I expected to enjoy this much more than I did. Since I have watched No Reservations off and on for years, and watched some of A Cook's Tour years ago; and because I just finished Kitchen Confidential and liked it much more than I thought I would, I figured this book would be an automatic hit with me. Unfortunately, no. It was just ok. I did enjoy reading a chapter, then going to YouTube and watching the Cook's Tour episode that went along with it. I think I got a better sense of what was outside the lines of the book and on the editing room floor of the show by getting both than I would ever get from reading or watching alone.
This book is Anthony Bourdain trying too hard to be what the first book led to him being perceived as. He works at being world-weary and a cynical bastard, and it comes across a little precious. The first book denigrated types of people, anonymous groups. This one is pointedly unkind to specific named individuals, probably because that was so encouraged during his first book tour by the interviewing media. Reading, it's very clear why Bourdain had to leave the Food Channel and continue with the Travel Channel. The "eating around the world" was just an excuse, a way to get someone else to bankroll his travel. There was no culinary reason to go to Cambodia, and he didn't even bother to pretend there was or to try to find one. Repeatedly it seemed to be a debauched vacation in which he was annoyed that the film crews continued to bring it back to a food focus instead of an afterthought. And really, it was embarrassing that he felt the need to buy drugs in Morocco. He couldn't stay sober for the meal that his hosts put so much time and effort into? I've had friends come to nice friendly dinners stoned, and while I don't care if they're smoking pot generally, it ruins the occasion. Them high and making everyone else uncomfortable.
Structured strangely, the trips were presented as if they were one after another in the order they were listed, but small clues in the text make it clear that they weren't. His final trip to Vietnam (the last chapter), for example, mentions a conversation in which he tells a guide/translator that Philippe might be coming for a bit. This concerns the guide, who will have to deal with red tape for Philippe's presence. According to that sentence, the itinerary was: Saigon, Nha Trang, Can Tho, back to Saigon, all one trip. The book split up the Vietnam visit into 4+ separate chapters that acted like separate visits, in the order of Saigan, Can Tho, Nha Trang, back to Saigon. If the various worldwide destinations were going to be shuffled around, with vague indications that this was all one long trip instead of multiple excursions, then it would have made more sense to either arrange the chapters geographically or to find something that would lead from one to the next. As it was, the book was structured thus: Cambodian "Dear Nancy" letter, Vietnamese intro, Portugal, France, Vietnam, Spain, Russia, Morocco, Vietnam, Tokyo, Cambodia, England, Mexico, Vietnam, California, Scotland, Vietnam.
Bourdain clearly lives under the misapprehension that his experience of America is the experience of America. I continuously found myself cringing and thinking "shit, I hope non-American friends who read this don't think he speaks for us!" Examples are page 10 in my copy (in which he recounts the nostalgia of food, but instead of making it his own food nostalgia, he lists things as if they are common American experiences--being a teenager in Paris with a Eurail pass who blew their money on hash, licking caviar off someone's nipple, hands smelling of crushed fireflies [what sort of child/teen crushes fireflies?! that's not a standard experience!], etc.), page 113 (in which he says we all have the cheap tourist tchotchkes and 'native handcrafts' to hold our stash), and page 258 (in which he says that there aren't wealthy Americans who can point to huge acreage of land with forests, streams, etc, and say that it's been in the family for generation upon generation. Come spend real time in the West, my friend. Many families here have owned huge swaths of land for more than 150 years. They came and homesteaded it, planted, and stayed. Wealthy Western landowners just don't generally discuss their riches and instead appear to be 'just workers').
There's a certain set of boomers who grew up surrounded by news of the Vietnam War, loved ones getting drafted, etc., who assumed they'd be going when they were old enough...but who turned 18 shortly after we left Vietnam and so never went. That group tends to have a fixation--of varying levels--with the country of Vietnam and what we did to it and its people. Bourdain is definitely one of these. He graduated high school in 1973 and did two year at Vassar before dropping out a few months after the Fall of Saigon. It seemed that practically all he could see or think about in his multiple chapters to Vietnam in this book was the war. He extrapolates the thoughts of Vietnamese children upon seeing him as "the Giant American Savage who once bombed and strafed the village..." and on the following page "I've got something to prove. We may have lost the war. We may have pointlessly bombed and mined and assassinated and defoliated before slinking away as if it were all a terrible misunderstanding--but goddamn it, we can still drink as good as these guys, right?" It was as if Bourdain was incapable of seeing Vietnam as a country that existed outside of Western imperialism, as if he'd read too much Graham Greene and not enough Vietnamese history pre-1941. It was embarrassing that he could only see this beautiful and rich country through the lens of past American Communism fears.
Also, I'm sorry, but I CANNOT believe he thinks it's ok to use the word "Charlie" to describe the average Vietnamese, as far into the book as page 224. That is a derogatory term. If he used the word "gook" or "chink" people wouldn't just ignore it. Just, no.
In the end I think this book would have been better with more advance planning. Either his editor needed to tell him to work out his Vietnam obsession with a separate book, or they needed to pare down the amount it appeared in this one into a) one chapter, or b) an opening chapter and a closing chapter. Not 5 separate sections. Either they needed a sensible travel plan, or a less random, more easily-explained reason to go from one location to the next.
Oh! And one final note. I've long suspected that much of Bourdain's public persona is very carefully crafted to match what he and his handlers think the public wants from him, and that many of his "unbelievable" bad-boy comments on other chefs are honed for effect. To that thought I offer this comparison:
On Paula Deen (years ago, before the diabetes debacle): "The worst, most dangerous person in America is clearly Paula Deen...she's proud of the fact that her food is fucking bad for you. I would think twice before telling an already obese nation that it is OK to eat food that is killing us."
On Nigella Lawson: "while she may not look like too many cooks I know, she does seem to cook a lot of exuberantly cheesy, fatty, greasy stuff--not shying away from the butter and cream--which puts her on the side of the angels in my book. How many upper-crust widows do you know who say 'Fuck it! Let's eat what's good!' Not many. I like her."