Ruth Reichl

You write good stories. As I've said before, I don't think anyone writes better about the act of cooking than you do. It's a gift. But there are too many food sections which continue to operate on a lower level than the papers they're in. And too many, yes, that recycle canned material because they don't have the staff to fill the section with their own stories. And far too many, I think, who consider advertisers before readers.

Actually, it wasn't any of those. It was my second review, when I was still at New West, about a restaurant called Robert in San Francisco. All of my friends and I went off to a thrift store to buy clothes good enough for the restaurant, and we trooped in, thrilled to be in a great place. And my friends, all trying to be helpful, were so critical that I had this moment when I saw us all as a gang, sent by a rival restaurateur, trying to find fault with the restaurant. The whole review just came to me, like that, and I flew home and wrote it like a film noir script. I called it "Cops and Roberts" and wrote the whole piece in dialogue. I don't know where I found the courage to turn it in, but it just felt right to me. It was one of those moments, as a writer, when you know that you've hit on something good. The review was not like anything that anyone had written before, and I felt elated about it. All the information about the restaurant was there, but it was in a new form. In that moment I knew that I was going to be writing restaurant reviews for quite a while. I had the same feeling about the first sushi piece I wrote in the NY Times. It's always a struggle trying to write a piece that gives a lot of information without being preachy. And I was so happy when I figured out how to tell readers about the entire experience in a way that was conversational and made a good story. I've loved sushi since the first moment I tasted it, and I really wanted to convey the pleasure of the experience. And after years of struggling with that, I finally figured out how to do it.

Haven't been to Ortolon (although I have friends who love it. And I'm intrigued by naming a restaurant after an outlawed - but incredibly delicious - bird.) Love AOC; I'd eat there any night of the week. Love Patina - although every time I go into one of Joaquim's restaurants I mourn for the chef he used to be. Max au Triangle was just stunningly good. Haven't been to Sasabune. My loss.

Both the lobster and Riedel articles were August of 2004. I can't get you a link to them, but I could send you a copy of the issue. Montreal - now there's a great food city. Have you been back recently? I just fell in love with it on my recent visits.

On the upside, the fact that so many chefs are now concerning themselves with the way children are eating, especially in schools. It's a huge movement that goes way beyond Alice Waters and Jamie Oliver, and may be the most encouraging sign that things could change in a good way. And the wonderful generosity of the food community after Hurricane Katrina was extremely heartening. And I'm happy that transfats are now being seen as the villains that they are. On top of that, I think the fact that so much serious food news is now starting to be reported on an ongoing basis is truly exciting. But on the downside, there is so much terrible news to report. For starters this includes the draining of species in the ocean. The fact that 90% of the big fish have been gobbled up and our appetite continues unabated. The overuse of antibiotics in animal farming of all kinds. The horrors of animal farming. The way our use of fertilizer is creating a dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico. The way big companies are now going after gene patents on plants and animals (Monsanto's attempt to patent pigs). The way industrialized food is starting to take over the world. (If you haven't seen the new book "Hungry Planet," I heartily recommend it. It gives an astonishing global view of the way we are eating, and it's not a pretty picture.) The weakening of the organic food laws... I'm sorry, this is probably not the answer you were looking for. But if you're looking for important stories, there is surely no lack of them. ← On the contrary, these are very much the types of answers I was looking for. I feel reassured that you are so cognizant of them. I can assure you, that on this coast, each of these concerns is very near and dear, most especially that of sustainability within the local and global fisheries, which are of vital ethical interest as well as economic importance. Locally, we found it more than curious that the recent awarding of the Cosmos Prize (the 'Nobel Prize for Environmentalism) in Japan (it carried a cash award of CDN $415,000) to Dr. Daniel Pauly, went largely unreported in the general media. It was he, after all, who originally gained so much attention for this issue by asserting that 90% of the animals in the ocean over six feet long have now vanished. So my follow-up question is this: Do you think food publications should be taking leadership stances on issues such as sustainability in the global fishery, the DuPont fast food packaging scandal, et al? And, for that matter, on the other issues -- school food et al --that you mention in your response? Thank you for sharing your thoughts with us this week. ← Absolutely, yes, food publications should be leading the way in the discussion of these issues. When I came to Gourmet I asked the staff here what they thought we should be covering. Everyone was interested in discussing sustainability, where our food comes from, and so forth. But nobody thought that the readers would stand for it. They were wrong. When we started publishing these articles - on the problems with fish farming, on land trusts, on the Monsanto suit against Percy Schmeiser, transfats, controversies in the bison industry, to name just a few - the response from readers was overwhelmingly positive. Smart people want to know what is going on with the food supply, and it's our obligation to try and keep our readers informed. What's great about this is that we're not preaching to the choir, we actually giving people news they can use. Every time people shop they're voting with their dollars, and the more we inform them about the choices they can make, the more we have the chance to make an impact. It's a responsibility - and an opportunity.

