Rachael Ray

[srhcb]

I wouldnt say I hate her, I dont hate anyone.  But I really dont care for her. I watch her show and am continually annoyed by her.. Her hand movements while talking, her cheesy sayings, that laugh, all would be fine if I liked her cooking.    In terms of her other show where she is traveling aorund stiffing waiters across the country, I watch that sometimes.. However, I have been to many of the Cities where she has filmed and never felt compelled to visit any of her choices..  Nor would I order anything she does..

←

Why do you watch her show?

SB (just curious)

"two elderly women are at a Catskill mountain resort, and one of 'em says, "Boy, that Rachael Ray is sure annoying." The other one says, "Yeah, I know; and I watch her two hours a day!"

Edited October 4, 2006 by srhcb (log)

[Pyewacket]

All TV food personalities are trying to do is make a living doing what they love to do and what they get good feedback for doing. I'm sure that most of them understand that they are only the "Flavor of the minute" with a limited half-life of popularity. So why begrudge them the act of making hay while the sun shines? It appears to be a complete waste of time, energy and creativity, in my view. Yeah, RR kind of rubs me the wrong way with her little idiosyncracies, but I'm sure others feel the same about me.

As far as "paying dues" -there are many ways of doing that just as there are many types of vocations that involve food other than foodservice. To assert that the only way to gain experience is by working in high-end restaurants and going to culinary school is horse dooky and elitist in the extreme. Believe me, I've done both and knowledge gaps exist in everyone with those backgrounds. I actually learned more about food and it's place in America after leaving school and foodservice to work in consumer coops, specialty foods manufacturing and culinary media and communications.

It seems that Americans are rapidly becoming a society that enjoys hauling around gunny sacks of grudges for imagined slights. Many relish spewing out their hatred for anything they didn't think up first. Excoriation of others with differing views is the new popular contact sport. It's also a chicken-shit form of interaction because, for the most part, it's all done anonymously through internet blogs and postings where no requirement for integrity or credibility exists. I'd really like to see people put their creative energies into more edifying pursuits, but meanwhile, I just try to find the good ideas in what's presented and ignore the rest. All the agita is bad for heart, personally and collectively.

Enjoy it while it lasts. Leave them alone and they'll all go home eventually.

Edited October 4, 2006 by Pyewacket (log)

[Pyewacket]

I just received this in an email. It seems appropos.

Credit goes to Garrison Keilor-

"As Frost might have written, "The woods are lovely, dark and thick. But I have many butts to kick and some to poke and just one stick."

[JohnL]

All TV food personalities are trying to do is make a living doing what they love to do and what they get good feedback for doing. I'm sure that most of them understand that they are only the "Flavor of the minute" with a limited half-life of popularity. So why begrudge them the act of making hay while the sun shines? It appears to be a complete waste of time, energy and creativity, in my view. Yeah, RR kind of rubs me the wrong way with her little idiosyncracies, but I'm sure others feel the same about me.

As far as "paying dues" -there are many ways of doing that just as there are many types of vocations that involve food other than  foodservice. To assert that the only way to gain experience is by working in high-end restaurants and going to culinary school is horse dooky and elitist in the extreme. Believe me, I've done both and knowledge gaps exist in everyone with those backgrounds. I actually learned more about food and it's place in America after leaving school and foodservice to work in consumer coops, specialty foods manufacturing and culinary media and communications.

It seems that Americans are rapidly becoming a society that enjoys hauling around gunny sacks of grudges for imagined slights. Many relish spewing out their hatred for anything they didn't think up first. Excoriation of others with differing views is the new popular contact sport. It's also a chicken-shit form of interaction because, for the most part, it's all done anonymously through internet blogs and postings where no requirement for integrity or credibility exists.  I'd really like to see people put their creative energies into more edifying pursuits, but meanwhile, I just try to find the good ideas in what's presented and ignore the rest. All the agita is bad for heart, personally and collectively.

Enjoy it while it lasts. Leave them alone and they'll all go home eventually.

←

You make some very good points.

Popular culture will always be attacked by the intelligencia.

Elitism is not really a bad thing.

Snobbery is.

So is arrogance.

It seems that many critics and writers today, rather than providing insight, are stooping to

personal attack. Rather than use style and wit (one wonders how many of these writers actually possess any) they go for sensationalism and bombast.

