Why is food writing in America so bad?

[cookingwithamy]

Present company excepted to be sure, but I find most food writing at the major newspapers horrid. There are some exceptions of course. But so much of it is lousy. Why is that? I really can't speak for the non-English language food writing and being in the US I read more stuff from here than Canada, Britain, etc.

I'd love to hear from some of the folks who post here regularly and I admire quite a bit. In other words don't take this personally (in other words, assume I like YOU just not everyone else)

[therese]

It's not just food writing, it's all writing. And it's not difficult to figure out what's wrong---just glance at my kid's (corrected) homework and you'll realize that there's very little in the way of rigorous instruction. Obvious errors go unrecognized, and there's little incentive to get it right. Hey, my kids have even gotten marked down for recognizing inconsistencies in their texts or instruction.

[cookingwithamy]

I agree, but still feel food writing is held to even less journalistic integrity than other writing, or is it just me? I've even read "The Best Food Writing" and was underwhelmed by most of it.

Edited February 16, 2004 by cookingwithamy (log)

[therese]

Interestingly, though our local paper, the Atlanta Journal and Constitution, suffers from some truly terrible writing overall, the primary restaurant reviewer is actually great. His pieces are well-written and generally quite funny. Oh, and his name is John Kessler (and I do know him personally, but knew his writing before ever meeting him in person).

[zennenn]

I would suggest food writing takes creativity that is not taught in our schools. Digressions, tangents and flights of fancy lead to interesting writing, but are not allowed in the classroom. I agree that grammar and clear, understandable writing is important. Wouldn't it be great if two types of writing were taught? The creative and the technical.

[Fat Guy]

It's not just food writing, it's all writing.

It's not just writing; it's everything. In most any area of human endeavor there will only be a small percentage of practitioners who do something very well.

cookingwithamy, while I emphatically agree with the general proposition you've put forward, I can't see the discussion going anywhere on that basis. What exactly is it that's bothering you about food writing in general? And perhaps you'd like to give some examples.

I'd also like to point out that there is a lot more good food writing out there than most people are aware of. At some point I can try to assemble a list of lesser-known sources of good food writing.

More importantly, what can be done to improve the quality of food writing? I think open and forthright criticism and/or praise, like we give here on eGullet all the time, can make a difference. So by all means, if you read something and you think it's great, celebrate it here. And if you have a problem with something you read -- its content or its quality -- make your case here as well.

[therese]

Creative and technical are not mutually exclusive, and I think that one of the problems with English instruction in this country is the failure to appreciate the fact that truly funny, creative writing is every bit as organized as science and technical literature.

Not that the science/technical literature is really any better: I routinely review papers written by MD's and PhD's that are truly horrific. Non-anglophone in some instances, but not in most.

[Moopheus]

I agree that grammar and clear, understandable writing is important. Wouldn't it be great if two types of writing were taught? The creative and the technical.

You can't really teach people to write creatively. And you can't really write creatively if you don't have a very good idea of how the written language works, and that isn't taught very well. I can't say for food writing specifically (I don't read that much of it), but I do see a lot of books in manuscript (thankfully, I no longer have to read slush), and there's a lot of people who can't write very well who are getting published. You should see the one I'm working on now! Oy!

[Gifted Gourmet]

I think that one of the problems with English instruction in this country is the failure to appreciate the fact that truly funny, creative writing is every bit as organized as science and technical literature.

I applaud your comment here, therese ... humorous writing, especially on food topics, is too often treated with either disdain because it appears to lack "gravitas" or is simply dismissed for its satirical rather than serious focus ...

[Fat Guy]

I think the focus on English-language instruction is misplaced. There's no shortage of young people with excellent language skills. And there are many writers today who speak with much greater clarity than we ever saw in the affected food writing of old. While there's a lot of crap out there, the best food writing today is as good or better than it has ever been.

If I had to list a few of the general problems with food writing today, they would be 1) a lack of good editors or any sort of institutionalized mentoring process even at the better newspapers, 2) an emphasis on pandering to readers instead of trying to teach and inspire them, and 3) a lack of basic culinary knowledge among too many food writers: restaurant reviewers with little dining experience, etc.

[fifi]

I agree with all of the above. But I would add that local, small market, critical food writing suffers from the imperative that you can't piss off the "customer", meaning the restaurant, supplier or whatever that is an advertiser in the publication.

We are pretty lucky here in Houston. Alison Cook, the restaurant reviewer in the Houston Chronicle is a breath of fresh air. She has had a couple of articles outide of the restaurant scene and has done a very good job. I would like to see more of that. And we have the incomparable Robb Walsh reviewing restaurants in the weekly Houston Press. The writing of some of the others seems to be reaching for that quality.

[Mark Sommelier]

The advertising angle fucks everything up. That said, look at the food reviews that Steve Cuozzo writes in the New York Post, and A.A.Gills reviews in the Sunday Times of London. Both extremely entertaining.

[cookingwithamy]

More importantly, what can be done to improve the quality of food writing?

Well if you want to put it that way, fine. Personally I wonder if food writers suffer from the same thing that movie reviewers do--from becoming so jaded that they are no longer in touch with joe average who only goes to the movies once a week or once a month. Same thing for those who create and test recipes.

Do we need more chefs to take up writing? More professional journalists to tackle the subject of food? More outlets for good food writing than the newspapers and magazines dedicated to the subject today? What's the solution?

[Katherine]

If I had to list a few of the general problems with food writing today, they would be 1) a lack of good editors or any sort of institutionalized mentoring process even at the better newspapers, 2) an emphasis on pandering to readers instead of trying to teach and inspire them, and 3) a lack of basic culinary knowledge among too many food writers: restaurant reviewers with little dining experience, etc.

Certainly in my area, and probably in small markets and minor publications all over the country, an additional problem is that many editors see food writing as a warm body job.

Edited February 16, 2004 by Katherine (log)

[cookingwithamy]

a lack of basic culinary knowledge among too many food writers

What's your definition of "basic culinary knowledge"? I actually think that some of the better writing comes from unlikely places. Nigella is a good example. Of course you can argue she does have basic culinary knowledge--she's just not a "chef".

[TPO]

If I had to list a few of the general problems with food writing today, they would be 1) a lack of good editors or any sort of institutionalized mentoring process even at the better newspapers, 2) an emphasis on pandering to readers instead of trying to teach and inspire them, and 3) a lack of basic culinary knowledge among too many food writers: restaurant reviewers with little dining experience, etc.

I would add that some editors are more concerned with advertisers than readers. Also writing is part ability and part being able to sell yourself to the editors. Not everyone is good at both, and those that are get the column space -- even if they aren't the best writers out there.

[cookingwithamy]

As a long time Gourmet subscriber, I got the sense from the re-design that there must have been lots of focus group input--I can just imagine the verbatims--"let's have more quick meals with 3 ingredients!" It's gotten kind of low brow in the past few years actually, and that rock star cover really was emarassing. Does it reflect the cult of the celebrity chef or are magazines like Gourmet truly struggling to find an audience?

[Fat Guy]

Fifi & Mark -- Restaurant reviewing is a relatively minor area of food writing, and presents a special set of concerns. In general, though, I don't think advertising constrains food writers very much, except in the general sense that you have to write stuff that people want to read so that advertisers will buy ads.

Amy -- I see the problem in many cases as being exactly the opposite. Food writers aren't out of touch; they are too self-consciously in-touch -- aggressively populist to the detriment of their subject matter. Where are you seeing food writing that doesn't consider the average Joe?

Katherine -- I think that's changing. Food is in right now. Some editors may not have a clue how to do food coverage, but I think most at this point understand that it's something that the public wants.

Amy again -- Whatever knowledge is relevant to the job. A restaurant reviewer should be an experienced diner, someone who tests recipes should be well versed in recipe testing, etc.

TPO -- Most newspaper food writing isn't done by freelancers, so there's less selling on that front than with magazines and books. Of course, within a newspaper's staff, there is selling of a different kind.

[ExtraMSG]

It's not just food writing, it's all writing.

It's not just writing; it's everything. In most any area of human endeavor there will only be a small percentage of practitioners who do something very well.

cookingwithamy, while I emphatically agree with the general proposition you've put forward, I can't see the discussion going anywhere on that basis. What exactly is it that's bothering you about food writing in general? And perhaps you'd like to give some examples.

I'd also like to point out that there is a lot more good food writing out there than most people are aware of. At some point I can try to assemble a list of lesser-known sources of good food writing.

More importantly, what can be done to improve the quality of food writing? I think open and forthright criticism and/or praise, like we give here on eGullet all the time, can make a difference. So by all means, if you read something and you think it's great, celebrate it here. And if you have a problem with something you read -- its content or its quality -- make your case here as well.

FG captured my thoughts exactly as I was reading this thread. Not only would I like to see some direct answers to his questions, but I'd like to add one more question:

What are the examples of good writing, especially in food? FG asked for some examples of bad writing, but as much as I want to know what you think that is, I'd like to know what it compares unfavorably to.

You put forward such a blanket statement, it would just be nice to have some specifics.

[Mudpuppie]

It's not just food writing, it's all writing.

A-effing-men to that. (This from an editor....)

I agree, but still feel food writing is held to even less journalistic integrity than other writing, or is it just me? I've even read "The Best Food Writing" and was underwhelmed by most of it.

Cookingwithamy: I think it depends on what you care most about. If you were a rabid football fan, it's likely that the quality of sports reporting would seem to be the problem. But maybe this is simplistic.

Writing -- or, more generically, mastery of language -- is not something we value very much in our culture. So long as we can communicate basic ideas to each other, we're pretty happy. Grunting and pointing serves that purpose just as well as does scintillating food writing.

[sml311]

If I had to list a few of the general problems with food writing today, they would be 1) a lack of good editors or any sort of institutionalized mentoring process even at the better newspapers, 2) an emphasis on pandering to readers instead of trying to teach and inspire them, and 3) a lack of basic culinary knowledge among too many food writers: restaurant reviewers with little dining experience, etc.

Certainly in my area, and probably in small markets and minor publications all over the country, an additional problem is that many editors see food writing as a warm body job.

So I'm hoping the quote will go in...

Anyway, I agree with FatGuy and Katherine. And as far as FatGuy's reply that food awareness is growing and people are demanding better coverage, I wouldn't necessarily agree with that. There are certainly still a lot of places where this hasn't taken hold yet and food "reviews" read more like restaurant opening press releases rather than vigorous critique and praise of the restaurant's offerings.

And in addition to the proper amount of mentoring happening at newspapers I think it's also a matter of people who edit and review those pieces before publication having an idea what they're talking about too. I think there's a lack of vigorous editing going into pieces in a number of newspapers. I certainly know that when I've interviewed at some major newspapers and said I was interested in editing I'd 9 times out of 10 get the reply "But you can write, why would you want to edit?" That, to me, is a problem.

SML

[marlena spieler]

Not wanting to be competitive or anything, we here in Britain have some very very very bad food writing, too, and often without the benefit of facts being true (an irrelevance not considered important). (of course there are fabulous writers here too, and reviewers so delicious that you could read as a humor novel, though not really useful when it comes to knowing where to go and eat).

But when an American reads English bad writing, I admit it still might sound cute, all those beguiling English-isms.

Personally, I think the devil and culprit in all of this is the age old desire to reach readers by writing what is expected, and what sells papers. whether it is done by focus group, or simply done by writing "to" and "about" whatever is popular.

[kpurvis]

Cookingwithamy, I'm with Fat Guy on this one. A broadside like that is impossible to answer. You're assuming that all writing is bad without defining any parameters. I work for a newspaper with a daily circulation of roughly 240,000. I'm a one-person food staff. Most weeks, I'm doing pretty good if I can string together 10 words that won't embarrass me the next morning.

What defines "good" or "bad" is such a wide variable as to be almost impossible to define. Some readers want cutting-edge articles on the hautest food coming out of New York. Others want something fast to make for dinner, in a streamlined format. And still others want warm/cozy front-porch food chat and 10 recipes for biscuits. My mission: To provide content for all of them.

There's no way to tell which article will hit with which audience. Last week, I was short of time and wrote a column about vanished food products from my childhood and how so many of them were terrible. I thought the column was OK, no great shakes. When it ran, I got calls and e-mails from readers who raved about it. It hit home with them and was apparently what they wanted to read that week.

Was it good writing? Beats me. All I can really aim for is writing that is true, true to its mission, true to my ear, true to that place somewhere near my heart that resonates when I write something that feels close to what I was aiming at.

I write 50 or so columns a year, plus another 30 to 40 centerpiece food articles (the ones with the splashy pictures and multiple recipes), and 25 to 30 food news articles. Some of those will be OK writing. Some of them won't be great writing, but they'll get the job done. And maybe 5 percent of all that will be writing that I'll be proud for my grandchildren to see.

So, instead of saying "why is food writing bad," why don't you offer us some examples of food writing that you think is good?

[paw]

I both write and edit--and I've long thought that one of the dynamics that hurts the overall quality of food writing has to do with how people become food writers. To wildly overgeneralize: food writers do it primarily because they love food, not because they love writing, or are any good at it. Food writing in general tends to be a second or third career--typically, somebody's punching the clock at a law firm or whatever, and they realize that the only happy hours of their life are spent in the kitchen or at the table, and they try to break in to food journalism. Only in rare cases do writers who've honed their craft in other fields remake themselves as food writers. This we can call the Trillin Trajectory: an already great writer realizing the food is fertile territory for his talents. Of course Trillin obviously loves food. And a love of food is a great asset to a food writer. But he already a great writer before he started writing about food. Liebling too.

One more thing: writing about food is harder than it looks, as all the writers here well know. So a lot of perfectly competent writers can quickly find themselves in over their heads when they try to describe how something tasted, how a meal made them feel, etc. This is hard-core stuff.

I don't mean to suggest that passion and knowledge are not necessary to great food writers. But they are not sufficient.

But is this an exclusively American phenomenon? I doubt it.

[srhcb]

Cookingwithamy: I think it depends on what you care most about. If you were a rabid football fan, it's likely that the quality of sports reporting would seem to be the problem. But maybe this is simplistic.

Writing -- or, more generically, mastery of language -- is not something we value very much in our culture. So long as we can communicate basic ideas to each other, we're pretty happy. Grunting and pointing serves that purpose just as well as does scintillating food writing.

I agree that with any writing directed at an enthusiast audience the quality tends to be lowered somewhat. There are two obvious reasons.

First, the audience necessarily doesn't demand good writing. Devotees of any relatively specialized topics are usually satisfied with whatever media attention they can get. While they might be adament and picayune about their chosen subject, the technical quality of the discussion isn't very important.

Secondly, the more arcane a subject, the less likely that good writers would either be experts on it or interested in learning enough about it to write well. Although everybody reading this has an interest in food topics, it's always been a proportionately minor branch of literature.

Thus it's probably no small accident that the food writing field appears to be overweight with lawyers, since their education requires them to produce logical writing on nearly any subject.

Plus, they can afford it.

SB