# Rude article about Julia Child: "Do Not Buy her Book" **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [September 2, 2009, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rude-article-about-julia-child-do-not-buy-her-book/508667 "2009-09-02T18:55:26Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Nava](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/da6949/32.png) [@Nava](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nava)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2009, 1:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rude-article-about-julia-child-do-not-buy-her-book/508667/41 "2009-09-03T13:58:54Z")
> [@aruvqan](#): > > Hell you could fake up a pintade au riz sauvage by cooking up a batch of long grain and wild rice in chicken broth with an onion and a tomato chopped into it at the beginning of the cooking, split a cornish game hen in half front to back [so each piece has a leg and wing and breast] then gently sauteing it in butter and olive oil that has been used to saute up a clove of garlic, and then sliding the whole bird in halves into a vessel one can roast the birdy bits in, while sauteing a tad of flour in the drippings until it is a roux then deglazing with white wine. Put half the rice on each plate, flop a bird half on the rice, spooge the sauce on top [not assininely decoratively around on the plate where you cant _taste_ it on the food] and slap on the table with a nice tossed salad and something nice to drink. I’m not even sure what all of that means (“a roux?” would that be posh for golden-brown?) and I had lunch one hour ago, but somehow you’ve managed to make me salivate… ---
**Author:** ![twickster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ec9cab/32.png) [@twickster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/twickster)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2009, 2:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rude-article-about-julia-child-do-not-buy-her-book/508667/42 "2009-09-03T14:12:41Z")
**Cisco** : I am a mod, albeit not in this forum, and I’m not seeing **Miller** do anything against the rules here. He’s disagreeing with your premise – that there’s only one way to read Ms. Schrambling’s article, and that is as an unacceptable attack on Julia Child and her entire life and career – but disagreement is allowed around here. He isn’t insulting you, and he isn’t threadshitting. And, frankly, I’m with him on not understanding the depth of outrage y’all are expressing here. Not everyone likes to cook, and if you don’t, buying a copy of _Mastering the Art of French Cooking_ is a waste of money. I think she is correct that way more people will ever buy it than will cook from it. twickster, moderator, who saw _Julie and Julia_ a few days ago, loved it, and was inspired not at all to go cook anything, complicated or otherwise ---
**Author:** ![Labrador\_Deceiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7c8e57/32.png) [@Labrador\_Deceiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Labrador_Deceiver)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2009, 2:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rude-article-about-julia-child-do-not-buy-her-book/508667/43 "2009-09-03T14:36:59Z")
> [@twickster](#): > > **Cisco** : . > Not everyone likes to cook, and if you don’t, buying a copy of _Mastering the Art of French Cooking_ is a waste of money. I think she is correct that way more people will ever buy it than will cook from it. I’m sorry, where did the review limit it’s audience to those who don’t like to cook? Must have missed that paragraph. Writing a cookbook review targeted at those who don’t like to cook would be way south of stupid. I am also of the belief there is no evidence for the ridiculous claim that MTAOFC will sit idle on most shelves. There is nothing that will ever back up that little claim. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2009, 3:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rude-article-about-julia-child-do-not-buy-her-book/508667/44 "2009-09-03T15:19:08Z")
I don’t think the article is rude. The author is just saying that most people nowadays will be put off by Child’s insistence that everything should be made from scratch, and if you’re just a casual cook who doesn’t have hours to spend cooking, you’re going to be frustrated by the recipes, most of which require extensive preparation. I don’t know if that’s true or not…I’ve never read the book and don’t like to cook. But whether it’s true or not, it’s not a rude or insulting claim. If anything, it makes sense. Child was writing for homemakers, who didn’t work outside the home and had time to do all that. It’s basically the same conclusion some [food writers at the Boston Globe](http://www.boston.com/lifestyle/food/articles/2009/08/05/mastering_julia_childs_recipe_for_duck_stuffed_with_meat_and_baked_in_pastry/) came to. After making one of the book’s duck dishes, they say: > [@](#): > > Cooking a la Julia may not be for the modern workaholic. At least not on a weekday. This is