Ironically, Mr Morago actually becomes that which he attacks!

His piece is shallow and shrill--he takes on the traits of a "caricature." He admits he doesn't understand the success of the people he "skewers."

This, I believe, is a lie.

The role of any critic (popular culture or otherwise) is to understand the subject and to provide some insight to his or her readers.

Mr Morago is either unqualified to write about popular culture (I doubt this) or he has decided that by sacrificing insight for low brow attack he (and his column) will be "noticed."

He could raise the level of journalism but he chooses to go for the big audience (kinda like what he accuses Ms Ray of).

Part of the problem is the proliferation of blogs and electronic media etc which I believe are forcing print journalists to stoop to their often low level of discourse.

As for this "qualified" and "paying of dues" nonsense-

who exactly determines who is or isn't qualified?

It is fine to feel self satisfied and confident to be one who "is in the know" about anything, part of the cognoscenti, if you will. But when that satisfaction turns to smugness or snobism, feelings of being anointed so to speak, then there is a problem.

As a film buff, I love the irony of the cognoscenti who look down upon popular culture despising Jerry Lewis as decidedly low brow while elevating the French Cinema to godlike status. To their chagrin, they can't seem to explain why Mr Lewis is elevated to godlike status by their counterparts in France.

So life goes on!

[Andrew Fenton]

Why do you watch her show?

Yeah, this is a question I'd like to throw out to the group generally. Lord knows I don't have enough time to watch the TV I do like, let alone the TV I hate. There seem to be a lot of eGulleteers who spend a lot of time hating Food TV personalities; I'm not sure why they spend so much time watching them rather than, say, cooking...

[Sneakeater]

Or listening to recordings they like, or going to concerts or the theater, or talking (or whatever) to their significant others, or hanging out with friends, or taking walks, or playing sports, or reading, or . . . .

Edited October 4, 2006 by Sneakeater (log)

[Daniel]

I was basically saying, "whenever I watch her show" in the literal sense.. If I am flipping through the channels and see her, I just watched her show.. I was not talkking about regularly or ever an entire show.. Again, I dont spend much time on her.. But when I do see her, its basically the same reaction..And her travel show is easier to handle because of the scenary..

Edited October 4, 2006 by Daniel (log)

[Sneakeater]

I can honestly say that the only time I've watched Rachel Ray (or, to be truthful, anything on the Food Channel) is when I was visiting my mother in Florida and there was literally nothing to do.

[BeefCheeks]

I'm not sure that this writer is necessarily jealous of RR per se; I think he's just jealous of her success and visibility.

[K_A_S]

Now that I've had a chance to read the piece, I guess my comment would be that the author really needs to work on his... umm... anger issues. I realize that he probably thinks that he's being amusing with his over-the-top rant, but he ends up sounding more pitiful than funny, at least to me. I think that one could write a parody of Rachel Ray, or better yet, a Saturday Night Live skewering a la Ackroyd on Julia Child, but this article simply ain't it.

On Ray-hating (or Springer-hating, Stern-hating, etc.): I don't get the whole "I watch X because it's fun to diss him/her" phenomenon; I guess that my life is stressful enough to not to want to add to it by watching or listening to things that are going to raise my blood pressure, and I feel secure enough as a person not to need to look down on other people to feel better about myself.

[menon1971]

The article does sound as if it was written with some irrational vitriol (although I confess that I believe the personality in question represents a negative turn for American food culture). I picture a lonely man sitting on the floor with a lap top and a bottle of cheap scotch typing away under a bare bulb.......

For a more balanced take on the FN and Ms. Ray you may want to check out the topic started by jamiemaw on Bill Buford's recent New Yorker article.

[BeefCheeks]

Here's a link to the article:

http://www.ctnow.com/dining/hc-gregcol0914...ertainment-dine

[BeefCheeks]

The writer in question is not a food writer to my knowledge--he's a features writer for the Courant who seems to like to write "edgy" and glib pieces about what he deems to be "trend-worthy." It was Dorothy Parker who said, "if you can't say anything nice, come sit by me," right? She was brilliant, though. I'm not sure how brilliant this guy is.

