On Food... vs. Larousse Gastronomique

[carpetbagger, esq.]

Is one generally preferable to the other? It seems like having both Larousse Gastronomique and On Food & Cooking seems a little redundant, although I'm sure people bought both just to have them.

If anyone has a better option, please let me know.

Thanks in advance.

[Anna N]

Is one generally preferable to the other? It seems like having both Larousse Gastronomique and On Food & Cooking seems a little redundant, although I'm sure people bought both just to have them.

If anyone has a better option, please let me know.

Thanks in advance.

←

I think you need to look inside both books before you decide. To me they are like apples and oranges - very, very different. I certainly refer to On Food very frequently, Larousse - hardly ever.

[Shalmanese]

Larousse is an encyclopedia and OFAC is a science book. They should complement each other.

[Chris Amirault]

carpetbagger, esq., why can there be only one?

[docsconz]

I too do not see this as an either/or situation, but if I had to choose one, it would be On Food and Cooking.

[carpetbagger, esq.]

carpetbagger, esq., why can there be only one?

←

i'm just planning what i'm getting with some gift cards, and i had room for one more book. it was down to those two. i was just trying to be humorous with a highlander reference.

[Fat Guy]

No contest, you want On Food and Cooking.

I'm probably in the thousandth of a percent of the population with the most use for Larousse, yet like Anna I hardly ever use it. As a practical reference work, it's pretty much a failure. If there's a competitor for the Larousse position on the shelf, it's the Oxford Companion, but that's also not a particularly good practical reference -- though it's more enjoyable to read than Larousse.

On Food and Cooking, which is a kitchen science book, is not really in the same category as Larousse and Oxford. It is, however, indispensable.

[Andy Lynes]

I have both Larousse and the revised edition of The Oxford Companion to Food (to which I am a contributor) on a shelf next to my computer and I refer to them both in the course of my work occasionaly. I don't use them much, but there have been a number of times when I've been very grateful to have them around, which is how it should be with works of reference I think.

There's a table of contents and excerpts from On Food and Cooking at Harold McGee's Curious Cook website which might help you make up your mind: click here.

By the way Fat Guy, do you have the 2001 revision of Larousse? I think I know where your coming from but I think "pretty much a failure" is a tad on the strong side.

[russ parsons]

i have several editions of larousse and like the one from the '50s the best. that said, i rarely use it anymore--even though at one time i probably would have considered it indispensible. i think mostly it's a change in the kind of things i'm researching. only a couple of times a year am i looking for the "authentic" french version of something. I'm much more likely to be interested in how something works ... and that's in "on food."

[DTBarton]

I don't have OFAC but I do have Larousse and use it occasionally. I like it for getting information on things I don't know much about, and I like the fact that most of the things in the encyclopedia come with a recipe of some sort. I've used it mostly to get ideas of flavorings, herbs, etc. to add to ingredients or dishes as opposed to using the recipes verbatem, but then that's how I use a lot of cook books. Don't use any as much as I used to since I got in the habit of going on line for ideas. I like the Larousse paella recipe that uses a good bit of squid, yum.

[Carrot Top]

One is Science the other is Religion.

[JasonZ]

I couldn't give you an answer until I knew more about your cooking style and the things you get from your cookbooks (after all, if all you REALLY want to do is fill 3 inches of shelf space, either one will do -- they're both "nice to have" in a library).

You say you get most of your recipes online ... so when do you turn to your culinary library? What kinds of questions, issues are you usually looking to solve? Is it historical (go for Larousse) or chemical/scientific (OFAC, hands down). Are you looking for something that's a good read (IMHO, OFAC over Larousse, then)? Or do you want to explore an area that's completely new to you (might then want to consider others, eg, H This' Molecular Gastronomy) ... You'll have to help us help you in this one

I have OFAC and This -- they apply to all cooking styles and cultures ... I don't have Larousse (French focused, Euro-centric) ... but I have Bruce Cost's Asian Ingredients, as well as his book on Big Bowl Noodles, a combination which is the Asian equivalent of Larousse. Fits my needs perfectly ... may not be your cup of tea ...

Regards and good luck choosing!!

Edited December 27, 2006 by JasonZ (log)

[carpetbagger, esq.]

i don't think i said i get most of my recipes online. i usually either wing it for most of the nightly meals, and refer to my cookbooks for family g2g's, special events like parties, etc. i tend to like cookbooks that do more than just list recipe after recipe. the more information, the better. i like to learn where a recipe came from, how it developed, why it tastes like it does/how it comes together, and why certain dishes or food staples took off in a certain region. to me, that's just as interesting as how it tastes. among my friends, i tend to be the guy filled with seemingly useless information. it's probably not surprising that i got a general desk reference book from one person for xmas and a food lover's companion from another.

as for these books, i was just looking for something that could meet those needs.

like i said earlier, i had alotted one book out of my viking store gift card xmas moolah. maybe i'll just get both and hold off on something else. it turned out i got a few more shun knives, so that probably freed up some space on the ol' gift card.

i may look into those asian books you suggested. i'd love to know more about that part of the world.

thanks a bunch.

[Carrot Top]

I literally start to fall asleep when I read the science of cooking. I've had the McGee books and the Wolke books which are similar. My eyes start feeling heavy lidded and I feel like running away from home or falling asleep forever, having to read the "whys" of what I know how to do from experience, which is how to cook.

A person can learn to cook from experience and from a visceral see and feel of the thing. The explanations of "why" are great if you love that stuff, or if you *want* a reason of why things happen so you can explain it to other people or just "know", yourself. . . I never wanted a reason - I wanted to *do* and to eat. I prefer a bit of mystery, magic, as to why this or that happens. The mind is free to wander into mythology then. Perhaps an egg white whips up because it has the soul of an old gleeful dragon within it. . .that sort of thing. So much more fulfilling than chemistry (to me) in the long run.

I read the 1971 edition of Larousse from cover to cover when I first wanted to learn about food. Now *that's* fun reading. Really. It's a liturgy.