I don't have handy the overall number of starred restaurants in Paris. I know that there are around ten Michelin 3* restaurants in Paris vs. four in New York. Yet, I haven't encountered anyone who believes there are a half-dozen other serious candidates for 3* that Michelin overlooked. At the moment, just five NY restaurants carry four stars from the NYT, so the Times is comparably stingy with its highest rating. Although one can argue about individual cases, I can't come up with another 5-6 NY restaurants that could be awarded three Michelin stars without drastically de-valuing the meaning of that achievement. At the one-star level, there is a more serious argument that the methodology is somewhat flawed, particularly the way certain cuisines were either ignored or significantly under-valued. Having said that, quite a few non-French restaurants received stars (including a rare—for Michelin—two-star Japanese restaurant). So it slightly over-simplifies matters to say that they were unable to recognize any cuisine but French. ← I'd say that there are a few 3 stars in Paris that don't deserve their stars. (One, in particular, I wouldn't give so much as a single star.) But my argument in NY is not with the three stars, it's with the ones and twos. With the restaurants that are, by American standards, really laudable places. No stars for Union Square Cafe? Come on!

Hi Russ, As you know, from the time when we worked together, this is a subject I can talk about almost endlessly. My basic feelings haven't changed, except to say that these days newspaper food sections are more relevant and more needed than ever before. There is so much to talk about in food these days, so much help that people need in navigating through the modern food world, that I'm shocked at how narrow a focus most newspaper food sections still have. Most act as if they're still "women's sections," most are still underfunded, and most don't get out into their own communities very much. I think you're wrong when you say that most of the readers aren't devoted to the subject. Everyone eats, everyone feeds their family (or wishes that they did). We need more people talking about technique, more people introducing us to ethnic cuisines, more people exploring our neighborhoods, and more people looking at the politics and science of food. WE need food sections writing about the business of food; why the business sections have taken this completely over is insane to me. WE need food sections talking about agriculture.... I have to go down to the kitchens now - it's a tasting time here at Gourmet - but I'd love to continue talking about this....

I agree with you about the Cuozzo piece. Of course, because he writes for the Post, his reasoning was full of hyperbole. But in the end, all he did was to diminish his paper's relevance. Cuozzo pointed out that restaurants sometimes "mutate" after the early reviews. This is, of course, true; but there are also restaurants that remain remarkably consistent over many years. I also agree that critic anonymity is "both possible and important." You refer to reviews as "old-fashioned" and "antique." I presume you're referring to the abundance of alternative information sources that didn't exist 15-20 years ago. Having said that, restaurants still post mainstream reviews in their entry foyers, which suggests that people still consider those old-fashioned reviews relevant to an extent. As you still live in New York, surely you must occasionally have the experience of walking into a restaurant, and seeing your own Times review posted in the lobby. Do you often find that the restaurant has changed significantly from when you wrote that review? (I am not suggesting that the change must necessarily be for the worse; the restaurant could have improved.) A related question.... With just one rated review per week, a paper like the Times has only limited opportunities to take a second look at a restaurant. When you were the reviewer, did you ever find that there were errors you wished you could correct, but could not? An example would be, "Restaurant X has improved since I gave it two stars a year ago, but the improvement isn't quite newsworthy enough to justify another full review." ← I expect that restaurants will eventually stop posting those outdated reviews. When I walk in and see one of my old reviews up there it makes me think - uh oh, things must be really bad here if the best they've got is an 8 year old review. And I can't be the only one who feels that way. Certainly as more and more people become computer literate, the printed reviews become less relevant. And yes, there were times when I wished I could rereview restaurants at the Times, but just couldn't because of space and time constraints. That was when I did radio pieces; it really helped to have that daily spot on WQXR. There were a couple of times when restaurants changed so much that I simply had to go back and review them again. But you risk just going in a circle, doing the same few restaurants endlessly.

A different style of dining. It was proof - if any was needed - that the French basically like French food. Their judges looked at all our restaurants as if they were French and judged them accordingly. I expect they'd do much the same in Hong Kong or Shanghai. It's a very narrow lens through which to judge restaurants.

I'm pretty much a home cook myself. I don't believe that homes should be like restaurants, and I don't attempt to do much cheffy cooking. Last night I made a Bolognese sauce - which is the sort of standard stuff I do. And although this sounds self-serving, my favorite cookbook is the the Gourmet Cookbook. I use it on an almost daily basis. The thing is, I know that those recipes work. My other default cookbooks are Marcella, Marion Cunningham's Breakfast Book (I made her yeast-raised waffles for breakfast this morning), and Elizabeth David.

I agree that it was a great piece of writing, but also a challenging one, sure to bring out some real anger (which, of course, it did). Finally, it seems to me that it was a decisive declaration by you that "This is Not Your Auntie's Gourmet, Friend." Can you talk about the in-house conversations that attended the decision to publish that piece and those that followed its publication? If there were some real wing-dinger letters to the editor that you didn't publish, of course we'd love to hear about those! ← The Reidel story was written by Daniel Zwerdling (the NPR reporter with the wonderfully cracked voice). Loved that piece too. As for DFW, we published the best letters. I'm a big believer that letters sections are only good when they're filled with negative feedback. Who wants to read endless congratulatory stuff? It's just no fun. The in-house conversations were deep, on-going, intense. Including the fact that at one point DFW wanted to pull the piece because I wanted to tone back some of the pro-PETA stuff. In the end we compromised and he got to say that I wanted to tone it down in one of the footnotes. But I'll admit that there was a point when I thought I'd be insane to publish the piece and Jocelyn Zuckerman, who was DFW's editor on that, just came into my office on an hourly basis and insisted that we'd be insane not to. And, I have to say, in our post-mortem, we were all sorry that we'd wimped out on the art. We should have given it a much stronger treatment. I plead guilty to that; I just didn't want to offend people unnecessarily. I was wrong.

Personally, I'd just avoid them. Why put yourself through that? But if you really want to brave that kind of a restaurant, I'd follow the lead of my late friend David Shaw, who was the squeakiest wheel on earth. He'd call and tell them that he'd heard that they sometimes treated people badly and wanted their assurance that it would not happen to him. He'd ask for the wine list to be faxed ahead of time. He'd ask about specials. He'd send stuff back if he didn't like it. In short, by the time he walked into the restaurant, they were already intimate with him. IT worked like a charm, and I was often the beneficiary of it. But I hate doing that kind of thing, and on my own dime, I stick with places that I know I can count on.

His primary argument (though probably not his strongest) was that restaurants are too ephemeral to review with any accuracy: He also takes a swipe at the "myth" of reviewer anonymity: I realize you're coming at this from the perspective of a national magazine, and certainly it makes sense that a national magazine would seek to provide nationally relevant content rather than they type of reviewing that a local paper or city magazine provides. But do you think the argument might apply, as Cuozzo suggests, to local reviews as well? In other words, are restaurant reviews inherently flawed, either for the reasons Cuozzo cites or for other reasons? ← I read Cuozzo's piece when it first came out, and I think he missed the big point about reviewing for a newspaper. I think the critics are like the op ed columnists, they're kind of the face of the paper, the way the public interacts on personal level. They give readers something to react to, get pleased or angry about, a way to have a conversation with the paper. And they're important for that reason. Also, I do think that a newspaper is very different than a national magazine, and that restaurants are part of the culture of a city, and therefore very important for the paper to weigh in on. As for anonymity - well you know that you and I disagree about that. I think it's both possible and important. The main point, I think, is that in this time of blogs, of EGullets, etc., ordinary reviews just seem so old-fashioned. There are so many other ways to get information that is more up to date. What that means is that a publication has to recognize what exactly it can provide to its readers with this antique form. And I think it comes down to good writing, some fun, an opinion. Certainly not The Voice of God.

