Um... so, where's the article?

Hello. Where is the article? Is it in the Times?

I read that over the weekend. The recipes look great.

And while it's also great that she highlights cooking for one, it was rather sad. Melancholy is not the invariable state for those of us who often cook a meal for one...

For other, happier stories of cooking for one in NY apartment kitchen, I love Laurie Colwin's "Home Cooking."

Good article. Good recipe. Now I'm craving soup (helps that it's bleakly white gray out here in LA today.)

As for her confessional style of writing, I'm fine with it. Of course, I'm from what was a small Southern town, not anymore sadly, so in same ways this just makes me feel connected to the author in the same way you might with a neighbor.

I appreciate the context; the why behind the food. I like that she emphasizes the connection and reflection that they share in their meals (and wine).

Or I could just be a big ole lug and a sap. Take your pick.

I didn't love the book, but that is neither here nor there.

I read her article in the Times over the weekend. Didn't it say she and her husband have reunited? Or is my memory just that bad?

Yes, she does say they had reunited by the time this article was written.

This nearly moved me to tears; she articulates the loneliness of the solitary foodie so well! I am especially glad that they got back together; I don't hear good news like that very often!

Man....it's so depressing! And why is the recipe for the garlic soup with poached egg serve 6 when the article is about cooking for 1?

That's a lot of leftovers.

Because the intention as stated in the article was to give her some comfort food to ease her solitude across the week.

Thanks for the link. I must have missed this in the mess of Sunday Times that I still have on the coffee table.

I really like that food writing can capture this kind of emotion, but I can't say I'm racing out to try any of these recipes. I think garlic soup will always make me sad now . . . seriously.

great article. i remember those days very well. won't go into details, but it sparked my love for cooking. i would buy the next book just for those words. not depressing as it is poetic imo.

i have so many responses to this article that i feel compelled to respond to it at some length (sorry, all!).

For one thing, this is not really an article about eating for one. Rather, this is about feeding yourself when you are recently alone, when the norm to you is not living and being by yourself, when, in fact, you are bereft.

for the bulk of a decade, although i've had lovers, dear friends, even serious beaus, I've lived by myself and, subsequently, cooked and eaten dinner alone at least three times a week . there are negative aspects to this, of course--it annoys me at times that i don't have an audience for a triumph of a meal, of course; it annoys to have to cook AND clean after each meal; it can get lonely--but there are also positive aspects. I can read during a meal--my favorite activity since i was a child. i can experiment without shame. i can be baroque in a way that someone else might not tolerate. i don't have to be a codependent cook, if that make any sense.

So Julie's article didn't really focus on the experience of a true solitary cook, but that's fine in and of itself. She didn't project it as that kind of piece. But although perhaps one of these days the TImes (and everyone else) will truly grasp that not every modern person best lives with another person, as of now a sadsack story about eating by yourself is par for the course and thus kind of grating. Some of us embrace, or at least, accept our status as single enough so that we can cook for ourselves wihtout viewing it as a (you should pardon the expression AND pun) sloppy second.

that said, i wasn't a huge fan of this piece for another reason: It really was too bloggy for the Times. They Grey Lady is having an identity crisis in its feature-y sections precisely because it does not know how to respond to the New Media. Personal essays are fine for the TImes, but not when the person doesn't take us on a journey that is, in some small way, completed. That's best for online diaries, and the point is that is a different medium entirely.(How stilted and formal are Frank Bruni's blog meanderings, for example? He is a polisher, not a blogger, and o lordy does it show.)Here what Julie is doing--no matter how well she conveys it--is wallowing in soup. And so as readers we are left to drown. In garlic and poached egg, no less. What a way to go.

lisa - agree with your comments. Cooking for one isn't a problem that needs sympathy - just halve the ingredients of a recipe and cook yerself a well balanced meal.

wow,
bravo lisa!

i was indifferent to the article, as well as the soup recipe. as much as amanda hesser could grate, i appreciated her "cooking for mr. latte" vignettes more. there was more of a storyline, and the food was integrated better into the emotional meat of the piece. anyway, i don't mean to workshop the article, but just that i agree with lisa that it was too bloggy and not resolved enough.

Lisa,

Now, with The Kitchen, you have an audience for a triumph of a meal. With all of us on your side, you are never cooking for one.

Cheers!

Ok. I made the soup last night and it needs more salt, otherwise it's pretty good. In retrospect, I don't really want to read about Julie's separation from her husband in the cooking section of the NYT. I've been single for years and it's not such a melodrama to cook for one.

I'm with you lisa. Cooking for others has its own rewards but cooking for oneself is wonderful as well. M.F.K. Fisher writes in The Gastronomic Me that gastronomic perfection can be achieved in several combinations, including "one person dining along usually upon a couch or a hill side." Now that spring has arrived, I'm looking forward to cooking my favorite solo meal: Asparagus browned in butter and topped with fried egg and shavings of parmesan. I eat this from the pan and sop up the yolk with a slice of good bread. Heaven.

cooking for self is fine, but i think she was mourning the loss of a captive audience and the sharing of love. cooking is a social thing for me. my friends, old neighbors and co workers can tell you, i'm constantly asking them to try something and critique it. i saw where the writer was coming from. this every day act of cooking was about love. food was just a tool.

but yeah i see both sides of the coin.

dani--i agree (and acknowledged beforee, i think) that Julie is mourning the loss of another rather than merely writing about cooking for self. i had more issues with the placement of that piece in the times mag food section, especially as the only representative of cooking for self in a while, than with the piece itself. that said, i'm with you, stacey; i think that MFK Fisher was where it was at in terms of writing about this topic well. and thanks to all of us for the audience we provide each other for our triumphs and confusions in the kitchen. this is such a nice site.

I wonder if I'm the only one who's perplexed & offended by mention in the article of "girly music"..