Categories
UPSETTING DAY

Upsetting Day: Peachtree Carnivore 🌭

Explaining what I do here at 1-900 HOT DOG has proven difficult lately. Telling less online friends, prospective romantic partners, and cab drivers that I write about “uh, like old stuff? But funny. Like it’s weird, you know? Snailiens, haha. That one stupid Olympics mascot?” is getting tiresome. I’m pivoting: from now on, no more hemming or hawing. I’m a literary critic.

It sounds important. Not The New York Times Book Review important — the New York Review of Books important. But what work to discuss for my first column? I’ve recently read and enjoyed one new and one upcoming title from my Hot Dog colleagues, but I would hate to be accused of bias. (It’s about ethics in literary criticism.) Instead, I’ll consider Peachtree Carnivore, a text brought to my attention by esteemed community member Agent of Fortune. It is available exclusively in PDF format and doesn’t have a cover, but I’ve taken the liberty of creating one based on the image that graces the first page of the file.

Many of the great works of literature deploy narrative in service of a social argument. Madame Bovary rails against the romantic delusions of the bourgeoisie. Brave New World warns against a future where humanity is enslaved by means more insidious than punitive repression. And Ready Player One passionately urges us to never, ever forget Ghostbusters.

Peachtree Carnivore by Mark Mitchell is such a work. Its argument? That the all-meat diet which put Jordan Peterson into a coma is not only healthy, but indeed extends the human lifespan and transforms its adherents into erotic dynamos. Its author informs us that it is “not for the faint of heart.” Regretfully, it seems that he has fallen into the vogue of deploying “content warnings” for the overly sensitive modern reader. But perhaps this was merely a small concession to prevailing literary sensibilities. Onward.

It is commonly supposed that whatsoever a character is doing the first time we meet them should tell us about what kind of person they are. Economy of storytelling, etc. When we meet Jack, the narrator of Peachtree Carnivore, he is doing two things: thinking about meat and analyzing the hips of a woman he’s just met vis-a-vis their birthing capabilities.

Boy meets girl. A timeless foundation of fiction. Boy is Jack Mason — sixty-something, unemployed, living off the inheritance provided by his abruptly deceased parents. Girl is Gladys Clayton, personal assistant to Jack’s dear friend and ethical billionaire Sam Grayson. Sam has sent Gladys to retrieve a book from Jack, but their introductions quickly take a turn for the libidinous.

Lest you think that our protagonist is motivated solely by the carnal pursuits, Mitchell is quick to point out that he is rather brainy as well.

And neither is he the sort of jobless senior citizen who is attracted solely to women forty-five years his junior. No, he can appreciate the beauty of a woman merely twenty years younger than him, especially one who herself cannot discern her charms for herself.

But what of the book? A Shakespeare first folio, which you may recognize as being doubly superlative — the rarest edition of a work by the most famous author in the English language. Note how Mitchell contrasts the high-brow context of the Bard with the bawdy actions of his characters, perhaps a commentary on the transformation of Shakespeare from ribald popular entertainment in his own time to dreaded, stuffy high school text in ours.

Needless to say, these two lovers find themselves tumbling into one another’s arms. Of course, sexual congress is famously difficult to write. What is erotic to the author may be repulsive to the reader. Mitchell slices this Gordian Knot by handwaving most of the actual acts themselves, preferring to describe the preliminaries and post-scripts.

Note the use of the term “gob.” An unusual choice in such a scene, to be sure. Slang for the mouth, it is typically used in gustatory — rather than amorous — contexts. But Mitchell repeatedly deploys it here. “Gorgeous gob,” “exquisite gob,” and so on. Grotesque? Parody? Or a sly elision of consumption and consummation?

It certainly did! And with the oral examination complete, Jack and Gladys move on to the main course. Gladys was, of course, a virgin up until this encounter. And now, the two are deliriously in love.

They decide to marry immediately as they are both of the conservative, traditional persuasion.

But first, Jack offers to coach Gladys on moving away from the SAD (Standard American Diet) and embracing the carnivore lifestyle which has granted him vitality atypical of his advanced age.

Jack’s carnivore diet is responsible for not just his youthful looks and healthy physique, but a clean-smelling breath and fine-tasting emissions.

As the couple feverishly makes plans for their future, Mitchell provides an early twist: this apparently chance meeting was in fact engineered by Sam, Gladys’s employer and Jack’s closest friend. Jack informs Sam and his wife Clara that he and Gladys intend to wed, being staunch moral traditionalists who have known each other for less than twelve hours and have already had intimate relations out of wedlock.

