Wednesday, November 23, 2022

How Wednesday Addams Birthed a Generation of Cynics

Two long black braids hanging on a light purple background

This story was funded by our members. Join Longreads and help us to support more writers.

Emily Alford | Longreads | November 23, 2022 | 8 minutes (2,132 words)

Midway through 1991’s The Addams Family, young Wednesday Addams attempts to supplement her family’s lost fortunes by selling poison lemonade for a nickel. Not everyone’s a willing customer. “I only like all-natural foods and beverages, organically grown with no preservatives,” a perky Girl Scout tells her, rolling her eyes in an unwitting rendition of today’s Goop-flogging wellfluencers. “I’ll buy a cup if you buy a box of my delicious Girl Scout cookies.”

“Are they made from real Girl Scouts?” Wednesday counters. 

In that exchange, a hero was born.


Wednesday Addams is not like other girls. She thinks of homicide when she should be thinking of boys; she guillotines her dolls and sleeps with their discombobulated parts. At summer camp, conscripted into a drowning-rescue exercise, she gladly lets her nemesis sink beneath the water. Pale and large-eyed, fond of funereal garb, she always manages to seem both amused and joyless. But the beauty of Wednesday — or at least the version portrayed by Christina Ricci in The Addams Family and Addams Family Values — is that she wasn’t a maladapted goth waif yearning to find someone who truly understands her. Instead, she brought to the screen a morbid self-acceptance that set her apart, and became a crucial blueprint for a generation of girls developing their own gallows humor. 

When she first arrived on screen in 1991, Wednesday Addams was actually like quite a lot of other cinematic girls that came to define the era: goth-lite, hex-loving, homicidal. (Think the high-school coven from The Craft.) But their darkness was almost always meant to be a metaphor for supposed teen girl self-loathing and loneliness. Not Wednesday’s. She loves dark chaos for dark chaos’s sake. Her life’s ambition is to be sentenced to a fiery death by an angry mob for dancing naked in the town square — though, as her parents insist, college comes first. She’s a rebel without a cause who isn’t torn apart by that lack of cause.

Freeing adolescent girls from the yoke of self-hatred was one of the most subversive parts of the already subversive 1990s Addams family films, which anticipated coming decades of the conservative movement’s culture-war obsession with the (straight, white, Christian) nuclear family. According to screenwriter Paul Rudnick, the title of sequel Addams Family Values was a direct jab at those ideals. “In Republican terms, ‘family values’ is always code for censorship and exclusion, and Republicans still refuse to respect or even acknowledge, for example, LGBTQ families,” Rudnick told The Hollywood Reporter in a 2018 oral history. He called a pivotal scene from the film, in which Wednesday enacts a gory retelling of the first Thanksgiving at predominately blonde, upper-class Camp Chippewa, the ​​“ultimate revenge, on Republicans, blondes, mean girls, and bullies.”

The fact that the film fails to punish or reward Wednesday for taking that revenge is also disruptive in its own way. For hundreds of years, morality tales have either punished girls who stepped out of line or exposed them as being misunderstood and lonely. Wednesday Addams is neither. She is exactly as she appears — what Rudnick calls “something rare: a child with power.” At the end of Values, Wednesday’s would-be boyfriend delivers the kind of soliloquy that teen rom-com characters would have swooned for: “What if you met just the right man, who worshiped and adored you, who’d do anything you say, who’d be your devoted slave? Then what would you do?” Wednesday’s response? “I’d pity him.” She might want a comrade on her crusade to take down self-righteous strivers, but she doesn’t seem to need one.

Sandwiched between overwrought ’80s delicate-flower tropes and the girl-power boom of the mid-’90s, that display of blithe self-reliance became a touchstone for a generation. Nearly 30 years later, Wednesday Addams remains a perfect time capsule of Gen X’s distrust of phoniness — and proof for millennials that the very idea of “a bright side” is an illusion.


Wednesday wasn’t always this way. In Charles Addams’ original New Yorker cartoons that spawned the family, the then-unnamed child was usually silent — an oval-faced, miniature version of her vibrantly morbid mother. It was the 1960s television version of The Addams Family that began to bring Wednesday to life: morose beyond her years, yet still adorable enough for wholesome prime time. But while Wednesday remained mostly seen rather than heard, society at large was busy clutching its pearls over the fates of teenagers. Movies like Rebel Without a Cause introduced overblown fears about middle-class, suburban kids, raising the dreaded specter of “juvenile delinquency.” The ensuing moral panic characterized wayward teens as eschewing tea parties and chastity for alcohol and sex, and even a fascination with death and murder. 

That midcentury paranoia spawned a cottage industry of exploitation movies about sullen, out-of-control teenage girls — the Ed Wood-penned The Violent Years chief among them — which in turn became fodder for late 1980s and early 1990s social parody. Heathers, The Craft, and Beetlejuice all featured young female protagonists who were anything but innocent, preferring to resolve their “teenage angst bullshit” with a “body count,” as Heathers’ Veronica Sawyer (Winona Ryder) so eloquently puts it. 

Like all films in which Ed Wood had a hand, The Violent Years is terrible. Overblown, sensationalist, and hilarious, the film was released just one year after Rebel Without a Cause. This time, the delinquents were well-heeled teenage girls. Discontent with pretty dresses and suburban respectability, the girls use the freedom of their gifted automobiles to drink, carouse, and murder to tragic consequences. In 1989, Heathers took up this theme to intentionally comedic effect. Dark-haired, large-eyed protagonist Veronica Sawyer would use her own upper-middle-class privilege for revenge against the social injustices of high school — after falling under the spell of her juvenile delinquent boyfriend (Christian Slater), of course. 

It wasn’t Ryder’s first such performance. The year previous, Ed Wood devotee Tim Burton had cast her in Beetlejuice as Lydia Deetz, a goth, death-obsessed teenager who writes suicide notes for fun in her wealthy parents’ newly renovated farmhouse. “I am alone,” Lydia writes in one, before revising it for maximum angst: “I am utterly alone.” 

But just as the punishment for failing to appreciate suburban values in The Violent Years had been death, the cure for what ailed both Sawyer and Deetz was normalcy. Sawyer eventually vanquished the bad boyfriend and used her killing spree to champion harmony in her suburban high school; Deetz got a nuclear 1950s sitcom family in the form of the ghost parents who haunt her farmhouse. It wasn’t until 1991’s The Addams Family, co-written by Caroline Thompson and Larry Wilson (who had worked with Tim Burton on Edward Scissorhands and Beetlejuice, respectively), that the murderous goth girl’s macabre worldview was treated as a feature rather than a bug. 

Ricci’s Wednesday was devious, quietly furious, and most importantly, content to be so. “She’s fiendishly smart and never worries about other people liking her,” Rudnick said about his vision for the character. That may sound similar to other late ’80s and early ’90s alternative heroines, but the character’s inner confidence proved a fundamental difference.  

In the masterful sequel, Wednesday seemingly exists expressly to discomfit rich white people. The script recognizes Ricci’s acting chops and deadpan delivery by giving Wednesday and her brother Pugsley their own plotline: cut off from their family at mostly-white Camp Chippewa, Wednesday unleashes vengeance upon her oppressively sunny counselors and campmates for no reason other than that she doesn’t want to smile. 

