82 replies to this topic

[Bux]

You said:

I said (and so did Hoffman) that he went to dinner there wanting to eat classical cuisine and was "talked into" the curry dish by a captain. You always manage to skip over that part of the story which is what makes the quote relevent.

I replied:

When I don't have to repeat my question about "sprinkling," I'll get to what I always avoid.

and you posted:

"But then I got talked into ordering one of the chef's specialties, a mille-feuille of langoustines with curry, and it was infuriating. It was a French dish with powder. It was such an insular approach, as though nobody understood that curry isn't a powder that you don't apply cosmetically. Nobody had read Madhur Jaffrey, or really understood that curry isn't just a spice you shake but a whole technique you have to understand."

and later on you asked:

And you still haven't answred my question that you said you were going to answer once I posted the quote.

Actually you phrased it as an accusation, not a question and quite obviously, I didn't find a relevant point so I don't know which one I shouldn't have skipped.

--

How can you say it is unsupportable? It's the guys opinion. It doesn't need support. That's how he feels about it. I don't find it arrogant either. What's wrong with a person who has some understanding of curry being unhappy with what they think is less than the perfect use? As for Peter's knowledge of French food, I think he's pretty knowledgable. I mean I've had a number of discussions with him about it.

My problem is that the opinion is not presented as an opinion. I don't see the "in my opinion" or "I think that," what I read is "It was such an insular approach, as though nobody understood ..." Nobody understood and not even a second to contemplate that maybe he's the one who's wrong. "Nobody had read Madhur Jaffrey, or really understood that curry isn't just a spice you shake but a whole technique" He's saying they're all wrong and you ask me why it sounds arrogant. A simialr blend of spices has been in use in England for the better part of the last millenium, but truth will only come from the east. I'm sorry after 700 years the west has some knowledge of its own and its own idea of how to use spices and they have a validity. Indian cuisine is an option, but it doesn't negate western cooking where there are similarities. Had he spoken of an option, or an alternate course, I would not have found him arrogant. Had he spoken with some respect for the greatness that is French cuisine I would not have found arrogance. Had he offered more than his tutelage with Madhur Jaffrey to pose as the expert on the use of curry in the west where we have a long tradition of of using the spices that go into every blend we use, I might not have found him arrogant.  

Here's an interesting web page with information on European curry history going back to the 1300's and with support for the derivation of "curry" being of English origin from contemporary cooking terms of that time.

I've never met Peter, nor have I eaten his food, although I live near the restaurant. Not suprisingly, it's not the kind of food that most appeals to me. Or at least I should say that the posted menus were not all that appealing and the reviews didn't inspire us. We often considered that we should try it, but just never got around to it and then I read that article in the New Yorker and my interest waned even further. It's not him, it's what he said in the article and I'd really be surprised if he hasn't softened his views. How recently have you discussed this with him? I have no reason not to believe he's anything but a fine fellow. I've never heard his name used in a negative way, although truthfully, I've not heard it mentioned often. Then again I have a narrow range of friends and acquaintances in the industry. In a way, I've not enjoyed making these posts. I'd much rather support an artist I like than criticize another negatively. I suppose I'll have a hard time convincing you of that in the near future.

[Suvir Saran]

Steve,

I choose not to participate in what I clearly see as a very chauvinistic debate about culture.  People have used carelessly words like globalized and now high culture to give comfort to their fractured sense of self, maybe?

If there was comfort with which we are talking about and why, we would not need to put others down to bring out our points.

Well, it is interesting reading, but gives me little need to join in as we even dignify first what was written without much care to begin with, and now debate with little care today, even in the aftermath of September 11th and what has happened in Afghanistan and is happening in the Middle East.  

I will observe and say little on this thread.  I am sorry I joined in.  But I could not keep quiet as cultures east of France were being labeled as lesser etc.... Even if only in quotes.  

And in my final posting on this thread, I would still like to say, no one chef Indian or otherwise can ever have the perfect recipe for a garam masala.  Recipes change from home to home and from season to season and region to region.  

Curry powder is the same and like all foods, takes new flavors in new hands.  And there is no telling which form is better or more accurate.  One can only enjoy what is done with it.  And if it makes one happy, so be it.

[Steve Plotnicki]

Project-You are taking the quote out of the context of the article and saying that by itself it doesn't support the thesis.  But the article has numerous examples of where French cuisine has "dimmed." But your variations of how the curry could be viewed are all correct. He could have passed it off as a "one-timer." But if you read the article, the rest of the paragraph about L'Ambroisie talks about the perfect Hare dish he had. So the curry dish is isolated as a "single" example. But it is the writer (Gopnik,) he's the one who plucks the quote out of the air to make the larger point. The author of the quote is only making a small point. He thinks the curry dish is wrong. As for the rest of your post, that is a terrific analysis. But I don't think it is speaking to my question. Like I said earlier, nobody said French cooking isn't relevent. The question I asked is, is it as relevent as it used to be? Now there are many definitions of what relevent means but, I have used it as if to ask if it is as influential. And one would think that just based on the fact that chefs who cook with other techniques now have global impact, and that is a phenomenon of no longer than 15 years or so, the answer seems like they must have.