not the sort of dinner one runs home to make for the family (the irony, again, being that it’s really just fancy meatloaf, featuring an amount of fat that’s almost cruel). If you’re going to make this duck for anyone, it’s probably wise to begin at the crack of dawn on a Saturday.. . . > > Though the degree of difficulty may be low for some of Child’s dishes, the rigor and patience most of these recipes require can be daunting. Julie Powell started cooking from the book as a kind of lark. She finished in respectful awe. Using “Mastering the Art,’’ using it seriously, is like performing Shakespeare. The recipes are like his plays. Rightly or not, every story since seems to trace back to him. The same is true for Western cooking and Child. > > No one speaks like Shakespeare’s characters nowadays. No one really cooks like Child regularly (seriously, aspic?). But to use “Mastering the Art of French Cooking’’ is to approach an art form that could expose your limitations in the kitchen while making you a better cook. Actors love Shakespeare for what it challenges them to bring out of themselves. You could make a similar argument for cooks and Child. She’s an occasion to which you want to rise. ---
**Author:** ![Labrador\_Deceiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7c8e57/32.png) [@Labrador\_Deceiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Labrador_Deceiver)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2009, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rude-article-about-julia-child-do-not-buy-her-book/508667/45 "2009-09-03T15:44:02Z")
> [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > I don’t think the article is rude. The author is just saying that most people nowadays will be put off by Child’s insistence that everything should be made from scratch, I see from your post that you haven’t read the book. This “insistence” you speak of is totally off base. ETA: The Boston Globe, with it’s numerous qualifiers, hardly agrees with the article posted in the OP. On top of that, the book was never intended to be for everyday fare. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2009, 4:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rude-article-about-julia-child-do-not-buy-her-book/508667/46 "2009-09-03T16:01:22Z")
> [@Labrador\_Deceiver](#): > > I see from your post that you haven’t read the book. This “insistence” you speak of is totally off base. Well, like I said, she may be wrong, but there’s a difference between being wrong and being rude. And both the Slate article and the Boston Globe article say the same thing…that the cookbook isn’t a good one for casual cooks. So, what’s the problem? ---
**Author:** ![Labrador\_Deceiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7c8e57/32.png) [@Labrador\_Deceiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Labrador_Deceiver)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2009, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rude-article-about-julia-child-do-not-buy-her-book/508667/47 "2009-09-03T16:22:47Z")
> [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > And both the Slate article and the Boston Globe article say the same thing… **that the cookbook isn’t a good one for casual cooks.** So, what’s the problem? Bolding mine. I’m sorry, but it doesn’t sound like you even read the Boston Globe article that you quoted, because it says no such thing. It implies totally the opposite, in fact. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2009, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rude-article-about-julia-child-do-not-buy-her-book/508667/48 "2009-09-03T16:29:32Z")
> [@Wendell\_Wagner](#): > > Cisco, if you think that Miller and Aesiron are doing something that’s against the rules of the SDMB, then ask a moderator to tell them so. Otherwise, you can’t tell them to get out of your thread just because you don’t like their posts. Of course if _you_ don’t like what **Cisco** is doing _you_ could ask a mod, otherwise you can’t … but then someone can say the same about this post and it get recursively meta real fast. In short: of course he _can_ tell them to get out of his (or her) thread, and of course they are no obligation to listen. The op has every right to request that and to be ignored. ---
**Author:** ![Bridget\_Burke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7cd45c/32.png) [@Bridget\_Burke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bridget_Burke)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2009, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rude-article-about-julia-child-do-not-buy-her-book/508667/49 "2009-09-03T17:01:02Z")
> [@Nava](#): > > I’m not even sure what all of that means (“a roux?” would that be posh for golden-brown?) and I had lunch one hour ago, but somehow you’ve managed to make me salivate… Read Julia’s book to find out about roux! I can’t be the only one who buys cookbooks to read, even if I don’t make every recipe. And eBay says there are some barely used editions available… ---