When writing stories about teenage girls, there seems to be a shared temptation among screenwriters to tie any rebellious character trait to hormones. Addams Family Values resists this temptation at every turn. Values never ascribes Wednesday’s outlook to cop-outs like loneliness (as with Lydia Deetz) or lust (Veronica Sawyer); her appetite for chaos needs no excuse. “She’s at that age when a girl has one thing on her mind,” Morticia Addams tells the mother of Amanda Buckman (the Girl Scout from the previous movie, still played perfectly by Mercedes McNab).

“Boys?” Mrs. Buckman asks with a condescending smile. 

“Homicide,” Wednesday answers. 

For an audience of geriatric millennial girls, that exchange — along with Wednesday’s steadfast refusal to seek the belonging, boyfriends, or social status even Beetlejuice and Heathers told us we should want — was a revelation. Later in the film, Wednesday answers her camp counselor’s racist retelling of the first Thanksgiving with arrows, fire, and violence. Wednesday is not looking for acceptance. She is simply amusing herself by confronting a horde of smiling, blonde Disney enthusiasts with a taste of what it would be like to actually be held accountable for the misery upon which their comfortable lives are based. 


In current internet culture, the Wednesday Addams aesthetic is stronger than ever before — a response to years of pandemic, recession, crippling student loan debt, Supreme Court decisions over the contents of our uteruses, and the radicalization of a growing number of racist extremists. My former Jezebel colleague Hazel Cills distilled the sentiment two years ago in an essay called “There Are Only 3 Moods: Lobotomy Please, Asteroid Take Me Now, I Hope I Get Abducted By Aliens”: 

But truthfully, I can no longer remember a time when I wasn’t casually talking to people about how much we all wanted an asteroid to take us, now. “I want a lobotomy,” a friend will joke, and I’ll casually agree with a grin on my face, as we both settle in to read about a QAnon conspiracy theory seemingly every child on TikTok aged 13 to 19 is gobbling up like popcorn. “When are the aliens taking me?” I’ll say to nobody, scrolling through my horrible Internet feed that nobody is forcing me to looking at.

It’s a Wednesday Addams worldview: looking on the dark side for the sole reason that looking on the bright side seems like a pretty dim thing to do. 

In a way, smooth-brain culture is part of a move toward earnestness in response to quite a lot of dark bullshit. (“The Great Irony-Level Collapse,” as Hanson O’Haver called it at Gawker.) When Wednesday Addams roasts her camp counselors over a spit for writing a play in which Indigenous Americans not having shampoo is a punchline, she’s funny, but she’s not joking. She’s also not lonely, not asking for social currency, and she doesn’t need to be punished for not buying into the idea that organic lemonade is the cure for what ails us. Her morbidity doesn’t stem from being a teenage girl — it stems from the fact that stuff sucks, knives are cool, and pretending that the first Thanksgiving was anything but one terrible chapter in an overall horrible story is the actual weird thing to do. Fantasizing about a lobotomy is a normal response to the last three years; believing that a $40 scented candle counts as self-care is not. That’s the lesson Wednesday Addams reinforced in a certain kind of geriatric millennial girl, and it wasn’t one we often heard.

Even though we have supposedly moved into a more enlightened age of feminist media, characters like Wednesday Addams remain outliers. A recent remake of Rebecca removed Daphne Du Maurier’s iconic villain, Mrs. Danvers, from the plot, flattening her into being simply misunderstood. A much-anticipated but largely forgotten reboot of The Craft got too tangled up in questions of witchcraft and consent to depict any memorable teenage girl characters, good or bad. A 2018 animated version of The Addams Family featured Wednesday Addams in a pink dress to make a point about either conformity or rebellion. (The point was unclear.) Save for rare exceptions like Showtime’s Yellowjackets, featuring a grown-up and still magnificent Christina Ricci, stories about death-obsessed teenage girls and women have been effectively pinkwashed, offering their characters no more nuance than the Ed Wood paranoia of old. Only now the message is that the creepy girls should be as loved and accepted as the blonde organic lemon-eaters — rather than the idea that one can simply be A Person Who Does Not Give a Shit. 

A new iteration of the Addams family, Wednesday, premieres November 23 on Netflix. The series follows a “sleuthing, supernaturally infused, mystery charting Wednesday,” played by Jenna Ortega, an actor who proved in the macabre You that she could ably embody ’90s Wednesday energy if given a chance. Hopefully, the writers (as well as Tim Burton, who executive-produced the series) will remember the girls who first encountered Wednesday Addams in theaters, the girls who became goth-lite rebels without a cause. Wednesday doesn’t need the dark academic girl-power treatment so common in series like The Umbrella Academy and The Magicians. Let her remain a hero for those who aren’t lonely or self-loathing — those who simply like guillotines and funeral chic. After all, as Wednesday explains in Addams Family Values, we’re only alive because we haven’t waited long enough.


Emily Alford is a writer living in Los Angeles. A former staff writer for Jezebel, her work has also appeared at Gawker, Vox, and Buzzfeed. 


Editor: Peter Rubin
Copy editor: Cheri Lucas Rowlands

The post How Wednesday Addams Birthed a Generation of Cynics appeared first on Longreads.



from Longreads https://ift.tt/LfveImR
via IFTTT

Tuesday, November 22, 2022

Architecture and Blackberries: The Art of Longform Narratives

A stylized illustration of a cow and calf standing on a sandy beach.

This story was funded by our members. Join Longreads and help us to support more writers.

As host of The Creative Nonfiction Podcast, Brendan O’Meara is no stranger to talking about the art and craft of storytelling. In this craft-focused excerpt, we’re digging into Episode 340, in which he interviewed Atavist editor Jonah Ogles and freelance writer J.B. MacKinnon about his work on the latest issue of The Atavist.

The seduction of “beautiful language,” however you define it, is real. It’s what we feel we must do to make writing “artful.” Yet, that act of imitation can often ring hollow in execution. Often, it’s best to surrender to the story and let some of the more invisible elements — paradoxically — shine brightest.

Enter J.B. MacKinnon, whose recent Atavist feature “True Grit” chronicles the harrowing journey of three cows swept to sea by a hurricane surge. (Should they have called it “Finding Nemoo”? No, but I still wish they had.) It’s what lead editor Jonah Ogles affectionately dubbed a shaggy-dog story: “It meanders quite a bit from the narrative itself to explore other things, but it’s really a fun read — and worth reading and talking about.”

The conversation with MacKinnon includes too many highlights to mention, but I particularly loved his love of stripping back florid language so that a piece’s bones shine through, rather simply a particular sentence.“The entire culture of writing appears to put weight on beautiful language instead of beautiful structure,” he says. “We can really get bound up in trying to produce beautifully written sentences with well-chosen words. You want the beautiful architecture to catch their eye, not just the blackberry vines it’s buried in.”

Please enjoy this excerpt below, and listen to the full episode for more.

These interviews have been edited for clarity and concision.

Brendan O’Meara: Oh, this one was wild.

Jonah Ogles: Yeah, it’s a good one for us to do. This is a classic shaggy-dog story, not your traditional magazine story. It’s a little odd, it meanders quite a bit from the narrative itself to explore other things, but it’s really a fun read — and worth reading and talking about.

What did the pitch look like when it came across your desk?

