Rachael Ray

[fiftydollars]

Article in Slate

Rachael Ray may be the world's most reviled chef. Entire blogs are devoted to slamming the perky Food Network superstar—"Rachael Ray Sucks" is particularly vicious. On Web sites like eGullet, a "society for culinary arts and letters," users say she should be "tarred and feathered."

[Tess]

I've never watched Rachel Ray, but that article doesn't make me think I would ever want to. In fact, it reminds me to stay away. I don't think that makes me a snob. (Packaged ingredients *and* it takes the writer almost an hour to cook a meal? Worst of both worlds.)

[shelly59]

Oh, SHAME on all you mean, nasty people who pick on poor, wee little Rachel. And THIS merits an editorial in Slate?? Are they kidding? What? Slow news day in the foodie biz?

Good grief.

Oh, and by the way, I am not a food snob just because I am concerned about the dumbing-down of cooking programs on FN and the pandering to the viewer who, for whatever reason, is absolutely convinced that any recipe that does NOT involve a boxed mix is hopelessly out-of his/her league. And cannot be bothered to elevate her/his skills if that indeed be the case.

I am concerned about the attitude that taking the preparation of food seriously is so elitist that the cutesy, twee way Rachel Ray or her even more annoying counter-part, Sandra Lee, goes about it is necessary to ameliorate the sheer horror of having to face a stove instead of the microwave or, doG forbid, something FROM ANOTHER CULTURE!!!

[jsolomon]

Yeah. Okay. Someone on Slate likes teeny-bopper saccharine cuteness.

So does my director. That's why we have crap in my laboratory that doesn't work, but gosh it looks nice.

When I purchase things, I still go for craftmanship, not planned obsolescence so I can hit the next "big craze". That's why I think Rachel Ray is annoying. She and those like her take food to the same consumers-will-love-it-because-it's-"NEW" level of industro-profiteering that I would really like to decompress from at home.

For some of us, cooking is therapy, and she spits in the face of it.

Fie on her, and those like her. Would you catch her spitting in the face of people who use Pilates (or any other new exercise craze) as their decompression? Nope, but people who cook as therapy are reviled by her.

Let her burn under our laser gaze. And Slate's editorial board is defnintely outside of my political purview, so they can burn, too.

[bigbear]

You guys are such kidders.

[JohnL]

I remember sitting around with my fellow musicians many years ago and playing our favorite game: trashing other musicians, especially lead guitarists and singers (they were, after all, the most visible).

"yeah so and so sucks he can't play real music or that lead singer is an asshole she has a big ass and can't sing....." etc. or "I'm better than that jerk, I am really serious about music..."

One day I realized that we were bashing people who were engaged in careers and were recording --making records--something we aspired to. I stopped bashing other musicians.

I am suprised at the level of vituperativeness in some posts, especially those railling against the food network and specific personalities. (Tod English, Emeril, Flay etc).

Even within the industry; for eg Amanda Hesser's attack on Emeril years ago.

I contrast this with the few professionals I know personally, who are incredibly generous and deferential--once I told Wayne Nish of March that I thought he was one of my favorite chefs along with Charlie Trotter, he was genuinely embarrassed and humbled--especially suprising because, really : who was I? other than an anonymous patron of his restaurant.

I read a piece in Elle magazine (latest issue) wherein the writer "confesses" to Thomas keller that she could not eat his fois gras and cut it into pieces and "hid" it on the plate. His response was amazingly deferential and understanding.

The point is, the level of discourse lately (I would include many topics: politics, religion--the usual culprits) as well as those that are meant to enrich our lives like music, the arts and, of all things, food etc has become especially shrill and relentless.

The internet is a reason, some critical threads can easily become "feeding frenzies"

The art of criticism is often lost in favor of personal attacks.

Different people approach food and cooking and dining out with varying degrees of importance in their lives. The Food Network is TV they are trying to reach the largest possible audience.

I enjoy cooking and going to fine restaurants, I also like hot dogs and see the "entertainment" value in some "not so serious" programs.

