was his balance of ex-junkie hardness and childlike wonder.
There's a great Velvet Underground song, I Found a Reason, with the lyric, 'Oh, I do believe / If you don't like things you leave / For some place you've never gone before.' That place isn't necessarily a 'place.' No one ever does everything. You will die with meat still left on the bone. Take comfort in that.
> Argento is portrayed as a human intoxicant, with whom Bourdain developed an all-consuming infatuation... They describe how she influenced his decision to abruptly sack a longtime colleague, and his devastation when she began to tire of his attentions and romantically pull away.
I was also depressed and addicted, then when I quit I met a woman who wasn't good for me. My feelings for her became another addiction. This article clarified for me the reason he killed himself. I can totally understand not wanting to go on living without the woman you love and need in a very intense way, and worse, a woman that torments you.
You packed a lot of insight and wisdom into your comment.
Regarding secret suffering, I know someone who is so good at it that they make it easy to forget on a conscious level that they suffer from depression. It's insidious.
The past year or so has really illuminated the "it doesn't matter until it affects me personally mentality (or I don't understand it until it does)." Seems like that can be applied to depression. I posit lack of understanding about depression is exacerbated about our nascent understanding of how our minds even work. Combined this makes me think we, as a species, are not very educated about depression.
What do you think and/or what do you think we could do better so we don't continue to have an "absolute incomprehension, the continued downplaying of issues like depression"?
I'd imagine a lot of people are like this, and I'd imagine HN is overrepresented by this, but I just really feel emotions. When I'm on and am really into something I get hyperfocus and feel like the world is my oyster, but inevitably that high is going to end and if I'm not careful with certain emotional situations I put myself in (romantic relationships), I can reach that low of lows where I honestly just don't want to be here. I mean I guess we all feel this at times, I don't want to imagine it is special, but there are just times in those lows where every doorframe and every rope looks like an out. I absolutely am not interested in it and I know that if I stick it out, that time is going to pass, but I absolutely feel it deep in my stomach and I understand when people who are in that state exacerbate it (if it's alcohol, don't drink alcohol) and we get these tragedies.
For me, personally, this is the first time in 15 years that I've felt normal, which is to say my entire adult life. Some of that is just growing up, but it took a few tries with psychologists (the second much more successful than the first), being cognizant of what issues put me in a funk and avoiding them, getting the appropriate medication (for depression this is invaluable - the main thing it does for me is make sure those valleys aren't so low) and then within the last year realizing that I might also be adhd (all this shit is comorbid) and seeing a pyschiatrist and getting on the proper meds for that. I know we've got our Scientologists and resident HNers that think the healthcare industry is just a joke, but my counselours have always been my friends, it's as much me guiding and us learning about what works and doesn't work as them, and you know, it's been life-changing. This last part is in response to your "we don't know" comment. We have no fucking clue on the brain works, which is why I'm even saying this. I see people that are ashamed to take medication or admit they have.
But the depression is never going to completely go away. Two books that have given me a lot of hope, taught me a lot are:
I'm sure someone's going to say that here's popsci, but I dunno, was good stuff for me. Great insights into mental disorders and how they can be worked around, even embraced. This is all feeling way too male...I guess a final thing that's been vital for me (and again, just getting older) is the power of empathy. I think there are a few shows like Mad Men or HaCF which really show a variety of people working through issues like this.
Hey I just wanted to chime in and say that your story is very inspiring and I really appreciate the vulnerability it took for you to share it with us. Thanks for the book recommendations too. And keep fighting the good fight.
Jesus I feel you. There were years I couldn't take a bath because I couldn't be sure I could resist slipping under. For me depression isn't thinking about things and wanting to die. It's actively fighting the ever-increasing...I don't know, need?..to just be done.
Gonna give the books a look, glad you found something that works for you!
>> I can't tell if they're scripted or they are genuinely taking advantage of the people they are interviewing.
A friend of mine used to live in a small town near another small town where one of the episodes of Ghost Hunters was filmed. That particular episode focused on an "old historic hotel built in the 1800's" and the frontier-era ghosts haunting it. It was a very compelling episode but I found out after watching it that the hotel had been built only a few years prior to the episode being filmed.
