Michael Ruhlman

whether to use the cat food comment was debated. everyone thought it, todd said it, worth using but not worth shaming somebody outright--there it is. the contestants did a lot of sitting around waiting to be judged, that looked like the hardest part. days were pretty much filled. they went out to dinner together, they didn't stay out late and got up early. they were working. but it was also disorienting for them, I think. it was hard, no question. just because yannick is french doesnt mean that he's an expert at french technique. shows how much of the world is becoming americanized, sadly. I would like to add that yannick was a pleasure to work with. cheerful and funny. I think with his pepin like accent and good looks he could do TV. the ground rules for the terrine day were that they had about a half hour to get their mise together and think a game plan through and could ask me anything they wanted. once they got going they were allowed one prevent-disaster question. the pages they got talked about what an emulsification was. it should be intuitive for a cook that, when incorporating fat into something not-fat, you do so slowly. the mouselline forcemeat is one of the easiest and most stable to do at home. he should have been able to do it--he had a recipe as well as the mouselline ratio. his flavors were off, the consistancy was off, the plating was weak. the only thing off for katie was the consistancy, flavor was great, and bottom line, is flavor. it's got to taste good.

Angela, I've heard the same from others and it really chaps my ass that pbs goes to the trouble of trying to make and promote a show and then takes it off the air. complain to channel 13. alexP, as for the terrine show, the 7 noble cooks got a chapter on terrines from me last minute. difficult, because we were all flying in from vegas. the terrine takes some care and skill but is not difficult. as as they were all working cooks, we expected them to be able to handle it, given basic guidelines, which the pages they got contained. and they did do well, better than expected in fact, except for two of them. five were good to excellent. what you don't see because of the half-hour shackle was that katie's terrine was like soupy pudding. you couldn't serve it. yannick's salmon terrine looked good but it was broken, separated, so it felt grainy, which is not fun to have in your mouth. but most important, it didn't taste good. neither were servable in a restaurant. but: katie's tasted so good (she'd infused her cream with the shellfish, things like that), and in a restaurant, you might have been able to serve it in a ramekin as a rillette or something--that is, it was salvagable. the other was not. thus the 86. but it was real cooking and i was there to do all i could to make them succeed to their best abilities so that they could be judged on what was their best, not on some phony reality scenario. people who don't like the show or criticize it for whatever visceral reason--I don't disagree or have a problem with, because it really was done as honestly as possible (perhaps too honestly), nothing of significance is hidden from the viewer, they were all really cooking and all working hard. and lighten up on todd. you who are perfect, etc... he's a good cook and a pleasure to work with. i'd cook under him any day. (ming's a different story, of course.)

aha! but not on pbs.org will you find my killer pate en terrine recipe, from an up-coming, harrowing cliff-hanger of an episode....

I very much hope that this season was just a trial run for a better longer show. I think the shows will only get better, though, as there are fewer stories to try to cover and so they can be done a little more fully.

the terrible time constraints and the need to tell complete stories that are accurate and true. very difficult in a half hour.

It's great to read these comments. here are mine. Sara was criticized for not fabricating her fish well--if she had done it well, it wouldn't have mattered if she'd used chopsticks. and she wasn't criticized because three minutes late was not egregious and it was perfectly prepared once she got it off the bone. had she been 15 minutes late, she'd have been gone. the phyllo crust was excellent--light and crisp, not heavy. Mina lets phyllo sit and dry out completely and breaks it up. it works. mina knows how to salt food. yannick did not. that he furthermore criticized the chef I thought was astonishing and hilarious. what the frustrating length of the show prevented you from seeing was how good mina was in critiquing each dish. He was really on the money on every little facet of the dish and of the cooking, the sequence of events, how they kept their stations. i hadn't met mina before but i was really impressed.

i had to cook multiple eggs not one, pal. fried. couldn't do it to save my fuckin life. MT and TE? those celeb chefs are no help when you put em near real food.

as much as I've wanted to cover other schools I just haven't been able to.

Excuse me for asking, but whose fault is that...? Your fan, m

all good journalists need their snitches, thanks! my guess is about a fifth of the book will take place at the cia.

This actually made it more difficult. I can walk for days through my beloved cleveland and no one will know (or care) who I am, alas. But at the CIA, I'm...well, let's just say I get a momentary glimpse of what it's like to be Bourdain. Unless Bourdain is there, in which case, I'm back to being me again as the students swarm on him like flies to ... nevermind. (I'm not jealous, really!) Being back at the CIA good for the ego, but it sucks for actually gathering the info I need since I prefer to be inconspicuous. It can also be embarrassing when i try to help out on the line and completely fuck up the eggs. The place changed my life, too, so there's a bit of the can't-go-home-againness to the experience.

