I really wanted to like this book; I like the author; I like the topic. I don't mind a little philosophy and history in the least, but Gopnik takes it to extremes in the first two chapters. Then he tries to argue that there is no such thing as "taste," only frames for taste. His defense of Robert Parker (yes, the man who brought the French wine industry to its knees in imitation of Coke or Pepsi or some other sweet drink) in the wine chapter and, in general, he just annoyed the heck of out me. In between- when I wasn't being annoyed- there were some interesting tidbits. ( )

An idiosyncratic book that certainly appeals to me and my interest in the meaning of why we value time at the table. ( )

Probably a more accurate evaluation was 2 1/2 stars. I listened to the book on tape - read by the author. I thought he did a good job (my roommate didn't care for him as a reader). The first half of the book was more interesting than the second. I'm not a "foodie" so perhaps the name dropping throughout the book would be more enjoyable to someone else. I liked it "okay" but it's not a favorite. ( )

This wasn’t what I was expecting.

What was I expecting?, you might ask. A sort of history, evaluation of the current state of the culinary world, the progress it has made, from home-cooked to fine dining. It was, and it wasn’t.

It took me three weeks to read this book. And that involved a LOT of skimming. Because while Gopnik is full of passion about food and eating (mostly French/French-styled food), he enjoys a too long philosophical ramble, one which leaves more questions than answers, and sometimes it’s all a bit too preachy like he’s glaring at us from his high culinary pulpit especially when he’s going on about the meat-vs-veg debate (nevertheless to say, I skimmed that chapter).

I hesitate to recommend The Table Comes First to anyone, even if you are a foodie. I mean, I love to eat and read about food and all that, but how I struggled with this book. It was not a fun read, it wasn’t all that insightful either. It was too Franco-centric, largely ignoring most of the non-western world. It is obvious that his target audience are those who have already eaten at Momofuku and El Bulli and all those ‘top’ restaurants.

However, if I hadn’t read it, I would not have come across to Elizabeth Pennell, whose 1900 book The Feasts of Autolycus, the Diary of a Greedy Woman (available as an ebook here) begins:

“Gluttony is ranked among the deadly sins; it should be honoured among the cardinal virtues.”

Gopnik decides to start ‘emailing’ Elizabeth Pennell, which is a little silly, but at other times, entertaining as he details his attempts in the kitchen.

And even more so for that great bibliography at the end because with the exception of the Steinberger book, I have not heard of any of them. And these definitely sound more up my alley. ( )

This is a terrific but difficult book. I had always thought that Gopnik was a lightweight due to his New Yorker pieces, and his book "Paris to the Moon"but this is something else. I actually bought a book by Elizabeth Pennel, an Anglo-American 19th century author who wrote great cook books, before Gopnik revealed that not only was she an anti-Semite, she had a particular animus against Russian Jews who lived in the better areas of Philadelphia, such as Gopnik's family. There is lots to interest one here,
including a great history of restaurants, taste, local eating, a visit to Barcelona to see Ferran Adria and eat at his place, and last and certainly not least a visit to a restaurant in a village outside of Paris that is mentioned by a young man about to be killed by the Nazis in WW!!. Gopnik is pretty level headed about a lot of things, including anti-Semitism and the Stalinism of the young man. ( )