Online recipes v. cookbook recipes

[Fat Guy]

I wonder, have things progressed to the point where the internet provides better recipes than cookbooks?

Clearly, there's a lot of garbage online. But the savvy user has access to quite a lot of excellent sources. There's everything from the professional recipes from the magazine-driven websites (Gourmet, et al.) to hobbyist recipes that are quite rigorous.

Cookbooks, on the other hand, seem less reliable to me than they did in the past. With a few exceptions (like the magazine-produced books), cookbooks are the product of a single recipe tester (if the recipes are even tested). I think they're working with less time and money than ever before. The best cookbooks are still great, but very few of them make the cut.

It seems like the trend lines are moving. Whether they've crossed, I'm not sure. But if they haven't I think they will.

[MaxH]

I wonder, have things progressed to the point where the internet provides better recipes than cookbooks?

←

It's a good question. Some serious amateur cook friends get their best ideas from online sites like Epicurious. Print sources retain value when they bring something new to the party -- for example, cookbooks by experienced creative chefs.

A traditional issue behind US cookbook discussions is plagiarism. It was one of the tirades in the Hesses' famous late 20th-century critique. Also, the owner of a major US historical cookbook collection (exhibited periodically at the Smithsonian) says that little in modern US cookbooks is actually new. "They mainly take old recipes, update them and give them new names." Scrutinizing cookbooks for 50 years or so gave her rare insight into this. And Mary Anna DuSablon documented an explosion of new cookbook quantity, which is not all in the interest of consumers. The tide of new titles hides books that are oustanding and useful, but usually second-hand, inexpensive, and not pushed in bookstores or on TV.

[Miami Danny]

I wonder, have things progressed to the point where the internet provides better recipes than cookbooks?

←

It's a good question. Some serious amateur cook friends get their best ideas from online sites like Epicurious. Print sources retain value when they bring something new to the party -- for example, cookbooks by experienced creative chefs.

A traditional issue behind US cookbook discussions is plagiarism. It was one of the tirades in the Hesses' famous late 20th-century critique. Also, the owner of a major US historical cookbook collection (exhibited periodically at the Smithsonian) says that little in modern US cookbooks is actually new. "They mainly take old recipes, update them and give them new names." Scrutinizing cookbooks for 50 years or so gave her rare insight into this. And Mary Anna DuSablon documented an explosion of new cookbook quantity, which is not all in the interest of consumers. The tide of new titles hides books that are oustanding and useful, but usually second-hand, inexpensive, and not pushed in bookstores or on TV.

←

Cookbooks are not just sources for recipes, but for ideas; as well as for the evolution of ideas in cookery, which are often lacking online. Read Jasper White's or Laurent Tourondel's, or even Paul Prudhomme's early cookbooks, for example. I would also say that if my "one taster" is someone whose palate I know, understand, and respect (like Michel Richard or Jose Andres), that often trumps, for me anyway, anything else. Of course, I own a coupla hundred cookbooks and still often 'back up' my recipes with online ideas. So maybe the 'cookbook' is going the way of the...book.

[andiesenji]

I believe that in some cases internet recipe sources are better than the vast majority of cookbooks because they often are immediately critiqued and corrected if there is an error or a misstatement in ingredients, measurements or methods.

I have a fairly extensive collection of cookbooks (long ago lost count) and there is no way I can examine more than a very few to research a single recipe or group of similar recipes in those books. It is far easier to check my recipe against a plethora of online listings to see if it is authentic, if ethnic, proportions or ingredients are correct and directions are accurate.

There was a time, prior to the internet, that I had shelves full of separate notebooks with sections devoted to various types of foods and key to which cookbooks I should pull out to search for a particular recipe.

Frankly, I have no idea where those notebooks are now located - the shelves once occupied by them are now full of other stuff.

My organization skills have been supplanted by my skills in negotiating the maze of the internet.

And yes, I was an early subscriber to user groups with recipe listings and my CompuServe account fees used to run into the hundreds each month. (Not to mention Delphi, Genie, Prodigy and very briefly, AOL.) The first really intuitive site for recipes online was SOAR (The Searchable Online Archive of Recipes) which I found via BMUG and which is now Recipe Source.

Edited March 8, 2009 by andiesenji (log)

[MaxH]

And yes, I was an early subscriber to user groups with recipe listings and my CompuServe account fees used to run into the hundreds each month.  (Not to mention Delphi, Genie, Prodigy and very briefly, AOL.)