One can certainly be critical of Rachel Ray, she is fair game, but it seems to me attacking her as though she were the antichrist is a bit over the top. Putting things wildly out of perspective.

At the very worst, she will certainly not destroy fine cuisine or the culinary arts and at best, she may introduce some people to cooking and food who might not otherwise "discover" these things and who will move on to more "serious" and "authentic" programming.

After all, I "discovered" fine wines by ordering a white zinfandel once!

[Busboy]

I remember sitting around with my fellow musicians many years ago and playing our favorite game: trashing other musicians, especially lead guitarists and singers (they were, after all, the most visible).

"yeah so and so sucks he can't play real music or that lead singer is an asshole she has a big ass and can't sing....." etc. or "I'm better than that jerk, I am really serious about music..."

One day I realized that we were bashing people who were engaged in careers and were recording --making records--something we aspired to. I stopped bashing other musicians.

I am suprised at the level of vituperativeness in some posts, especially those railling against the food network and specific personalities. (Tod English, Emeril, Flay etc).

Even within the industry; for eg Amanda Hesser's attack on Emeril years ago.

I contrast this with the few professionals I know personally, who are incredibly generous and deferential--once I told Wayne Nish of March that I thought he was one of my favorite chefs along with Charlie Trotter, he was genuinely embarrassed and humbled--especially suprising because, really : who was I? other than an anonymous patron of his restaurant.

I read a piece in Elle magazine (latest issue) wherein the writer "confesses" to Thomas keller that she could not eat his fois gras and cut it into pieces and "hid" it on the plate. His response was amazingly deferential and understanding.

The point is, the level of discourse lately (I would include many topics: politics, religion--the usual culprits) as well as those that are meant to enrich our lives like music, the arts and, of all things, food etc has become especially shrill and relentless.

The internet is a reason, some critical threads can easily become "feeding frenzies"

The art of criticism is often lost in favor of personal attacks.

Different people approach food and cooking and dining out with varying degrees of importance in their lives. The Food Network is TV they are trying to reach the largest possible audience.

I enjoy cooking and going to fine restaurants, I also like hot dogs and see the "entertainment" value in some "not so serious" programs.

One can certainly be critical of Rachel Ray, she is fair game, but it seems to me attacking her as though she were the antichrist is a bit over the top. Putting things wildly out of perspective.

At the very worst,  she will certainly not destroy fine cuisine or the culinary arts and at  best, she may introduce some people to cooking and food who might not otherwise "discover" these things and who will move on to more "serious" and "authentic" programming.

After all, I "discovered" fine wines by ordering a white zinfandel once!

←

Stop making sense!

[Mnehrling]

My attitude towards Rachael Ray is not much different than my attitude towards Jessica Simpson. Technically she not off the mark, she is cute, but she grates on my last nerve. (Plus, you have to admit she is a fun target.)

Just as Slate (whom I rarely take seriously) has the desire for bubble gum/pop culture cooking, foodies and pros have the desire for a deeper food experience. As this article, and eGullet shows, both sides have forums in which they are free to vent their desires.

Lets get real, is there anyone who has not been a target here? Even A.B., who is held in almost statesman like reverence has been the but of many a joke and parody.

Edited July 14, 2005 by Mnehrling (log)

[JohnL]

I will defend anyone's right to say whatever they want to, about anyone!

All I am saying is it might be a good idea to stop and think a bit before launching into a diatribe about the size of someones head!

After all, where does it get you?

You are not going to convince the thousands of people who enjoy Rachel Ray and like her (she must sell thousands of books and have a large audience on TV) to stop reading and watching her.

This can't possibly be about a "crusade" to protect the masses from her!

So-it seems this is more about a personal catharsis. That's also fine, but I lament the use of this forum as "therapy" though, I suppose in the end, that's not really that horrible either.

[Tess]

I agree about Rachel Ray bashing to some extent, but hey-- can we not even bash Slate?