**Author:** ![Algher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Algher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Algher)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2009, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rude-article-about-julia-child-do-not-buy-her-book/508667/50 "2009-09-03T17:20:09Z")
> [@aruvqan](#): > > You should look into getting a Larousse Gastronomie … it is an encyclopedia for professional chefs, that acts like sort of an uber cookbook for french cooking. Ordered it and paid enough to get it for the weekend - just in case I am inspired to try something new for the 3-day. I will read it Friday night, hit the Farmer’s Market Saturday morning, and see what I can do for a family BBQ on Saturday night. In the meantime, I will pour a glass of wine and read a bit of Julia. I checked my shelves and I have The Way to Cook and Mastering the Art Vol. 1. Those two I won’t dispense with in a purge - too critical to me as references. I love the lengthy descriptions, the short comments, the photos, the diagrams, etc. The Slate author is an idiot, and does not get it at all. She has done a disservice to amateur cooks through her misguided comments. If there was an ignore feature for general columns in the world, I would use it on her based on this column alone. Harumph. Pass the pate and wine please. ---
**Author:** ![wolfman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/a8b319/32.png) [@wolfman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfman)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2009, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rude-article-about-julia-child-do-not-buy-her-book/508667/51 "2009-09-03T17:34:39Z")
Well to be a bit contrary, I kinda of agree with the article, but not all, and not at all with the tone. As always I’m sure the collection of geniuses on this board read and mastered the book the very first day they walked into a kitchen. But it is a complicated and intimidating work, and simply wasn’t written for today’s audience. It was written when Most women were stay at home mom’s who did often cook for several hours a day and knew their way around a kitchen very well. It was a ‘step-it-up’ manual for people who were spending hours in the kitchen, and preparing meals from days ahead anyway, to move toward top class French cooking. And it was perfect for that and very successful. But it isn’t appropriate for a new cook, looking to learn and make a few nice meals. Most people don’t have the time for that, they are just going to get frustrated. Plus most of the recipes are really dated. Heavy sauces, butter and cream. Today’s top French chefs don’t cook like tht anymore, except for rare occasions. It would finding someone who wants to get them into computers, and giving them a book on dissecting the UNIX Kernal. It’s pointlessly complicated until you know you are ready to get something out of it. ---
**Author:** ![pulykamell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pulykamell/32/3166_2.png) [@pulykamell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pulykamell)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2009, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rude-article-about-julia-child-do-not-buy-her-book/508667/52 "2009-09-03T18:00:13Z")
> [@Nava](#): > > I’m not even sure what all of that means (“a roux?” would that be posh for golden-brown?) and I had lunch one hour ago, but somehow you’ve managed to make me salivate… A “roux” is flour sauteed in fat, often butter (which is often clarified.) The ratio is usually 1:1 by weight, but some cooks use a little more fat than flour. They are used both for thickening sauces/stews and for flavoring. Depending on how long they are cooked, they can range from a white roux (just cooked long enough for the raw flour flavor to cook out but not enough to change color) to chocolate or brick roux (very dark, but not burnt.) The lighter rouxs have little flavor, the darker ones add a distinct toasted, nutty flavor to the dish. Also, lighter roux have more thickening power than darker roux, and quite significantly so. Dark roux also take a lot of time (up to around an hour) to make on the stovetop and require attention to keep the flour from burning and totally ruining it. It’s used in various cuisines. Obviously, with the name being of French derivation it features prominently in those and offshoot cuisines, particularly the Cajun/Creole of Southern Louisiana. The phrase “First, you make a roux” has kind of become a cliche of how all the recipes from that part of the States start, since roux (usually darker ones, from peanut butter to chocolate or brick in color) are featured prominently in the cuisine. French recipes tend to use the lighter roux, white and blond. ---