My personal opinion is that most of those shows are entirely scripted.
> My personal opinion is that most of those shows are entirely scripted.
Practically all of them are. It is way more expensive to shoot compelling reality TV that's at all resembles what the term implies. Uncertainty about what you'll get, and capturing a real narrative taking way, way more time, means your productions costs are many times what they would be for something that's mostly scripted from scratch, or built out of (scripted) re-creations of things that already happened.
I think it has a lot to do with the type of people who binge watch cable TV these days. The majority of younger people and more tech savvy people (and both of those groups tending to be more media literate people) have moved to Netflix, Hulu, Prime, HBO, etc. They don’t watch the travel channel or the history channel anymore. It’s kind of like the facebook-ification of cable content to keep viewers coming back and it seems there’s a subset of American boomers who will eagerly consume conspiracy content.
It's definitely this. I'm an old millenial which is why I still like TV but you're running into content making fun of this stuff if youre watching HBO, etc. Though, both Hulu and YouTube TV carry these channels and shows I'm talking about.
you genuinely knew that he cared about every single person he was sitting down and talking to
I wonder if that's the impression that he crafted for TV. I read his book Kitchen Confidential, and the thing that struck me about his characterization of restaurant kitchens is that he always seemed to be surrounded by terrible people.
He portrayed that as universal, which is not my experience in them. Some are bad; others are not. And I notice that the common factor in all of his bad experiences in kitchens is him.
Restaurant kitchens are, indeed, hot, unpleasant, fast-moving, and potentially dangerous places. They pay very badly for incredibly demanding, exhausting work. It does attract a certain kind of adrenaline junkie.
But it also attracts a lot of kind, compassionate people who just want to make food that people enjoy. They're not all about taking cocaine and drinking and quitting on no notice.
I'm glad he presented a more thoughtful version of himself on his TV show. I didn't like the person he presented in his book. I would like to think that the former is more true to him than the latter. But I can say that his death didn't come as a surprise to me, based on what I read in his writings.
I don't mean that to be cruel. His work touched you and I'm glad for that.
I used to work in a small hotel as a student. Most of my job was taking guests' luggage up 4 flights of extremely narrow stairs of the historic building. The only guest who ever tipped me (not common in my country) was Anthony Bourdain, who was very generous.
It had a lot more historical footage than contemporary interviews, I was expecting more contemporary interviews.
While the documentary does obviously discuss his suicide it doesn't really focus on it, something I was very grateful for. It's obviously present across the whole documentary, but, not in an overbearing way.
The documentary really pulled back the curtain and explained a lot about the history and production of his various shows and gave far more insight into who he was off camera.
The documentary also paints a very specific picture of why he killed himself. I don't want to "spoil" it, and perhaps i'm reading too much into it but it felt obvious to me.
Overall, really amazing documentary, definitely in my top few documentaries i've ever seen.
I've long been a huge fan of Bourdain ever since he started on his television career.
The most important thing I learned from Bourdain shows is very simple and also very true:
When you visit a place that is unfamiliar to you, whether it's another city in your own country or someplace on another continent, go to the traditional food markets. That's where you can best encounter the culture and flavor (literal and figurative) of a place.
It's really good advice (modulo cautions about tap water and uncooked foods).
On one hand, I think things like financial incentives make it really weird that family gets to own rights to your likeness and voice. Would we feel comfortable if they licensed this guy out to do a deepfake porno for $50?
On the other hand, it sure does feel like likeness is better off in the public domain once you're dead. Because you're dead.
One thing I wonder is if his popularity is part of what caused him so much pain.
I know when people express positive things about me, all I can think of is why that’s wrong. I think I’ve manipulated people, albeit unintentionally, to believe I’m something I’m not. I believe they just haven’t figured me out yet. It makes me feel isolated and/or deceitful. It drives home this belief that even the people I love don’t really know me.
