120 replies to this topic

[Paul Kierstead]

I've not read any of his books, seen more then 10 mins of his TV show, nor read an article by him. My curiosity is piqued; what book should I start with? I'd like one that is both entertaining and relevant today.

[nickrey]

I've not read any of his books, seen more then 10 mins of his TV show, nor read an article by him. My curiosity is piqued; what book should I start with? I'd like one that is both entertaining and relevant today.

Why not start with this one?

Then you can give us an opinion that is based on the actual book rather than its reviews.

[Paul Kierstead]

Good point! Purchased and next in the queue (currently reading some trash I'm enjoying to much to give up).

[Special K]

But definitely do read Kitchen Confidential.

Edited by Special K, 09 June 2010 - 03:30 PM.

[ScoopKW]

I highly recommend getting any of his books in Audiobook format. He reads quite well. And you'll get some more snarkiness and sarcasm that way.

[chezcherie]

just finished it.
quick read. enjoyable way (for me) to spend most of a day off.
my take--far from a review: anybody who uses the word "pantagruelian" in his book is all right by me. (even if that same writer, or more likely his copy editor, mistakenly refers to goujons as "tiny, cheese filled pillows", when i must believe gougeres are being referenced. if i thought for a moment that that was a bourdain mistake, i might take all the pantagruelian points away!)
other than that, i think he's a happy man. and that might be the end of his nervy-junkie-kitchen badass writing career. which i suspect would be fine by him. he's done that, and made a fine life for himself with it--finer than it seems he ever would have imagined, or perhaps thought he deserved.
while bourdain says he's still angry, i think he doth protest too much. even when labeling culinary luminaries as heroes or villains, he nearly always throws the villains a bone of one sort or another, and talks a little trash about the heroes. too neutral for the old bourdain. but he's a self-professed happy daddy now, and older, and farther removed from the flame and smack days. and i liked that just fine, too.
it's a fun read, if you won't be too pissed off that he's mellowed. if you are still all about whose knife is sharper, or who has the most impressive kitchen scars, go read "kitchen confidential" again. it will still make you happy.

[twoshoes]

I finished it yesterday and enjoyed it as well. he does seem happy w/ his lot in life and has toned down his bad boy ways since becoming a father. he still is outspoken and opinionated and not afraid to say what he thinks and why he thinks it. he also seems quite comfortable poking fun at his own personae. nevertheless he still pulls no punches and is more than willing to call a turd a turd. he didn't exactly bash alinea or achatz, just didn't enjoy his meal there. he gives waters her due before calling her on her utter nonsense. finally he truly does let james beard and alan rickman have it and makes a damn good case why.

fine read and easily digested.

[ChrisZ]

I've not read any of his books, seen more then 10 mins of his TV show, nor read an article by him. My curiosity is piqued; what book should I start with? I'd like one that is both entertaining and relevant today.

His first book - Kitchen Confidential - offers a different perspective on professional cooking than you get from cooking shows on TV. TV cooking shows are so "nice" and celebrity chefs exude so much bonhomie that they generally portray professional cooking as a few clever tips, some witty banter and lots hugs and kisses to famous guests.

Kitchen Confidential is a reminder that restaurants are businesses that need to make money, kitchens are tough environments to work in, the hours are long, the work is hard, kitchen staff are more likely to be macho males discussing tattoos than intellectual gastronomers discussing new flavours, most restaurants fail, and basically being a cook/chef is not an easy life.

It's definitely entertaining and I'm sure it's still relevant.

[Busboy]

I find it amusing that any contributor to a food website that has well-love threads on pizza, Tater tots and hamburgers would trash Tony Bourdain for being a one-trick pony. Yeah, he's no MFK Fischer -- wildly overrated in her own right -- but he's a fun read and knows his shit. And, having dined with him once and been on the fringes as he held court on another occasion, he's a lot like a lot of contributors on this and any other websight (aka Miami Danny and, arguably, me) probably a very decent guy, but with a profitable gift for articulate assholery. Credit that prep-school education he got before he went wrong, and the delight one takes in making the rent.

And, if Wolfgang Puck can get rich off his atrocious chain restaurants, why can't Tony make a few bucks peddling books?

