IHAD TO BREAK the news to my mother last night. A huge player in our shared history was gone. Her face went white, and she looked like she might cry. As we sat down to dinner (a dish I re-christened Cold Comfort Chicken Potpie) she looked down. “I just can’t believe it’s gone.” She was talking, of course, about Gourmet magazine.
As long as I can remember, Gourmet was a fixture in my home, and hers. It cluttered my mother’s kitchen and her nightstand, but every issue, no matter how dogeared, was carefully saved. Mom was not just a loyal subscriber, she was a true believer.
When she moved from North Carolina to California eight years ago, to be near her first grandchild (that would be the River, beautiful boy of mine), Mom started cleaning out her basement and garage, and the first of several boxes arrived at my house, things she couldn’t rationalize keeping, but couldn’t bear to see us without.
Included were many of the 40-odd volumes of bound back issues of Gourmet, dating back to 1943, the magazine’s third year. 
The blue-bound tomes now line the shelves in my dining room; the first time I (nervously) cooked dinner for editor Ruth Reichl, she looked around, smiling, and said that it looked a lot like the Gourmet library.
Somewhere in my basement, awaiting excavation from the towers of boxes and cartons that arrived with my mother when she moved in with me last March, is a letter written to me in 1973 or 1974. That year, I’d become immersed in the Pippi Longstocking books. An avid reader, I could handle the books occasionally awkward, translated-from-the-Swedish phrasing. But I was mystified by pepparkakor. It was clearly some kind of cookie–but what kind, exactly? In those pre-Internet days, I had two choices to solve the mystery: a trip to the reference librarian at the Chattanooga Public Library, or a letter to “You Asked For It.”
“You Asked For It” was my favorite section of Gourmet. Readers wrote in, asking the editors to please, PLEASE, intercede with the God of Fancy Restaurants to procure the recipe for the Roquefort Cheese Soufflée enjoyed while on vacation in St. Maarten, or the God of Long-Lost Recipes in hopes of acquiring the definitive method for making Iced Tea Cakes. Month after month, the editors came through. My mother knew that if anyone could not only solve the mystery of pepparkakor, but provide the best and most thorough response, it would be Mr. Mac (aka Earle MacAusland, the magazine’s original editor, who served from 1941 to 1980) and his crack staff.
Indeed, MacAusland and his elves answered, and how. The enthusiastic letter charmed even a cookie-focused 8-year-old, and along with much encouragement for a young girl to keep on cooking, those kind magazine people included a sheaf of annotated recipes and a veritable treatise on gingersnaps. As it turned out, I didn’t like pepparkakor nearly as much as Pippi did, but no matter. Like my mother, I was turned into a lifelong Gourmet devotée.
That’s not to say we were without perspective: In the 80s, we wondered at the magazine’s future, as it seemed more inclined toward high end (read: out of our reach) travel than culinary exploration. But as it shifted back to a more balanced perspective, we were reassured.
You can imagine, then, maybe, the anxiety and excitement I felt when, over the last few years, I got to know and befriend the impossibly lovely Ruth Reichl, the current, and, it appears, final, editor of my favorite magazine. As background: I used to work in Hollywood. I’ve met my share of people who are actually important, and many more who just think they are. Movie stars don’t make me nervous. Meeting Ruth for the first time? Much to my husband’s amusement, I was a mess. Luckily, Ruth is kind, and patient, and our friendship survived my initial butterflies.
Yesterday, I heard the news of Gourmet’s closing from another friend, also a former editor at Gourmet. I was really shaken. Not only because I felt terrible for Ruth, whose passion for the magazine is profound, and whose devotion to the betterment of food for the benefit of the planet is consuming, but, frankly, for what Gourmet’s demise means for all of us, for American culture, and arts, and letters, and yes, cooking. My mother said, as she stood stunned in the kitchen when I told her, “This is a terrible thing. For America. For American culture.” I couldn’t disagree.
There are other food magazines I read and enjoy, but none, for me, combined perfect recipes (tested until they worked, every time), excellent writing, and a deep sense of the importance of cooking and food to our communities, our heritage and our health. Gourmet was unique. Gourmet was relevant. Gourmet was a part of my family’s cooking experience, for more than 43 years. Thank you, Gourmet. For me and my mom, without you, cooking will never be quite the same.
Related posts:
- Great Read for a Grieving Eye I WAS IN MY LOCAL bookstore last week, when a...
- The Perils of Pie MY INTENTIONS WERE pure, I swear. My mother is one...
- Why We Write (About Food) A FEW DAYS BACK, my (internet/have never met her in...
- They Want to Be in Pictures? WHEN THE RIVER was a tiny guy, strangers used to...
- The Official Cocktail of Me I WAS SPOILED LAST week: Not one, but two of...
