This week the food world had its own Black Monday. To reduce costs, Condé Nast has decided to shut down Gourmet. I mourned on Twitter, along with a thousand other food writers and bloggers. It felt cathartic to be reassured that there were many others who will miss seeing the magazines in their mailboxes every month.
But then the insults started flying. Among the many criticisms the magazine received was that it was “elitist”, “irrelevant”, and that its “recipes took too long.” In the most scathing piece published this morning, The Boston Globe called it a “symbol of bygone vision of gourmet life in America – and as sign that even upmarket niches can be too confining.”(Disclosure: I used to write for the Globe, and still read it, and contributed a piece in August to Gourmet.)
It seems that most of these critics stopped reading Gourmet in the 1980s. Or they ignored the 90% of magazine that doesn’t have to do France or fine dinnerware. What’s so “elitist” about street food in Thailand or a mom-and-pop Chinese barbecue stand? Or a first-person account, not just some fluffy service piece, about living frugally? Or for that matter, in-depth coverage of sustainable food issues? If elitism is defined by reaching beyond the scope of soccer moms and trend-seekers or calling olive oil by its rightful name, then I must be elitist too.
Gourmet was one of two food magazines (the other being Saveur) that wasn’t afraid to cover food from developing countries, at least not in a very watered-down way. Its Vietnamese recipes actually resemble Vietnamese recipes. So what if Gourmet asked readers to go to Chinatown or the Mexican grocery to track down certain ingredients, instead of limiting themselves to stuff at Whole Foods? Yes, for week night dinners, convenience is king. But true food lovers will want to roll up their sleeves and make kimchi or paella or something else challenging, at least once.
A few readers on the Atlantic and NY Times sites seemed confused that Gourmet would stop publishing as the US is experiencing a food renaissance. The truth is, even with more people buying cookbooks and watching the Food Network, few seem interested in serious journalism or a cultural critique of food. Everyone wants recipes, and only recipes, those quick formulas to get food on the table. I adore Epicurious and similar sites for their recipe databases. But when every publication takes cuisines with long, rich histories and boils them down to “5 Quick-and-Budget-Friendly Recipes”, it’s a slap in the face.
So thank you, Gourmet, for challenging my tastebuds, cooking, and sense of curiosity. I’ll continue to read your back issues, even if every other publication reduces food to a list of ingredients.
________________________
Related:
Gourmet was for the young and scrappy, too – Salon
Closing the Book on Gourmet Magazine – NY Times
I think that when folks argue – as some have – that Bon App should have been closed instead of Gourmet (despite its better financial position) because Gourmet published not only food writing, but food *reporting* as well they sound … elitist.
Bon App is not my cup of tea by a longshot, and by the time it closed Gourmet was the ONLY one of the Big Four that I still carried a subscription to. And I am saddened by what Gourmet’s closure says about what sort of food-related pieces Americans want to read. But I can’t help feeling uncomfortable when it’s called ‘smarter’.
A lot of people don’t care about sustainability or what people eat on the street in Bangkok. Heck alot of my blog readers probably prefer BA to Gourmet. That doesn’t make them dumb. That’s reality, and it’s something that those of us who write about food have deal with and negotiate, in whatever ways we choose to do so. For me it’s meant looking beyond the food press for publications to write for, and thinking about how to earn a living in ways other than writing.
And I am surprised that no one has asked if and how Gourmet might have been saved. There’s a huge amount of fury being directed at Conde Nast (which is, um, a business – yes folks publishing is a business), but my understanding is that decisions about cost-cutting rested to some degree at least at the level of magazine management.
Saveur’s ad pages grew while Gourmet’s shrank. We’re a year into the recession and I saw no changes at all in Gourmet’s content, design, beautiful (and expensive to produce) photo spreads, etc. (Except that the size of the mag shrank.)
I’m not saying Gourmet should have been turned into Bon App or even Saveur, but might little changes have been made, expenses trimmed, etc. that would have enabled Gourmet to ride out the recession? Or did the folks in charge believe that the magazine’s history made it so Teflon-coated that Conde Nast would never ever let it die, no matter how bad things got?
It’s always a sad thing when people lose their jobs without warning, just like that. But there’s an edge of extremely righteous indignation attached to the general mourning of Gourmet’s demise that frankly makes me uncomfortable.
I don’t know how Gourmet could be saved. Conde Nast seemed determined to shut it down quickly and for good. But I would love to hear ideas if anyone has them.
I’m one of those people who thinks that Bon App should have gotten the axe instead…but only because BA doesn’t stimulate or engage me on any level: I can’t imagine why I’d buy a copy.
Differences in design and visual appeal aside, the written topics in BA rarely aim for anything more in-depth than seasonal holiday cooking tips (“10 Ways to Survive Thanksgiving!”), TV chef “interviews”, or Fresh & Light & Quick & Easy recipe roundups. And…is it really not a valid complaint to say that I prefer smarter writing? I like to be surprised and challenged, maybe that’s elitist.
Gourmet had lost it years ago. I love reading coking magazines, but the articles and writing had gone downhill. I couldn’t even finish reading the links to “street food in Thailand” and a “mom-and-pop Chinese barbecue”.
Gourmet magazine had lost touch with the average reader and should have been shut down years ago.
I loved Gourmet, and often read it. I really enjoyed the style and the recipes. Having said this I have definitley read more negative than positive remarks about the mag, and it seems that many people were not higely sad to see it go.