I'm at work on another book about the continuing evolution of the chef in american culture. I do revisit the CIA to look at how things have changed there and how those changes reflect larger changes in the industry. book won't be out for a year at least. Please keep your pristine copy of making of a chef close to your heart.

sad, but true...

I've heard that, too.

the tastes were extraordinary and if they weren't they were always interesting. cashews and crab and raw parnsip? who'd have thought that? bison and beets, alternating in a crate and barrel votive holder with bison and blueberries? some of the best beef i've had, with anchovy, worchestershire, chive puree if i recall right, potato puree, orange zest, and several other flavors and textures, a bizarre tasting of vanilla pudding followed by fava puree followed by bulgar wheat and sharply fried garlic followed by a dried plum puree (i believe) with olive and coffee, followed by pumpernickle--each successive one in a hollowed out heart of palm--one course--and i didn't even mention the ganrish on top (the vanilla pudding had thai chili and avacado, of all things), the wonderful hazelnut dessert--some tube over something creamy, you crack it open and stuff spills out and you taste it, and it tastes nutty and good and comforting but strange also, apricots, puffed wild rice maybe, yogurt--and suddenly you realize you're eating breakfast, a yogurt and granola breakfast. you could say such things about every each dish. the frog legs with morels and a saffron vinaigrette, fantastic. did some courses miss--one or two did for me. but shit, he's swinging for the fences on every one. he, and every bit as important, the fifteen other cooks in the kitchen, are working at a really high and impressive level. It's been four days since I ate there and I only find my respect for what grant and his partners and his staff have done increasing.

jinmyo, i can only ask for your forgiveness. touaregsand, don't be such a sourpuss. can't comment other than that. i missed last night's show. in chicago watching the opening of alinea, grant achatz's new restaurant. followed by dinner there. i'm too close to grant and his food to be a reliable critic, but my morning after conviction is this: Alinea on its first night was better than Trio on its last night.

My hope is that there will be a second season ("they" seem to be talking about it), and I know there will be a rise in the number who try out, and thus an increase in talent. My hope is that we get increasingly more skill and experience creating greater more dramatic more meaningful competition (though that will happen as this series progresses) for a greater reward and responsibility at the end. but who can say? I still don't have a clue how TEEvee works.

All your comments are fantastic--even busboy's. Love reading them and they're helpful and taken as a whole portray the show as a whole. Come on, it's TEEvee--on a PBS budget no less. On the other hand, I'm truly hoping the next episodes pick up more cooking info and drama as guest chef enter the picture and we get to know some of the personalities of the finalists. I haven't seen the next episode but I'm very hopeful that the shows only pick up momentum. Thank you all for commenting. I'm compelled to say something about Todd. I too had no idea what to expect from him or what he'd be like, and felt cautious. He turned out to be a genuine pleasure to work with, was unexpectedly hilarious off camera, and very generous besides. It's harder than it looks to "act natural" on camera, so give him some slack. After all, strip away all the restaurants the blackberry and the hair gel, and he's a cook's cook at his core.

So now it's the journalist's fault? Top chefs are taking money/products to put someone's food on their menus and sometimes NOT telling their customers, and that's not news? This was a timely story that got to a lot of people who were shocked that their beloved chefs were doing this. That is news. And I'm sure from now on, chef's will be revealing their sponsorship deals, which is a good thing. Many people were probably unaware of these deals, even if they are public knowledge. Personally, I doubt anything nefarious is going on, but it's good to have it out in the open. ← I think it's good to have out in the open, too, I just wish the reporter knew more about her subject and had approached it in way that showed how complex the situation was. robyn, you make good points about knowing why a reporter is asking you questions and I believe they have an obligation to be honest when you ask.

I was in ny monday for the cooking show premiere party, had lunch with Ming and mentioned the article. He was infuriated by it, noting quotes used out of context, duplicitous tactics on the part of the reporter (fawning in order to conceal her motives), and unbalanced use of info to support her point. Maybe Ming's just being sensitive--we were working our way through the excellent rose section of casa mono's great wine list (and awesome food), and ming was kind of unintelligible by the end, but having now worked with the guy and understanding the nature of his work, both at his restaurant and in TV, can vouch for his integrity. What I find most disturbing about the article is the laziness of the reporting and the habit of writers' coming up with a premise (in this case our beloved celeb chefs are duping us) and then pursuing info to support the premise, regardless of the more nuanced and difficult answers. It's an incomplete and biased view of a broader phenomenon and therefore harmful to readers, harmful to the chefs and their businesses, and harmful to readers who want the whole picture. I love the journal's writing and reporting but this is emblematic of the mediocrity so common in journalism today.

