The making of my own cookbook

[gfron1]

Well, this one won't make it in the book but it was my menu closer for last night's NYE dinner, and the description I shared with the guests: 

 

Quote

 

Why is this the most important dish of my career? From the beginning I've valued flavor, innovation and conservation among all other things. By innovation I ask myself daily - how can I make food that uses local ingredients in unique ways. Early in my career I used no bought salt for 3 months relying on 4-wing salt bush foraged from the wilderness. By conservation I mean the impact on my foraging environment. I've always used crawfish from the Gila River because they are an invasive species that effects the survival of indigenous species. And to make this happen I've relied on local experts whether it be herbalists, the forest service staff or the university professors. This dish is the culmination of all of these values. And so here it is:

Gila Opulence

72-hour roasted cholla and mesquite bean mousse (Ben Lilly pond approach)

16-year Traditional, organic Balsamico (Monticello, NM)

Consommé of aspen bark (Railroad Trailhead, Black Range)

Gold leaf, panned and forged (Kingston, NM)

Gila Trout roe (Hatchery raised, Willow Creek) 

You will be hard pressed to find a more high-end and raw/pure dish anywhere, and certainly from the high desert of the Southwest

 

 

[gfron1]

Probably not going to be used but this is a pic we took today of my foraging mentor's feet. He hasn't worn shoes in 20 years.

 

[Shelby]

That is awesome.  I think you should use it.  

 

Plus, it makes me feel a whole lot better about the heels on my feet lol.

[gfron1]

We've been looking at cover art! (They still haven't asked for the manuscript) Fun process. My editor's response today is really interesting as always.

Quote

 

Thanks for these (my feedback to her)! I will discuss with my designer and editorial director and see what they say. The costliest of the bunch would’ve been the acorn with the die-cut, and fortunately you didn’t like that one at all, so that worked out well.

 

What are your thoughts on the cloth covers? My creative director noted that if it gets dirty, it tends to stay dirty, so most cookbooks avoid the cloth.

 

The half jacket will be more expensive to do than our full jackets, but we’ve already gotten that cost approved. We’ve set the price of this book at $##.00 for now. When we present the materials (temp cover, description, and your bio) at our presales meeting in early February, we’ll take feedback on everything from our distributor and see if we need to change the title, subtitle, cover, proposed layout, price, etc. Right now it’s all just preliminary; nothing you see is set in stone until they give us the go-ahead. (I.e., if the B&N buyer doesn’t like it, we redesign indefinitely.)

 

I’ll get the new subtitle approved and I should have a new round of covers for you to look at later next week, as the designer working on title will be on vacation for a few days.

 

They had changed my subtitle from A Modern Cookbook of Field, Forest & Farm to A Modern Cookbook of Field, Forest, Farm & Foraging. I understood why they wanted to highlight foraging, but it doesn't work for me there so I suggested; A Modern Foraging Cookbook of Field, Forest & Farm.

[IowaDee]

Foraging, Cooking from Field, Forest and Farm   Can't see what "Modern" adds  Just my two cents.....

[gfron1]

The reason I put Modern in is that most foraging cookbooks are casseroles and salads. This is most certainly not that.

[IowaDee]

Okay, that makes perfect sense.  

[JoNorvelleWalker]

How about simply "Field, Forrest, Farm"?  Abraham Lincoln demonstrated conjunctions were superfluous.

 

[Shalmanese]

What about:

 

  Field
 Forest
Farm
  a
  g
  e

?

[gfron1]

These are good suggestions. As you saw from her message, that decision is beyond her and me and this point..some mysterious decision maker gets to make the call. I'll pass the ideas along.

[gfron1]

My editor is finally requesting the manuscript. Does anyone want to read it before I send it off? I'd love to have a fresh set of eyes - not a editor's eyes, but a consumer's eyes.

 

ETA: I'm leaving my type-o in this post because I think its funny in the context of the post.

Edited January 19, 2016 by gfron1 (log)

[Kerry Beal]

I'd be happy to.

[heidih]

I would love to. What aspects of the manuscript are you looking for feedback on?

[vogelap]

55 minutes ago, gfron1 said:

My editor is finally requesting the manuscript. Does anyone want to read it before I send it off? I'd love to have a fresh set of eyes - not a editor's eyes, but a consumer's eyes.

It would be my pleasure. Let me know how I can assist.

[gfron1]

I rcvd a PM and sent the manuscript off already, so thank you for all those offers. This should be the last time I need a set of eyes other than the editors..let's hope anyway.

 

 

[Tri2Cook]

I'm not a good proof-reader or I would have volunteered. When I read, I tend to correct things and fill in information I think should be there in my head without even realizing I did it. So I frequently don't even notice the things people want me to notice when proof-reading because they just fix themselves at the input area before they ever reach the processing department.

[gfron1]

I gotta say the person who is reading it for me right now is kicking my ass in a great way. Its interesting how different people find different things. Each read has made it better, and that's all that matters in the end. I will give it one final ready on Sunday morning - with nearly a year behind me and very fresh eyes. Some essays were written nearly two years ago, and others just weeks ago. So much has happened in that year and I'm ready to hand it over and get to the next phase.