He hooked us with the cows: a hurricane sweeps some cows out to sea, and some of them survive. So right there you’ve checked the tension box. But he said that he wanted to use that to discuss cows: how little we know about them, what we think we’re learning about them, and what the story might exemplify. We’d had a lot of straightforward, classic, good magazine stories recently, and this one felt different. And I think we were in the mood to do something a little different.

A lot of people think of cows as these dopey dull-witted meat factories unto themselves. But as JB’s reporting shows, their sentience is more on the level of animals that we historically would never consume, and would be horrified if they were treated as poorly as cows.

It’s sort of a sideways way into that. We’ve gotten pitches for exposés of industrial animal agriculture — and don’t get me wrong, I’m sympathetic to that. This approach asks some of the same thorny questions, with a narrative that’s really compelling and keeps you moving through. I had cows when I was growing up; my dad works for the USDA and has literally spent his career working with farmers to raise cows in more holistic ways. So I was like already a believer. And I was still surprised by what the reporting turned up.

I always love getting your insights on the editorial puzzle-solving of each particular piece. When you were reading early drafts and working with James, how did that puzzle manifest itself?

This was one of the easy ones on the editing front; it came in mostly in the form you see it now. We moved a few things around, but most of what I did was trimming. It was really just refining particular arguments and ideas. The big question for me as an editor was, how do we balance this narrative and these interesting philosophical questions with more current-feeling issues like climate change? All I had to do in this one was tighten things up and say, I think we can make our point in this many words. James has been an absolute pleasure to work with and is always really receptive to that. 


Take me through how you came to this one.

J.B. MacKinnon: There was this weird, brief media circus around the idea that these cows had somehow swum from one island to another in a hurricane off the coast of North Carolina. It was presented as this quirky feel-good news story. But I thought, “There’s got to be more to this.” It seemed like it had to be more extraordinary than met the eye — and it certainly turned out to be that way.

Oftentimes a great well of story ideas is these things that are momentarily sensational. They’re quirky on the surface, but then the hit-and-run reporters move on, and the narratively driven reporters’ instincts kick in like yours did.

The story also intersected with a story that has been on my mind for some years, which I wrote years ago for an outdoors magazine in Canada. It was about this polar bear that had been radio-tagged, and jumped into the ocean and set off to swim out to the sea ice, which I guess is something polar bears do in Alaska. They’re used to having to swim 100 kilometers or something out to the sea ice. But because of ice retreat, this one swam for 700 kilometers across nine days, continuously swimming. It had a cub with it when it entered the ocean and it didn’t have one by the time it came out. So somewhere along the line, the cub drowned. And it was just this incredible feat of perseverance and sheer physical power, and kind of blew my mind — and my eye has been opened to animal survival stories since then. 

So when I saw this story about the cows, one of my first thoughts was, “Can cows even swim? I don’t know how extraordinary this is, but it seems pretty incredible.” And I started thinking that this might be not only just kind of a cool take on the survival story genre, but it might have important things to say about how we relate to cattle.

That can be problematic for people who consume them as food‚ which is a central tenet of your story.

I was kind of pitching this story as The Perfect Storm meets “Consider the Lobster,” David Foster Wallace’s famous essay about lobsters and whether we should eat them. That story starts out as this delightful jaunty travelogue to a lobster festival in Maine, and then it turns into a harrowing, Peter Singer-like essay on animal welfare. 

I thought this one had similar potential, because the narrative is incredible. It’s hard to explain how so few cattle survived this swim, when a whole herd of them and horses was washed into the water; how do just three cattle survive this swim, if it didn’t come down in some way to their individual willpower, their conscious desire to stay alive? And if individual cattle have these kinds of capacities, then something more complicated is staring back at us in the meat aisle of the grocery store than I think many of us has considered.

With the three cattle who survived, two might have been driven by their own herd mentality to survive together. And then the central bovine character, if you will, turns out to be with calf, so that suggests an entirely new level of a drive to survive.

This pregnant cow is just a real battler — certainly the orneriest of the cattle, is very difficult to round up and take back home. This is one of the unanswerable questions of the piece. But we do raise it and I do think aloud about it. Was this cow motivated not only by a desire to save its own life, but a desire to save the life of its calf? As I reported deeper into the story, it kept going. First, it’s “some cows swam through a hurricane.” Then I hear that they may be descendants of Spanish colonial cattle who were thrown overboard 400 years ago. Then I hear that one of them was pregnant. Then I hear that the calf was born with one brown eye, and one blue eye. It just kept on giving, and was so fun to work on.

How did you go about the reporting and the research of this, given that the central figures don’t speak?

I thought, “Well, I’ll try to track down anyone who knows the inside of a cow’s head.” And that turns out to be a pretty limited group of people. There really wasn’t much research being done until recently on cows as individuals, or on the psychology of cows, or even how cows communicate with one another. These are not questions that society is hankering to investigate across a history in which we eat a lot of cows. So it’s really only recently that folks have started to investigate these kinds of questions. So I talked to those people, and they were good enough not only to share their research with me, but to actually sit through interviews in which I said things like, “At what point in the journey of these cows do you think they might have experienced loss, or grieved? How would they have communicated to one another as a storm surge set upon them?” They really helped me build scenes that hopefully bring this story to life in the absence of the ability to interview the protagonists.

Anyone doing this kind of work has to be okay asking questions that feel kind of silly. But ultimately, it gets toward, in this case, getting into the headspace of a cow. How have you developed comfort with asking these questions that seem kind of inane on the surface, but fundamentally help shape the story you’re looking to write?

Even just normally reporting scenes, people find that experience very unfamiliar. Most people’s impression of a reporter or a journalist is that they’re going to come and fire some questions at the interview subject about facts, they’re going to get responses, and that’ll be it. And as soon as you’re starting to ask “what color was your jacket?” it changes. 

One time I was interviewing some biologists who had shot a wolf, and I asked what kind of guns they had — and it ended up becoming quite an operation to extract that information. They start to wonder why you need these details, and there’s something about probing for details that makes people just naturally suspicious. 

I tend to approach it by saying, “Look, I need to paint a picture in words. And I need the reader to be able to see what you saw or experienced within their mind’s eye.” Most people can go along with that. But I also find that it usually requires going back to interviewees more than once, and trying to develop comfort through a bit of relationship building. In this case, the cow people turned out to be amazing people, and they didn’t blink an eye. They were just like, “Let’s walk through this. I want to help make this story come to life.”

In Robert Caro’s memoir, Working, he writes that one of his central questions when he’s interviewing somebody is just, “What did you see? If I were standing over your shoulder, What would I be witnessing?” It seems so banal to the person asked, but when you get to that degree of granularity, it paints a three-dimensional picture that really immerses the reader. And that’s ultimately what we’re after.

I’ve used exactly that line: If I was standing there beside you, what would I be seeing? All of this really came to a head during COVID, when you couldn’t travel, you couldn’t go to locations and paint scenes. A lot of the detailed description that appears in the piece doesn’t come from my actual visit to the location — it comes from sitting right where I’m sitting now, at the desk that I work at, and talking to people on Zoom or on the telephone.

And when you get all your information together from your reporting and your research, at what point do you feel confident to start writing?

There’s that old phrase, “When you meet yourself coming the other direction.” I think that really has been my experience: At some point, I’m talking to people who are saying, “You should talk to so and so,” and it’s somebody I’ve already spoken to. Or I’m reading research that’s saying something that’s already in my notes. Once I’ve kind of started hitting enough indicators like that, then I feel like, okay, I’ve pushed it far enough along. It’s time to put something on the screen.

Are you much of an outliner?

I spent a lot of time earlier in my career thinking about structure, probably because it was a weakness initially. And so I used to do a lot of outlining, a lot of doodling around structure. At this point, I’ve ingested structure to the point where I generally have a pretty plain sense of how a piece is going to start, where I think it’s going to end, what the basic blocks are within it, what the arc is, all of those kinds of things. The great thing about having gone through the agony of focusing on structure for a while is that it’s become intuitive.

I suspect through all your reading, and all the stories you’ve written, and all the research you’ve done, that — to use a golf term — you can kind of see the line.

You start to develop an eye for themes and threads rising up through the research as you do it. In this case, the idea of names and naming started to rise up for me. We generally don’t name livestock, because we’re going to eat them. In this case, though, there was this strange circumstance where you have these two herds of feral animals, one of horses and one of cows, and they all get swept off this island by a storm surge. But when I started to look into it, all of the horses have names — and of course, none of the cows have names. But yet, it’s the cows that survive. And at the very end, one of the cows is awarded a name by the human community. So I was picking up those kinds of resonances, and pretty quickly that turned into knowing how I’m going to start my story: not with the cows, but with the horses, because they have names. “Oh yeah, and there were also some cows. They didn’t have names, but hang around and see what they do.”

What was it like being edited on a piece of this nature? Because it’s an ambitious piece of writing — but, of course, it’s also an ambitious piece to edit.

I think, oddly enough, this was my first real effort to start trying stories that had strong narratives at their core. Prior to this, I’d really written more essayistic styles, particularly reported essays. Those would have storytelling elements, but they weren’t really powerfully narrative-driven.

I’m more or less self-taught as a writer. I didn’t study it in university. So I probably was a bit shy about approaching narrative-driven stories. But after this last book, I was really craving the opportunity to write something with a powerful narrative. It powers itself, right? You don’t have to crunch it as much as you do an essay. It’s difficult in new ways, but narratives are a lot clearer in terms of “what’s the start, middle, and end?”

That’s where the editing from Jonah has been really helpful. He basically said, “The diversions in this piece are fun, but there’s a lot of them. And we really need to let the narrative rise up and breathe.” That was really a pleasure for me, because I could recognize right away that this was something I needed to learn about pieces that are powered by narrative. It was beautiful to watch how stripping things away allowed it to become so much more visible.

If you’re decluttering your wardrobe and get rid of a T-shirt, it stings at first, but in a week, a month, a year, you don’t even remember that you had the thing. It’s the same thing when you’re line editing and killing darlings. Some things seem so precious, but when you strip it away in service of the whole, you’re like, “I don’t even remember why line seemed so important to me.”

The entire culture of writing appears to put weight on beautiful language instead of beautiful structure. We can really get bound up in trying to produce beautifully written sentences with well-chosen words. You want the beautiful architecture to catch their eye, not just the blackberry vines it’s buried in.

In bringing these conversations down for a landing, I always love asking the guests for a recommendation of some kind for the listeners — it can be anything, be it a brand of coffee or a fanny pack.

I’m actually going to give a little shoutout for what may be an underappreciated nonfiction outlet, Hakai Magazine. They’re a great literary science magazine up here in British Columbia, and doing all kinds of really interesting stuff. It feels like a place where, as a writer, the reins are kept pretty loose, and you get to breathe a little when you’re doing a piece. I think it’s a place that deserves more readers — and more writers as well.

The post Architecture and Blackberries: The Art of Longform Narratives appeared first on Longreads.



from Longreads https://ift.tt/D4fXJwr
via IFTTT

Monday, November 21, 2022

Climate Change From A to Z

In this alphabetical guide combining narrative, reporting, and illustration, Elizabeth Kolbert tells the story of Earth across the ages.

To say that amazing work is being done to combat climate change and to say that almost no progress has been made is not a contradiction; it’s a simple statement of fact.

For the last thirty years—more if you go back to 1965—we have lived as if someone, or some technology, were going to rescue us from ourselves. We are still living that way now.

The post Climate Change From A to Z appeared first on Longreads.



from Longreads https://ift.tt/yIjsQap
via IFTTT

Friday, November 18, 2022

The Top 5 Longreads of the Week

a man on his phone lying down in bed

A gripping nature thriller. The sleep diary of an insomniac. The golden years of a digital media empire. River rocks etched with history. Musings on returning to one’s hometown. Read on for our editors’ five recommended stories.

1. The Demon River

J.B. MacKinnon | Hakai Magazine | November 15, 2022 | 14,400 words

In recent years, we’ve witnessed the blossoming of a subgenre of longform writing that I’ll call the nature thriller. It’s born of necessity, by which I mean the collision of an ever-expanding human population — we hit 8 billion souls just this week — and a changing, temperamental climate. Natural disasters are on the rise, and with them come harrowing stories of jaw-dropping devastation and remarkable survival. In the right hands, these stories are propulsive without feeling glib, emotional but not exploitative. J.B. MacKinnon is a master of the nature thriller, deftly weaving plot with science. In this multi-chapter feature about the worst flood British Columbia has ever seen, MacKinnon had me on the edge of my seat reading about storm patterns, pressure systems, and infrastructure — yes, infrastructure. I learned from this story as much as I enjoyed it. (Sidenote: I had the pleasure of helping shepherd another MacKinnon feature, “True Grit,” to publication at The Atavist this month. It too qualifies as a nature thriller.) —SD

2. Bed Habits

Rachel Handler | Vulture | November 6, 2022 | 7,169 words

I am not a good sleeper. My room needs to be frosty cold and my bed toasty warm, one foot tucked in and one out, to monitor conditions. A sea of devices cover my bed, distractions to stop my brain from using sleep “quiet time” to catch up on some important worrying. So I was drawn to Rachel Handler’s essay detailing her struggles with insomnia. Jam-packed with fascinating information, it starts with a new study published in the Journal of Sleep Research which, contrary to popular belief, suggests being on your devices before bed may aid sleep. She decides to put this to the test by peer-reviewing herself. For two weeks, she keeps a sleep diary, bizarre dreams and all, to measure the effects of her nightly TV. Sure, it might not be the most scientific study in the world, but her honest appraisal is nothing short of hilarious. Give it a read — on your screen in bed if you want. I support you. —CW

3. The Unbearable Lightness of BuzzFeed

Mia Sato | The Verge | November 16, 2022 | 3,263 words

It’s not easy being on top. Or, rather, it’s not easy being on top when staying there is virtually impossible. Once upon a time, BuzzFeed reigned supreme among digital media upstarts, seemingly minting both page views and revenue at will; today, it’s losing millions of dollars every quarter, and readers are spending a third less time with it than just a year ago. Is this a fall from grace or a Sunset Boulevard moment (“I’m big … it’s the pictures that got small”)? The answer, as Mia Sato unpacks in this Verge feature, is a little bit of both. As hard as it was for legacy outlets to adjust to the internet, BuzzFeed knew exactly how to package it for readers — and in return, readers fed BuzzFeed not just eyeballs, but ideas. The Dress; ’90s-kid nostalgia plays; even harnessing Facebook’s then-new live video capability. Time moved on, though, and the algorithms did too. Quizzes and listicles have fallen out of fashion, and you can’t scroll Twitter without seeing a handful of other aggregation engines repurposing Reddit threads and TikTok trends. The circle of franken-content remains unbroken. That doesn’t mean that BuzzFeed employees don’t look back fondly, though, and Sato does a stellar job of tracing why the site’s heyday was so damn powerful. It wasn’t just the memes; it was the friendships they made along the way. —PR

4. Souvenirs of Climate Catastrophe

Anna Badkhen | Emergence Magazine | September 13, 2022 | 1,828 words

In considering time trapped in a bead of amber, Anna Badkhen reflects on how our planet’s weather patterns have raged across eons. With horrific drought in Europe that saw rivers run dry this past summer, Badkhen reminds us that humans have inscribed their suffering on “hunger rocks” that appear in rivers only when the water level becomes precipitously low or disappears altogether. “In Central Europe, hunger stones—river boulders that people living through droughts petroglyphed with dates and descriptions of their woe—commemorate the years of bad harvest, scarcity, high prices, hunger: 1417, 1616, 1707, 1746, 1790, 1800, 1811, 1830, 1842, 1868, 1892, 1893. One inscription, near Bleckede, in Lower Saxony, reads: ‘When this goes under, life will become more colorful again’; another, near the Czech town of Děčín-Podmokly: ‘If you see me, then weep.’” Badkhen’s essay is a poignant reminder of the magnitude of our planet’s ongoing evolution and the split-second brevity of a human life lived on it. —KS

5. Constraints: A Hometown Ode

Anne P. Beatty | The Rumpus | October 18, 2022 | 3,165 words

Anne P. Beatty never planned to move back to her hometown of Greensboro, North Carolina. But at 33, she did. In these lovely musings, Beatty reflects on ambition, becoming a writer and an English teacher, and the fear of stasis when a person returns to the place they grew up. She also writes beautifully about adolescence and adulthood — what we hope for ourselves, and simply what is. “As a kid, I was constantly looking beyond myself, beyond my world. What’s out there to see? To write about?” she asks. “Now, I just want one more hour, thirty minutes even, to work from within.” I’ve been thinking deeply recently about where I am in my life — struggling as a mother, trying to be a writer — and I appreciate these refreshingly honest reflections about life and growing up. —CLR


Enjoyed these recommendations? Sign up for our Friday newsletter if you haven’t already:

The post The Top 5 Longreads of the Week appeared first on Longreads.



from Longreads https://ift.tt/ke67uqZ
via IFTTT

Thursday, November 17, 2022

Billionaires like Elon Musk want to save civilization by having tons of genetically superior kids.

Meet the elites trying to make Gattaca a reality: avowed pronatalists dedicated to producing perfect heirs. Julia Black dives deep into the latest trend among wealthy, tech-minded types to bolster their legacies via science (see also: cryogenics). The subjects of this article are trying to turn their bloodlines into fire hoses and claiming it’s for the good of humankind:

Elites have used lineage to consolidate money and power for most of human history. But as couples in the developed world are increasingly putting off parenthood until later in life — or abandoning it altogether — people like the Collinses are looking for hacks to make large families feasible in a modern, secular society.

They both said they were warned by friends not to talk to me. After all, a political minefield awaits anyone who wanders into this space. The last major figure to be associated with pronatalism was Jeffrey Epstein, who schemed to impregnate 20 women at a time on his New Mexico ranch. Genetic screening, and the underlying assumption that some humans are born better than others, often invites comparisons to Nazi eugenic experiments. And then there’s the fact that our primary cultural reference point for a pronatalist society is the brutally misogynist world of “The Handmaid’s Tale.”

The Collinses, who call themselves “ruthless pragmatists,” consider the inevitable backlash a small price to pay.

“We’re frustrated that one of the inherent points of this culture is that people are super private within it,” Simone said. They not only hope that their transparency will encourage other members of the upper class to have more children; they want to build a culture and economy around the high-birth-rate lifestyle.

The payoff won’t be immediate, Simone said, but she believes if that small circle puts the right plans into place, their successors will “become the new dominant leading classes in the world.” 

The post Billionaires like Elon Musk want to save civilization by having tons of genetically superior kids. appeared first on Longreads.



from Longreads https://ift.tt/dhQFAoJ
via IFTTT

The Unbearable Lightness of Buzzfeed

The truth about media — and tech, and any other field that chases innovation to stave off obsolescence — is that the disrupter always becomes the disrupted. With Buzzfeed navigating uncertain financial waters, Mia Sato digs into the company’s place in the internet-aggregation industrial complex.

But outlets that depend on third-party platforms for traffic live and die according to platforms’ whims. A Facebook algorithm change aimed at reducing “clickbait” around 2014, for example, hit viral content mills the hardest. Upworthy, which at one point was called “the fastest growing media site of all time,” went from 87 million monthly visitors to 49 million in a matter of months in late 2013 — more than 40 percent of traffic wiped out. Smaller outfits that were almost entirely dependent on Facebook traffic — like Distractify or LittleThings — have since shuttered completely or disappeared from the general consciousness.

The post The Unbearable Lightness of Buzzfeed appeared first on Longreads.



from Longreads https://ift.tt/vPiQMGw
via IFTTT

Life in the Slow Lane

This story was funded by our members. Join Longreads and help us to support more writers.

Olivia Potts| Longreads | November, 2022 | 16 minutes (4,649 words)

It’s six in the morning, and Robert Booth has already been on the road for three hours. Sitting alongside him in the cab of his lorry (the British term for a truck) is Louis, Robert’s small dog, a Jack Russell-chihuahua mix, and a washing-up bowl covered in bungee cords. The cords secure a slow cooker, which is happily bubbling away as Robert heads north along the A1. Dinner is still six hours away. Tonight, he’s having black bean chili.

Robert Booth is a “tramper,” a long-haul lorry driver who sleeps in the cab of his vehicle when on a job. He began driving lorries at age 48 after illness meant early retirement from the prison service. He quickly became dissatisfied with the food choices he found along his routes. “When you go to a service station, every place you go, you can get a Burger King or a KFC or a McDonald’s. The average age of a lorry driver is 55. We are well and truly in heart attack territory. And on top of that, you stick fried food …”

Robert’s solution was the slow cooker. In the small hours of the morning, when most of us are sleeping, he prepares his ingredients on a small bench in the body of the truck, puts them inside the ceramic pot, and plugs the cooker into an inverter in his cab’s cigarette lighter. The washing-up bowl stops the pot from falling off the passenger seat, and the bungee cords secure the rattling lid. At the other end of his journey, he has dinner — as long as Louis hasn’t got there first. This can be a real risk. Last week, Robert told me, the dog made off with “a wonderful piece of smoked haddock” that was defrosting on the passenger seat.

***

Humans first cooked food in a pot around 10,000 years ago. As Michael Pollan notes in Cooked, it marked a major advance in efficiency from roasting on an open fire. “Every last drop of the fat and juices from the meat, which over a fire would be lost, are conserved … Pot cooking allows you to make a tasty dish from a third-rate or over-the-hill cut of meat, and to stretch a small amount of meat so that, with the addition of vegetables and sauce, it might feed more mouths …”

Pot cooking also set the stage for the dawn of agriculture, since — as Baron Karl Friedrich von Rumohr put it in The Essence of Cookery — “innumerable natural products were rendered edible.” The very concept of ingredients and recipes didn’t really exist before we began to combine foods in a pot. Food writer Bee Wilson called it “the leap from mere heating to cuisine.”

One-pot cookery was soon harnessed by cultures across the world, often taking low-and-slow cooking to its logical extreme by using residual heat to slow-cook stews and casseroles. Orthodox Jews would make cholent, a stew, before sundown on a Friday. Left in a cooling oven overnight,  they could eat cooked food without cooking on the Sabbath, which is prohibited. In fact, cholent played a key role in shaping the modern slow cooker.

***

Irving Nachumsohn was born in New Jersey in 1902. His mother Tamara grew up in Vilna, a Jewish neighborhood in Vilnius, Lithuania. On Friday nights, her mother, Nachumsohn’s grandmother, would make cholent. She would fill a crock  with pastrami shtickel, vegetables, and beans, and have Tamara take it to the local bakery to cook slowly overnight in the bakery oven’s cooling heat, nestled alongside dozens of other neighborhood families’ pots.

The washing-up bowl stops the pot from falling off the passenger seat, and the bungee cords secure the rattling lid. At the other end of his journey, he has dinner — as long as Louis hasn’t got there first.

Nachumsohn was a born inventor. He invented an electric frying pan, the hula lamp (an early version of the lava lamp), and the TeleSign (an electronic news scroller). He was so prolific in fact, that he decided it was easier and cheaper to pass the patent bar himself so he could act as his own lawyer. During the long hot summer of 1936, he set out to solve the problem of cooking beans without having to stand over a hob or leave an oven pumping heat out into the house. He remembered the cholent his mother had told him about and, as with his previous inventions, applied electricity to the issue. He applied for a patent for the “Naxon Beanery” — he had shortened the family name to “Naxon” following World War II — an electric cooking pot with a fixed chamber and internal heating element. It was the world’s first electric slow cooker.

Naxon was an extraordinary inventor, but no marketer. The Naxon Beanery was not a commercial success. Twenty years later, a company called Rival bought the technology. The acquisition was a bit of a punt. “No one paid any attention to it,” Rival’s President, Isidore Miller, told the Kansas City Times in 1981 — that is, until someone in Rival’s test kitchens realized that Naxon’s device could cook more than just beans. In 1971, Rival green-lit a commercial release, rebranding the Naxon Beanery to reflect its new-found versatility. The Crockpot was born. (Crockpot, incidentally, is like Kleenex or Hoover: a brand name so well known, it’s used to cover a whole product category.)

It was the right product for the right time. Married women were beginning to seek jobs outside of the home, taking them away from the kitchen. A major oil crisis had bumped up the cost of cooking. And Rival knew what they were doing: The Crockpot was available in all the trendy colors of the day — harvest gold and avocado — and marketed as the pot that “cooks all day while the cook’s away.” In 1971, sales were $2 million. By 1975, they were $93 million. In that same year, Mable Hoffman’s Crockery Cookery, the first dedicated Crockpot cookbook, was published, featuring recipes like “Busy Woman’s Roast Chicken” — chicken stuffed with “stove top dressing,” or packet stuffing, and cooked in sauternes wine — and “Alphabet Pot Roast” (beef braised in alphabet soup). That year, it outsold The Joy of Sex and the Star Trek Starfleet Technical Manual. To date, it has sold over six million copies, making it one of the bestselling cookbooks of all time.

The Crockpot arrived amid a slew of innovations, from the microwave oven to the breadmaker, that promised to save women from the drudgery of cooking for their families. But unlike its technological contemporaries, the slow cooker didn’t speed up a working woman’s cooking, it slowed it down. The crucial part was being absent for almost the entire cooking process: A woman could actually leave the house and enter the workplace, without neglecting her wifely duties. What the modern Crockpot brought to the kitchen — or more accurately to the woman in the kitchen — was inattention. No one had to tend a fire, or make sure it didn’t dry out. No one had to watch and stir. The Crockpot was that rarest of things: a product that delivered on its tagline. It did indeed cook all day while the cook was away.

***

When I was 21, I was living in London, training to be a criminal lawyer. I was young, free, and extremely single. My sister, on the other hand, was loved up and settled in a long-term relationship. For Christmas, she received a set of fancy, cast-iron Le Creuset pans from my parents. I, on the other hand, received a slow cooker for one. I acted offended at the time, but the truth is, it was a very thoughtful gift. I had no affinity for cooking whatsoever, and was out all day, every day, but — thanks to that slow cooker — I still managed to eat a home-cooked hot meal a couple of times a week. I made an awful lot of beef stew.

Here’s the irony: When I was 25, my mum died, and I inherited her Le Creuset pans, which, among other factors, ultimately led me to abandon the law and retrain as a professional cook. I became, I’m ashamed to admit, somewhat sniffy about slow cookers. I wanted to stand over a hot stove, stirring and fiddling. Throwing a bunch of ingredients into a machine and leaving them to do their thing for eight hours simply wasn’t proper cooking. Once I’d got to grips with pan and flame, the slow cooker was relegated to the back of my cupboard. 

I was being a snob. Slow cookers are useful for all sorts of people, but particularly for a specific kind of cook: the person who wants to do things from scratch, but lacks the time, culinary knowledge, or confidence to do so on the hob or in the oven. It is a sympathetic tool, unlikely either to burn your food or leave your meat undercooked. Your timings can be out by hours with little impact on the end result. It’s economical, too — first in its ability to make the most of cheap cuts of meat and tough vegetables, second in its small energy footprint (it costs about the same to run as an energy-saving lightbulb). 

The Crockpot was that rarest of things: a product that delivered on its tagline. It did indeed cook all day while the cook was away.

In its heyday, the Crockpot was a popular wedding present — that’s how Mable Hoffman got hers — and it’s easy to see why. Here was a group of women juggling the expectations of the previous generation (household maintenance) and the current one (being a working mother). The Crockpot squared the circle. As Paula Johnson, curator of food history at the National Museum of American History, said in an interview with NPR last year, “I think it’s important to establish that the Crockpot had an impact on women of a certain demographic in the 1970s. We’re talking of generally white, middle-class women who could afford the device.” In the intervening years, user demographics have changed. Where once the device was explicitly (and exclusively) marketed to married women, it has since found a receptive audience in single people, with recent marketing — and my Christmas present — reflecting that. Found to be particularly popular with single men, in 2012, Jarden, the current owners of the Rival brand, even partnered with the NFL to create crockpots with logos for all 32 teams.

***

When I started writing this piece, I reached out to communities of slow cooker fans on Facebook and Twitter and asked what drew them to this form of cookery. Their responses were myriad: it’s safe; it’s easy for people with mental or physical disabilities to use; it’s great for batch cooking; it’s cheap to run; it’s healthy (because food retains moisture in a slow cooker, you can get away with less fat); you don’t need a kitchen, or even an oven to cook with it, just a plug.

For some, it’s about time. Dr. Sarah Burgess, an anesthetist and intensive care medicine registrar explained to me that they are particularly popular with junior doctors. “I come back from a night shift, sling some food in, and wake up a few hours later to the house smelling delicious and my batch cook is done.”

Vanessa Martin just wants easy food. “I don’t particularly like cooking, I find it quite helpful to just be able to throw the stuff in in the morning, leave it on. And then I know when I’m finished working, I’ve got something to eat.”

