While reading a cookbook review for Food52’s Piglet cookbook tournament, I noticed that Bonnie S. Benwick, recipe editor for the Washington Post, mentioned the absence of recipespeak in one of the cookbooks.
“Recipespeak!” I exclaimed to myself. I wasn’t sure what it was, but I had to find out.
Bonnie S. Benwick, incidentally, has one of the world’s greatest jobs for a food writer. She is the deputy food editor and recipe editor for the Washington Post, and began working in that department in 2004. She also writes the weekly Dinner in Minutes column, reviews cookbooks, and manages recipes and photo shoots.
Here’s what Bonnie says about what defines recipespeak, why she hates it, and how to write better recipes:
Q. What is recipespeak, please?
A. Sure. It’s like Tarzan speak: “Preheat oven to.” “Line sheet pan with paper.” Whose time are you saving with that? Readers are so busy that we have to knock out articles?
Recipespeak refers to something I interviewed Judith Jones about long ago — and it has always been a bugaboo of mine. She challenged the notion that directions had to be written without articles, and with all kinds of awkward phrasing that has pretty much become standard in the cookbook world.
I understand why those “In a mixing bowl,” sentences start the way they do, but honestly, does anyone prep for a recipe that way, incrementally, as they read?
Q. Just for the record, by knocking out “articles,” you mean what?
A. I mean getting rid of “a” and “the” in sentences.
Q. Aren’t people just trying to write shorter recipes?
A. If you want to save space, instead of “using a mortar and pestle,” write “Use a mortar and pestle.”
Some of recipespeak is done for brevity’s sake, but the loveliness of language is often sacrificed.
Q. Do you have an example of “loveliness of language?”
A. Dorie Greenspan talks to her readers. They often say they feel like she is there. It’s because she takes the time to write in complete, descriptive sentences. Are we really too time-starved to read that way anymore?
And why wouldn’t we want our recipes to be as thoroughly understood as possible?
Q. So what’s the right way to write sentences in recipes?
A. Write sentences with the directive verb at the beginning, such as “Melt the butter in a medium saucepan over low heat.” As opposed to “In a medium saucepan, add butter and melt over low heat.” Which one is easier to read?
People think if you use fewer words it’s more helpful to people, which goes against everything I think about what recipes need. Why would you use a writing style that people aren’t used to? Why make it even harder for people to read your recipe? There’s no reason to stray from what’s working.
Q. Any last words for recipe writers?
A. Think about having a conversation with readers all the way through the recipe. I’m not suggesting they make it twice as long or interject a story about their great-aunt.
Read Sarah Moulton. She writes clear recipes. She explains processes and techniques. And she uses articles.
Of all the helpful tips about writing recipes, leaving out articles is not one of them. There’s no reason to throw English out the window.
* * *
More on this blog from Bonnie:
I do think one of the reasons authors telegraph recipes is also the desire to portray them as easy to make. As a food writer and recipe editor, I’m a regular offender ;), not that I would defend recipespeak by any means since I love Greenspan precisely for the time she takes in explaining everything. But I often face publishers, authors, companies and advertisers who will tell you people don’t cook anymore (more or less true), are put off by long recipes (very true), and therefore ask that I make it “look” shorter. They will even beg you to write preparation times of 20 minutes or less, even though it takes 40 when carefully added up, which absolutely jumps the ethical shark. Left to my own devices, I would add stories and endless narratives to every recipe… 😉
This is all a challenge to deal with, I agree. But we’re talking about adding “the” most of the time. It doesn’t take up that much room, does it?
Completely agree, but it’s like layers of subtraction, it adds up or so the thinking goes. Then it creates a norm that everyone expects. Then no one thinks to ask why anymore… Until Bonnie Bentwick reminds us, of course 🙂
Amen. I spent a lot of time as a cookbook editor putting articles back in. And voice is what makes a cookbook interesting.
Sydny! Thank you. You wouldn’t think such minor words make the writing better, but they do.