Many a male author stumbles when approaching the task of writing female characters who are believable, multi-dimensional human beings. Mitchell, thankfully, accomplishes this with gusto. Consider this passage, in which Clara and Gladys discuss the latter’s upcoming nuptials.

Note also Mitchell’s unconventional use of the characters’ names at the beginning of each line of dialogue. A mark of a literary nonconformist, as is his alternation — seemingly without rhyme or rhythm — between present and past tenses.

Unrealistic? Absurd? Contemptuous? Certainly the woke literary establishment would have you believe as much. But consider that in addition to her voracious hunger for seminal fluids, Gladys has another, quite intellectual hunger.

Yes, Gladys is a magnificent speed reader. So-called “scientists” may be skeptical of claims of reading more than 1,000 words per minute, but said scientists also believe that a diet consisting solely of meat and eggs is “unhealthy,” rather than inspiring the kind of sexual power that most men can only dream of.

Jack has interests beyond boluses, however. He quickly introduces his wife-to-be to his suitably impressive home stereo setup.

No buffering! Jack is a man of means. And broad taste, besides.

No divas, boy bands, or rap. Uncharitable readers might detect something of a commonality between two of those three genres, but recall that Jack is a conservative thinker. It’s modernity he despises, not any particular racial group. And while he’s certainly had detailed sexual thoughts about his best friend’s wife, he finds the notion that she might want to bed him quite surprising.

Yet at their wedding, Gladys proves to be somewhat less traditional than she initially made herself out to be.

Then again, Clara isn’t the only woman Gladys embraces in such a manner:

Is it “untraditional” for a man to analyze the cup size of his new wife’s mother? Is it “not conservative” for a woman to kiss her elderly mother on the lips? Mitchell ironically juxtaposes these scenarios with his characters’ disgust towards degenerate, craven wokeness. But they live in a world ruled by the socialist agenda, which at some point in the past made multiple marriage legal.

Jack demurs. He’s attracted to Clara, no doubt, but demonstrates the courage of his convictions in his reluctance to act on those feelings. The law does not determine what is just.

And yet.

Less than an hour later, Jack is achieving simultaneous (heterosexual) climax with his best friend. How to explain this apparent reversal? Stranger things have happened in reality. Is it not unfair to expect fiction to follow staid, predictable character arcs? In day-to-day life, people make irrational decisions which run contrary to their stated beliefs all the time. And let it not be said that anyone in this erotic configuration is homosexual.

The two couples fall into a sort of double marriage. And while Jack may study the precise length and girth of Sam’s phallus, muse on the shape of his body, and plunge his own member into the depths of his wife only moments after his companion has reached climax inside of her, he is emphatically heterosexual.

Jack meets Gladys’s parents and explains his carnivorous lifestyle to them.

He assures Gladys’s parents that she is in good hands. Jack has more money than he knows what to do with, looks forty thirty five, and knows a great deal about dietary science.

Convinced by his extolling of the benefits of the carnivore diet, Glenn and Martha gradually take it up and find that their health improves rapidly. The family is also able to move Glenn’s eighty-something-year-old father, Carl, into a private nursing home which is amenable to Jack’s special diet. Previously suffering from cognitive decline, he begins to make a miraculous recovery as a result of ditching carbohydrates.

If Jack had an easy time communicating the benefits of the all-animal lifestyle, it is another thing altogether to explain his marital arrangements. Clara assists by explaining that what seems like leftist moral dissolution is, in fact, a deeply traditional and conservative arrangement.

Martha is intrigued — recall that she herself is a kisser.

A fair objection from Gladys, who draws the line in their sexual experimentation at voyeuristic incest. But passion knows no boundaries regardless of what the leftist world government might try to impose on us, and Martha is overcome by Clara’s discourse on her deepest desires in this life — being penetrated constantly by whichever penis happens to be on hand and having babies until she is no longer physically capable of doing so.

Mitchell knows women. It isn’t “DEI” to admit this, but this is what we’re actually like! We have to pretend otherwise due to the pernicious efforts of feminism, but deep down, all women are secret bisexuals whose fondest wish is to break records for most offspring produced by a nymphomaniac carnivore.

The introduction of Gladys’s parents into their orgiastic home life complicates matters somewhat, but not too much.

And recall that Jack is a conservative man who despises the “gender lunacy” and “social idiocy” of our deeply progressive moment.