For the trucker, Robert, it’s home cooking away from home. “It’s about doing stuff in the cab: the type of food, trying to live healthier, having something to do, making life as good as you can in the cab.” In the U.K., Robert’s way of life makes him something of an outlier, but in the U.S., slow-cooking truckers are a major subgroup. There are some 3.5 million truck drivers in the U.S. who have lots of time, but no kitchen, making the slow cooker ideal for their needs. Truck company websites offer slow cooking tips (“bungee cords are a must”), while industry websites have blog posts dedicated to rating the best slow cookers for truck drivers; money-saving tip sites for truckers lead with using a Crockpot to cook dinners on the road, and countless blogs, YouTube channels, and Pinterest boards list recipes for slow cooking in trucks.

The common thread within the slow cooker community is convenience. The slow cooker is inherently domestic: Chefs have no interest in leaving their pots unattended, and the prospect of having to keep a lid clamped on them and leave them untasted and unadjusted is anathema. It’s not a terribly glamorous piece of kit. “They’re not sexy!” Megan Allen, another slow cooker fan tells me, laughing. It’s not aspirational. It might be prosaic, but the slow cooker is a purely functional device: it gets the job done.

***

In 2018, the close-knit Crockpot community was shaken. After a two-season-long mystery, Jack Pearson, the patriarch in the hit drama This Is Us, was — spoiler alert — revealed to have been killed by a faulty Crockpot, which had been used to make Super Bowl chili (a Midwestern slow cooker favorite). The pot’s faulty switch sparked onto a kitchen towel, ultimately igniting the whole house. The response was huge, and Crockpot’s manufacturers were forced to join Twitter to try to claw back the PR disaster. They issued a long, detailed statement, at pains to explain why the show’s dramatic storyline was entertainment rather than a public service announcement. “The safety and design of our product renders this type of event nearly impossible […] Our hope is that the team at NBC’s This Is Us will help us spread factual information regarding our product’s safety. While we know their primary mission is to entertain — something they have continued to excel in — we also feel they have a responsibility to inform.”

You can almost feel the forced smile.

Showrunner Dan Fogelman put it slightly more succinctly on Twitter. “Taking a moment to remind everyone that it was a 20-year-old fictional crockpot with an already funky switch? Let’s not just lump all those lovely hard-working crockpots together.”

The storyline actually boosted Crockpot sales in the end, and the company shrewdly put out a new advertising campaign in which Jack makes his deadly chili and asks fans to “find the ability to forgive.” To be fair to Crockpot, the stats don’t lie: Slow cookers only caused 103 fires in the U.S. between 2012 and 2015 with two nonfatal injuries, a tiny number compared to other kitchen appliances. In the same period, ranges caused 63,784 fires, and 3,834 injuries, 199 of which resulted in death. Even coffee makers caused 256 fires.

***

I return to my slow cooker after I have a baby. In those early months, the days are long, but time is short, and my hands are constantly tied up elsewhere. I no longer want to stand over the hob, and even if I do, my baby has just learned to roll over, but not how to roll back, and has absolutely no patience for me to stir risotto before I flip him. So I pull my slow cooker from the back of the cupboard and wipe the dust from its lid.

After a two-season-long mystery, Jack Pearson, the patriarch in the hit drama This Is Us, was — spoiler alert — revealed to have been killed by a faulty Crockpot, which had been used to make Super Bowl chili

I start on safe ground, with the beef stew I made over and over in my barrister days. This is the sort of dish slow cookers were made for. I spend a few minutes prepping; eight hours later, I am rewarded with a handsome, glossy casserole.

But why stop there? Slow cooking’s many online forums are brimming with recipes that have achieved cult status. There’s “campfire stew” — pork cooked with beans and vegetables until it can be pulled apart. More surprisingly, there’s slow cooker doner kebab, which emulates the take-out favorite, and the intriguing slow cooker fudge.

First, I try sticky pork belly and honey chicken — other forum favorites. They both mimic dishes from Western Cantonese restaurants, takeout versions of the original. Everything goes in raw; no need to sweat vegetables or brown the meat. My slow cooker keeps everything hot without drying it out while I attempt to put the baby to bed — and then for a bit longer when bedtime becomes a battle. Finally, my husband and I sit down to dinner. Neither of these dishes tastes terribly authentic, but they are hot and flavorful, and they were a breeze to make.

Next up is a rice pudding. This, I confess, is a bit of a faff. If you make rice pudding in the oven, you needn’t touch it for hours. Whereas with a slow cooker, you have to stir it every twenty minutes, to avoid it catching and scorching, which rather defeats the point. However, the finished product is fantastic: smooth, rich, and creamy, just like the stuff of my childhood.

When Christmas approaches I cannot resist having a go at some of the other cult recipes. The so-called three-ingredient Christmas fruit cake (which unequivocally and irritatingly requires four ingredients) calls for flour, mixed dried fruit, Baileys Irish Cream liqueur, and lots of chocolate milk. It is not great. Burnt on the outside, insipid on the inside, it takes as long to cook as it does in my conventional oven (where it does not burn), and is only marginally simpler to throw together than an actual fruit cake.

It gets weirder, though everything more or less works. I put aside the questions that keep nagging at me: Why bother roasting potatoes in a slow cooker, when a hot oven — designed for roasting — does the job so well? (The potatoes are actually great: fluffy on the inside, crispy on the outside, though my husband declares them “a bit chewy.”) Then there’s the “dump cake,” which you make by pouring canned fruit, juice and all, into the cooker, topping with packet cake mix, then dotting with butter. The first one — tinned pears and ginger sponge — is merely OK; the second one — black cherries and chocolate sponge, Black Forest-style — is frankly glorious.

As a pastry chef, the recipes initially seemed vague and imprecise to me — I’m used to measuring things to the gram. But I soon realized that’s the point: With a slow cooker, you have a generous amount of wiggle room. The lack of precision is because precision is not required. To someone who isn’t used to cooking, or who is simply less uptight than me, it’s a feature, not a bug.

***

The Crockpot does have its culinary drawbacks: You can’t brown meat in a slow cooker, because it will never get hot enough for the Maillard reaction (the process that makes bread, or the outside of a steak, brown, bringing with it a whole whack of complex flavor). Your casserole will never reduce and thicken. For many, this is part of the deal, maybe even part of the charm. On the forums, newcomers occasionally post hybrid recipes, which have non-slow cooker steps in them. They are met with a frosty reception. It’s as if I’ve stepped into another world, where the convection oven and the hob and the microwave were never invented. 

Help us fund our next story

We’ve published hundreds of original stories, all funded by you — including personal essays, reported features, and reading lists.

In the beginning, the slow cooker’s limitations weren’t really that limiting. The whole idea was to use it to cook dishes that lent themselves to low heat over a long period of time, that didn’t need to be browned or really reduced. It suits cheap cuts of meat, where the cartilage and fat have time to break down and become tender and luscious, or hard, root vegetables that benefit from a low, slow cook. But for aficionados, it has since become a replacement for a whole kitchen, which means accepting various culinary compromises — or creating workarounds.