I'll answer backwards. Editor's Letter are easy for me - I love doing them. I wait until the very last minute, mostly, and then just sit down and write whatever comes into my head. Personal favorites? Generally I like the pieces that terrify me, the ones that I know are pushing the envelope, the ones that I know some people will just hate. The David Foster Wallace piece on lobster comes to mind, because it was such a great piece of writing, but also so out there. The piece on Transfats too - I thought it was important, and added new information, moved the argument forward. And MIchael Ruhlman's first piece for us, on Thomas Keller. It was in my second issue, and I worried and worried about including the bit about killing the rabbits. I really loved publishing John Haney's piece about growing up in the east end of London too. John's our copy chief, a great writer, and he got a book contract after the piece was published. What months do I like best? I'd say the big issues - September through December - because we have so much more room in the winter months, and don't have to make so many difficult decisions about which pieces to cut. I also like the issues where we break the format. They're harder, but very satisfying. The Single City issues (March), and the anniversary issues. We've got one of those in January, and I just love it. I think readers will too.

It's hard to separate out the reviewer experience from my general experience; after all, I've been focused on food and food writing for my entire life. But after becoming the food editor of hte LA Times, and then going back to straight reviewing at the NY Times, I was really eager to get beyond restaurants and back into food and cooking. When James Truman hired me he said, "When I first thought about you, I was thinking of Gourmet as an elegant dinner party, but you've convinced me that it could be so much more." And that's what I wanted it to be - an advocate for people to start cooking again (no matter what that takes), a place where we can talk about the enormous changes in the food supply, a way to start dealing with not just consumption, but all the big issues about where our food comes from. I wanted to do for Gourmet what I hoped I'd done for the NY Times - make it more approachable, more democratic, more fun. Personally, I was really happy to start working wiht people again. Reviewing is fairly lonely work; magazines are incredibly collaborative enterprises, and I was really looking forward to having a group of people to throw ideas around with every day. That's the most fun part of my job. As for the reviews, at first I just wanted to make them real, to make them not be cheering sections, but actually critical. And, of course, to start dealing with ethnic restaurants. But after a while I began to wonder why we were doing real reviews in the first place. And I began to think that nobody needs a national magazine to write a couple of reviews every month, that it would be much more useful to do longer pieces on trends and so forth. I think that came out of my experience at the Times as well.

On the upside, the fact that so many chefs are now concerning themselves with the way children are eating, especially in schools. It's a huge movement that goes way beyond Alice Waters and Jamie Oliver, and may be the most encouraging sign that things could change in a good way. And the wonderful generosity of the food community after Hurricane Katrina was extremely heartening. And I'm happy that transfats are now being seen as the villains that they are. On top of that, I think the fact that so much serious food news is now starting to be reported on an ongoing basis is truly exciting. But on the downside, there is so much terrible news to report. For starters this includes the draining of species in the ocean. The fact that 90% of the big fish have been gobbled up and our appetite continues unabated. The overuse of antibiotics in animal farming of all kinds. The horrors of animal farming. The way our use of fertilizer is creating a dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico. The way big companies are now going after gene patents on plants and animals (Monsanto's attempt to patent pigs). The way industrialized food is starting to take over the world. (If you haven't seen the new book "Hungry Planet," I heartily recommend it. It gives an astonishing global view of the way we are eating, and it's not a pretty picture.) The weakening of the organic food laws... I'm sorry, this is probably not the answer you were looking for. But if you're looking for important stories, there is surely no lack of them.

Hi Russell: To be completely honest, I'm not as up to date on the LA dining scene as I should be. I tend to fly in and out pretty quickly, eat at the latest new place, then leave. Most of my time there, now, is spent in Torrance (it's where the car advertisers that I mostly come to see are). That said, from what I can see there's been a big leap forward. At the point that I left, in 1993, the economy was terrible and most of the new restaurants were sort of copycat, medium priced Italian places. There just wasn't that much innovation. Today you've got terrific chefs like Suzanne Goin and David Myers and Michael Cimarusti doing incredibly personal food. You've got Kazuto who's come back to do what he does best (after years of doing silly food all over the world). And of course the downtown area is just thriving and turning the city into a real city. When I worked at the LA Times, everyone went downtown to work and then went home. It was a pretty depressing place (and even more so after the riots). We were so grateful to have Little Tokyo. But I'd like to know what your favorite places there are...