**Author:** ![Larry\_Mudd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/f14d63/32.png) [@Larry\_Mudd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Larry_Mudd)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2009, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rude-article-about-julia-child-do-not-buy-her-book/508667/53 "2009-09-03T18:11:09Z")
> [@wolfman](#): > > It’s pointlessly complicated until you know you are ready to get something out of it. I don’t agree that it’s pointlessly complicated. For sure, it is not written with the same philosophy as your run of the mill “100 Meals in Under Twenty Minutes!” cookbooks, where every recipe depends on some commercially available processed food product as a base. The nice thing about (volume one of, at least) MtAoFC is that it assumes that the reader _is_ a novice. Everything is approached from a “first principles” angle. The kitchen is a laboratory of sorts - in the “science & experimentation” sense, and also in the “labour happens here” sense. From what I have read and attempted so far, I don’t think that its recipes are beyond the grasp of the casual cook at all. They are merely beyond the reach of the _lazy and disinterested_ cook. Clearly the recipes are not appropriate for the person who has about an hour to prepare and eat dinner during the work week, but most of us have the occassional day when we are able to spend a little time putting a nice meal together. Julia Child shares some points in common with one of our contemporary “celebrity chefs,” Gordon Ramsey: A basic philosophy that good cooking is soemthing that everyone can accomplish, and that it’s worthwhile for regular people to spend some time in the kitchen – that it’s cooking (and more importantly eating) well is enriching, and that people who don’t take the time are impoverishing themselves. I’m not sure if Julia would approve of the phrasing “It’s a fucking shame,” but I think that she’d be in general agreement with the sentiment. To pretend that the methods in these books are beyond the reach of your average person misses the point, entirely. They were written for the average person. To say “I’ve been a cook for 26 years, and these books are hopelessly inaccessible to me” does a great disservice to the people who will make the inference that it would be a waste of time for _them_ to pick it up. Anybody with the inclination is capable of benefitting from these books. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2009, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rude-article-about-julia-child-do-not-buy-her-book/508667/54 "2009-09-03T18:25:19Z")
> [@Cisco](#): > > **Miller** , please stop trying to hijack the thread. The topic is: this article is rude. You can agree or disagree, but quit trying to make a meta argument out of it. I don’t know what your point is and I doubt anyone, including you, really cares. Thank you. I dare you to point to a single thing I’ve posted in this thread (other than this post here) that hasn’t been entirely on topic. ---
**Author:** ![C\_K\_Dexter\_Haven](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b2d939/32.png) [@C\_K\_Dexter\_Haven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/C_K_Dexter_Haven)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2009, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rude-article-about-julia-child-do-not-buy-her-book/508667/55 "2009-09-03T19:30:31Z")
**Miller** and **Cisco** : we’ve already had a moderator rule in Post #42 (and I agree with her) that a discussion of whether the article in question is a “review” is not a hijack and not thread-shitting, but a legitimate aspect of whether the article is rude. So, that argument is done. **Miller** , there’s no need for you to revive it with a dare, or even a double-dog dare. Seems to me that **Cisco** thought a discussion about whether the article in quesion was a review was something of a hijack. I can see where he might get that impression, but I think you were using the definition to get at whether it’s “rude.” So, it’s been ruled not a hijack, and there’s no need for you to rub **Cisco** ’s nose in it. The sniping at each other is now dead, right? ---
**Author:** ![Larry\_Mudd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/f14d63/32.png) [@Larry\_Mudd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Larry_Mudd)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2009, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rude-article-about-julia-child-do-not-buy-her-book/508667/56 "2009-09-03T19:46:18Z")
> [@C\_K\_Dexter\_Haven](#): > > We’ve already had a moderator rule in Post #42… _All persons more than a mile high to leave the thread!_ ---
**Author:** ![MN\_Maenad](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e95f7d/32.png) [@MN\_Maenad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MN_Maenad)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2009, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rude-article-about-julia-child-do-not-buy-her-book/508667/57 "2009-09-03T20:11:21Z")
> [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > It’s basically the same conclusion some [food writers at the Boston Globe](http://www.boston.com/lifestyle/food/articles/2009/08/05/mastering_julia_childs_recipe_for_duck_stuffed_with_meat_and_baked_in_pastry/) came to. After reading that, I have to go buy MtAoFC. I love a challenge in the kitchen! ---