←

Historical note: The Internet proper (which I cited in another thread cross-referenced to this one) became gradually available through local ISPs (although with wide geographical variability) at the same time the competing "Private Networking" services (CompuServe, AOL, Delphi, Genie, Prodigy, etc.) were ascendant, late 1980s. Those services had their own forum and email services for paid subscribers. Internet fora were free to anyone with a modem, but were noncommercial and unadvertised. Salus's Internet history book documents how the private firms gradually granted subscribers access to the Internet in the 1990s, which in the meantime dwarfed them. By the late 1990s they'd all merged into it or became ISPs. Many of the Internet recipes I mentioned have been publicly online continuously since the 1980s.

[Alcuin]

Even though I probably shouldn't, I'm going to speculate on how writing/reading practices will change as a result of technological advance (something that has been constantly occurring for as long as the technology of writing has existed).

I can't count the number of times a week I'm reading a book and instinctively think to use it's search engine to find something, only to realize I'm stuck with an index that may or may not be well constructed or no index at all. Certain index-dependent kinds of books, such as recipe compendia like _The Joy of Cooking_, will probably become or be superseded by internet versions that are fully searchable.

I think that books that have a unifying principle (a theme or an author) will still work better in some ways than an internet counterpart could because books can still structure a reading experience better to provide a richer combination of guidance and exploration. The market for cookbooks will be smaller, but I think it will still exist for a while (how's that for a statement of the obvious).

[kayb]

I think that books that have a unifying principle (a theme or an author) will still work better in some ways than an internet counterpart could because books can still structure a reading experience better to provide a richer combination of guidance and exploration. The market for cookbooks will be smaller, but I think it will still exist for a while (how's that for a statement of the obvious).

←

Actually, pretty succinct. I do maybe half my cooking now from recipes from the internet; it's easy to search for an ingredient, or a technique, or a combination of the two, to get a collection of potential recipes for what I want, and I can peruse through them at my leisure. But I continue to buy cookbooks, as much to read (I will read one much as I do a novel) as to cook by. To learn the history, the background, the language of a food, or the science of a technique, or for fuller instructions in the "how-tos" of not specific recipes, but specific methods, so far, cookbooks cannot be touched.

I do have to find a simple way to reset the length of time my screen will stay live before the screensaver comes on, though, for those times that I move the laptop into the kitchen for regular reference. It's awkward, darting back and forth to my office or the den to check regularly.

[Fat Guy]

The reason I started this topic is that today we made Hamantashen (the triangular, jelly-filled cookies traditionally made for the Jewish holiday of Purim), and I did research both online and in several books, both baking books and Jewish cookbooks. I found the online research more straightforward, and I couldn't discern any qualitative improvement that could have resulted from using the cookbook recipes. Indeed, if we'd relied on just one cookbook we could have, depending on the cookbook, wound up with a pretty strange result. Whereas, cross-referencing several online recipes, it became clear quickly what the consensus approach is. It got me thinking that, for the past decade, I've been operating under the assumption that internet recipes are free but cookbook recipes offer superior quality. Thinking more about that assumption, I realized it may no longer be valid.

I agree with some of the comments above about chef cookbooks, however I'd hasten to add that in the overwhelming majority of cases the chef did not test the recipes. There is almost always a co-author who adapts the recipes. Busy chefs just don't have the time to do that kind of recipe testing. So take the recipes with a grain of salt unless you really know a given chef was very involved in the recipe testing.

Also, in terms of cookbooks being good for ideas, I think that's true of some cookbooks but for the past few years it has also been becoming true of many websites. I am now routinely getting a lot of my best ideas from online sources, eG Forums of course chief among them, but also from sites like http://www.ideasinfood.com/ and http://www.cookingforengineers.com/

I get a lot of cookbooks for free, as review copies. I have one of the bigger cookbook collections of anybody I know. But given all the available online materials, I'm not sure if, absent my supply of free books, I'd actually spend any money on cookbooks except for the occasional Alinea-type book.

[nickrey]

This question is likely to get different responses depending on the type and level of cook answering.

It seems that cookbooks will always be something that novice cooks can go to, perhaps following step-by-step instructions for a recipe and comparing their output with the pictures.

Intermediate and advanced cooks seem to go to books less to follow a recipe slavishly but rather for ideas or to explore a body of work and cooking philosophy (eg. Heston Blumenthal's Big Fat Duck cookbook or, as Fat Guy mentioned, the Alinea cookbook).