But a hero does not balk at a challenge. Did the hero of Atlas Shrugged, Atlas, back down when confronted with the difficulty of hefting up the earth over his head? No. And neither does Jack, plunging — if you’ll pardon the pun — ahead into greatness. And in her own way, Gladys does as well.

Characters overcoming trials is one of the cornerstones of fiction. Here, Gladys overcomes her resistance to having conjugal relations with her biological mother, while her biological father muses on the same with her. Should we recoil in disgust? Accuse Mitchell of unbelievable characterization? No. We should recognize that these characters are so so empowered by their rejection of the dictates of the criminal gangster FDA that they have become fully self-actualized, able to transcend the petty taboos progressivism imposes against fucking your parents.

Peachtree Carnivore continues on past this climax to detail the addition of two final members to the Mason-Clayton sextuplet. First, Jack entices his family doctor to join them with a direct proposal.

The last member — and I use that term in both senses — is perhaps the most surprising of all.

Our eight partially blood-related lovers spend their years, we are told, producing a bounteous wealth of offspring, including some which are no doubt the product of congress between Gladys and her father, or between Gladys and her father’s father.

But readers of Peachtree Carnivore will recognize that I have conspicuously omitted something of great importance from my review up until this point. That something is, of course, the automobile — which is the subject, by my estimate, of roughly a quarter of the book.

It is tempting to dismiss the great deal of Peachtree Carnivore given over to the discussion of cars and the customization thereof as a weakness of the work, a diversion from the core thrust of the text. In fact, the inclusion of this theme echoes that of carnivorous consumption and sexual licentiousness. For what is the car but a glorious extension of the body? And what is fuel but the meat of the car? Electric cars, it should go without saying, are equivalent to those Americans who consume plants — tools of the woke.

Lastly, I must attend to one objection that the reader may have mentally raised during this review. “Surely,” I hear you contend, “this is a work of parody, for it neither titillates nor makes a compelling argument for an all-meat diet.” First: you are a craven swine. Perhaps if you hadn’t deadened your mental faculties with carbohydrates, you would be able to appreciate Mitchell’s passionate plea to create a world of meat-fuelled incest monsters. Second, if this is a “bit”, to use the vernacular, then he’s been at it for at least seven years.

That’s right: Mark Mitchell has been an adherent of the carnivore diet for at least seven years. And if he’s seen the health benefits of such a lifestyle, then I can only assume that like his protagonist, he’s also become an impossibly wealthy, pussy-crushing ubermensch rather than a lonely old man writing 9 Chickweed Lane fanfiction on his Blogspot. I salute him and his dozens of beef-powered children.

This article was brought to you by our fine sponsor and Hot Dog Supreme: DeltaFoxTrot, who would thank you very much for not besmirching the good name of their Amos/Alistair fanfiction.

As always, you get access to this for free, but if you sign up on the Patreon, you get access to thousands more articles just like this, plus bonus podcast episodes, extras, and more!

Join the Patreon

23 replies on “Upsetting Day: Peachtree Carnivore 🌭”

You know, normally when you run across one of these guys- the ones that have dedicated so much time to thinking about their kinks that the kinks develop worldbuilding and then they forget it’s a kink thing and decide they’ve actually come up with a perfectly reasonable way that society should be run, you know, those guys, everyone’s au fait with those guys- they’re normally at least more sexually imaginative than the top five categories on pornhub.

Those people are so wild. Like, how do you even get to the point where you’re writing propaganda for your pornocratic utopia?

The weirdest one I’ve seen is someone who wrote a militant maledom My Little Pony shared universe and got really upset when anyone gave the female characters any amount of freedom or autonomy.

The prose is so unbelievably dorky. It reminds me of the writing in that Clown-Christian-Detective novel, if eating all those baked beans went off in a much smuttier direction.

It’s the writing of a desperate thesaurus addiction combined with someone who never heard a cliche or hokey remark he didn’t resemble. Except his thesaurus was written by a thirteen year old in 1970. It’s paradoxically stodgy and juvenile.

I don’t really understand these kind of guys who feel they need to mix their sexual fetishes with their politics to the point where they’re producing pornographic propaganda. But, this one is especially weird, since there’s incest.