[jpr54_]

Today, I ordered the book from Books & Books.
He will be speaking on June 30th

[The Naughti Literati]

I'm reading it now and love it so far! My favorite chapter is the literary food porn tour of his favorite meals around the world. Sit in a bookstore and read THAT even if you hate the man. Amazing.

[Jenni]

Some of his new book was in The Guardian last Saturday. He seems funny, but also talks a lot of crap. For instance,

I am still genuinely angry at vegetarians. A shocking number of vegetarians and even vegans have surprised me with an occasional sense of humour, refrained from hurling animal blood at me, even befriended me. I have even knowingly had sex with one. But what I've seen of the world since my first book was published has, if anything, made me angrier at anyone not a Hindu who turns up their nose at a friendly offer of meat.

So what is he saying, it's ok to be vegetarian if you have religious belief behind it (incidentally, many hindus are not vegetarian)? So in other words, he's ok with vegetarians if they really really believe in it. Which sums up a lot of vegetarians, regardless of religion. Seems to me like he's had a few bad experiences with militant veggies/ vegans before, but so what? I've met some real morons who happened to eat meat who were rude, had no taste in good food and generally looked down on everyone who didn't have the same view as them. The difference is, I'm not stupid enough to make big generalisations about all meat eaters because of it.

[judiu]

Jenni, my late step father was a 'holier-than-thou' vegitarian, by choice not by religion. He used to harrass me at the dinner table by threatening my pet cat with being dinner the next night, just because he knew it would upset me. He felt no qualms about wearing leather or fur when it suited his purposes. I LIKE Tony's rants!

[LindaK]

As part of the book tour, Bourdain did an hour interview/call-in show today on NPR's "On Point." Listen here.

There are the expected gushing phone calls but also some bits from the new book and reflections from his travels over the past decade. Whatever you think of the media personna, he does sound genuinely appreciative of the opportunities he's had to travel, meet people, and share their food.

[Jenni]

Jenni, my late step father was a 'holier-than-thou' vegitarian, by choice not by religion. He used to harrass me at the dinner table by threatening my pet cat with being dinner the next night, just because he knew it would upset me. He felt no qualms about wearing leather or fur when it suited his purposes. I LIKE Tony's rants!

Of course there are people like that, both meat eating and veggie - they want to foist their opinion on you and they'll use any horrible tactic to do so. That's not really my main point.

I even understand what Tony is saying - if you travel and you meet someone who has worked hard and lovingly to make a good (meaty) meal, isn't it incredibly rude to turn it down? However, I don't understand why he then tacks on to that, "unless you're Hindu". Since (a) not all hindus are vegetarian and (b) why does being of a religion that mentions being kind to all living beings make it different than just thinking that way on your own? What about buddhism - again, plenty of buddhists are not vegetarian, but some are and the philosophy of buddhism certainly mentions not harming living beings. Some christians also believe in vegetarianism because they believe that God asked them to look after all animals, and that Jesus was vegetarian. And what about non-religious people who just feel strongly about the subject?

I don't mind if Tony doesn't think vegetarianism is right or good, I just don't get what point he is trying to make here.

[Florida]

I don't mind if Tony doesn't think vegetarianism is right or good, I just don't get what point he is trying to make here.

Much like Alice Waters, whom Bourdain regularly likes to criticize, Bourdain is simply a sanctimonious asshole. And like Sam Kinnison before him or Lewis Black today, there are going to be people who find him entertaining. In regards to Bourdain's view on vegetarianism, having a cognizant point is ultimately unnecessary.

[Paul Kierstead]

Obtained and read.

First off, it made me damn hungry (except the opening scene) and made me desperately want to travel. Especially to Vietnam, since I seem to be horribly addicted to pho.

I was surprised at how entertaining it was. I've seen a total of one segment of his (Romania, at a place I visited, so I was curious) and read one article, so wasn't sure what to expect. I couldn't put it down, it was a very good read. I quite enjoyed his rants, even if they were perhaps over the top; that was part of the charm.