If I were in his position, the constant praise and love would annihilate me. Especially being in a position where my name is my brand and I’m actually intentionally producing content a certain way for people. Even if he was very genuine, or if I was for example, I couldn’t escape the thought that it was all a ruse and I was doing something wrong in order to have all these fans.
I don’t know. I don’t know a lot about him, but this is a significant component of the depression I experience and if I were in his position, it could very likely take me to very dark places.
I understand this feeling. When you don't feel good about yourself, hearing praise from others (Especially people who don't know you well) can be crushing. As if they're being dishonest, in a way.
I can't speak for Tony, but he fit the pattern of a highly intuitive person with sky-high expectations for himself. That's what made his journey so fascinating to me, anyway-- his constant pursuit of and personal and professional ideal that's always just out of reach.
“If I get hit by an ice cream truck and they’re peeling the bumper out of my head while I’m dying, I’m not going to wish that I had eaten more or traveled more or taken more drugs. I’m just going to regret how much I disappointed people in my life.”
I loved that guy, his writing and his shows. His end made me sad and it seems like an enigma. Perhaps he had everything material but felt isolated from meaningful human connections, like with his daughter. Undiagnosed/untreated depression, an existential dark place, didn't want to grow old alone, and/or didn't want to stick around for the way the world was headed. It's hard to say what goes on in someone's mind if they don't talk about it.
The problem with suicide is it eliminates all future good possibilities and it's likely that this is the only life.
You could see some of the despair setting in over the last few seasons of his show on CNN. Basically, he had been so many places in the world so he was revisiting a lot of places and was basically in mourning over the fact that they’re all the same now. Even places like Hanoi that shouldn’t be. There’s a lot of mourning over “the old ways” over those last few seasons.
If you watch some of his early shows, he was enchanted by the street food scene in Asia. But places like Bangkok and Shanghai cracked down hard on unlicensed street vendors over a decade ago, and the places that were lively environments in the mid-2000s have been gone for a long time.
Anecdotally, I tried to find street food in Shanghai and the only places were a few vendors next to the train station. I was told by the guide I hired that there really wasn’t much anymore and that western diets were all the rage among the under-40 crowd. In its place were sterile food courts with bright signs and cartoon mascots.
Often, the good just can’t cancel the bad. It doesn’t work that way.
I understand that suicide is hard on the people left behind, but I also understand that some people don’t want to continue to suffer to prevent others from suffering.
Suicide is a very hard step for people and although Futurama style suicide booths are a step way too far, there should be more humane avenues guided by medical professionals for people who are ‘done’.
Please if you do have suicidal thoughts, at least go to the doctor hand have a that about it, they can help you further.
At least in the US, seeking help can have seriously drastic consequences on your freedom. Involuntary psychiatric holds, red flag seizures, and worse. I do not think it will ever be worth the risk to seek help, because the potential costs are more than I am willing to pay. My freedom is worth more than my life.
I saw him in an airport - this tall, lanky man walking very slowly with his suitcase behind him, head down. He looked so weary and worn down with a heaviness over him and a face that looked much older than his age.
We see the beautiful end result of his work but I suspect much of it all was an endless grind he couldn’t get out from.
Pretty much all jobs that existed before the industrial revolution, many of which have become surnames. A miller mills, a smith smithes, a butcher butchers, a farmer farms.
A Thatcher does thatching with his bundles of thatch. A Carter does carting with his horse and cart. But the poor sod who braises your partridge? Just “cook”, not “cooker”.
Somewhat less noble, I thought, and in keeping with Bourdain’s 1999 Kitchen Confidential essay of counter-glamour.
Kinda like Bones from Star Trek. Camaraderie through occupational diminutives.
The other commenter already replied to your comment explaining the title. I think this is a classic case of somebody misunderstanding something and then reading too much into the misinterpretation. And as another commenter said, it's easy to find other examples like nurse.
Wasn't there an early reports in french media about cause for death to be Autoerotic Asphyxiation?
And this brings the question, why are we, as a society, so ashamed of something like this and prefer to cover it up as mental illness (suicide) and blame ex girlfriends, etc...