(And they ran an article called "Nigella Really Does Bite." My beloved Nigella! )

Sorry, I got the title of that piece wrong.

Edited July 14, 2005 by Tess (log)

[YoChefGregg]

Bashing Ms. Ray is one thing, and OK.

But blaming her for the downfall of the western world, or at least the demise of the FN is not even close to being accurate.

Her status on the FN is a symptom of what is wrong, not a cause. Although she may be another step in the downward spiral free fall that the FN seems to be in lately. IMO.

I won't be able to look at a colander, wooden spoon or a strawberry ever again without thinking of the vacuous look on RR's face.

OK, I just need to shake it off.

[Bux]

. . . .

At the very worst,  she will certainly not destroy fine cuisine or the culinary arts and at  best, she may introduce some people to cooking and food who might not otherwise "discover" these things and who will move on to more "serious" and "authentic" programming.

After all, I "discovered" fine wines by ordering a white zinfandel once!

←

You've made a number of perceptive points and I'll be the first to admit that a kind of bashing on the internet has not represented highpoint of intellect or or critical opinion, but I seriously question the idea that any introduction to cooking is better than none. I might also go so far as to say that you may have discovered fine wines in spite of ordering a white zinfandel. Plenty of people never get past instant mashed potatoes and plenty of people develop a deep interest in cooking after exposure to simple honest cooking.

[Basilgirl]

Of all the seriously annoying things RR does, the one that grates on my last nerve even more than the EVOO, garbage bowl, healthful, piling up ingredients (although I read elsewhere her producers make her do it) and excessive hand gestures is that when she roasts veggies she puts them in a half sheet pan. That's not roasting; that's steaming. Spread em out! It's the Food Network for crying out loud. Get a bigger pan. I'm sure they've got one around there somewhere.

[GordonCooks]

In my opinion - I always take exception of of so-called "chefs" with little or no culinary skill; e.g. Rachel Ray, Sandra Lee, etc

It's cooking instuction for people who eat at chain restaurants and never heard of the internet.

[jsolomon]

Fine, fine, fine.

I'll cave. Rachel Ray is a real chef. Now get her skinny ass on Iron Chef America!

Rachel Ray vs Cat Cora. That's the match I want to see!

Sandra What's-her-name vs Mario.

Or... Anthony Bourdain vs both of them! If only my idolized Anthony Bourdain were *ahem* proper enough to be an Iron Chef. That would be digging Iron's etymology as a proper name back toward the Iron maiden era (of torture, that is).

[JohnL]

. . . .

At the very worst,  she will certainly not destroy fine cuisine or the culinary arts and at  best, she may introduce some people to cooking and food who might not otherwise "discover" these things and who will move on to more "serious" and "authentic" programming.

After all, I "discovered" fine wines by ordering a white zinfandel once!

←

You've made a number of perceptive points and I'll be the first to admit that a kind of bashing on the internet has not represented highpoint of intellect or or critical opinion, but I seriously question the idea that any introduction to cooking is better than none. I might also go so far as to say that you may have discovered fine wines in spite of ordering a white zinfandel. Plenty of people never get past instant mashed potatoes and plenty of people develop a deep interest in cooking after exposure to simple honest cooking.

←

Yes I may have discovered fine wines without the introduction via white zinfandel.

I like to think I would have.

But the fact remains that many people enjoy white zinfandel and will not move on or will try some "better" quality wines and decide they just likew white zinfandel. I would not decry the existance of white zinfandel not am I prone to think myself "better" than anyone who "just likes white zinfandel" to the point of being critical of them.

I think that Rachel Ray is popular because many people identify with her and her level of cooking skills. I must say I do not know her level of skill in reality. On her show and in her books she comes across as someone of modest skills who is enthusiastic about cooking and eating. A more serious approach may, in fact, turn off a lot of people.

There is also the entertainment factor. This is an area of subjectivity: some people find certain things funny or entertaining while others will not. (goofy hand gestures etc).

One can argue that someone is talented or not talented but remember-there are legions who think Gallagher or Carrot Top are a scream and there are equal legions who cringe at these guys.

