I lived in London when I was a teen (a long time ago), and even then, going for a curry was an excellent — and cost-effective decision. British food was so bland then, and people saw no contradiction in the other extreme.

The appearance of two Indian books on the list was hardly surprising, given estimates that the Indian food industry accounts for 2/3 of all eating out in the UK (via the government website: http://www.food.gov.uk/news/newsarchive/2003/nov/curryfacts ).

I don’t know if things have changed much from that survey in 2003 (there seem to be an awful lot of Italian-y restaurants on the high street now), but “going for a curry” is often the least objectionable suggestion when it comes to getting a large group of colleagues/friends out for a meal. Power of the most common denominator.

Re: Amy’s comments on the Britishness of the list – I’m sure most Guardian readers would be rather pleased about that…. =)

I agree, a good reason to read Gourmet. And maybe we don’t get to see very many long pieces like that in magazines anymore, unless we’re reading the New Yorker.

I remember it generating quite a bit of news when he killed himself. If you Google it you will see many stories. Maybe it goes to the idea that artists are more famous in death than in life.

My own feeling when it came out, was that it was yet again, one more reason to read Gourmet as opposed to Bon Appetit or some of the other frill-oriented food mags.

And considering, I suppose we could once again question what a good food magazine makes, or rather what constitutes a good “food” writer and all the particularities of such.

Obviously (or perhaps, I should say-don’t you think?) there are great differences between the writer who writes in sound-bites, side-bars, etc (and apparently what many magazines now want) and is referred to as a food writer, as opposed to someone like DFW who writes about food in this instance–yes–but not necessarily straying from the novelist/writer he was with his fantastic use of language and storytelling.

Perhaps, also making sense of Ruth’s earlier point that she wants to be considered a “writer”, not specifically a “food writer.”

Alas, look forward to reading the article again. And Dianne-is he really famous because of his suicide?

At the risk of sounding like Anthony Bourdain, I feel that less intelligent creatures were placed on this planet for our (human) enjoyment. Unfortunately, the lobster is designed in a way that makes it nearly impossible to kill it in a humane manner before cooking it. The moral issue has less to do with the feelings of the animal, and more to do with the feelings of the cook. This is only an issue due to the level of discomfort people feel when cooking a lobster because almost all of the other animals we eat are already dead when we prepare them.

What about mussels? Those are still alive when you’re splashing wine on them and steaming them to death. Why does no one care about them??

I would love to see a follow-up to this article with reader responses. I can’t fathom not being moved by this article and would be very interested in seeing the point of view of those who do not agree with DFW.