Is the incest a part of the propaganda or just a kink? He goes to great lengths to justify it, which makes me think that he is creating, in part, pro-incest propaganda. Which is just a wild thing to do.

i’m like 80% thru this delightful article and i have to pause to scroll down here and screech abt how this fucking dork writes so shit that he needs to specify who is talking in a back-and-forth dialogue, with the grace of someone you will Never want to RP with

“I’m sick of all this woke perversion in society, I’m going to live in a compound with my fad-diet, incesteous polycule to uphold traditional values …”

Fucking hell the author was bad enough talking about his stereo system before getting to his fetish fulfillment

I honestly did not think any Upsetting Day could be worse than the semen cookbooks, but here we are. Feels like the author could have used fewer words to explain why it’s totally not weird that he wants to bang his male best friend and also his daughter.

Semen cookbooks are children’s literature compared to this…I don’t have a pejorative strong enough to do it justice.🤬

> Peachtree Carnivore by Mark Mitchell is such a work. Its argument? That the all-meat diet which put Jordan Peterson into a coma is not only healthy, but indeed extends the human lifespan and transforms its adherents into erotic dynamos. Its author informs us that it is “not for the faint of heart.” Regretfully, it seems that he has fallen into the vogue of deploying “content warnings” for the overly sensitive modern reader. But perhaps this was merely a small concession to prevailing literary sensibilities.

Wait, the book, or the diet?

Because the diet is *literally* not for the faint of heart.

I’m glad the Tommy Needy Drinky tweeter finally wrote that novel he’s always talking about.

The way you write is so cutting and poignant. I bark-laughed a lot reading this. What a shit-show of a book, but thank you for reading it so I don’t have to, and pointing out only the most absurd and entertaining bits.

Merritt, you’re never going to read this, but I have to express this somewhere. I read this article, much as I have read almost everything published on this fine website, and came away thinking “ah, another glimpse into a mind wholly alien from my own or anyone else’s, a strange look at the inner life of the only man in the world who is both involuntarily celibate and probably afflicted with something doctors would shrug about and decide to call ‘steak poisoning,’ and is deeply frustrated about both of those things.”

But Merritt. This article haunts me. I find myself unwillingly recalling phrases and sentences from these cursed excerpts all the time since reading them a few days ago. I think it’s a symptom of my profound confusion regarding what would drive someone to write and attempt to distribute such a pointless, self-indulgent wank fantasy (although we are on 1900HOTDOG.com, so you would think I would be used to it by now). Maybe it’s because I grew up in a small town, and aside from the unnecessarily graphic descriptions of enthusiastic sex with a much younger woman, these rambling thoughts echo so many of the ones I’ve suffered to hear from unremarkable old white men; and now, I can scarcely look at any of them without thinking, “Goddammit, that’s what’s really going on in there, isn’t it? It’s InfoWars and Fox News by day and just non-stop Peachtree Carnivore at night, isn’t it, you filthy, self-centered bastard!”

My only hope is that time will heal this wound, but like Frodo, I fear I will carry this for the rest of my days. I would be angry, Merritt, perhaps unjustly so, at you for opening this dark gateway, but two things temper that anger. First, I stepped through and walked this dark path to the end. That was by my will, not yours, and I will have to own that choice.

Second… If this work haunts me, coming unbidden to my mind in fits and starts throughout the day like an earworm pop song… what did it do to you? No, I don’t feel anger towards you, Merritt. What I feel is pity. How much worse it must be for you, how much deeper your own hell. I would pray for you, Merritt, but I have trawled these nitrate-infused waters long enough to know that if there is a God, he has long abandoned this cursed Earth.

(Merritt, I’m being overdramatic here, but I love your articles, please keep writing about terrible things!)

Like many Hotdoggers, I have occasionally opined that practically EVERY article on this site belongs on Upsetting Day…

…then an article like this comes around, and reminds us all WHY Upsetting has a whole separate day of its own.

This one beat me. I had no choice but to stop reading the text in the captures somewhere around the point when Our Hero began his “Totally Not Queer, Definitely Not Woke ” polyamorous relationship with his wife, his best friend, and his best friend’s wife.

That was enough for me…and as I skimmed the remainder of the article, I realized this decision may have saved my remaining fragments of sanity.

A question for the ultra right wing:

Why is it when one of you chooses an atypical form of personal intimacy (real or imaginary), you see the need to include a fully-realized philosophical/belief system and lifestyle to explain/justify yourself?

EVEN if anyone cared who you’re banging and why (and believe me, they don’t), one of the actually great things about this America that your kind adores so much is nobody HAS to explain their sex lives to anyone.

As long as what you do involves only fully informed consenting legal adults, and no laws are broken, then your Pseudo-Gorean Carnosexual Polycule requires absolutely no explanation…

…in fact, we would consider it a kindness if you would REFRAIN from explaining.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *