Pollan Redux

It’s been a while since I’ve posted here.  Busy with some traveling and with a musical event.  Both kept me from reading much in the last month.  But truth be told, it also had to do with what I was trying to read.  I’ve been a Michael Pollan fan from the beginning.  Botany of Desire is a fascinating book, and Omnivore’s Dilemma is a classic.  In Defense of Food less good because it doesn’t break new ground but summarizes and condenses much of the earlier material into a book that smacks of Dr. Oz and self-help.  While I agree with much that Pollan writes, I don’t find it particularly rewarding to read.

[Igor Stravinsky was once asked why he published so many revised editions of The Rite of Spring.  He answered at the blackboard, saying ‘because my name is [I]gor [S]travinsky’, and he drew on the blackboard a superimposed I and S ($).]

Even more so with Pollan’s latest, Cooked.  For someone who’s been at the forefront of the food movement for years, the book is remarkably stale.  Has he really never cooked seriously in his past?  If so, why did we take is writing so seriously?  I’m just an average cook, but I know a good deal about roasting, braising, baking bread, etc.  I’ve done all of it more or less seriously for a long time, and I do have a basic understanding of the theory and science involved.  I don’t need Michael Pollan for that.  But that’s what he tries to do in Cooked, and I remain bored and disappointed by the book, so much so that I couldn’t even finish it.

Who exactly is he writing for?  I think most foodies already understand this stuff.  We don’t need to be told what barbeque is, what a braise is, or why and how bread rises.  And if we have little interest in cooking we’re not going to read the book.  If we’re not already sympathetic with the lefty food movement, we’re not going to read the book either.  Are there really a significant number of left-leaning folks interested in food who know about Pollan but need a basic introduction to cooking?  Feels like a Michael Moore documentary to me.  If you already agree with his point of view you nod your head but learn little. If you don’t you’ll be offended by the shallow insider winkiness of the argument, and you’ll be convinced that he’s another one of those Berkeley nuts.  Who watches MSNBC anyway?  Only the liberals (like me) that seek reinforcement for the liberal brand and who want to feel part of a group of like-minded folks.

The book is full of logical contradictions and circular paths of reasoning that will astound and infuriate an outsider.  Most insiders will just nod and accept it as party line.  When push comes to shove this just isn’t a serious book.  It’s fluffy left-wing foodie porn/propaganda, and I don’t think it will do anyone much good.  Except of course for Michael Pollan, who is busy promoting and building the Pollan brand into an empire.

It hurts to be harsh with someone on my own team.  Michael, I think you’ve let us down here.  You raise our spirits in the intrasquad pre-season games, but when it comes to confronting the real opposition you don’t have the guts for rigorous argument, genuine introspection, and baffling complexity.  To parody a fun Penny Marshall movie from the early 90’s, I think you’ve developed ‘A Team of Your Own’.