First time here? Here's the idea: 
No surprise, really, that sisterhood, often life’s longest relationship and always one of its most important, has been the Muse for so much creative self-expression by women, and also by men. 
As the suffix of its name suggests, 
{ 27 comments… read them below or add one }
I mourn the loss of Gourmet as well. Every back issue I’ve saved (boxes and boxes of them) has at least one page stained with splatters from something sticky or liquid in the recipie ingredients. Yes, we can find the recipies on the internet, but they don’t evoke the memories of meals prepared from issues of Gourmet.
This is just beautiful, and I couldn’t agree more. Thanks for the personal perspective – and a fantastic introduction to this blog.
My hastier, less evocative take: http://www.freckledcitizen.com/2009/10/mourning-gourmet.html
Joanna–Well said. Digital experience, though fulfilling and practical, is not the same as print. Thanks for stopping by and reading.
Maggie–Thank you, and I loved your take, too. Absolutely captured my feelings and frustrations. On a happier note, so glad you visited, and I hope you’ll explore the rest of the site as well. We’re no Gourmet (ha!) but there’s much great stuff here. Welcome! (And also very glad for the intro to your blog–I’ll be back.)
So, so sad. My former Creative Director at Real Simple, Robert Newman, puts together great collections of mag covers. He put this one together for Gourmet. Feast your eyes:
Gourmet magazine covers, 1941-2009:
http://bit.ly/uU7pD
My faves are the Beatles Abbey Road spoof, the popsicles, and the cotton candy.
Sigh.
Sad news indeed. I will always be grateful to that magazine for introducing me to the late, great Laurie Colwin.
I love and collect cookbooks (50s, 60s and 70s cookbooks are some of most treasured possessions.) I value the printed word. I have several of Ruth Reichl’s books – but most of them are audio books. While I enjoyed the occasional issue of Gourmet, I was never a subscriber nor a die-hard fan. I subscribed to Eating Well (still do), to Cooking Light (briefly) and to Veggie Life (another magazine where the print edition has folded, but the online edition is still strong.) I am addicted to the small, target-focus recipe collections available at the checkout counter. I love reading Saveur, and Cuisine — but Gourmet never drew me in. As I’ve worked to reduce paper consumption and eliminate clutter in my life, I rely more and more on online editions where they’re available. I have the odd single edition of Gourmet in my library, but it’s not the magazine where I’ve saved every issue (that honor goes to Eating Well.)
Gourmet didn’t address the cooking needs and preferences of the masses of people who actually buy cooking magazines, the ones who want 5 ingredient or less, semi-homemade, on the table in under 30 minutes meals. And their failure to do that meant that they didn’t reinvent the niche they’d carved out for themselves as other magazines and digital cooking options eroded their territory. I hate to see the passing of any magazine’s print edition, but those who survive with a print edition in this day and age have to elevate the tastes of their market while offering accessible information. One without the other will spell disaster.
@Pat
I agree with you that Gourmet did not speak to those looking for dinner on in 20 minutes or those interested in semi-homemade, but I definitely agree with Paige that in the last several years they were hitting their stride and publishing a great mag. (And I think they definitely had “fast” section as well, no?)
I definitely agree with you, that it’s pretty tough to put together a formula that works for the masses enough to be profitable in today’s shifting publishing world.
I haven’t picked up Saveur in the last year or so, but I can honestly say though I loved the photos and layout, I never cooked from it.
I would think there are enough people out there who appreciated the whole package—great recipes, fantastic writing, and gorgeous photography—but I guess the numbers just didn’t add up. The loss to both the magazine world’s rich history and our country’s food culture is the high cost, though.
(Incidentally, if I can add my 2 cents, I think Fine Cooking bridges that world best in terms of solid, tasty, tested recipes that work every time, along with a strong section of quick meals, plus decent photos and layout.)
Thanks for the good conversation here, Paige.
Paige
This was so touching. I too loved Gourmet. I am now so sad that in my organizing frenzy of the past few years I jettisoned my old copies of Gourmet. What a mistake. I started reading Gourmet after college. My mom, while a yummy cook, never got near an issue of Gourmet, so it was a revelation for me. My favorite column was reading Specialite de la Maison and dreaming of the restaurants. And right after college, on my first trip to California, I visited one of them — a Chinese restaurant in Beverly Hills. I loved it and I felt that I had arrived.
Thanks for this beautiful tribute.
Chris
Beautifully put, Paige. A magazine is so much more than words and photos on a page; it’s a relationship with the readers who watch for it every month. How sad to see Gourmet follow Life, Mademoiselle and other long-lived, well loved magazines into the past.