I expect honest reactions from you folks. Reviews have been across the board, from pans to thumbs way up. TV guide gave it a very high rating, better than the estimable Penn and Teller, in fact. Wash Post said good show but notes that the judges are not professional entertainers and it shows (wooden I think was the word--regarding myself, in fact, the great white lummox, it's certainly true, though I learn as I go, and I daresay become quite fashionable by episode 6). Other reasons for pans were, same old cheesy reality show gimmicks, or reality-show lite. I do know the show gets stronger with each successive one. There was very little scripting (except when the wooden hosts or the great white lummox had to convey actual information) and nothing was staged. I think it will grow stronger as other chefs become a part of each episode. So again--if you watch do so with an open mind. Then feel free razor away...except for you bourdain, if you're reading this on your blackberry as your rickshaw tools down a cobblestone alley, or vegas is off and I'm sending Todd in my stead...

russ, this may be confidential info, but would you mind saying how many copies of the book were sold or printed in hard and soft cover. i'd heard the book did very well and it would be helpful to know what 'very well' means. if you don't mind, very curious. michael

something the rest of us can only aspire to. ← on open mic night?

i still gotta work for a living bourdain. my advice to you is get off your lazy ass and write books. god gave you gift, the reason for which is mysterious but so be it. all this tv and travel and even the disposable magazine articles, diverting thought they are, not to mention the extra curriculars with go with corrupt media life of limos and babes and free flowing gray goose, is going to kill what you have. you'll be washed up in a jones st bar trying to play working man's hero on a six string to a lot of NYU film students before you're 50.

There were 3,140 cookbooks published last year in America, according to a prominent database. More than in any other year ever. That’s an astonishing number. My biggest advice to anyone setting out to do this is to ask Has this been done already and then, Why do why need another cookbook? I’m not saying we don’t, only that you have to be able to answer that question emphatically and passionately. Unless you’re Rachael Ray or Thomas Keller, you’re unlikely to make money from a cookbook. So: you write a cookbook because you must, because you will implode if you don’t, because it’s your passion, because you are something of a lunatic (which is fine, and not up to you anyway). I hate writing cookbooks, and I’m still doing it. I love the specialty of charcuterie and so am finishing that book now, a love song to a great culinary craft, to salt, to animal fat, to the pig. It should be no surprise that I couldn’t lease a car from the advance I and my friend Brian Polcyn received for it from Norton. Indeed it was really hard to sell—and I’m no longer a stranger in this world; we only sold it because there was an editor out there as lunatic as we were. But it was great fun to write, and a great way to educate myself about the finer points of the craft. That’s the best part of writing a book, it’s an education. Yes, you need an agent for all the reasons already stated. An agent also will help you if your editor leaves the house mid project or if you’re unhappy with the way it’s being produced. An agent is your best advocate and has considerably more muscle than you, and you don’t want to spend your time reading contracts or haggling over money (especially if you’re collaborating with a chef, who must be your friend during the project). Jamiemaw, how may copies was that first run? What is a lot of copies? Rule of thumb: it’s hard to sell 10,000 copies of a book. If you sell 30,000 that’s really really good. 50,000 is extraordinary. The French Laundry Cookbook, there are now, I believe 300,000 copies in print, this is a fluke and a phenomenon. Just some perspective. Rachael Ray can sell 4,000 books in a weekend, every weekend, just by showing up. Where are cookbooks headed? I think they’re more and more telling stories and this is good and this is why they’re valuable. I’m not much of a recipe person—recipes are a dime a dozen. Stories are unique. Part of how we can get at story, though, is through the eccentricities and finer points of a recipe. This is most valuable part of a recipe in a cookbook to me. Soul of a Chef and Making were solo efforts, and not cookbooks. I’m writing a third right now—and it’s sheer heaven to work alone, but also precarious and nerve-racking. FLC was a unique and wonderful assignment (a gift from God, in fact, to a writer who at the time was virtually unpublished in the food world). I wrote that whole book in third person, non-fiction narrative style (and reported it the way I would report any non-fiction story). The editor asked me to rewrite it in first-person Thomas because it would sell better, so I did. I don’t consider it to be ghost written (perhaps ghost edited). I’m very protective and proud of that work. Bouchon is completely ghost written—that was the intent all along. I’m proud of that as well, but in a different way (it’s also my favorite book to cook from, when I cook from a book). A Return to Cooking was such a bizarre and unlikely project, I couldn’t say no to the exuberant and articulate and very talented Eric Ripert. They are all great fun to write, and they grow increasingly nightmarish as the editors get their hands on your manuscript. That may simply be the nature of the beast. I wish every one who attempts a book good luck and stamina. Get it right, because once it’s published, it’s permanent.