Hurrah! I totally agree! I applaud recipes that are written in complete sentences with full descriptions. Dorie Greenspan’s recipes are beautifully written with precise instructions in a conversational and inviting tone. I enjoy sitting and reading her cookbooks cover to cover before I start cooking her food. Recipespeak is offputting and takes me right out of the recipe. Thank you, Bonnie, for your clear explanation.
Thanks Paula. It’s a simple thing to fix. We just have to be mindful of it.
I am now and forever in love with Bonnie Benwick for saying what she said here. Especially about the “In a medium saucepan, add the butter and” nonsense. First of all, you can’t ADD butter TO a saucepan; the pan is solid metal. And yes, who on earth talks that way? Your great-grandmother probably didn’t when she taught your grandmother to cook. Whenever I see that in a cookbook, I lose any faith in the writing skills of the author. And in their cooking skills, too!
I am a big believer in doing away with that kind of opening sentence also and have written about it a few times. I don’t think you have to lose faith in the author, though, Suzanne, for starting with “in a medium saucepan.” They see that exact kind of writing in dozens of cookbooks and in publications of all kinds, so it seems reasonable to use it themselves.
Also, authors don’t always have the final say — some publishers have style guides that insist on that kind of language, and copy editors who change things without asking. I ended up with a recipe in my first book that reads: “Into a small bowl, crack an egg.” I cringe every time I see it.
That sentence format has come to dominate the recipe world, but I think one of the rationales behind it (besides supposed space-saving) is legitimate, if you (or rather your publisher) see recipes as mini instruction manuals. “This is what you will need, and this is what you will do in this order.” Before you can melt your butter, you have to get out a utensil, so what’s the harm in saying that first: “In a medium saucepan …” To reverse things can be impractical: “Combine the flour, salt, baking powder, baking soda, cinnamon, nutmeg and cloves in a large bowl.” Personally, as a cook and a copy editor, I want to know what I’m putting these things in before I start measuring them out.
Thanks for this thoughtful comment, Tom. The point Bonnie is making is that she wants recipes to be conversational, which is just about opposite from instruction manuals. Instruction manuals are known as dry — no one would want to read them for pleasure.
Meanwhile, in “10 Pet Peeves of a Cookbook Editor,” Suzanne Fass writes, “A cookbook is basically a technical manual.” Which is true. And which of course leads to the tricky juggling act for the writer and the editor/copyeditor of finding the right balance — conversational, personal, and entertaining without losing sight of the fact that you’re telling people how to cook something while they’re standing at the stove, but not so instructional that it’s all just too boring for words.
That said, I have never in five decades of cooking NOT cooked from a recipe because it was too dry or boring. “In a large bowl, combine flour and salt” says the same thing as “Get out your favorite mixing bowl and rain the flour into it, followed by the slightest sprinkling of salt.” One is just more direct than the other, a blessing for the cook who needs to get dinner on the table, but not so much fun for the reader all cozy in her or his armchair.
That’s true. There are many kinds of cookbooks and that kind of writing will go on forever. I am a fan of beautiful writing and storytelling, so I’m always going to go for the least technical writing in the method.
I’m French and I never could understand why the use of Add in that context… I keep changing it whenever I come across it in English recipes (I can’t help it) but a part of me always wondered if there’s a secret, perfectly reasonable explanation. Guess not 😉
If someone is giving you a recipe from their heart, why pick it apart? Just my honest opinion. Life is too short to be so tightly strung.
Sarah, the only reason for editing a recipe is so that the food can be made by someone other than the writer of the recipe. It’s lovely to give a recipe from the heart, but give a recipe that can be used and appreciated.
Well, because that is what editors do, Sarah. We have our ideas and we feel quite strongly about them. Some of us may be a little OCD, and this serves us well in this profession.
