Connect with us

Lifestyle

Ina Garten shares her secret for a great dinner party: 6 people and round table

Published

on

Ina Garten shares her secret for a great dinner party: 6 people and round table

“I love cooking for people I love,” Ina Garten says. “And the cooking is just the medium; the thing that I care about is the connection.”

Austin Hargrave/Penguin Random House


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Austin Hargrave/Penguin Random House

Ina Garten, the host of the Food Network’s Barefoot Contessa, still remembers a disastrous party she threw when she was 21. She’d invited 20 guests, with the intention of making an individual omelet for each person — except she barely knew how to cook an omelet.

“I was in the kitchen the entire time,” Garten says. “It was such a bad party, I almost never had another party again.”

Garten says she learned a few things from the experience — not the least of which was to keep things simple. Her ideal dinner party is six people sitting at a small, round table. And, yes, the shape of the table matters.

Advertisement

“Very often people have long, rectangular tables that are way too wide and people are seated too far apart,” Garten says. “I like when everybody’s knees are almost touching and it feels very intimate, with a dark room and a candle in the middle.”

Garten’s relaxed approach to entertaining is the hallmark of Barefoot Contessa, which debuted in 2002. Filmed in the kitchen of her home in East Hampton, N.Y., the show follows Garten as she shops for ingredients, tests recipes and sits down to eat with her husband Jeffrey and their friends.

“When you cook for people you love, they feel taken care of, and you make great friends and you create a community for yourself,” she says. “And I think that’s really what we all need, and what we all kind of hunger for.”

An Emmy and James Beard Award winner, Garten has also penned 13 cookbooks. In the new memoir, Be Ready When the Luck Happens, she details how she went from working in the White House to becoming a beloved culinary voice, with fans from all walks of life.

“One of the things I love about what I do is that everybody cooks,” she says. “I was walking up Madison Avenue one day and a woman in a big fur coat … said, ‘Darling, I just just love your cookbooks.’ And a block later, a truck driver pulled over and said, ‘Hey, babe, I love your show.’ And I thought, That’s food. Everybody’s interested in food.”

Advertisement

Interview highlights

On how working for the federal government in the 1970s connects to her love of cooking

Advertisement

I worked in a group called Office of Management and Budget, and what we did was write the president’s budget that was sent to Congress. And I worked in nuclear energy policy. … I’ve always been very interested in science, and the way I feel about what I do now is it’s science, but you end up with something delicious instead of enriched uranium.

On buying a specialty food store in Westhampton, N.Y., when she was 30

I walked in and they were baking chocolate chip cookies. And I just remember thinking, Wow, this is where I want to be. … So we met with the owner and I made her a low offer. She was asking for $25,000, which was more money than we had in the world. And I just, on a whim, offered her $20,000, thinking, Well, we’ll go home, we’ll negotiate, I’ll have time to think about this. And we drove back to Washington [D.C.]. And Monday morning, I was in my office and the phone rang, and … [the owner] said, “Thank you very much. I accept your offer.” And I remember thinking, s***, I just bought a food store. I remember going to my boss and going, “You’re not going to believe what I just did.”

9780593799895.jpg

On the store’s name, Barefoot Contessa

The name really related to Diana [Stratta, the previous owner], not me. But then as the summer progressed, I realized it actually had a resonance. … It was about being elegant and earthy at the same time. And I think that really was what the store was about.

Advertisement

On a time when she separated from her husband Jeffrey

This was the ‘70s and we both assumed that he would be the husband and I would be the wife and that he would take care of the finances and I would have dinner on the table. I mean, we had prescribed roles, but it was a time when women were becoming aware that just because we were women didn’t mean that there were things that we had to do. I really credit Gloria Steinem and Betty Friedan for making us think about it. And it may be that you want to have dinner on the table, but it doesn’t mean that because you’re the woman, you’re the only one who should have dinner on the table. So I was becoming aware of this, and Jeffrey, who had no reason at all to change his mind, wasn’t. And so I found some frustration with being in a prescribed role as the wife. …

One weekend in Westhampton, that first summer, we took a long walk on the beach and I said, “I feel like I need to be on my own for a while.” And Jeffrey said the right thing. He said, “If you feel you need to be on your own, then you need to be on your own.” And he went back to Washington and didn’t come back. And it was a tough time, but it led us back to a different kind of relationship.

On writing about her unhappy childhood

Remember, this was the ‘50s. It’s not the era of helicopter parents who are encouraging their children to do extraordinary things. This is an era where you did what the parents told you to do. And my parents were particularly harsh about it. … [My mother] dealt with it by pushing us away and making sure that she didn’t actually have to spend time with us. So I spent most of my time in my bedroom, and my brother spent time in his. And then my father was a really, really harsh authoritarian figure. If you didn’t do exactly what he wanted you to do, it was met with pretty serious anger and sometimes … hitting. And it was a very difficult way to grow up. … The only thing I remember is just total disappointment, because I wouldn’t do what they wanted me to do. They never gave me an opportunity to do what I wanted to do.

Advertisement

I talk about this in the book, not so much because it was such a terrible childhood. It certainly wasn’t a happy one, but there were so many worse childhoods. But I wanted people to know that the story of your childhood doesn’t necessarily need to be the story of your life.

Therese Madden and Anna Bauman produced and edited this interview for broadcast. Bridget Bentz and Beth Novey adapted it for the web.

Lifestyle

‘How to Rule the World’ explores education and power at Stanford University

Published

on

‘How to Rule the World’ explores education and power at Stanford University

Students walk on the Stanford University campus on March 14, 2019, in Stanford, Calif.

