Why is food writing in America so bad?

[cookingwithamy]

I'm stunned to hear that someone who is a one person food department for a regional newspaper claims to not know what good writing is. I'm also somewhat surprised to hear all the demand for examples of the good stuff. Actually I have had several discussions with chefs and foodies about the San Francisco Chronicle and the general agreement is that Marlene Spieler is one of the it's saving graces. But to answer FG's question the Chron in general is a perfect example of food writing out of touch with the average Joe. I'm not sure who it's in touch with at all.

I have no qualms about what makes for good food writing--it should interesting, appealing, informative and somewhat entertaining. No great mystery there. And sure there are some good writers out there, in particular Marlene Spieler, Nigella Lawson, Anthony Bourdain, Jeffrey Steingarten, Mark Kurlansky, Ruth Reichl, Patricia Wells, and Fran Gage are some of my favorites. None of them pander to what they think an audience is looking for. My point is that food writing isn't the same as writing about the weather, it's not just factual accounting but should stand on it's own merits. I just don't find that most of it does. Is food writing even covered in journalism school or only in some culinary schools?

I do hope that FG is right about the public demanding better writing though.

[Marrow Margin]

And I've been guilty of this time and time again so I'm not bowing pointing poison arrows at any one person...but, I can't stand reviewers who are so into themselves, their own brilliance, that they feel like they need to wax philosophical endlessly about the perfect Oaxacan mole when reviewing the local nickel and dime Taqueria.

Often these folks use specialized technical jargon that the general public won't understand so they can justify their paycheck, or worse yet, feel superior to the simple plebs that will read the stuff. "Chef Bubba's metier was fryer work." "The terroir of suburban Newark was ripe with gastronomic possibility." Shut up.

[Katherine]

And I've been guilty of this time and time again so I'm not bowing pointing poison arrows at any one person...but, I can't stand reviewers who are so into themselves, their own brilliance, that they feel like they need to wax philosophical endlessly about the perfect Oaxacan mole when reviewing the local nickel and dime Taqueria. 

Often these folks use specialized technical jargon that the general public won't understand so they can justify their paycheck, or worse yet, feel superior to the simple plebs that will read the stuff.  "Chef Bubba's metier was fryer work."  "The terroir of suburban Newark was ripe with gastronomic possibility."  Shut up.

I think it would bring the bar up faster if we could improve the writing at the lower levels, where the reviews seem to be based on a document template. A badly designed and boring document template. Reviewers use the same clichés repeatedly in the same review, and don't seem to have any knowledge or curiousity about food.

I'm stunned to hear that someone who is a one person food department for a regional newspaper claims to not know what good writing is.

I'm not surprised: there are plenty of people who own and operate restaurants who appear to have no idea about what good food is.

I'm also somewhat surprised to hear all the demand for examples of the good stuff.

Again, the restaurant analogy, but this time I agree with your premise: the demand for bad food always seems to be growing faster than that for good food.

[Fat Guy]

I'm stunned to hear that someone who is a one person food department for a regional newspaper claims to not know what good writing is. I'm also somewhat surprised to hear all the demand for examples of the good stuff.

I don't think that's even a remotely fair interpretation of and reaction to what kpurvis said. She's simply detailing the realities of producing a food section week-in-week-out. Throughout history, determinations of quality in writing have been made after the fact -- sometimes hundreds of years after. This shouldn't be surprising, and we should be thanking her for her forthright and revealing comments rather than trying to turn this into a claim about her competence. Nobody I know of questions her writing ability or editing ability -- including the James Beard foundation.

As for the demand for specifics, that should come as no surprise. That's how eGullet works.

the Chron in general is a perfect example of food writing out of touch with the average Joe.

Really? I'd be interested in testing that claim from a number of angles. For starters, who is this "average Joe"? Does he read the Chronicle? The Chronicle as a whole should be focusing on the needs of its audience, not the needs of an abstract demographic average. Assuming an average-Joe contingent within the Chronicle's audience, is that the contingent that cares about food coverage? Or is food coverage generally going to appeal to the higher end of the demographic?

What's the reason for being in touch with the average Joe? Isn't that the job of Zagat? Food writing -- like writing about art, music, etc. -- is supposed to be informed by an expert perspective, not by the perspective of the average Joe.

More importantly, what's so out of touch about the Chronicle's coverage? Let's look at the digest of last week's food section content that was posted here on eGullet:

http://forums.egullet.org/index.php?showtopic=36561

"This week's San Francisco Chronicle features 5 of the bay area's Rising Chefs, 2004. Michael Bauer introduces the piece which includes contributions from the rest of the food department. Each chef is young--under 32 years, all from a wide variety of culinary sensibilities, the list includes a husband and wife co-chef team. Each chef and his/her restaurant/food style is profiled; favourite dishes are listed with a recipe for each: molasses-grilled duck breast, ratatouille stuffed calamari, malaysian lollipop lamb, for examples. a round-up of rising chefs 2003 is included in piece."

There's a package on cast-iron cookware. There's something on microwaving crab. There's a tasting panel on nonfat yogurt . . .

Looking on the Chronicle's Web site, there's a review of a pizzeria by Bill Daley. The place serves pizza, pasta, and flatbreads. The average Joe loves that shit, doesn't he?

[John Whiting]

If you were a rabid football fan, it's likely that the quality of sports reporting would seem to be the problem.

Good writing has always been built on a foundation of knowing and enthusiastic readers. I've no statistics, but I would venture a guess that the standard of sports writing in the US is pretty good -- there are so many knowledgable fans that ignorant or incompetant writers would be blown out of the water.

But a large proportion of those who see the food columns wouldn't know a truffle from a trifle. They're happy to devour the restaurant gossip and look at the photos while they munch their microwaved goodies. More than mere ability to write competant prose is required; journalists must also know that they have editors and a reading public who will allow them to write as well as they are able. A handfull of US newspapers have built up reputations that allow at least part of their writing staff to address their loyal publics, but they rely in turn on local networks of restaurants and food suppliers that are worth writing about. Who's going to read reviews of the local Taco Bell and Wal-Mart?

[JAZ]

I have no qualms about what makes for good food writing--it should interesting, appealing, informative and somewhat entertaining. No great mystery there.

In what world is every piece of writing expected to be all those things? "Food writing" covers such a broad spectrum, that I find it impossible to generalize about it. That is, I want very different writing in a cookbook than I do from a review, which, in turn, will be different from what I want in a book of essays, or a book on food science.

"Good" food writing is out there, in all sorts of books, journals and magazines.

I personally find Fine Cooking magazine to be beautifully written, given its audience and purpose. Is it "entertaining"? Hell no. It's invisible, which is perfect, in my opinion, for a magazine that instructs its readers and provides workable recipes. It's good writing, for me, because it's meticulously edited, the articles tell me things I want to know, and the recipes work.

On the other hand, I truly enjoy Calvin Trillin and Jeffrey Steingarten, but I'm not convinced I'd buy cookbooks by either of them (were they to write one), because I'm not sure they'd give me what I want in a cookbook, which is recipes that work (well, actually, it's not -- I'm weird that way -- but it's what most cookbook purchasers want).

Personally, I cannot stand to read restaurant reviews; I'm not sure why, but they bore me to tears, regardless of the quality of the writing. The exception is Dara Moscowitz, who writes reviews in the Minneapolis area. I don't live in Minneapolis, so I'll never use the infomation in her reviews, but she's really entertaining, which is why I like to read her. But her local readers, I'm sure, have very different standards for judging her writing -- they're going to want to know if her judgments are generally valid, and they're going to want her to provide the information they need to predict whether they will like a particular restaurant.

I could go on, but my point is there are different criteria for evaluating different types of writing, food or otherwise.

Concerning newspaper food sections, they usually don't interest me much. But that's not because they're badly written; it's just that newspaper writing in general doesn't interest me much. It's the nature of the beast. It's easy to criticize food journalists, but trying to strike a balance and put out a section that appeals to all varieties of readers, from the gourmet to the novice -- and having to do it with a strict limit on space, and having to do it with a very quick turnaround -- is very difficult. Kpurvis hit the nail on the head -- you might hope for brilliance, but, in reality, you do your best and go on to the next article, or column. So the San Francisco Chronicle food section doesn't appeal to me (and it doesn't)? So what? That doesn't mean it's bad. I actually think it's pretty good, for a newspaper food section. If it appealed to me, it would likely lose its appeal for 95 percent of the rest of the population.

Yes, the writers you mention are good writers, but for the most part, they aren't newspaper writers. Maybe it's just that you, like me, don't like newspaper writing. So do what I do and skip it. Read Jeffrey Steingarten in Vogue, or Corby Kummer in the Atlantic. Read Nigella's books, if that's the kind of writing you like. There's a whole world of food writing out there, and because it covers such a wide range of styles and subjects, there's bound to be something for just about everyone.

[herbacidal]

I'm stunned to hear that someone who is a one person food department for a regional newspaper claims to not know what good writing is. I'm also somewhat surprised to hear all the demand for examples of the good stuff.

She didn't claim not to know what good writing was.

She wanted to know what your definition of good writing was.

As implied, the range for "good" is both deep and wide.

In that situation, how can she not first attempt to determine your views

on that particular subject and how you are framing the subject before attempting

to make a statement and have to defend a position?

[russ parsons]

i think amy's right and everybody needs to stop making excuses. anyone should be able to write like jeff steingarten. i mean, you've got words, you've got grammar... how hard can that be? another thing i don't get: why can't everybody cook like thomas keller? you've got a pan, you've got a fire .... and while i'm at it, anybody watch the nba all-star game yesterday? why can't all centers drive the court like shaq? it's just bouncing a damned ball.

[Pan]

You forgot to mention that all violinists should play like Heifetz, Russ. After all, what's so difficult about bowing back and forth on four strings and putting down one finger after another?

[cookingwithamy]

Was it good writing? Beats me.

Just to set the record straight, this is EXACTLY what she said.

I never said everyone should be able to write like Jeffrey Steingarten, that's just perposterous. I just said I find food writing to be lacking, and wonder why that is. I'm sorry I mentioned anyone by name because it wasn't the point in the first place.

Aside from some nastiness, there have actually been some interesting points made. Thanks to those of you who weighed in without attacking me and my question. I'm not sure I'll be starting any more discussions here anytime soon though...

[John Whiting]

I'm not sure I'll be starting any more discussions here anytime soon though...

Don't be frightened. No one here can actually kill you. There's a whole alternative website consisting of people kicked out of eGullet, just as eGullet itself grew out of Chowhound rejects.

Survive these three, and you'll be ready for a five-star kitchen!

[Fat Guy]

anyone should be able to write like jeff steingarten. i mean, you've got words, you've got grammar...

Okay, let me give this a try. This is me as Steingarten waxing rhapsodic about, well, let's do Cheetos for this one:

Cheetos are the utopia of crunchy treats. The Canaan of cheese! The Elysium of edibles! The Shangri La of snacks! Unless you prefer the puffy ones, in which case you obviously hate life.

[Fat Guy]

John, thanks for reminding me that I need to buy 49 "Chowhound reject" tee-shirts for our staff.

[Steve Klc]

Amy, you're a newbie here and that shouldn't be the way you perceive what has happened--most of those responding to your initial post merely want to engage you over specifics--and replied essentially saying "bring a little more to the table." A few poked fun--yes, that was that Russ Parsons--but it was gentle fun. Even he'd be more than willing to engage you on the merits of something--but those merits have to be a little more forthcoming than "lousy" and "horrid." We're lucky to have professionals on all sides of this issue--those doing the writing, editing, those being written about, in major markets and in minor ones. But we're even luckier our membership consists of people like you, who care about food and who have cared about scrutinizing food media on eG since, what, October 2001 when this board was formed? You're a blogger now--one day you might want to get paid for your food writing or take your blog to the next step, attract more of an audience or further define your audience--well, the best thing you can do is weigh in here, share why is it you feel the way you do, and allow others to react. But it is always a two way street.

Now you say on your blog that you regularly read the NYTimes and the LATimes food sections--so start there--how much of their writing passes your test--and why? When some of it falls short--why does it fall short?

You did raise one specific--kind of--that Gourmet magazine has shifted gears of late and seems to be pursuing a new direction--well, yes, Gourmet has shifted dramatically but it is old news--it's been happening under Reichl for a few years now and it's been discussed on eG all along. What I'd like from you is a few examples of poor writing from this "new" Gourmet--or writing that could have been better--name names--besides just noting that the focus seems to have shifted, that there's more emphasis on celebrity, on glitz, on lifestyle, on shorter attention spans because, well, that's what editors do--they move their product toward whatever demographic they perceive as their audience to keep selling ads--as Mark pointed out earlier. You shouldn't take that personally--it might be moving away from you--and you have every right to complain--but how specifically is the food writing so bad, so lousy, even given this perceived shift? Gourmet also has very little to do with the writing in newspaper food sections, for instance--the margins, the ads, the subscriber base--the businesses, in other words--are totally different, unless you present your thoughts why you feel newspapers and magazines might be intertwined and equally at fault.

You praised Bauer in one of your blog entries--how good a job does his Chronicle do on your scale, why or why not? You see--you have to try to define more of the criteria or this discussion will offer little more than a "Rachael Ray--like her, hate her?" flair--and eGullet usually expects more. Not being in touch with the common Joe is not going to get you very far here on eG--but it is at least a start if you flesh it out.

How often do you read the Washington Post food section? Are you painting their staff writers Judith Weinraub, Walter Nicholls, Candy Sagon all with the same broad brush? Do you even know who these writers are or have read anything they've written? Have you read any of Kathleen Purvis's section online? I ask because this subject--American food writing--is just so darn vast. Keeping it just to newspapers is still vast. Did you read through the eGullet Q&A we had with Jeanne McManus--the editor of the Washington Post food section? Did you find her arguments concerning the pressures food section editors face in order to serve ALL of their readers credible?

The disadvantage you have is that eG has been at this for a while--this whole paying attention to what is written about food and commenting about it--but we do welcome newcomers to the party anytime. I'm sorry if you're misinterpreting this--but everyone really wants to hear why you feel the way you do. A few James Beard award winners and nominees for "American food writing" have challenged your observation on several levels and are just waiting for you to bring more to the table. The blogger in you should be proud. Here's your chance to deliver.

[Mabelline]

Sadly,sadly, I had decided to let my Gourmet subscription lapse, due to the fact that I reckoned when I had three sitting around that were still polywrapped, whereas I used to devour (no pun) it from end to end in one sitting, there was something wrong here. Now do not snicker, but I extended my Texas Monthly subscription. And the other day, my darling SO tells me that he extended my Gourmet sub., because he wanted a Valentine surprise for me! Bless his heart.

amy, don't despair. I get roundly 'explained to', and I am grateful for it, because it gets me out of my tunnel vision. And I seriously believe the best food writing I have found is right here. Both professionals, coming professionals, and we neophytes have posted some of the most evocative, or informative, or provocative writing I can find ( I have probably just caused editorial stroke with my own writing).

[russ parsons]

Don't be frightened. No one here can actually kill you.

john, you've obviously never eaten my cooking.

[John Whiting]

John, thanks for reminding me that I need to buy 49 "Chowhound reject" tee-shirts for our staff.

I'm rolling about on the floor -- not a pretty sight.

[John Whiting]

Both professionals, coming professionals, and we neophytes have posted some of the most evocative, or informative, or provocative writing I can find

It could be a great book, after the OK Corral shootout over who would edit.

[kpurvis]

Is food writing even covered in journalism school . . . ?

Not that I know of, and I perversely hope it stays that way! Journalism school is responsible for most of the writing coming off the campaign trail. I shudder to think what we'd end up with if food writing got passed through the j-school mill.

Most of the best newspaper food writers I know came at food writing because they had passion for the subject, and they had considerable background in editing and writing from other news beats. There's plenty of great newspaper food writing out there, if you know where to look. Go back in Nexis/Lexus a few years and look up Joe Crea's writing at the Orange County Register. Or anything, past or present, by the lovely Russ Parsons (don't worry, Russ honey -- who cares if you can cook? You can write me dinner anytime). Or the aforementioned Dara Moscovitz (I'm also a closet Dara reader.) Or the smart stuff by Reagan Walker, Jim Auchmutey or John Kessler at the Atlanta Journal Constitution, or Debbie Moose's columns for the Raleigh News and Observer, or anything by Hsaio-Ching Chou at the Seattle Post-Intelligencer.

I could name many more. What I find interesting is how many of them are examples of people who were writers and editors from traditional "hard news" beats who switched over to food writing because they had passion for it.

Maybe that's a good e-g thread: If you could design a j-school curriculum for food writers, what would you do? What would the course material be?

[cookingwithamy]

Thanks for the list. Much obliged, I am hanging onto it. Likewise if FG wants to post his list as previously mentioned, I'm all ears.

[Mabelline]

At least I know my writing is lousy! See, I told amy she would learn stuff--before eG I had no idea..

[Pan]

Amy, you're a newbie here and that shouldn't be the way you perceive what has happened--most of those responding to your initial post merely want to engage you over specifics--and replied essentially saying "bring a little more to the table." A few poked fun--yes, that was that Russ Parsons--but it was gentle fun. Even he'd be more than willing to engage you on the merits of something--but those merits have to be a little more forthcoming than "lousy" and "horrid."

Thanks, Steve. You said it better than I could have. Amy, give us some details, please.

[cookingwithamy]

Sorry to disappoint you, but I have no intention of posting examples of what I consider bad food writing. This was not intended as a discussion of what is and isn't bad, simply a question as to why there isn't better food writing out there. If you don't agree, that's fine, everyone has a right to their own opinion.

[SobaAddict70]

I have no qualms about what makes for good food writing--it should interesting, appealing, informative and somewhat entertaining. No great mystery there. And sure there are some good writers out there, in particular Marlene Spieler, Nigella Lawson, Anthony Bourdain, Jeffrey Steingarten, Mark Kurlansky, Ruth Reichl, Patricia Wells, and Fran Gage are some of my favorites. None of them pander to what they think an audience is looking for. My point is that food writing isn't the same as writing about the weather, it's not just factual accounting but should stand on it's own merits. I just don't find that most of it does. Is food writing even covered in journalism school or only in some culinary schools?