Is it as irritating to any of you as it is to me that someone with virtually no food background (certainly not professional food background, no training, and if you asked him if he knew who Elizabeth David was he'd probably say he had lunch with her last week) feels so shamelessly compelled to spew vitriol about the qualitative aspects of RR's (or Alton's or Ina's shows)? I did find myself wondering whether he auditioned on "Be the Next Food TV Star" and they yanked him off the set with a large hook.

Is there room for this sort of "writing" in the food pages of national newspapers? Because I, for one, find myself ill when I see that it's taking up valuable newspaper "inches" that might better filled by people like our dear, departed Johnny Apple, Kim Severson, Melissa Clark (who annoys the hell out of me but only because she's a size 2 and so it's a very personal thing), Jim Oesland, and others.

[jgm]

One thing that we who are foodies almost always fail to understand, is that the Food Network isn't there to promote cooking. It's there to make money. Likewise, RR's show isn't there to please people like us; it's aimed at a specific demographic, and as long as it attracts advertisers and viewers, it's considered successful.

I don't watch her show much, but I do from time to time. My feelings about here are fairly neutral. I do get tired of the giggle, the stuff like calling sandwiches "sammies", etc.; I've never been a fan of anything cutesy. But if she can get some of my friends to stop making scalloped potatoes out of a box, to stop buying Hamburger Helper, and to understand that the best soup doesn't come out of a can, and doesn't have to take much longer, well then, that would be great. And that seems to be what she aims to do. Some of her recipes are better than others, but for the most part, she uses fresh ingredients. I've made several of her recipes, and they've produced some good meals.

Her show was never aimed at people like us. It's meant for a completely different type of audience, and its success will be measured by whether it actually accomplishes what it seeks to do.

Sometimes I feel like I live a double life. On the computer, I have eG and the people on it, who eat well and cook well, or at least strive to. In the rest of my life, my friends are people whose mothers were lousy cooks, and who truly believe they are not talented enough to cook without boxes and cans, and so they never try. And there's RR, with a down-home persona designed to appeal to those friends of mine, showing them that it doesn't take that much to start with fresh ingredients and go from there. I am absolutely certain that none of my friends, even if they wanted to, could make it from where they are, to the eGullet style of cooking and eating, in one leap. But they all see RR as somebody who is a lot like they are, and sometimes I hear them talking about her recipes. And it's in terms of "I could probably do that. . ." and never "Yeah, like I could do something like that".

Give her credit where credit is due, and stop worrying about what she's not.

[lesfen]

One thing that we who are foodies almost always fail to understand, is that the Food Network isn't there to promote cooking.  It's there to make money.  Likewise, RR's show isn't there to please people like us; it's aimed at a specific demographic, and as long as it attracts advertisers and viewers, it's considered successful.

I don't watch her show much, but I do from time to time.  My feelings about here are fairly neutral.  I do get tired of the giggle, the stuff like calling sandwiches "sammies", etc.; I've never been a fan of anything cutesy.  But if she can get some of my friends to stop making scalloped potatoes out of a box, to stop buying Hamburger Helper, and to understand that the best soup doesn't come out of a can, and doesn't have to take much longer, well then, that would be great.  And that seems to be what she aims to do.  Some of her recipes are better than others, but for the most part, she uses fresh ingredients.  I've made several of her recipes, and they've produced some good meals.

Her show was never aimed at people like us.  It's meant for a completely different type of audience, and its success will be measured by whether it actually accomplishes what it seeks to do.

Sometimes I feel like I live a double life.  On the computer, I have eG and the people on it, who eat well and cook well, or at least strive to.  In the rest of my life, my friends are people whose mothers were lousy cooks, and who truly believe they are not talented enough to cook without boxes and cans, and so they never try.  And there's RR, with a down-home persona designed to appeal to those friends of mine, showing them that it doesn't take that much to start with fresh ingredients and go from there.  I am absolutely certain that none of my friends, even if they wanted to, could make it from where they are, to the eGullet style of cooking and eating, in one leap.  But they all see RR as somebody who is a lot like they are, and sometimes I hear them talking about her recipes.  And it's in terms of "I could probably do that. . ." and never "Yeah, like I could do something like that".

Give her credit where credit is due, and stop worrying about what she's not. 

←

NICE! Well said!

[johnsmith45678]

All TV food personalities are trying to do is make a living doing what they love to do and what they get good feedback for doing. I'm sure that most of them understand that they are only the "Flavor of the minute" with a limited half-life of popularity. So why begrudge them the act of making hay while the sun shines? It appears to be a complete waste of time, energy and creativity, in my view. Yeah, RR kind of rubs me the wrong way with her little idiosyncracies, but I'm sure others feel the same about me.