[Kerry Beal]

Anna N is a good proof reader - she'd kick your ass too! She's my own personal wordsmith.

[gfron1]

As of 8:35 this morning I understand the difference between a proof reader and an editor. I will never look back. Thank you Shalmanese.

[gfron1]

I've been sharing mucho mucho information on eG because I have history on this board. I don't post anything more than announcements on my Facebook page, but here I think as a community we value the learning opportunity. I say all that because I'm comfortable sharing weaknesses and flaws.

 

Today I sent the manuscript to my editor. That means I can't touch it until I get her feedback. I scrambled to make updates the past few days based on Shalmanese's feedback. There were two concerns that I wanted to address in this revision. The first has to do with the recipes themselves. Shalmanese found some glaring concerns which will need to be fixed. I've been somewhat passive on my recipes because I know that the editor is going to prescribe a format which I'll have to re-work all of the recipe anyway. That was less of a concern to me, but I know that it will be a big task when I get the editor's revisions.

 

The second issue (and I'm curious what previous readers think about this) is that the introductory paragraphs seemed intimidating, especially in contrast to the very doable recipes. In fact, Shalmanese said something to the effect of - I wouldn't even get to the recipes because of how daunting the essays made foraging seem. I knew immediately that this was my shift from targeting advanced cooks and chefs to a broader cooking audience. 

 

Its that balance between sales and the purity of art. And in this case, I don't want to encourage unsafe and unethical foragers, but I do want people to get out there and try gathering.

 

The learning I want to share is about whether to send a problematic manuscript to the editor (her first exposure to it) or to delay submission and keep reworking the document in light of the new feedback (potentially delaying publication). Shalmanese recommended waiting until it was in better shape. My spouse, who worked for Wiley Publishing for many years, but many years ago in a different era of publishing, said to just send it. His thought is that this is the editor's job - fix broken manuscripts.

 

Not knowing what the best solution was, I sent it with a note explaining that I didn't know what she would prefer, and the lingering concerns, and she should just let me know what is best for her schedule. And that's where it sits. She acknowledged receipt, and that she would read it with those concerns in mind. I'll let you all know how it goes.

[heidih]

Perfection is not the goal. You have great ideas and I think that even giving someone the idea of foraging or expanding their horizons is a big deal. Perhaps because I am not a recipe driven cook the idea of new ideas appeals to me even if I will never forage an "X". But I will forage wild fennel and chrysanthemum and mallow etc. and take inspiration from you,  The classic New Yorker article  (behind pay wall) about a trip eating off the land with Euell Gibbons gave me ideas about ingredient use but I would not hunt the specific ones down as I am nowhere near.  I say go for it.

 

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1968/04/06/a-forager

[Smithy]

It sounds like you've already sent it in, so the discussion is moot, but I would also have said "go for it".  The essays didn't strike me as especially daunting; on the other hand, I missed those 'glaring concerns' that Shalmanese caught, so his eye seems better than mine. Do please keep informing us to the extent that you can.  This is a fascinating process.

[gfron1]

My spouse tried to explain the various levels of editor to me once ranging from content development editor down to the lowly proofreader. All are necessary and all have their lens focused on different things. I was tempted to not say anything to my editor about Shalmanese's comments just to see what her focus would be on...but I chickened out.

[MelissaH]

10 hours ago, gfron1 said:

My spouse tried to explain the various levels of editor to me once ranging from content development editor down to the lowly proofreader. All are necessary and all have their lens focused on different things. I was tempted to not say anything to my editor about Shalmanese's comments just to see what her focus would be on...but I chickened out.

I must jump in here. Proofreaders are NOT lowly! We're the last step in the process of making sure your book is as close to flawless as possible. Saying a proofreader is "lowly" is about like saying the last person who looks at a plate to make sure it's perfect, that every leaf and drop of sauce are in the right place, before it leaves your restaurant's kitchen to go to a customer is "lowly." We're the ones who make sure you don't have any embarrassing spelling errors (especially the ones that don't get caught by Spell Check, like leaving the L out of the word public), that you don't wind up with a hyphenated word at the very end of a page (or, for that matter, that words aren't incorrectly hyphenated), that you don't have widows or orphans, that all the capital letter Os are in fact the letter O and not the number 0, that everything is in the proper font, that everything is properly cross-referenced (none of this "see page xxx" where the xxx didn't get replaced by an actual page number nonsense!) and all the other things that affect the overall appearance and quality of the book.

 

I have done pretty much every phase of the editing process, albeit on a smaller scale than your publisher. Every phase is necessary, and none is any less important than any other. If you want us to fix your recipes, be nice to all of us.

[gfron1]

I said lowly in the context of my spouse having been one, and he said in the office they were the low-man. I've had so many proofreaders find so many errors over the course of this project and every single one of them is praised in the thank you section  It was just tongue and cheek.