If I had to pick on a flaw, I think he returns to his 'street cred' drug usage too often. It doesn't really add to the story in most cases. In the same vein, I find the book perhaps a little too inward facing, and too self analytical; I don't really want to participate in his therapy. But really these are not bad enough to get in the way of what I found to be very enjoyable. Sure it is bound to wind some people up, but he is quite entertaining even while winding you up, at least if you have a sense of humour about yourself as well. I've gotten a big urge to read kitchen confidential now, though I object to $12 for a back catalogue e-book, so I am hesitating right now. We'll see.

Oh, now now the list for my next NY trip is even longer. I am gonna be soooo broke.

[paulraphael]

I read the book and liked it. I think the thrashings voiced here are for the most part innacurate. Calling him a windbag or asshole is one thing ... that's just opinion. But saying the book is just the same old crap leads me to think the critic didn't read it closely, if at all.

The book is a collection of essays, some covering old ground, some not. The ones covering old ground in most cases offer a revision of his previous views. He mentions a lot of factors, including expanded experience and diminished crankiness, behind his newer feelings. He also respects that he now has a broad audience, while he wrote Kitchen Confidential under the assumption that it would interest only a handful of derelect insiders like himself.

His criticisms of topics like vegetarianism and Alice Waters are nuanced. And I agree with them, for the most part. And if you haven't read the essays in question, you don't know what those opinions are.

My biggest criticism is that quality of writing seems uneven. There's evidence of the old Tony, and some sections where he betters his old self, but others where the prose falls flat. Some essays, like the very interesting one on David Chang, would benefit from some serious editing.

[Indirect Heat]

First off, it made me damn hungry (except the opening scene)

I found that opening scene to be the most interesting in the book.

Otherwise, I found the book a tad boring. Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed the book, but it's rather repetitive, and Bourdain's schtick is very obviously Bourdain's schtick. Once you've read a few of his essays, you've basically read that book...

[LindaK]

The book gets a mixed review in the most recent New York Times Sunday book review: here. Summary: good observer and writer, great opportunities, inconsistent book. Not unlike what's been said in this topic.

the most interesting OT tidbit: the review starts off by noting that Bourdain had authored some novels before writing "Kitchen Confidential." One can only wonder.

[rgruby]

I read the book and liked it. I think the thrashings voiced here are for the most part innacurate. Calling him a windbag or asshole is one thing ... that's just opinion. But saying the book is just the same old crap leads me to think the critic didn't read it closely, if at all.

The book is a collection of essays, some covering old ground, some not. The ones covering old ground in most cases offer a revision of his previous views. He mentions a lot of factors, including expanded experience and diminished crankiness, behind his newer feelings. He also respects that he now has a broad audience, while he wrote Kitchen Confidential under the assumption that it would interest only a handful of derelect insiders like himself.

His criticisms of topics like vegetarianism and Alice Waters are nuanced. And I agree with them, for the most part. And if you haven't read the essays in question, you don't know what those opinions are.

My biggest criticism is that quality of writing seems uneven. There's evidence of the old Tony, and some sections where he betters his old self, but others where the prose falls flat. Some essays, like the very interesting one on David Chang, would benefit from some serious editing.

I pretty much completely agree.

Cheers,
Geoff

[Florida]

The library finally had a copy of the book and I am currently in the process of reading it.
I will admit it is better (more entertaining) than I expected it to be.

To say it is not the “same old crap” is only somewhat accurate. Sure it’s not a republication of Kitchen Confidential, but Medium Raw is essentially a continuation of the same old crap. Sorry, but the book has a complete lack of continuity. It is either Bourdain’s attempt at stream of consciousness or is a compilation of Bourdain’s rather contradictory rants.

Also, I think Bourdain might have still been chasing the dragon while writing some of this. The chapter titled “Meat” is bizarre. Something about being entitled to a medium rare hamburger, but not having the government dictate food quality, Starbucks is to blame for charging $5 for a cup of coffee, hot dogs are bad because they are a German import and the future retro-hamburger will cost $26. If someone has had the opportunity to read this chapter while fully cranked up, please let me know if it makes more sense.

