Is M.F.K. Fisher's Legacy Suffocating Food Writing?

Is M.F.K. Fisher's Legacy Suffocating Food Writing?

A4113f7cc8c2fc3cc96eb640f4534c625dde976e?w=240&h=240&fit=crop
Faith Durand
Nov 3, 2014

I thought I'd share this piece by Josh Ozersky as a counterpoint to our Weekend Meditation yesterday about rediscovering this very influential food writer. Ozersky argues that Fisher (and her continued influence) shaped all that came afterwards in a way that has kept food writing sequestered to an exclusive few.

Here's one quote that sums up his point well.

The food revolution, it turned out, was like every other revolution; it merely replaced one oligarchy with another: James Beard for Lucius Beebe, Julia Child for Clementine Paddleford, M.F.K. Fisher for Jean Anthelme Brillat-Savarin. There remains an immense, seething, varied, noisy, conflicted, confused, unclassifiable population of people who eat, and cook, and for whom food isn’t a source of community—at least not with that elite class of mandarins that currently control the field. They can all be heard, but they can’t get published or paid, which makes them invisible and unviable.

A good read; anyone who argues that there isn't enough diversity (of all sorts) in food writing immediately has my attention and support. There are so many stories to be told — how do we tell more?

Read more: Consider the Food Writer by Josh Ozersky at Medium

Created with Sketch.