Congee Village might be the most fun place in Chinatown. Not the most serious, but the food is good. House special chicken is really fine. Ditto lotus root. Still, I continue to think that Noodletown is unbeatable for suckling pig, wonton soup and fried softshell crabs.

Swoon in Hudson is good.

Gougères Serves 8 as Appetizer. 1 c water 1/4 lb (8 tablespoons) unsalted butter 1-1/2 tsp salt 1-1/2 c all-purpose flour 5 eggs 1 c diced Gruyère cheese Pepper to taste 1/2 c grated Gruyère cheese Preheat the oven to 375°F. Combine the water, butter and a teaspoon of the salt in a saucepan and bring it to a boil, stirring until the butter melts. Remove the pan from the heat, let cool slightly, stir in the flour, and mix well. Return pan to the heat and stir with a wooden spoon over high heat until the mixture comes away from the sides of the pan. Remove from the heat. Stir in the eggs, one at a time until well combined. Add the diced cheese, the remaining 1/2 teaspoon salt, and pepper, stirring well. Drop the dough by rounded tablespoons onto a well-buttered baking pan. Smooth the top and sides of each gougère with a knife, and sprinkle with grated cheese. Bake in batches for 25 minutes, or until puffed and golden. Serve immediately. Excerpted from GARLIC AND SAPPHIRES by Ruth Reichl. Reprinted by arrangement with The Penguin Press. Copyright © Ruth Reichl, 2005. Keywords: Appetizer, Easy ( RG1501 )

Spaghetti Carbonara Serves 3 as Main Dish. Contrary to the recipe so often used in restaurants, real carbonara contains no cream. The real thing also uses guanciale, cured pork jowl, but to be honest, I like bacon better. I think of this as bacon and eggs with pasta instead of toast. It’s the perfect last-minute dinner, and I’ve yet to meet a child who doesn’t like it. 1 lb spaghetti 1/4 lb thickly sliced good-quality bacon (I prefer Nueske’s) 2 cloves garlic, peeled 2 large eggs Black pepper 1/2 c grated Parmigiano cheese, plus extra for the table Bring a large pot of salted water to a boil. When it is boiling, throw the spaghetti in. Most dried spaghetti takes 9 to 10 minutes to cook, and you can make the sauce in that time. Cut the bacon crosswise into pieces about 1/2 inch wide. Put them in a skillet and cook for 2 minutes, until fat begins to render. Add whole cloves of garlic and cook another 5 minutes, until the edges of the bacon just begin to crisp. Do not overcook; if they get too crisp, they won’t meld with the pasta. Meanwhile, break the eggs into the bowl you will serve the pasta in, and beat them with a fork. Add some grindings of pepper. Remove the garlic from the bacon pan. If it looks like too much fat to you, discard some, but you’re going to toss the bacon with most of its fat into the pasta. When it is cooked, drain the pasta and immediately throw it into the beaten eggs. Mix thoroughly. The heat of the spaghetti will cook the eggs and turn them into a sauce. Add the bacon with its fat, toss again, add cheese and serve. Excerpted from GARLIC AND SAPPHIRES by Ruth Reichl. Reprinted by arrangement with The Penguin Press. Copyright © Ruth Reichl, 2005. Keywords: Main Dish, Pasta ( RG1500 )

Matzo Brei Serves 2 as Side. 2 matzo crackers 2 eggs Salt 3 unsalted butter Set a colander inside a bowl (to catch the crumbs) and break the matzos into little pieces, dropping them into the colander. Remove the colander from the bowl and hold it beneath running water until matzos are damp. Allow them to drain; then put the damp matzos into a bowl. Break the eggs into the bowl and stir with a fork until mixed. Add salt to taste. Melt the butter in a small skillet over medium heat. When the foam subsides, add the matzo-egg mixture and cook, stirring constantly, for about 4 minutes, or until the egg is cooked and there are a few crispy little bits. Put on plates and serve at once. Excerpted from GARLIC AND SAPPHIRES by Ruth Reichl. Reprinted by arrangement with The Penguin Press. Copyright © Ruth Reichl, 2005. Keywords: Side ( RG1499 )