I personally enjoy the cooking show on PBS that Charlie Trotter does. I think he is unpretentious and informative while executing relatively simple dishes. However, I would venture that many people would find him a bit too "dry" and would prefer the populist schtick of a Rachel Ray. In terms of seriousness and gravitas there is no comparison-- however for many people for whom creative cooking means using a can of mushroom soup in a sauce populist schtick may be what appeals to them.

I also enjoy the Three Stooges!

The Food Network has become popular because they are taking a certain approach to food and cooking. There is a lot of room for criticism. It is obvious what Rachel Ray is all about and we can certainly be critical of her technique and argue about her effectiveness but I think we are taking her and the Food Network a bit too seriously--I am trying to say that maybe Rachel ray is a start for many people because of the schtick (can you say BAM!) and the lack of gravitas. Maybe some of these people will become more serious about food and cooking and "discover" Charlie Trotter on PBS(maybe some will not and will continue to watch the Food Network for the entertainment factor).

A couple of anecdotal things that may or may not be germain:

I have been told (practically hectored) in various magazine pieces that:"one must tear one's lettuce" not cut it. Lest I be a culinary cretin!

I thought this terribly pretentious until I watched Alton Brown (talk about schtick!!!!) who explained the theory--I got it (without being talked down to).

I once attempted Cassoulet based on a recipe in Gourmet (they made it clear that this was the way to make cassoulet--all others were imposters--there could be no shortcuts!) after three days and endless steps --I was so sick of the whole cooking process: I couldn't eat any of it! I couldn't look at a white bean for several months.

Later while dining at a favorite French Bistro (the late L'ecluse in the village) I told the chef owner of my trials and tribulations--he laughed (gently) and told me he used a number of shortcuts and that no chef in his right mind could run a restaurant making cassoulet the "Gourmet" way.

After all is said and done--it's just food and cooking and eating it should be fun and user friendly.

(if one wants to make it serious and "suffer" over the pots and pans for one's "art" that's fine --we need those types too).

and by the way--I think Rachel Ray does have a big head--someone once posited a theory that many successful entertainers have big (sizewise) heads. Better that than a small mind I suppose.

[Jaymes]

Rachel Ray also appeals to folks that have very busy lives, and find themselves in the kitchen at 6pm with a hungry family to feed.

Most of her recipes (unlike Sandra Lee) do actually call for real, fresh ingredients, and do involve actual cooking. An example is sauteing onions, carrots, celery, fresh garlic and rosemary and/or other herbs, and then adding that to purchased chicken stock.

I think her schtick about 30-Minute Meals is actually the anti-Sandra Lee. RR is saying that with a FEW covenience foods, such as canned or boxed chicken stock, you can still prepare a decent meal from primarily fresh ingredients.

Unlike Sandra Lee, who appears not to be able to recognize a fresh food ingredient even if it were lying on the kitchen floor and she tripped and fell face-first into it.

Edited July 14, 2005 by Jaymes (log)

[JohnL]

Good points Jaymes.

I, in all honesty, am not a big fan of either but I think you provide some perspective ie both.

Sandra Lee's approach seems like something in a timewarp. I keep thinking that I am in the fifties or sixties watching her.

[Grub]

I'm absolutely, positively, not a food snob. Nor am I a particularly skilled cook. I just find her to be completely annoying with her cutesey crap -- and also completely overexposed.

[rich]

Listen guys, Rachel is a very positive TV presence. She works hard, her recipes (though simple) have an appeal to a very specific demographic type and that type constitues a large segment of the population. Rachel serves a purpose and is very good at what she does.

Let her have her moment in the sun, she's worked for it. In the TV business, she may be gone in a year or so and never be heard from again. Let her make her money, get people involved in food and cooking and most importantly provide entertainment.

No TV chef can be too serious as should no restaurant. This is eating. It's supposed to be pleasureable and fun.