There are all sorts of hacks. You can leave the lid off to allow the liquid to reduce, or put a cloth between the lid and the pot to absorb condensation and aid browning. Many recipes call for gravy thickener or potato starch to thicken sauces. But these hacks often feel — and sometimes taste — like hacks. But some of the ideas slow cooker users have come up with are ingenious, working with the device’s attributes rather than against them. Miss South points out in her slow cooker cookbook, Slow Cooked, that they are perfect for candying fruit — a laborious process when done in the traditional way, on the stove — and for making everything from smooth, wibbly set custards, like crème caramel, to mincemeat.

The impulse to use the device to the exclusion of other kitchen gadgets can seem a bit bewildering to an outsider. “What bugs me about slow cookers,” Paula Lee wrote in Paste magazine, “is that it’s the cart before the horse. It’s the fact that recipes try to MacGyver it into doing strange tricks instead of accepting that it does one thing really well — braising tough cuts of meat — and everything else is a stunt, like using your hairdryer as a dust buster.”

Robert Booth, the truck driver, agrees. “To me, it’s just a tool. It’s not magic. Sweat your onions. Brown your meat. You’ve got to do the grunt work. At the end of the day, it’s a pot that heats up to a hot temperature. “You could do bread in it! Well, why would you?” And the food Robert produces, hack-free, is incredible. It was in a Facebook group where I first came across his “cab cuisine”: steamed pudding (strawberry and gooseberry) and boeuf bourguignon, often accompanied by a photograph of the hand-written recipe. Every evening he would post the fruits of that day’s slow cooking labors: chicken escalopes in lemon with asparagus and garlic mash, red Thai curry, and lamb tagine, all served up on his steering wheel. Other slow cooks went mad for it, awaiting his daily updates, and eager for the recipes. 

Internet sharing has become a key resource for the uninitiated and aficionados of slow cookers alike. Photos, recipes, questions, and encouragement are all posted — as long as they fall within the guidelines — like most internet communities the slow cooking world is highly regulated. The groups contain a head-spinning collection of ground rules: some are unsurprising and amount to different ways of saying “don’t be rude. (“Sick” emojis  will result in an instant ban.) Others remain intriguingly opaque: posts about slow cooker liners (thin plastic bags that sit in the crock and minimize washing up) are verboten. I still don’t entirely understand why, but I’m definitely too scared to post and ask.

Even the golden boy of slow cooking can fall foul of the moderator’s rules. Robert confesses to me that he has now left the Facebook group where I first discovered him, “by mutual consent,” phrasing that makes him sound like a disgraced politician, or past-it radio DJ. (It seems they wanted the recipes, but not his stories that went with them, he tells me sadly.)

***

For these rule-loving enthusiasts, part of the appeal of slow cooking is its heritage, its nostalgia: comforting, vintage dishes are the mainstay of most slow cooks. But it is more grist to the mill for their detractors. It has become a cliché that even today every Crockpot recipe begins with a can of mushroom soup and a packet of onion soup mix, but there is more than a kernel of truth in it. 

Every evening he would post the fruits of that day’s slow cooking labors: chicken escalopes in lemon with asparagus and garlic mash, red Thai curry, and lamb tagine, all served up on his steering wheel.

When the Crockpot first came about, its dependence on tins and shortcuts was in direct opposition to the other culinary movements of the time: Julia Child was becoming a household name, teaching readers to debone ducks and make croissants from scratch, giving advice on batteries de cuisine and classical sauce; Alice Waters was bringing the Californian culinary philosophy of only the freshest produce into the kitchen, and fiddling with it as little as possible. 

Whereas, for Crockpot evangelists, every shortcut was fair game. Even today, when we fetishize whole foods and provenance, most modern slow cooker recipes retain a penchant for jars and packet mixes. This underscores the strange niche slow cooking has consistently occupied: a desire to cook, but a willingness to get there with as little effort as possible. All of which begs the question, what is cooking from scratch? What qualifies as home cooking? Who is gatekeeping this, and why?

I’m aware of the heavy whiff of privilege in my occasional slow cooker skepticism. Using a hob or an oven is an easy and obvious alternative to me, but that isn’t true for everyone. I (often) eschew premade sauces and spice mixes because I have the time, money, and knowledge to make my own. We might all come to the slow cooker looking for convenience, but that doesn’t mean it occupies the same place in all our lives and kitchens. As Bee Wilson wrote in Consider the Fork, “Tools are not neutral objects. They change with evolving social context. A pestle and mortar was a different thing for the Roman slave, forced to pound up highly amalgamated mixtures for hours on end for his master’s enjoyment, than it is for me: pleasing apparatus with which I make pesto for fun, on a whim.”

***

Where does the slow cooker go from here?

Clearly, this device is no flash in the pan. Entering the market to solve a problem of the time, it’s become timeless. Its enduring appeal has converted new groups of consumers, and its popularity has boomed since the internet enabled us to share recipes, tips, and enthusiasm. 

But these days, the Crockpot is not the only game in town. The Instant Pot is one of the hottest kitchen appliances out there. It’s a multi-function electric cooker that can act as a slow cooker, but also as a pressure cooker, rice cooker, steamer, yogurt maker, water bath, air-fryer, and bread machine — depending on which model you get. It does everything the slow cooker does, but also pretty much everything it doesn’t. Crockpot, naturally, has responded with a very similar multifunctional device.

In some ways, these devices are the natural heirs to the original Crockpot: efficient, compact, safe cookers, which can prepare your dinner with minimal fuss. But they are also radically different. The classic slow cooker is incredibly simple. Most have three settings — low, high, and auto; only after over a decade of ownership, did I realize what the auto setting actually does (a high initial temperature, to get things going, then a low simmer). There are no temperature settings, no gas marks — most don’t even have a timer. As soon as you add another feature, however compelling, you take away from what a slow cooker is designed to be.

I recently found my model of slow cooker in a shop. It was $32, the equivalent price it was when my mother bought it for me for Christmas 15 years ago, and little more than the $25 the original Crockpot retailed for when it was unveiled at Chicago’s National Housewares Show in 1971. You can pick up a basic model for $10 if you shop around. Now, as in the 1970s, we are facing a cost of living crisis, with fuel bills skyrocketing. The Crockpot, in keeping things simple, remains a radically affordable and accessible way to feed a family — we need it now more than ever. 

As I turn on my slow cooker for the final recipe I decided to tackle for this piece (the chocolate and black cherry dump cake) I notice that the control panel is loose and, as it shifts, I can see the internal wiring. I might not be in This Is Us territory, but it’s still fair to say that after many years of service, my cooker is a goner. A few months ago I would probably have ditched the device entirely as a relic of my past. But now, I order a replacement immediately. You see, I’ve already bookmarked a recipe for slow cooker cheesecake, and I can’t wait to try it out.

***

Olivia Potts is a food writer and chef. After a career as a criminal barrister, she retrained in patisserie at Le Cordon Bleu. Her latest cookbook, Butter: A Celebration is published by Headline, and is out now. Her first book, A Half Baked Idea: How grief, love, and cake took me from the courtroom to Le Cordon Bleu won the Fortnum & Mason Debut Food Book Award and is published by Fig Tree, Penguin. She was the Guild of Food Writers’ Food Writer of the Year 2020.

***

Editor: Carolyn Wells
Copy editor: Krista Stevens

The post Life in the Slow Lane appeared first on Longreads.



from Longreads https://ift.tt/Ow7jnH3
via IFTTT