←

Fast food outlets are only trying to make a living too -- why do so many people attack them as well? Also just trying to make a living: crack dealers, Howard Stern, the cold fusion inventors, phishers, snake oil salesmen, etc.

I sure hope RR is able to make a living from the measly $6 million she earned the past year (which is likely to jump a big amount with her new talk show).

Edited October 4, 2006 by johnsmith45678 (log)

[JohnL]

One thing that we who are foodies almost always fail to understand, is that the Food Network isn't there to promote cooking.  It's there to make money.  Likewise, RR's show isn't there to please people like us; it's aimed at a specific demographic, and as long as it attracts advertisers and viewers, it's considered successful.

I don't watch her show much, but I do from time to time.  My feelings about here are fairly neutral.  I do get tired of the giggle, the stuff like calling sandwiches "sammies", etc.; I've never been a fan of anything cutesy.  But if she can get some of my friends to stop making scalloped potatoes out of a box, to stop buying Hamburger Helper, and to understand that the best soup doesn't come out of a can, and doesn't have to take much longer, well then, that would be great.  And that seems to be what she aims to do.  Some of her recipes are better than others, but for the most part, she uses fresh ingredients.  I've made several of her recipes, and they've produced some good meals.

Her show was never aimed at people like us.  It's meant for a completely different type of audience, and its success will be measured by whether it actually accomplishes what it seeks to do.

Sometimes I feel like I live a double life.  On the computer, I have eG and the people on it, who eat well and cook well, or at least strive to.  In the rest of my life, my friends are people whose mothers were lousy cooks, and who truly believe they are not talented enough to cook without boxes and cans, and so they never try.  And there's RR, with a down-home persona designed to appeal to those friends of mine, showing them that it doesn't take that much to start with fresh ingredients and go from there.  I am absolutely certain that none of my friends, even if they wanted to, could make it from where they are, to the eGullet style of cooking and eating, in one leap.  But they all see RR as somebody who is a lot like they are, and sometimes I hear them talking about her recipes.  And it's in terms of "I could probably do that. . ." and never "Yeah, like I could do something like that".

Give her credit where credit is due, and stop worrying about what she's not. 

←

and a true foodie is only in it for the love?

I'm sorry--the Food Network is about reaching enough viewers to justify its existence.

To believe that Public TV or any other media outlet is not about the same thing is to be naieve.

Yes there are differences but they are differences by degrees.

JGV or Alain Ducasse need to reach an audience and generate profits same as Burger King.

Many people appreciate these chefs and others like them and also eat at Burger King.

There are audiences that often overlap.

There are distinct audiences.

TV Food Network is going for a broad mass appeal.

Other efforts are targeting niches.

You are correct to view RR in the proper context. She is an entertainer who cooks.

The cook who entertains (read Emeril) can garner larger audiences many of whom are not interested in food enough to attend the culinary institute or watch less entertaining folks like Charlie Trotter on PBS.

Lack of interest in food (is not a sign of anything) it is what it is.

Different strokes etc etc .

in fact, I would consider the person who can appreciate BK as well as Ducasse to be a true gourmand!!! Certainly a cut above those snobs who can't enjoy a tasty burger once in a while!

[SuperLuckyCat]

Is there a discussion on Sandra Lee?

[malarkey]

There are a lot of people who have not been exposed to "dining", and don't have a lot of money, who confronted with a strange city may just opt for Burger King because it is familiar. Even with the tourism shows, she is promoting trying something new. That can't be all bad.

This is a good point. I haven't watched all her shows, but the ones I've seen she does go to locally owned restaurants, thus giving them national exposure. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, has she ever promoted a national chain on $40 a Day or Tasty Travels?

in fact, I would consider the person who can appreciate BK as well as Ducasse to be a true gourmand!!! Certainly a cut above those snobs who can't enjoy a tasty burger once in a while!

Well, that would be me, however, I wouldn't put BK at the top of my "burger" list. I do tend to avoid national chains, preferring to support the local economy by finding the down-home diner or roadhouse.

Really, it's her persona that bugs me. The giggling is awful, the cutesy perky thing is awful. Just not my style. Plus, I'm interested in more serious cooking. I'm just not in her demographic.