I’ve also noticed something from the book. Bourdain writes in a fashion that allows almost anybody to agree with him to some degree. He writes about how the rich eat differently than the rest of us, but he seems to forget the book opens with a scene where he is eating an illegally imported protected species as if the “rest of us” would find this to be acceptable. He writes about Hanoi pho as if I have the capacity to jump on a plane during my lunch break, fly to Hanoi, have a bowl of pho, and return to my job before the day is over. In the same sentence (yes, the same sentence) he dismisses Michael Pollard while calling his books “excellent.” No matter what your point of view is on Pollard, you can logically convince yourself that TB agrees with you. We can all relate to a bowl of pho, even if many of us have never been to Hanoi. We can all agree rich people on St. Bart’s eating a burnt chicken leg are a clueless bunch of dicks even though Bourdain is likely the only one of us to ever go to St. Bart’s to eat a burnt chicken leg with a clueless bunch of dicks.

As for the criticism of the criticism, I believe it to be likewise disingenuous. To accept Bourdain at face value is to willingly ignore Bourdain’s glaring contradictions. To say “if you haven't read the essays in question, you don't know what those opinions are” is to say that Bourdain has never voiced these opinions previously, which is entirely bogus. Bourdain has previously voiced his opinion very clearly in multiple TV shows on two different stations, including six seasons of No Reservations, multiple books, his blog posts, and a countless number of interviews, articles, essays, and stand-up performances. So far, I have not read anything new in this book. To suggest you can’t criticize Bourdain for these well known opinions is akin to saying someone cannot criticize Obama (or Palin) because they have not read The Audacity of Hope (or whatever the fuck the name of her book is) even though their opinions are so well publicized as to be commonplace. It's disingenous and ignores the fact that Bourdain's views on nearly all of these subjects exist in a format other than this particular book.

[Paul Kierstead]

Perhaps true, Florida, but that would be a Bourdain Review, not a book review. It doesn't add anything to the discourse if people pile onto every Bourdain thread and criticize *him*.

I guess I would accuse them of just saying the same old thing and offering nothing new.

Also, I certainly don't do crank, etc. and found the meat chapter quite lucid.

[nextguy]

I just finished reading the book. I enjoyed it though not as much as KC. I agree with one of the earlier posters that some of the chapters are very nuanced. His chapter about David Chang in particular. I kind of understood it to imply that David Chang is where Bourdain was towards the end of his cooking career. And I don't mean professionally. I mean in terms of what he wants from a kitchen.

[Florida]

So the criticism of vegetarianism surprised me. Not because it was so well thought out or nuanced, but because it was so absolutely pointless. Beyond comprehension pointless.

Bourdain notes of vegetarians: I'm "not angry at them personally mind you - but in principle." He goes on to indicate the principal being the "Grandma rule" for travelers where you may not like Grandma's turkey, but you "shut the fuck up and eat it. And afterward, say "thank you, Grandma." But he also notes "I don't care what you do in your home, but the idea of a vegetarian traveler in comfortable shoes waving away the hospitality...fills me with sputtering indignation." As if there are gangs of vegetarians roving the world, rudely rejecting the humble omnivore's kind offering of a piece of meat.

So the basis of his hatred, or rather continued "genuine" anger, at vegetarians comes from his perceptions of vegetarian travelers possibly, maybe, refusing an offering of meat? Really? Sure Bourdain can hate vegetarians all he wants, but this is the reason why?

Think about it though. How many vegetarians in the world are traveling at any one moment. Maybe, if you round up, possibly 1% of all the total vegetarians. And how many of them are actively being solicited with meat? Again, on the high end, possibly 1%. And this is the reason he hates all vegetarians? It's such a weak argument. Absolutely beyond belief weak. So much, so I've read that section of the book four times now, looking for something I've missed, searching for something more. But there is nothing there. Absolutely nothing.

[Paul Kierstead]

Never mind what percentage gets the opportunity to refuse; what percentage would refuse if the situation arose?

[Florida]

Never mind what percentage gets the opportunity to refuse; what percentage would refuse if the situation arose?

Why does it matter?

How many Muslims would refuse an offering of pork? How many Kosher Jews would refuse shellfish? How many "normal" everyday omnivore travelers would refuse an offering of any food, meat or vegetable, from anyone living in a third world country? or even a first world country?

