ferdlisky

I *loathe* Regina Schrambling's pieces in the LA Times. While I think the food community, like all other niche communities, is as bitchy and cliquish as they come, she deserves this. I was glad to see that he pointed out her two most gratuitous pieces of bilge, the inexplicably stupid turkey piece and the worthy-of-an-editorial-assistant-of-limited-talent-TV-Dinner piece. Her articles are a waste of space. The LA Times has two fabulous food writers--Russ Parsons and Emily Green. Why Regina Schrambling has been brought into the mix is beyond me. I like what the new editor has done with the section, EXCEPT for her bizarre devotion to Schrambling.

there was a great piece on Martha in a recent New Yorker. Not a lot of servant slapping, but I wouldn't put it past her

I've heard that she did a LOT more than jsut lend her name to the project. Apparantly, she was extremely hands on, to the point of driving people insane. By the way, I don't mean this as a criticism. I admire her in many ways. Professionally, that is.

I use Epicurious all the time as a recipe resource. I don't keep my Gourmets or BAs, since all the recipes since the late 80s/early 90s are on the web site (except for recipes from developers who keep the copyright to their recipes). The reviews are a double-eged sword. If you can wade through the idiots (the ones who haven't made the recipe, but feel obliged to post a comment along the lines of "this is too fattening!", or the ubiquitous reviewers who change everything in the recipe and then bitch that it didn't turn out), there are usually a few good comments. The forums, by the way, are atrocious. I'm amazed anyone uses them. My understanding of how Epicurious works is that although it is owned by Conde Nast, it is completely independent of the magazines, by which I mean the magazine's send the site their recipes and epicurious uses them as it sees fit. It is run on a complete shoestring. Hardly any staff at all. [edited for sense. I hope]

I realize this is quite an old thread, but I am heading to Venice in a month or so... and I've found this conversation incredibly useful in planning the eating part of my trip. Has anybody been back recently? I'd be interested in any updates, if there are any. thanks!

Hmmm our own mag? You mean build a better mousetrap? Hop, that's a great idea! I think it's worth a shot! All Chicago food great, small and everything in between. We don't sound like Mickey Rooney and Judy Garland, do we? How about a network of local food mags--administered/underwritten by one big company, but run by small local operations (economies of scale...)

Bon Appetit seems to make some effort to cover restaurants outside NY/LA (granted, they're not really focussed on restaurants in their coverage). The Feb issue has a section called Restaurant Reporter that covers Philadelphia, Florida, Hawaii, and LA, as well as North Italy. And I'm pretty sure I've seen articles on dining out in places like Salt Lake City, Cleveland, Denver, etc.

Have to agree with Lucques--it's fab. As is Josie. Those are probably my two favorite places in LA at the moment, along with Angelini. But why the emphasis on fine dining, as they say in the newspapers. How about tamales at Guelaguetza? Or Korean bbq in Korea town?

To those who like Australian Vogue and Entertaining, I actually think another Australian magazine, Australian Gourmet Traveller, is better (it's no relation to U.S. Gourmet). As far as Cook's Illustrated goes, am I the only one who is thoroughly bored with it? I had an intense love affair with the magazine when it was first launched, but now it just makes me roll my eyes. Any magazine that can claim to have "The Best" recipe for something is completely lacking in any sense of creativity or excitement (what, we're all supposed to stop experimenting and cooking because we have THE BEST mac and cheese recipe?). Also, Christopher Kimball's editorials are just plain silly. The man seems to be a parody of himself. As for the recipes, I think their baking is good, and they should forever be held in esteem for introducing brining to the masses, but I'm just not that impressed with the rest of the food. It's rather, well...boring. I'm kind of in the minority on Ruth Reichl's Gourmet. Kind of a mess (boy do they need some good editors there--both on the conceptual and line-editing front) but fresh, new, interesting ideas, and the recipes are the kinds of things that make me want to get into the kitchen and cook.

All the Donna Hay books (in fact, most Australian cookbooks/food magazines) are gorgeous. And the food's pretty good, too.

Just finished the The Leopard, by Giovanni di Lampedusa (I probably have that wrong). I've been on a huge Sicily kick, and particularly Sicilian food, so this was a great addition to Mary Taylor Simetti, Anna Tasca Lanza, etc. I have Eat Fat by Richard Klein on my bookshelf... someone gave it to me. Anybody here read it? Recommend it? And should I be insulted that a colleague thought this would be an appropriate Secret Santa gift for me?

I think the new generation of slow cookers can cook at a much higher temp than the old generation, which were known for barely getting dishes lukewarm. I know mine can get quite hot. Probably done for food-safety reasons.

Crock pot--sorry--slow cooker snobbery has always left me somewhat puzzled. Long slow cooking has been a form of cooking for, well, thousands of years. What difference does it make whether it's in a slow cooker, in the embers of a fire, in the local baker's oven, or in your Aga cooker? The problem is not the vessel (unless you have a really crappy one that doesn't work properly), it's the recipes. Most slow cooker recipes are just disgusting! have you ever looked at a book of slow cooker recipes???? Let's just say there's a lot of Campbells cream soups involved and leave it at that. I use my slow cooker all the time for soups, stews, pot roasts, braises. I've made dulce de leche in it too, which worked pretty well. And after reading this thread, you can bet I'll be caramelizing onions. As for converting recipes, all I do is cut back a bit on the liquid called for. Don't seem to have to do much more than that.

The problem with a food magazine such as the one that has been described (The Atlantic Monthly but about food), is that a large portion of people who subscribe to food magazines want recipes. Recipes, recipes, and more recipes, and anything that gets in the way of the recipes is considered irrelevant and not read. Now, I'm not talking about the bulk of egullet readers--I would agree that the people on this forum do want to think, read, reflect on food besides getting into the kitchen and rattling those pots and pans. However, in terms of the economics of publishing, the number of people who would subscribe to such a magazine would be small--say 300,000 if you were very lucky. Advertising rates would be low and in turn that would mean the staff would be paid very, very little (is that fair? and could you attract the best talent?), and there would be no budget for good paper and gorgeous photography or illustrations, just the kind of production values that such an audience would desire. Why do you think Saveur is in such trouble? It has been the best consumer food mag for several years, but they must be hemorrhaging (sp?) money. I think it has really taken a turn for the worse since it was sold, and can you blame the staff? They must be so demoralized. What we need is a publisher who is willing to let a serious food magazine exist with a small, controlled audience. In the hands of a Time Warner or Conde Nast, the demand is for tight budgets and increasing profits each year. That means a constantly growing audience, which means a constant shift to the middle. OK, rant over.