I think I was typing this response at the time that Fat Guy made his post so please forgive any repetition. I find more and more that I use the Internet to get ideas before cooking a dish. Once the selection is narrowed to recipes that seem to best capture the essence of the dish, I pick the best parts out of these recipes to create my approach. The Internet is probably better set up for this as you can use search engines to locate many recipes in a very short period of time.

I'd also like to reinforce the key role that eGullet can play in bringing our cooking alive. Knowledge can be broken into two different categories: explicit (what is written in recipe books) and tacit (knowledge that is acquired through experience and is hard to cover in a cook book). It is tacit knowledge that takes a recipe from average into the realms of excellence. I find contributions to eGullet perfect for the acquiring the hints on making dishes that take them this extra step.

[Miami Danny]

The reason I started this topic is that today we made Hamantashen (the triangular, jelly-filled cookies traditionally made for the Jewish holiday of Purim), and I did research both online and in several books, both baking books and Jewish cookbooks. I found the online research more straightforward, and I couldn't discern any qualitative improvement that could have resulted from using the cookbook recipes. Indeed, if we'd relied on just one cookbook we could have, depending on the cookbook, wound up with a pretty strange result. Whereas, cross-referencing several online recipes, it became clear quickly what the consensus approach is. It got me thinking that, for the past decade, I've been operating under the assumption that internet recipes are free but cookbook recipes offer superior quality. Thinking more about that assumption, I realized it may no longer be valid.

I agree with some of the comments above about chef cookbooks, however I'd hasten to add that in the overwhelming majority of cases the chef did not test the recipes. There is almost always a co-author who adapts the recipes. Busy chefs just don't have the time to do that kind of recipe testing. So take the recipes with a grain of salt unless you really know a given chef was very involved in the recipe testing.

Also, in terms of cookbooks being good for ideas, I think that's true of some cookbooks but for the past few years it has also been becoming true of many websites. I am now routinely getting a lot of my best ideas from online sources, eG Forums of course chief among them, but also from sites like http://www.ideasinfood.com/ and http://www.cookingforengineers.com/

I get a lot of cookbooks for free, as review copies. I have one of the bigger cookbook collections of anybody I know. But given all the available online materials, I'm not sure if, absent my supply of free books, I'd actually spend any money on cookbooks except for the occasional Alinea-type book.

←

While it is certainly true that chefs who 'write' cookbooks may not test or compile (or even create-see Les Halles Cookbook) all the recipes contained in them, the rationale behind the recipes is often more important than the specific measurements. But if I have a good cookbook, I know I have maybe 100+ good recipes in my hand-that's a good feeling. By the way, is it really possible that the recipe for hamentashen has been vastly improved over the years?

[paulraphael]

It's hard for me to generalize about he quality of recipes, as leaving well enough alone isn't one of my favorite kitchen activities.

In terms of the quality of reference information in books vs. online, that's a different story. I have a small selection of books that are like bibles. I lean on them for techniques, science, ingredient information, etc., and would feel a bit stranded without them. But more and more, I'm finding the internet to be a deeper well to draw from. Harold McGee's book might have a paragraph on a certain kind of starch, for example, but some tenacious googling might reveal a research paper, or page-long blog posting from a chef, on the same topic. These resources may or may not substitute for the book in every case. But they've become an invaluable supplement.

The net also makes me lazy. More than once I've found myself searching online for a recipe or article that I knew was in my bookshelves right across the room. ALL THE WAY across the room.

[snowangel]

Cookbooks, on the other hand, seem less reliable to me than they did in the past. With a few exceptions (like the magazine-produced books), cookbooks are the product of a single recipe tester (if the recipes are even tested).

←

I beg to differ on this one, at least with one cookbook. Several years ago, Paula Wolfert relied on many of us eG'ers to test some recipes from her first edition of "The Cooking of SW France" while she was working on the second version.

As to on-line recipes, sure I can and do use them, but since we don't have a laptop, I can't curl up with the desktop and read the stories and introductions. Some of the best parts of what makes, at least to me, a great cookbook are the stories. One of the reasons I've loved Paula, James Oselund, Molly Stevens and Maida Heatter, just to name a few.

[MaxH]

A saving factor here is that the content is recipes. They're less fragile than information like food history, science, etc. where online misinformation is a big issue, on Wikipedia for instance. Recipes are meant to be fiddled with*.

Change factual information and you may start a misconception. Change a recipe and it may improve!

* Except of course in the Guide Culinaire, where it's forbidden.