TB specifically mentions pho in that section, yet the majority of people in Vietnam identify themselves as Buddhists. Buddhism, for the most part, promotes vegetarianism. How ignorant and ethnocentric is it on Bourdain's part to assume the Vietnamese people are too stupid to understand the concept of vegetarianism when the vast majority of the country practices a religion that promotes vegetarianism.

Bourdain seeks to justify his anger at vegetarianism by making it sound as if it some un-natural Western concept, that is somehow selfish or rude, but he willingly ignores centuries of religious practices (ie, cultural practices) while unwittingly suggesting the Vietnamese are so inferior as to be incapable of understanding the concept of vegetarianism.

And while I have no evidence to prove this, I can only imagine the Vietnamese people are probably just a bit more upset about America dropping thousands of tons of bombs on their villages (which continue to explode to this day) than they are about a backpacker pushing aside the piece of beef in his bowl of pho. But of course, it’s the vegetarianism that causes him "sputtering indignation."

And the same goes for India, where he talks shit about the sanctity of cows. Here he seemingly suggests that Indians are incredibly stupid for allowing their poor people to starve when there is a perfectly good cow standing right there in the middle of the road. How ethnocentric is that? Yet Bourdain promotes himself as the one with the moral superiority?

[Paul Kierstead]

Never mind what percentage gets the opportunity to refuse; what percentage would refuse if the situation arose?

Why does it matter?

It matters because it is the principle that is in question, not the opportunity to exercise it.

I fail to see how his failure to express sputtering indignation at other groups invalidates his opinion on vegetarian; I'll also point out that he explicitly gives more leeway to religious reasons.

Yet Bourdain promotes himself as the one with the moral superiority?

Seriously? You think he promotes himself as having moral superiority? I'd say quite the opposite, if anything.

It is just his opinion. It takes very little of a book filled with enough opinions to offend everyone. I don't think it warrants this level of sputtering indignation.

[Florida]

Never mind what percentage gets the opportunity to refuse; what percentage would refuse if the situation arose?

Why does it matter?

It matters because it is the principle that is in question, not the opportunity to exercise it.

Bourdain’s principle is based entirely off of an ethnocentric viewpoint that suggests that non-Westerners are fully incapable of understanding vegetarianism regardless of whether a tradition of vegetarianism exists in their country or not. It’s a viewpoint that relies entirely on a Western thinking bias.

Is it valid? I guess so. Is it incredibly ignorant? Absolutely.

I fail to see how his failure to express sputtering indignation at other groups invalidates his opinion on vegetarian; I'll also point out that he explicitly gives more leeway to religious reasons.

This is akin to having a racist justify his racism by noting the number of African Americans in prison. Now suppose someone were to point out that there is also a substantial number of Caucasians in prison as well, but the racist were to say “but I’m not talking about them, I’m only talking about African Americans.” From my standpoint, it can’t be argued that the actions of a small subset can be considered independently from the population as a whole.
(btw, this is just an analogy, I am not accusing anyone of being a racist)

And for what reason should people with religious reasons be given “more leeway?” Are people without religious reasons incapable of making such decisions about what they chose to eat? Not that it even matters, considering TB specifically mentions Hinduism as a valid reason only to effectively dismiss Hinduism not more than a page or two later.

Seriously? You think he promotes himself as having moral superiority? I'd say quite the opposite, if anything.

It is just his opinion. It takes very little of a book filled with enough opinions to offend everyone. I don't think it warrants this level of sputtering indignation.

I yes, I do think he is promoting himself as being morally superior, especially considering the lengthy e-mail he sends to his vegetarian friend who had the misfortune of unknowingly sending an e-mail to Bourdain at an unfortunate time. And I am not offended. I just think he presents an exceedingly weak argument to justify his anger towards vegetarianism.

[Florida]

I would further note, unlike his criticism of vegetarianism, I found his criticism of Alice Waters to be well thought out and adequately researched.

So, while I may not agree with everything he says about her (I agreed with far more of it than I expected to), at least he devotes the time and energy to explain his criticisms of her in a way that is far more eloquent and developed than his criticisms of vegetarianism.