**Author:** ![eleanorigby](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/ee7513/32.png) [@eleanorigby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eleanorigby)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2009, 8:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rude-article-about-julia-child-do-not-buy-her-book/508667/58 "2009-09-03T20:47:15Z")
> [@Gfactor](#): > > I’m going to move this from The BBQ Pit to Cafe Society. If the Cafe Society moderators don’t want it, they are free to return it to the Pit. > > **Gfactor** > Pit Moderator For slow roasting or sauteeing? 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![zweisamkeit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zweisamkeit/32/4360_2.png) [@zweisamkeit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zweisamkeit)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2009, 9:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rude-article-about-julia-child-do-not-buy-her-book/508667/59 "2009-09-03T21:04:05Z")
> [@wolfman](#): > > It was written when Most women were stay at home mom’s who did often cook for several hours a day and knew their way around a kitchen very well. It was a ‘step-it-up’ manual for people who were spending hours in the kitchen, and preparing meals from days ahead anyway, to move toward top class French cooking. And it was perfect for that and very successful. > But it isn’t appropriate for a new cook, looking to learn and make a few nice meals. Most people don’t have the time for that, they are just going to get frustrated. Plus most of the recipes are really dated. Heavy sauces, butter and cream. Today’s top French chefs don’t cook like tht anymore, except for rare occasions. No it wasn’t. It was written at a time where housewifes were stay-at-home, sure, but bought TV Dinners, boxed cake mixes, everything new and fast fast fast and MODERN. The generation who spent hours in the kitchen preparing elaborate meals were the grandmothers of that generation. And why must a cookbook be for “meals to eat after a long day at work” in order to be for today’s audience? People still might want to make a fancy Sunday dinner every once in awhile, or have a dinner party, or a holiday that they’ll host. Frankly, it’s rather insulting and condescending to have the attitude that today’s homecooks don’t have the patience or skills to try anything in MtAoFC. No one is saying that people are gonna buy the book and make Boeuf Bourguignon on a Tuesday night after they get home from work at 7pm. But the article’s implication that people are _incapable_ of cooking it at _all_ is what’s really maddening. ---
**Author:** ![eleanorigby](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/ee7513/32.png) [@eleanorigby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eleanorigby)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2009, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rude-article-about-julia-child-do-not-buy-her-book/508667/60 "2009-09-03T21:06:11Z")
Ok, I went back and read the article. I find little to snark on, really. IMO, the author is just speaking the truth: that eating and cooking habits have changed over the past 40 years or so and that while Child’s books is a masterpiece, it is not for everyone. I agree with her on that and on her last point: that in a few years, MTAoFC will still be huge, but that the film will look small, but then, I wasn’t a huge fan of the film. The author also says that Child’s “more relaxed book”, _From Julia Child’s Kitchen_, is more approachable or less intimidating–and again I would agree. I think where the author went wrong was in her use of hyperbole (the whisk reference) which falls flat and her muddled focus–is she attempting to slam the phenom the movie and book have become or just the movie or just the book? She’s not really clear and (IMO) she expresses herself badly. Last point: if I were an editor and if I were her editor, I’d tell her to do a rewrite and be more concise and specific. One final note: Julia Child, in her book,\* My Life in France\*, says that not only did she think this type of cooking wonderful and superior etc, but that she was also attempting to document a way of life that was changing in France even as she lived there. That is one aspect of the book that this author completely missed (and the film did too). Oh, and Julia Child probably wouldn’t have minded the word fuck–she could be fairly earthy herself. ETA: and could we please move beyond the two schools of either deifying Childs (she does deserve many accolades of course) and marginalizing those who find her approach doesn’t resonate with them to Hamburger Helper or Mr Food? There is much middle ground to be had, and let’s be honest: we all like what we like and none of us are starving. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rude-article-about-julia-child-do-not-buy-her-book/508667.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rude-article-about-julia-child-do-not-buy-her-book/508667.md?page=4)