Ben Margot/AP


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Ben Margot/AP

When Theo Baker arrived at Stanford University a few years ago, he joined the student newspaper, following the path of his journalist parents, Peter Baker, a White House correspondent for The New York Times, and Susan Glasser, a writer for The New Yorker.

Through his reporting as a student journalist, he eventually broke a story about manipulated data in Stanford President Marc Tessier-Lavigne’s neuroscience research that helped lead to the university president’s resignation.

Theo Baker’s book, How to Rule the World: An Education in Power at Stanford University was released May 19. In it, Baker describes Stanford as a place where proximity to Silicon Valley gives rise to a parallel system of influence, recruitment and money, with investors looking to identify promising students almost as soon as they arrive on campus.

Advertisement

He told Morning Edition host Steve Inskeep there was “a sort of Stanford inside Stanford,” where elite students are drawn into an “alternate reality” of excess and access to cut corners.

In the interview, he discusses how Stanford is not just a university but also a pipeline where status and power can matter as much as ideas.

We reached out to Stanford University for comment and have not heard back.

Listen to the interview by clicking play on the blue box above.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Lifestyle

OTB Takes Full Control of Viktor & Rolf

Published

on

OTB Takes Full Control of Viktor & Rolf
The Italian fashion group behind Diesel and Maison Margiela is taking full ownership of the avant-garde haute couture house, acquiring the remaining 30 percent it didn’t already own. Founders Viktor Horsting and Rolf Snoeren remain creative directors.
Continue Reading

Lifestyle

How having zero points in tennis — or ‘love’ — came to sound so sweet

Published

on

How having zero points in tennis — or ‘love’ — came to sound so sweet

The scoreboard shows the results of the women’s singles final match between Iga Swiatek of Poland and Amanda Anisimova of the U.S. at the Wimbledon Tennis Championships in London, Saturday, July 12, 2025.

Kirsty Wigglesworth/AP


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Kirsty Wigglesworth/AP

Fifteen points in tennis? Nice. Thirty, 40 — even better. Advantage — that sounds good. “Love” — that also must be great, right? Well, not quite.

As the French Open rolls on and Serena Williams has announced her return to the sport, maybe you’ve been paying a little more attention to tennis. The sport’s scoring system is notably distinct, and can sometimes be hard to grasp for newcomers. But even tennis aficionados might not know why, or how, “love” became the unmistakable callout for zero points. For this installment of NPR’s Word of the Week, we’re exploring how a word that signifies trailing behind got such a sweet name.

“Love” comes from the heart — or an egg?

It’s hard to pinpoint when the first tennis ball went over the net. Tennis is a derivative of lots of other sports, such as “jeu de paume,” a handball game played in France, said JT Buzanga, the collections manager at the International Tennis Hall of Fame museum.

Advertisement

But tennis became a patented, official sport in 1874, said Steve Flink, a journalist whose tennis coverage got him inducted into the International Tennis Hall of Fame. It has retained its unique, mysterious scoring system ever since.

“By and large, the original system has held up almost entirely,” Flink said.

The use of “love” goes back to the late 18th century, said Jesse Sheidlower, a lexicographer. But it was used earlier than that in card games such as whist and bridge. Before the term made its way to tennis, the sport favored plain old “nothing,” or “nil,” he said.

Why love in the first place, though? Historians don’t really know for sure, but there are a few theories.

The French could have something to do with it. Some historians believe “love” derives from “l’oeuf,” which means “the egg” in French. Because eggs are shaped like zeros, terms such as “goose egg” and “duck’s egg” have been used in other contexts to mean zero, Sheidlower said.

Advertisement

It’s also possible English speakers mispronounced l’oeuf as “love.” But Sheidlower isn’t convinced that’s the answer.

“It’s the French equivalent of an English expression. But since that expression doesn’t appear in French, the French word wouldn’t have been used,” he said.

To be sure, France has had a lot of influence on tennis culture, Buzanga said. For example, “deuce” or a game tied at 40 points, comes from the French word for “two”: “deux.” But he prefers another prominent theory: that “love” comes from the idiom “for the love of the game.” Even if a player hasn’t scored, it doesn’t matter, because their heart is in it. It’s the theory Sheidlower said is the most plausible, because the idiom was used by the English before tennis was popularized.

Another variation of the “love of the game” theory is that the word could have come from the Dutch “lof,” or “honor” — or the Latin “amare,” meaning “to love,” Flink said.

But if tennis’ “love” doesn’t come from a French word, the theory at least has a French sensibility.

Advertisement

“I think the ‘for the love of the game’ is kind of romantic,” Buzanga said.

“Love” probably isn’t going anywhere

Tennis used to be a sport of leisure. The style of play has changed a lot over the years; players are more athletic and competitive, for instance, Flink said. But the rules of the sport are more steadfast, he said.

“There’s this incredible, enduring respect for tradition in tennis,” he said. “Changes are not made easily.”

There has been one major change in modern history: the tie-break. Matches can go on and on because players have to score two consecutive points to break a deuce, or by two games to break a tied set. But the onset of television meant matches would have to get shorter if the sport wanted to capture a larger audience, Flink said.

Change even came for “love.” An alternative sprouted up in the 1970s, and is still used today: “bagel,” named for its zero shape, Sheidlower said. Novices may say “zero,” and insiders will understand what they mean, but they “will needle them about it,” Flink said.

Advertisement

But “love” still prevails.

“People kind of like it,” Flink said. “It’s different. Why say zero when you can say love?”

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending