There has been a lot of news coverage this week surrounding a New York Times article that was published on March 13th, which claims that celebrity chefs like Rachael Ray, Martha Stewart, Jamie Oliver and others don't do the majority of work for their cookbooks. The tone of the article definitely suggests that celebrity chefs are little more than a face for the recipes so that the cookbooks will sell. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/14/dining/i-was-a-cookbook-ghostwriter.html?_r=1
The writer, Julia Moskin, claims, "Like many others in the nebulous profession called food writing, I was really a food ghost — one of the ink-stained (and grease-covered) wretches who actually produce most of the words that are attributed to chefs in cookbooks and food magazines and on Web sites." This assertion is extremely ambiguous and could either mean that they don't produce the recipes, or that they contribute nothing but the recipes. Aspiring to be in the publishing business myself, I know that there is only so much ownership an author (like a celebrity chef) has over their manuscript: they write the meat of the text; they hand the manuscript to the editor; the editor can change pretty much anything they want because their company is funding the production (which is usually style, organization, and grammar); and the production designers can format the pages any way they want (with some consultation with the author).
This morning, I saw chefs Bobby Flay and Anne Burrell on "The Today Show," and they were defending celebrity chefs' work. They said that they do create all of the recipes themselves, but then the publishing house changes and adds a lot of the other elements necessary to have a complete cookbook (as described above).This whole uproar made me think about each of our personal brands, and how susceptible it is to misrepresentation or slander. While I think that these chefs handled it well (Rachael Ray and Gwyneth Paltrow also defended their cookbooks on Ray's talk show), it is hard to erase an idea that was spread to consumers on a mass scale. Perhaps those who read the article never saw the rebuttals on TV and, thus, will never buy one of their cookbooks again.
What else do you think that these chefs could do to restore their individual brands and credibility?
Is there anything we can all do to make sure that we are represented truthfully?
I'm trying to think about how authors of cookbooks can get their recipes to mean something to others, and not simply act as a filler in their book. What I came up with was if they possibly told a story (going back to MTS...) on the opposite page of the recipe that explains where they first tried the food and what sentimental meaning it may hold for them. For instance, was it something their mom or dad made, or was it something that was only had on special occasions or an everyday recipe? When people can relate to memories and experiences, it makes the recipe more real for the audience because it is something they can care about. In this way, the recipe is no longer a mixing and preparing of foods, it's also a tradition.
ReplyDeleteI love this idea, Christine! You should pitch this to a book publisher. Besides making their recipes more interesting, it also legitemizes that the recipe was created by them and was inspired by their own experiences. I really had no idea how these chefs could validate their authorship, but you solved it--no problem! I'm really impressed with your idea. =)
ReplyDelete