Millie–thanks for all your thoughts, and especially the link to the montage of covers. I remember many of them, and the ones I don’t (because they’re too far back) I bet I have in my archive! I’ll have to go searching…
Anna–Oh, Laurie Colwin. Sigh. She was the best. I think I’ll have to go reread “Home Cooking” as part of my grieving process.
Pat–Welcome, and thanks for your perspective. I, too, went through phases where I’d see the recipes in Gourmet and think, oh, too much work–but more often than not, I found that not to be the case. But I, too, love Saveur (which I think has gotten much more accessible under the new editor) and will have to check out Eating Well, which I’ve never read. Thanks for the tips!
Chris–I can’t believe I never knew that story about you and the Chinese restaurant! Which one? Do tell. xx
Rona–yes, magazines have always been something very special to me. My husband would tell you they’re a bit of an obsession and a contributor to clutter, too, and though he’d be right about both, I cling to your belief about these pubs being so much more than words and paper. And as much as I love what I read online–it won’t replace print for me, at least not until there is no more print to be read. Thanks for visiting, and for your valuable, and knowledgeable, perspective.
OH, and P.S., Millie–I’m going to start reading Fine Cooking on your reco. I haven’t read it regularly, but the times I have, I’ve really liked it. And something has to try to fill the hole…oh, no–I feel more tears coming on… ;-)
What a beautiful tribute Paige.
While I have my issues with the latest incarnation of Gourmet, the magazine is an important American culinary touchstone, as important in the culinary firmament as James Beard and Julia Child, and so the decision to cease publication seems very misguided, and horribly wrong. Bean counters, who care nothing about culture (just look at the titles they left untouched).
That said, I am afraid that I was unhappy with the current state of the magazine, and was not going to renew my subscription, which expires this month.
I’ve been reading Gourmet only since the ’80s, but many of the recipes from that time have stayed permanently in my repertoire. It wouldn’t be Christmas without Nick Malgieri’s Swiss Christmas Cookies — this, long before we moved to Switzerland — and the recipes featured in Gourmet have not made it into his cookbooks, so they are precious. And the Viennese Skating Party menu is one that I have knocked off, time and time again. I am a girl from a goulash-making nation, and the goulash soup (easily adapted to goulash proper) is the best, and my standard. I get asked for the recipe over and over.
I really appreciated the photography (the best in the business) and the serious food journalism (say, the piece about tomato farming), but other things often left me cold. (Sorry).
It became too much of an elitist inside-the-industry publication for me to relate to. The menus became something even *I* was intimated from making (I taught myself to make French buttercream at the age of 13, and began knocking off 6 layer tortes with dacquoise shortly thereafter, and started catering my family’s events single-handedly by age 15). I relished shopping for obscure ingredients, but after a point, it became too much to interest even me. The menus required more pots, pans, and commitment than I could muster. My favourite features disappeared — things like Gastronomie Sans Argent. It became more about eating than cooking; the balance was upset. And as someone who has actually travelled the world, has actually lived abroad, I was disappointed by some of the travel writing. A few years ago, I even got so mad as to write an angry letter to Ruth Reichl about a feature on Prague. It was incorrect and betrayed a fundamental lack of understanding and knowledge of the local cuisine to the point that I found it, as a Czech, rather insulting. After that, I was so disappointed in the magazine, that I did not buy another issue of Gourmet until I received it as a replacement subscription (for yet another defunct Condé Nast title). When I received the first issue, I didn’t recognize the magazine any more… Gourmet had left me behind…
But still, this decision on the part of Condé Nast is as bone-headed as they come. Slash the budget at Vogue, marry Bon Appetit to Gourmet, but do not get rid of Gourmet!
Paige- This Gourmet piece of yours is moving because it transcends the story of the moment and connects with the devastation of loss.
We all have felt, and will feel again, the profound emptiness of loss. Strong feelings of loss also make us marvel at and acutely appreciate the importance and significance of what we had. The irony of loss is that we have gained.
Lovely and well-put,
Thank you, Paige
I love it when my monthly copy of Gourmet arrives. I have a very specific ritual when I read it through the first time. Wait until the house is quiet, set out bread and butter (my all-time favorite food), and eat away while I read the magazine cover-to-cover, marking the recipes I want to make. Perfect bliss.
I almost always make several recipes out of each edition. I copy travel articles to send to friends, who have repeatedly thanked me for sending them to the perfect restaurant or hotel.
The Gourmet cookbook is my kitchen bible. I have never made a bad recipe out of it.
What am I going to do now? No other magazine has the same magical promise as Gourmet.
Oh Paige, what a great post on this sad topic. I too read them as a little girl, it was a world so far away from my unconventional hippie-era Northern California upbringing and I was fascinated. I loved the magazine under Ruth, whose smarts and savvy and modern, clear-eyed take on the food world permeated the pages. I actually loved the non-recipe parts the most: cultural articles, literary articles, political articles. Putting food in context was the most profound part of Gourmet for me, and will be so deeply missed.
And of course, must mention Laurie Colwin.
I’ve been sad all week. It seems like there’s nothing to reach for any longer. Perhaps that’s it: Gourmet was aspirational. I can’t help feel the world is a much poorer place for its loss.
Lovely post, Paige. How many of us grew up with Gourmet magazines all over the house? My parents still have copies from the 50’s. I had to throw out hundreds of back issues with my last move. Sad at that thought now!
i had no idea! how sad…
Monika–friends can always agree to disagree, and my husband and I have marveled, over these last few days, at just how polarizing Ruth and her tenure had apparently become. Even so, those who loved Gourmet, like you and me, feel strongly that the magazine was and deserved to be an institution. Thanks, as ALWAYS, for your incredibly insightful comments. Now, onto the important stuff, i.e., cooking–what, pray tell, is the Viennese Skating Party? I don’t remember that! And I want that goulash soup recipe–is it on Epicurious? Off to check….
Duncan–Welcome, and you are dead on that loss makes us see what we had. Sad, but absolutely true.
Diana–Welcome, and thank you so much for visiting and reading; I’m glad you liked the post. As for me, I am looking forward to reading your books, which I somehow missed out on, though I remember (and loved) your article about Jordan!
DB–What a terrific story; I love the hedonism of the image of you ensconced with comforting b&b and the mag. Priceless.
Tea–I loved the non-food stuff, too, and thank you so much for validating my anxieties! ;-)
Elycooks–Welcome! Regret at throwing away back issues seems to be a common ailment this week…
Karen–I know, it’s awful…sorry to be the bearer of bad news.
My stomach flipped when I learned that Gourmet was no more. The older I became, the more I appreciated and loved Gourmet. Ruth really made it even more beloved to me. But I’m no longer in the “happening” target market. And apparently, neither is Gourmet.
I loved reading your personal connection to Ruth and the history you have on your shelves. Must be thrilling to thumb through those early editions, imagining what it must have been like to be reading them in that place at that time. What a treasure trove.
Thanks so much for sharing.
Always happy to validate anxieties (good grief, have you COOKED for her? I think I’d die). xox
Paige, don’t know whether you were able to find the recipes on epicurious, because it was a caroling party menu (oops!). Everything is a favourite!
For goulash, just halve the liquids (I use Czech beer as part of the liquids), leave out the potatoes and serve with Czech bread dumplings. For the latter, the easiest is to buy a mix online or in a deli —
http://eurofoodmart.com/czech-dumpling-mix-400g-p32152.html
It is authentic and not full of chemicals. The hardest part of making dumplings is finding the right flour… “hruba” or coarse flour, which is a “00″ milled flour — some delis actually carry Czech flour, or perhaps Italian 00 flour will do (King Arthur sells it). Other people use instant blending flour, or Wondra.
But tell us, because we are all dying to know, what did you cook for Ruth??!
oops — http://www.epicurious.com/recipes/menu/views/carol
My school had a paper drive when I was in the seventh grade and among the many periodicals collected were issues of “Gourmet” and “New Yorker” . I spent as much time as possible in the cloakroom of my class reading those two magazines which seemed so exotic to a”Gourmet” in those days made food look like an adventure (I still like to go back and study those covers). The writing of E.B.White was what kept me going back to the “New Yorker”. Wonderful discoveries for a child.
what a beautiful post! i, too, am sorry for the end of gourmet. but your writing is just getting better and better! i am sad because the publishing industry calls in outside bean counters who reduce everything to numbers. so…gourmet has fewer readers than bon appetit, and it must go. but does that take into account loyalty? a brand built up over decades? a love for a great magazine that is strong and cannot be replaced? i think not.
What a lovely post. I linked to it on my own Gourmet post. I, too, grew up with Gourmet, and my mother has stacks of bound back issues sitting on her cookbook shelf. Gourmet is so much a part of my cooking history that I feel like there’s a big hole in my kitchen now. (And I’m tearing up, yet again.)
We may not be able to get Gourmet back into print, but we should have a chance to save Gourmet’s immense online archive:
Gourmet.com – a vast web archive with links to past stories, photos and recipes.
According the the website, the site will remain active during “a transitional period”, after which only the recipes will be tranfered to the Epicurious website.
It would be a shame – the Gourmet site just got a clean face lift, it is a great search tool to find past stories – along with so many great online exclusive features …
The site is already up and running- it would be a shame to take it down, and cost should be relative in comparison to running the print edition….
I just set up an online petition – hoping to find like minded Gourmet readers who would help sign and spread the word:
http://new.ipetitions.com/petition/gourmet/