[LindsayAnn]

Come on peeps....my aren't we critical of others. Is Rachel Ray my favorite? No. DO I enjoy Food Network? For most of thier shows, yes, yes I do. They are not TRYING to be the a 5 star type cooking empire, at least not in most cases. They are trying to appeal to families, stay at home moms (and dad's too of course) as well as business women/men who don't have 2, 3 or 4 hours to prepare a 5 course meal...let alone another hour to clean it. They are trying to appeal to young singles who are learning to cook. They are tying to appeal to cooks who want to learn new recipes and want to learn the 'basics' so that they can combine recipes and tweek recipes. However, I think even the self proclaimed expert chef can learn a new recipe or two that would meet thier high standards...that is if they were open to it.

On Rachel Ray, like a few others have said - she is what she is. She is energetic, creative and personable. Yes, a few annoying sayings (okay many). Who cares though....we all have our annoying things about us. She uses those catch phrase saying to help brand her. She is proud that she is a self made cook, not chef. She has taught a lot of people the basics and enabled many to realize that they too could cook a meal even if they don't have much time. Obviously she can't be that annoying if she attracts the audiences that she does. Maybe some of us need more tolerance of others, and to realize that we have annoying things about us as well. I think many people are just exhasperated that she is a normal person who some how went from her own catering/cooking class to having her own show on the food network, then another, then another, book, book, show, show on CBS, etc....

Congrats to her, she has done well and is very good at what SHE does. Maybe not at what YOU do, but then again she's not trying to be you - never has and probably wouldn't want to - as I am pretty sure she is enjoying her own success.

Edited October 4, 2006 by LindsayAnn (log)

[tommy]

an explanation of the reaction that she gets from so many people?

simple: hating is so darned easy.

Edited October 4, 2006 by tommy (log)

[JohnL]

Come on peeps....my aren't we critical of others. Is Rachel Ray my favorite? No. DO I enjoy Food Network? For most of thier shows, yes, yes I do. They are not TRYING to be the a 5 star type cooking empire, at least not in most cases.  They are trying to appeal to families, stay at home moms (and dad's too of course) as well as business women/men who don't have 2, 3 or 4 hours to prepare a 5 course meal...let alone another hour to clean it. They are trying to appeal to young singles who are learning to cook. They are tying to appeal to cooks who want to learn new recipes and want to learn the 'basics' so that they can combine recipes and tweek recipes. However, I think even the self proclaimed expert chef can learn a new recipe or two that would meet thier high standards...that is if they were open to it.

On Rachel Ray, like a few others have said - she is what she is. She is energetic, creative and personable. Yes, a few annoying sayings (okay many). Who cares though....we all have our annoying things about us. She uses those catch phrase saying to help brand her. She is proud that she is a self made cook, not chef.  She has taught a lot of people the basics and enabled many to realize that they too could cook a meal even if they don't have much time. Obviously she can't be that annoying if she attracts the audiences that she does. Maybe some of us need more tolerance of others, and to realize that we have annoying things about us as well. I think many people are just exhasperated that she is a normal person who some how went from her own catering/cooking class to having her own show on the food network, then another, then another, book, book, show, show on CBS, etc....

Congrats to her, she has done well and is very good at what SHE does. Maybe not at what YOU do, but then again she's not trying to be you - never has and probably wouldn't want to - as I am pretty sure she is enjoying her own success.

←

here here!

well said

[stovetop]

I am a chef and have been in the restaurant business all my life, like 26 or so years- I like Rachel Ray, I like both her shows and all her quirky crazy and annoying antics, I like her the way she presents herself and how she teaches, it might not be for everyone, we all learn by different methods.

As for the talk show- well that is going a bit to far; but look at all the crap the average North American is looking at, Reality crap. That stupid reality cooking shit show is way worse then Rachael ray and many people can even last a whole show. I could not even make five minutes even if it has the big chef running it.

most of those loosers would not last five minutes in a real kitchen and the person who won will bunkrupt the res he/she will run.

steve

[johnsmith45678]

Here's a great rant about RR:

http://jackiebeatrules.com/blog/?p=111

[stovetop]

that is bad shit

like I said " reailty"

this woman has a Rachel Ray in her bonnet

maybe she needs some perky

steve