I do hope that FG is right about the public demanding better writing though.

And to that description of good food writing, I'd add:

Alice Waters

Madeline Kamman

Marian Burros

El Gordo (aka Steven Shaw )

James Beard

Julia Child

Amanda Hesser

Diana Kennedy

David Leite

Some of the above are favorites of mine, some are well-known and all of them are outstanding when it comes to food writing. If you're looking for an exhaustive list of good food writers, I'm not sure you're going to get it. However, my point is that good food writers are out there...if only you knew where to look and who to look for. I don't get the sense as you say, that there's a dearth of good food writing in the U.S.; rather, it's more of a sense that you made a blanket statement in order to provoke conversation -- in that regard, you certainly succeeded.

Soba

[balmagowry]

You forgot to mention that all violinists should play like Heifetz, Russ. After all, what's so difficult about bowing back and forth on four strings and putting down one finger after another? 

What indeed - at any rate, that's exactly how he felt about it. Was always a bit puzzled by all the fuss, always more interested in working at things like carpentry or ping-pong which actually held a challenge for him.

Re food writing in newspapers, I'd like to put in a good word for some of the people doing the job at our local paper, Newsday. While I certainly concur with what's been said about the declining quality of newspaper writing in general (not to mention the teeth-gnashingly infuriating lack of intelligent or even competent copy-editing), there are a few bright stars in the local firmament, and Newsday's food editor Sylvia Carter is among them. (Yes, she's a friend, but I admired her writing for years before we met.)

OK, so what makes her stuff (and that of the other admirable writers mentioned above) so good? Not unlike a good stew, it has all the requisite ingredients and comes out greater than the sum of its parts. Start with fundamental competence in writing - no problems at the building-block levels of grammar and syntax. Next level up: a graceful turn of phrase, an ear for the rhythm of words and sentences, a sense of structure and direction. A sense of humor is also pretty crucial, as is a feel for nuance and irony. Next level up: knowledge of the subject - not necessarily encyclopedic, but intelligent and well-researched where necessary. Next level up: a great instinct for what constitutes A Story. Sylvia's case is a good example because, as editor for the section, she isn't limited to any particular form (i.e. restaurant criticism, etc.); she has free rein and she knows how to use it, and every week her short feature is a little personal think-piece, or a sense-memory, or a story about some marvelous character, some off-the-beaten-track discovery that has caught her fancy - and whatever it is, the subject itself is always engaging or indeed compelling; the treatment ranging between the down-home and the poetic. (Last week's was about the self-perpetuaing collection of plastic containers - is there anyone here who doesn't feel a little thrill of recognition at that topic? She's writing about ME, I always think.)

Overall, it's freedom, knowledge, passion and humor, layered over a solid technical foundation, and that is true of every truly readable [food] writer I can think of, from Brillat-Savarin to Dumas to MFK Fisher to Elizabeth David to Ruth Reichl to... better stop there or I might run into chapters. But for some reason I'm reminded of Elizabeth Zimmermann calling herself The Opnionated Knitter; and indeed she was to knitting - and to writing about it - what some of the above are to food: passionate and whimsical and confident and utterly convincing. And those qualities, I think, are the difference between good [food] writing and really great, compelling [food] writing. (The word "food" being in brackets there because of course, as others have already remarked, there's nothing here that doesn't apply equally to any other discipline.)

It occurs to me that there is one thing that may set food writing apart from other areas. I'm talking through my hat here - haven't thought this through and am interested in doing so and testing it - but it seems to me that food writing lends itself more than most other categories to a use of the writer's personal thoughts and feelings and experience. Why? Maybe because food is so universal; there's no one who isn't touched by it, there's no one who doesn't have important and visceral memories and feelings connected to it; no one can be truly indifferent to it. Food writing doesn't *require* the personal element, but as I think about it I find that the writers who charm and engage me most (partial list in previous graf...) are those who do inject something of themselves into their work. Who *give* of themselves; great food writing is, above all, generous. I love to feel that I'm comparing notes with them about something that affects us both, or that I'm being given a glimpse of someone else's life, an insight into a memory that really matters to someone. Food writing is - or at any rate can be - more *intimate* than most other forms. And to do it that way requires a special kind of openness and courage on the part of the writer.

At what point does one draw the boundary line between food writing and memoir?

Maybe one doesn't.

Edited February 16, 2004 by balmagowry (log)