Me thinks there are some jealous vibes coming across here. Enjoy Rachel and the Food Network for what they are - no more, no less. But remember, if the Food Network programmed their shows for people like us, their numbers would never allow them to stay in business. We represent a miniscule percentage of the population.

As a side note, I have one question. If so many of the people who have posted here dislike her as ardently as they profess, how do they know so much about her shows? Do they watch just to criticize?

[Mnehrling]

As a side note, I have one question. If so many of the people who have posted here dislike her as ardently as they profess, how do they know so much about her shows? Do they watch just to criticize?

←

As someone who loves to parody Rachael (and other FoodTV celebs).. I do watch her, and many of the others I dislike. No, I don't just criticize.. usually I'm just laughing my a** off.. Watching Rachael or Sandra Lee is like watching the Apprentice. I don't expect to learn anything I didn't pick up in business school, it is for pure entertainment value.

Have you ever watch Mystery Science Theater 3000? If so, you will understand...

[Irishgirl]

Having never watched Rachel Rae in any of her shows, i do not have an opinion of what she is like or capable of as a "chef"....

....however, i did find myself recently doing a demo for her show. Apparantly she does voice overs describing the action and the ingredients. It would have been nice if she actually had been there to witness the demo. (Not that it was anything great or difficult....they picked rather wierd things for a demo!) I just thought that it lacked credibility. Her producer/director or whatever was very specific with what my role was....mind you, he was open to suggestions.....

I understand that food television is very contrived with preprepared food and timing impossibilities....but i thought that the lack of interest/credibility of the supposed host of the show was very disappointing. Perhaps she has very limited time...but does the network have to spread her so thin that she can't even attend the tapings?

Just my two cents.

[coquus]

As a side note, I have one question. If so many of the people who have posted here dislike her as ardently as they profess, how do they know so much about her shows? Do they watch just to criticize?

←

As someone who loves to parody Rachael (and other FoodTV celebs).. I do watch her, and many of the others I dislike. No, I don't just criticize.. usually I'm just laughing my a** off.. Watching Rachael or Sandra Lee is like watching the Apprentice. I don't expect to learn anything I didn't pick up in business school, it is for pure entertainment value.

Have you ever watch Mystery Science Theater 3000? If so, you will understand...

←

Or maybe we're just TV food junkies that stay up till three or four or five in the morning to watch Tony or that episode of Cooking Under Fire.

<7 5/8" []

This is a good discussion, I watch her 40 a day, but rarely agree with her selections. She's a happy girl, so I'd say she's good for the world, keep her.

And whoa, instant mashers are good for some things, just not mashed potatoes IMHO.

[JohnL]

Having never watched Rachel Rae in any of her shows, i do not have an opinion of what she is like or capable of as a "chef"....

....however, i did find myself recently doing a demo for her show.  Apparantly she does voice overs describing the action and the ingredients.  It would have been nice if she actually had been there to witness the demo. (Not that it was anything great or difficult....they picked rather wierd things for a demo!)  I just thought that it lacked credibility.  Her producer/director or whatever was very specific with what my role was....mind you, he was open to suggestions.....

I understand that food television is very contrived with preprepared food and timing impossibilities....but i thought that the lack of interest/credibility of the supposed host of the show was very disappointing.  Perhaps she has very limited time...but does the network have to spread her so thin that she can't even attend the tapings?

Just my two cents.

←

Curious! You might want to elaborate a bit as to your experience with RR. I have seen several episodes of her show and Rachel is always on camera preparing stuff (not via v.o.)

The whole food on TV thing is interesting and you being in the business or involved in it somehow would have some interesting perspective or insight.

[srhcb]

Article in Slate

Rachael Ray may be the world's most reviled chef. Entire blogs are devoted to slamming the perky Food Network superstar—"Rachael Ray Sucks" is particularly vicious. On Web sites like eGullet, a "society for culinary arts and letters," users say she should be "tarred and feathered."

←

"Snobs" are those who feel entitled to offer opinions about those they're unqualified to debate.

"Class" is ignoring snobs.

SB (likes RR ok)