In my experience, it’s not the writers who are at fault, but the editors. When I worked for a major national newspaper, back in the High Middle Ages, every column inch counted and every article removed from a recipe shortened the space required. Still, they (the editors) insisted on listing “salt and freshly ground black pepper to taste” in the Ingredients. My take? If they don’t even have salt and pepper in the kitchen, they don’t have any business cooking in the first place. After the newspaper, it went on to books and it was the turn of copy editors who were even fiercer, and “saute the onions until they turn golden but not brown” became “saute the onions for 10 minutes.” Which is clearer?
Amen! I am grateful my editor agreed to let me put articles back in the recipe copy for my next book, but I did have to ask (and push a bit). I hate a cookbook with loads of voice in the headnotes, and then a robotic tone in the method (where readers need your guidance and appreciate a friendly tone, IMO).
Yeah for loveliness of language.
How can you go wrong with that, right Susie?
Bottom line is clarity. Simplicity comes next.
Those are two very good things. And Bonnie’s argument is that clarity is better with articles.
On a related note: I re-wrote recipes for my significant other [ for when I was traveling for work]. Since he is not a cook I would write in complete sentences with the assumption that he didn’t understand much of the common cooking terminology and recipe speak. I often wondered if that was what made beginning /non-cooks find cooking so confusing.
I don’t think it was the complete sentences. To the contrary, it probably helped! There are so many things that can go wrong with recipe writing. I’ve written about a lot of them!
This is one of the most ridiculous objections I;ve ever heard. The biggest reason for eliminating those articles is they are often what makes a line turn, which takes up a lot of space and makes for a sloppy looking page and, eventually, extra pages. People don’t read recipes as one reads War and Peace, but glances swiftly — often while stirring or peeling or similar — for the key words. So the less typographical and mental clutter, the better. To me, these objections are why the culinary world gets a rep for fussy nonsensical snobbishness.
Well, to each their own, Susan. Badly written recipes, even those with articles, can take up a lot of space also.
When I cooked at Food and Wine as a recipe developer we were taught to write clear instructions that were easy to read ( now there is the perfect job, sigh) that were not too long but clearly communicated; until what? At what heat etc.
Every author has their own version, some are easier to read then others.
I say let the editors do their jobs and as chefs let us do ours.
Someone who respects the job of an editor! Bonnie and I thank you, Amanda.
I think some of these changes are also due to technology and younger generations using recipes on screens. I think some editors at websites believe omitting articles helps readers scan a recipe more effectively when they’re in the kitchen, and quickly checking a recipe to confirm one step or the next. It also shortens the overall word count dramatically, as those little additions can add up with every line. Especially with people using phone or ipads in the kitchen I understand, but don’t agree with, why some writers and editors prefer to omit articles.
Well maybe it’s worse now, Cameron, but I believe elimination of articles started before the Internet. It reminds me that my first newspaper job at a newspaper chain, which had owners who thought there was no reason to start a sentence with the word “The.” So editors had to lop it off. All my clips look ridiculous and I always feel embarassed when I look back at them.
There are lots of ways to shorten recipes — Writing a short headnote, eliminating questionable ingredients, eliminating fussy steps, tightening sentences, combining tasks into 1 para, etc. Hmm. Maybe I should write a post about that.
You are correct, Dianne, that articles were being omitted before the Internet entered our lives. When I started editing recipes in the mid-1980s, long before there were food blogs and online cooking magazines, most of my publisher clients preferred to omit articles, while a few sane others objected to what was (wincingly) called “Indian-speak.”
Oooh, that’s so un PC. But in the mid-80s, I suppose they didn’t even know what PC was!
Washington Post employees hate everything and everybody. I use the app and love it. I am a man, but love to cook and a recipe doesn’t have to be written by a person with a PHD in English. I personally want something written in the common folks language that is to the point and understandable. Who really cares what some snotty critic thinks anyway. I make it a point to read the books, watch the movies and attend plays they hate. Usually I love them. If they rave about something it is time to skip over it and move on to something else.
That’s great that you love the app, Paul. As to who cares what Bonnie thinks, she is an excellent recipe writer who understands the home cook. That is why I care.