Weird stuff in Gourmet magazine

JohnnyH · July 28, 2003

I read the review of WD-50 in the latest issue, and I didn't think it was particularly scathing or too harsh. At least not when one compares it to the review of Atlas. I would have to say that I wasn't particularly impressed with the overall writing, but, hey, what can you do?

It is so rarely that the Gourmet critic really criticizes a restaurant that I thought this a pretty scathing review. I was skeptical about WD50 but enjoyed my dinner there a couple of weeks ago. There were four of us and we took several dishes and shared them all. I have to admit that we did not order any of the dishes that the Gourmet reviewer did not like. This was pure serendipity as the review came out a few days later. Still it does seem he was unnecessarily hard on them. Does anyone know anything about this reviewer?

Is the review of WD50 available online?

ballast_regime · July 28, 2003

JohnnyH:

Gourmet almost never puts their restaurant reviews or features online. The best way to read all of them is to buy back issues from libraries. Because I have scoured approximately six libraries, I have been able to own every single issue of Gourmet for the past fifteen years.

Much peace,

IML

b/r

paw · August 1, 2003

Gourmet has been doing stories like the fair-trade and jamaican coffee pieces ever since Ruth Reichl arrived. I'd like to suggest a somewhat more sympathetic reading of the situation. Ruth charged into the magazine, determined to bring it into the modern world. Her assumption, I believe, was that the world was full of people who took food just as seriously as she did. Hence, the investigative pieces, the emphasis on journalism over old-fashioned "ah-the-good-life" food stories. But then I believe she smacked her head against an uncomfortable reality, which is that Gourmet is a mass-market publication, not a niche magazine. And the mass market goes to a food magazine for help in figuring out what to make for dinner tonight, and perhaps for a bit of fantasy about a lovely holiday on the amalfi coast. Editing a magazine for hard-core foodies wasn't going to give her the 900,000 circulation she needed. So the negative, feel-bad journalism got pushed way down in the mix, and although it's still there, it's even more at odds with all the mainstream stuff than it was a couple years ago. Which is why, I think, it sticks out.

fresco · August 1, 2003

Paw,

Think there is a lot of truth in what you say. But I also think there is a fair bit of evidence that she is either losing interest or losing some internal battles about focus and content, neither of which is good for either her or Gourmet. And while Gourmet's circulation hovers around 900,000, Bon Appetit and Cooking Light outsell it by about 300,000 or so. So what does that make it--mid-mass market? Not huge numbers, in any case, for a mature food magazine in the U.S. but I guess not really a niche publication either.

ferdlisky · August 28, 2003

OK.I don't get it. What's up with the TV issue? I like several of the articles in this issue, but the food is stupid. Are the editors just bored or what?

fresco · August 28, 2003

OK.I don't get it. What's up with the TV issue? I like several of the articles in this issue, but the food is stupid. Are the editors just bored or what?

Newsstand?

jwagnerdsm · August 28, 2003

Interesting post. Being a fairly new member, I hadn't seen it until today. I remember the first issue that Reichl edited. I was ready to quit my subscription before that but liked the fresher ideas and decided to give it another year. I've been mostly pleased with the changes. I still think Saveur is the most engaging of the food magazines out there. It's a real celebration of food, a little quirky, authorative without being condescending. Bon Appetit, on the other hand, is the magazine I'm least likely to pick up these days. I am so tired of 40 ingredient recipes. I like a challenge as much as the next home cook, but I'd like to see a few ideas that won't take me three hours to cook.

Raynickben · August 28, 2003

I am letting my subscription to Gourmet lapse also. After so many years of looking forward to reading it now I often put it to the side until I HAVE to read it because the next issue has arrived. I think it was "dumbed down" for the masses and ignores the true gourmets that relished every word in it. I usually find more of interest in Food and Wine but their last issue was lame too.

So now I turn to egullet! Thank YOU!

Callipygos · August 28, 2003

I read the review of WD-50 in the latest issue, and I didn't think it was particularly scathing or too harsh.

