HOME / food: What to eat. What not to eat.

Food, Inglorious FoodMy decision to opt out of the macho food-writing movement.

By Paul LevyPosted Wednesday, Sept. 19, 2007, at 7:27 AM ET

Roughly 30 years ago, when I began writing a weekly column about food for a British national newspaper, the Observer, I was competing in a marketplace that was monopolized by women (and a few token gay men) who wrote recipes. My brief was to write essays about food—not recipes—for the women's pages that were written from the point of view of the eater as much as the cook. Put another way, I was to present a masculine perspective, and—guess what?—the paper's surveys showed that I garnered a male audience, in addition to the usual female readership. Clearly men took an interest in eating, if not in cooking.

RSS

At the annual round of food writing awards the next year, the column cleaned up, much to the dismay of the ladies at one prize-giving lunch, whom I recall actually hissed when I won the restaurant-writing category, as well as the food-writing award. But perhaps the women were right to protest: I was only one of the first fellows invading what had been their territory. Surveying the lay of the land now, the scenery has altered again.

Over the years, I've done my best to write seriously about food, assuming my readers are an educated audience who would get (and smile or learnedly chuckle at) allusions to the Bible, Shakespeare, Dickens, or Damon Runyon, readers who would understand cryptic puns and whose jaws would not slacken when asked whether they knew "the land where the lemon trees bloom?"

No doubt this was a kind of showing off on my part—a gaudy peacock's prose display of pseudo-erudition. (It's the only use I've ever been able to make of my Ph.D. in English literature.) The food writing that's in vogue today consists chiefly of a bellow of bravado. It's a guy thing, sure, but (with a few honorably hungry exceptions) these scribblers mostly ignore what's on the plate. They view themselves as boy hunters and despise sissy gatherers, thrive on the undertow of violence they detect in the professional kitchen, and like to linger on the unappetizing aspects of food preparation. The gross-out factor trumps tasting good as well as good taste.

When I think about how I'd have to rewrite some of my earlier pieces for today's market, I feel queasy. No editor today, for example, would be content with the way I dealt with durian, the cherished oriental fruit that looks like a giant hand grenade, which I wrote about for the Observer in 1984: "Some find the smell excremental, some find it reminiscent of sick." I'd now be booed off the fellas' food-writing team for excessive gentility. Today the correct vocabulary is shit and puke.

Or consider when I went to Macau to eat a Cantonese dog dinner for the Wall Street Journal. I wrote that "the meat had dark skin attached to it, was quite fatty and looked like pork … chewy, and had a very strong, though not disagreeable flavor." Today's foodie-writing fashion would demand that I confess that I'd never seen anything more repulsive than Rover's skin. I'd need to itemize what happened to the tongue, brain, and genitalia of the—it turned out—stolen dog (and I'd need to go into grisly detail about the dog-napping itself, as well as its butchery).

No, today's market does not allow for food writing that aims to be allusive, playful, or elegantly simple. The prevailing style is like polenta or steel-cut oats: coarse. Has this influenced my own writing? It's made my sentences shorter and snappier—but perhaps that is because as I age, editors get younger, and the young are more urgently hurried. And the prevalent, apparently unburnished style of my fellow male cohorts has made me buff and polish my prose even more. I unsplit infinitives and unpick clichés. I try to imitate the rhythms of (my own) speech, but remain more scrupulous about my written than spoken vocabulary. When we are pricked, do we not shout "shit!"? Of course, but I strive to write more decorously, and avoid the four-letter words for things gastrointestinal as well as sexual. OK, it's partly to preserve their shock value when I do use them.

This trend is not something I discuss with my close contemporaries (we talk about who makes the best BBQ and how noisy restaurants are nowadays). While I don't want to appear prissy, I'd rather not nurture the foodie shock jocks.

But there are certainly plenty of these, most obviously in the Bad Boy school of TV chefs. In The New Yorker, Bill Buford writes that after hearing that Raymond Blanc's restaurant Le Manoir aux Quat' Saisons failed to get a third Michelin star (again), Gordon Ramsay reportedly said, "When I heard that Maison Blanc had gone tits up, it added two inches to my cock."