[ruthcooks]

[

I beg to differ on this one, at least with one cookbook.  Several years ago, Paula Wolfert relied on many of us eG'ers to test some recipes from her first edition of "The Cooking of SW France" while she was working on the second version.

As to on-line recipes, sure I can and do use them, but since we don't have a laptop, I can't curl up with the desktop and read the stories and introductions.  Some of the best parts of what makes, at least to me, a great cookbook are the stories.  One of the reasons I've loved Paula, James Oselund, Molly Stevens and Maida Heatter, just to name a few.

←

What she said.

Cookbooks for reading, internet for research. I want to hear the voice of the author, have a good idea if she/he agrees with my philosophy. For instance, if she says "butter, no substitute" she hooks me. If there are too many "butter or margarines" in there, (or even one "Cool Whip") she's out the door. If she's all about "no fat", no way. There are a few exceptions, like a person who has sampled a dish made by another, liked it and then found out it contained some sort of canned or packaged quasi-food item.

Too often internet recipes are copied from site to site, often with an ingredient or two being changed. You don't know if the version you see has two or ten changes, or if it even resembles the original. Much less if the "author" has even tried the new version.

Also, I like books by cooks, not chefs. Chefs today often cook for effect, with weird ingredients. They also have access to many more foods than the home cook. I don't relate to this method.

[cinghiale]

I think that books that have a unifying principle (a theme or an author) will still work better in some ways than an internet counterpart could because books can still structure a reading experience better to provide a richer combination of guidance and exploration.

I'd augment this with types of cuisine in which a cook is not entirely conversant. For instance, I'm planning a large Easter celebration, and my point of departure was (i) I want to prepare Greek food, and (ii) I want to roast an entire lamb. I opened up Kochilas (The Glorious Foods of Greece), and there in the index was a wealth of Easter cooking information – even on a region-by-region basis. And several ideas for roasting a lamb, including stuffed. A mention of one technique or ingredient has you paging back and forth, and quickly you have a good sense of how to compose a meal that is fairly "authentic" (i.e., traditional ingredients, spices and preparations). I'd suggest that this would be much more difficult using the internet alone.

The same holds true for me with, for example, Basque or Indian or Südtirol or Umbrian cooking, where I know a few dishes each. When I want to make a dish I remember from a region-specific cookbook, I always learn more about that cuisine just by paging through to the recipe. Again, sifting through the internet would I think be much more time-consuming and perhaps ultimately less satisfying and instructive.

[baroness]

Cookbooks for reading, internet for research.  I want to hear the voice of the author, have a good idea if she/he agrees with my philosophy.  For instance, if she says "butter, no substitute" she hooks me.  If there are too many "butter or margarines" in there, (or even one "Cool Whip") she's out the door.  If she's all about "no fat", no way.  There are a few exceptions, like a person who has sampled a dish made by another, liked it and then found out it contained some sort of canned or packaged quasi-food item.

Too often internet recipes are copied from site to site, often with an ingredient or two being changed.  You don't know if the version you see has two or ten changes, or if it even resembles the original.  Much less if the "author" has even tried the new version. 

When you find a 'good fit' with an author, there is no substitute. And, paging through books often leads to discoveries (sometimes wildly unrelated, but inspiring for other dishes) along the way.

Internet recipes are usually, as stated above, the same from site to site -- just with a new name or slight adjustment to an ingredient. I do search online, but rarely *use* those recipes...unless it's epicurious.com or the like and I've considered the recipe reviews.

[MaxH]

Cookbooks for reading, internet for research.

←

If even then. Food information online has the limitation of all information online: It didn't get online by its utility or accuracy but because someone put it there, with whatever motivation or agenda. So much basic information online is wrong (quotations, definitions, Wikipedia food history), and so much deeper information is absent.

Likewise, the motivations of publishers throwing books at you differ from your own. I have a few cookbooks myself but maybe a different set from those FG described above. They were mostly chosen deliberately, often used and out-of-print. They facilitate research. Asked for traditional Viennese Christmas Goose recipes and accompaniments, far away from Vienna, I went to the Austrian shelf and quickly checked classics described recently here.* How much would have been online I don't know, a lot isn't. A sense of history also comes from looking at cookbooks beyond the limitations of your own time.

Otherwise I wouldn't have learned that a local idiom there for a turkey, unlike other German-speaking countries, is Indian (per standard old pan-European "Indian chicken"). So, literally, "we're serving a roast Indian tonight." Maybe residents of the nation of Turkey feel the same incongruity when they see what we call the bird in English.