On a tangent -- there's no online link I see now, but can you give a more detailed summary? I'd never be able to afford eating there in this lifetime, but WD-50 is on my block and I'm curious.

I live on a street that when I moved in ten years ago was kind of "wrong side of the tracks" but has now become the city's second "restaurant row". It's been fascinating from a sociological standpoint. Especially since all of these restaurants have only sprung up within the past year -- actually, you want whiplash, THIS is whiplash.

Edited August 28, 2003 by Callipygos (log)

Lesley C · August 28, 2003

I had to go to the hospital the other day and brought along 6 issues of this year's Gourmets I hadn't really read through. Besides the Sterns (who I don't think are that interesting or belong in that magazine) I was completely taken with the articles. There's a good mix of features and a bunch of recipes I tagged. I enjoyed a vanilla story, that coffee story, and would love to see a Chilean sea bass story in there some day.

I don't know why it takes a long wait at the hospital or a plane trip to sit down and read that magazine. I used to tear through it the minute it arrived. Hmm.. guess I was younger, thinner, and a bit more enthusiastic. But from now on I'll make time to read it cover to cover, not just skim through.

(can't say I'm that taken with the TV issue though.... :hmmm: Pork chops and apple sauce from the Brady Bunch in Gourmet! :shock: )

fresco · August 28, 2003

The only consumer magazine that seems to be able to do "theme" issues well is the New Yorker, and some of their efforts suck.

That said, Gourmet's Food and Television issue is getting a lot of attention, at least on eGullet--it's also mentioned, unfavorably, on the thread about Bourdain's cruise line piece.

My impression of this issue is that it is the result of one of those head-scratching sessions in which the question is posed, "What is the theme that will appeal to the broadest cross section of potential readers?"

Haven't read the whole thing, but one or two stories are interesting, including the one on the founder of the Food Network. But overall, the issue is a laundry list of pairings of "food" and "television" and some are either a stretch (obscure or has-been TV personalities who started their own California wine labels) or vastly overdone (Saveur, for instance, would probably have handled the 50th anniversary of Swanson's TV dinners in about 100 words, which is about what it is worth.)

That it was thrown together without a lot of thought or planning is, I think, particularly evident in the piece that appears under Sara Moulton's byline. It starts with a quite irrelevant crotch reference, and ends with one, which is at least one too many. The piece reads as if it were put together by some hired ghost, probably male and in a hurry, based on a quick interview with Ms. Moulton.

And this may be my particular pet peeve, but I am mighty sick of the Sterns venturing forth every month and mostly finding hamburgers.

ferdlisky · August 29, 2003

Bon Appetit, on the other hand, is the magazine I'm least likely to pick up these days. I am so tired of 40 ingredient recipes. I like a challenge as much as the next home cook, but I'd like to see a few ideas that won't take me three hours to cook.

have you looked at BA recently? after reading your post, I looked through the last few issues, and they are the one magazine that almost never does 40-ingredient recipes. In fact, their food seems deliberately middle of the road, get all the stuff at the supermarket, make it in an hour. A little dumbed down IMHO

I get all the food mags (OK, I'm obsessed), and I am just not understanding Gourmet. I want to like it, and often I do, but I have to agree with Fresco on this issue. Editors run amok; the magazine sacrificed on the alter of "hey, we're bored. let's do something cool." And kind of behind the curve, don't you think? That whole retro things seems so... I don't know, last century.

And I don't think newstand is the reason they did this. When I saw this on the newsstand, it just made me scratch my head. Newstand sales have to appeal to the lowest common denominator, which in the epicurean category, means people who want to cook (or eat) luscious food. The people who read it for the articles are already subscribers. So, say I'm a browsing food lover, why would I give a rat's ass about TV? :wacko:

fresco · September 27, 2003

The October issue is pretty conclusive proof that Ruth Reichl should quit playing at being an editor and get back to writing about food.

vengroff · September 27, 2003

The October issue is pretty conclusive proof that Ruth Reichl should quit playing at being an editor and get back to writing about food.

Not happy with the rock star chef cover?

Ripert's the only one who looks like he is really getting into it.

fresco · September 27, 2003

The cover is a problem, but the same problem is inside--Riechl seems to be working her way through old cliches. Isn't her mandate to freshen up Gourmet?

bloviatrix · September 29, 2003

My missing issue finally turned up. Yuck. This was an awful issue. I found it painful to go through.

robert brown · September 29, 2003

Her mandate is, undoubtedly, to make money, though originally it was to freshen it up or give it some bite. Now it seems to be floundering. I haven't received my issue yet, but isn't it unusual to put a chef on the cover? I can't recall that ever happening.

ferdlisky · September 29, 2003

No, not that unusual. October is their restaurant issue. They had Mario Batali on the cover last year, I think, and Rocco Di Spirito (holding a big fish) the year before last, if I'm not mistaken.

Edited September 29, 2003 by ferdlisky (log)

Lesley C · September 29, 2003

I’m a big fan of Gourmet but this issue left me scratching my head.

I ran into a chef the other day who told me that cover and those Vegas chef cards inside made him embarrassed to be a chef.

I used to love the restaurant issue. :sad:

I think they should have just gone with a classy black and white picture of Suzanne Goin holding a chicken or something.

In that cover picture, they all look uncomfortable, not to mention, cheesy. :hmmm:

fyfas · September 29, 2003

I think the problem is Ruth Reichl. And, I do not at all question or quarrel with a mandate to increase circulation or lower the demographic to a more advertiser-friendly one. I feel Ms. Reichl is a very good "wordsmith" but not necessarily a good editor.

Too, I think she is prone to think things like the TV issue or the Vegas-Rock-Star-Chefs cover are "cool". When she was restaurant critic at The Los Angeles Times she regularly wrote her reviews with little "dramas" concerning her accompanying husband, referred to as "The Reluctant Gourmet"; no matter what she ordered off the menu, he wanted a steak. She tried it while reviewing for The New York Times but not as often; perhaps she thought New Yorkers were too sophisticated for that sort of stuff.

Just an opinion. I do personally feel that her writing, over time, gets tired. I do applaud her for paying excellent writers from other fields to add short pieces that are lifestyle, even food-oriented. Ann Patchett, the novelist, comes to mind.

Oh, and as to the Gourmet restaurant reviews being too often positive reviews, I believe they approach restaurant reviewing from the point-of-view that there are just too many places to cover to waste time and, especially, space on the disappointments so we'll root out the "finds", the discoveries and feature them to a national/world audience and leave the weekly, newsprint reviewers to come behind and cover the places that are lacking.

fresco · September 29, 2003

I think she is prone to think things like the TV issue or the Vegas-Rock-Star-Chefs cover are "cool".

Does anyone know what the reader response to these issues has been outside the rarified circles of eGullet?

bloviatrix · September 29, 2003

No, not that unusual. October is their restaurant issue. They had Mario Batali on the cover last year, I think, and Rocco Di Spirito (holding a big fish) the year before last, if I'm not mistaken.

Actually, the 2001 Restaurant Issue had two covers. The Rocco di Spirito cover was available on the newstand only. Subscription covers had a photo of a chef bent over, plating a dish. If I remember my publishing gossip, the Rocco cover caused a big stink among the powers-that-be at Conde Nast.

ferdlisky · September 29, 2003

If I remember my publishing gossip, the Rocco cover caused a big stink among the powers-that-be at Conde Nast.

I hadn't heard that (and here I am thinking I'm so on top of publishing gossip). What happened? Wouldn't the big guys have seen the cover before it was published?

alacarte · September 30, 2003

I would love it if Gourmet re-published one of their 1940's or 1950's issues, ads and all, and sent it to current subscribers. I wonder if anyone would notice, and what they would think?

bloviatrix · September 30, 2003

If I remember my publishing gossip, the Rocco cover caused a big stink among the powers-that-be at Conde Nast.
I hadn't heard that (and here I am thinking I'm so on top of publishing gossip). What happened? Wouldn't the big guys have seen the cover before it was published?

I just remember a stink. I don't remember the details. I try to purge this minutae from my head every so often. :laugh: But not always with success.