Bux-It is presented as an opinion. If he had liked the dish instead of not liking it you would have gladly accepted his "opinion" about it. But you disagree with him and it seems that in order to undermine his opinion you have now reached the point where you are willing to say that you don't like his opinion because you don't like the way he stated it. As for how the curry was used, he's isn't complaining that Pacaud used curry, he is complaining that they used it incorrectly (sprinkled it.)

I am surprised to hear you say that you have never eaten at Savoy, even after reading the menu. It was at one point, among the more interesting restaurants in NYC. It had this strange combination of tradition and the new, California and the Mediteranean. And the fact that Peter is a chef without formal training shows up in how the food is prepared and gives the place a feel of originality. It was the most organic restaurant I knew of (and it still might be) in NYC. Sort of one foot in Chez Pannise (in fact Alice Waters came and cooked there for a night) and one foot in the downtown art scene.
Over the years I probably ate there 30 times, but haven't been in a few years now as I think there are more interesting places to go to these days.

My conversation with Peter about his quote was at the time the article was published. Just to show you how people take things differently, Peter and I marveled at how Gopnik captured the essence of what he was trying to say while you find it "arrogant." But it seems the difference between you and I that I see is that I believe the basic premise of the article (that the cuisine is in crisis) and you don't. And you have "attacked" the quote because it is arguably a pivotal point in favor of the argument that it has dimmed.

Suvir-Your posts are out of line, espcially for a moderator. It would do you well for you to remove them. Nobody here has a "fractured sense of self" and how dare you say that about anyone who is participating in earnest about a discussion that has been instigated by another one of the moderators.

As to the merits of what we are discussing here, especially comparing the gastronomic culture of different countries and parts of the world including creating a hierarchy of them, it is nothing different than what is discussed in universities all over the world every single day. Nobody calls them arrogant or chauvenistic. Is it arrogant to say that at the time of the ancient Romans they had a superior culture or more evolved society than the rest of the world? Gee I don't think so.

And I find your last point about curry, again, especially from a moderator to be especially disruptive. In the context of this discussion it is as intelectually dishonest as it comes. You are the first one to flock to, and or criticize a place that serves good and/or bad food, including using a good or bad garam marsala. The world isn't all a big blob of garam marsalas that are all the same and which are all interesting no matter who uses them, at least not to the discussion here. And finally, I have refrained from saying this but;


BABBO *IS* AN ITALIAN RESTAURANT

Now do me a favor, the next time you choose not to participate, please make sure your decision coincides with your actually not posting.  Don't first post a meandering political thread that has nothing to do with the discussion and which is intended to make the participants feel bad and also insults them and then announce you're not going to participate in the thread. D'uh, we're not stupid you know.

[project]

Steve Plotnicki:

Thanks for your

    Posted: Mar. 07 2002,09:04

with

    Project-You are taking the quote out of the
    context of the article and saying that by
    itself it doesn't support the thesis.  But the
    article has numerous examples of where French
    cuisine has "dimmed."  But your variations of
    how the curry could be viewed are all correct.
    He could have passed it off as a "one-timer."
    But if you read the article, the rest of the
    paragraph about L'Ambroisie talks about the
    perfect Hare dish he had.  So the curry dish is
    isolated as a "single" example.  But it is the
    writer (Gopnik,) he's the one who plucks the
    quote out of the air to make the larger point.
    The author of the quote is only making a small
    point.  He thinks the curry dish is wrong.  As
    for the rest of your post, that is a terrific
    analysis.  But I don't think it is speaking to
    my question.  Like I said earlier, nobody said
    French cooking isn't relevent.  The question I
    asked is, is it as relevent as it used to be?
    Now there are many definitions of what relevent
    means but, I have used it as if to ask if it is
    as influential.  And one would think that just
    based on the fact that chefs who cook with
    other techniques now have global impact, and
    that is a phenomenon of no longer than 15 years
    or so, the answer seems like they must have.

"Out of context"?  Wow!  A tough crowd!

Of COURSE it's "out of context":  I didn't see the
article!

An article?  There was an article?  'We don't need
no stinkin' article' ....

In the old school of "ready, fire, aim", I just
posted after seeing

    Topic:  Has the light dimmed on French
    cooking?, What do those guys count for these
    days?

and a little about curry.

Okay, now that, for the second time, you have
written me a custom tutorial to get me caught up
with the crucial points of the discussion ...

Let's see:  We're not saying that French food is
'bad' or might not still be the best but just that
comparatively it is less influential than it once
was -- that is the only sense of 'dimming' or some
such.

Wow!

Well, the promoters of French food might be pleased
to see such finely formulated concerns about their
favorite subject!

But, okay, it a fair question, if a less pressing
one.

Glad to see we're not afraid that the Chambertin's
going sour, that people are about to plant cucumbers
for McDonald's pickles everywhere between Beaune and
Dijon, and all of the cheese factories in France
will be converted over to making Velvetta!  Those
WOULD be disasters!

So, for the question:

Sure, it used to be that a person or family was
lucky to have enough to eat of anything; to be able
to 'play with the food' and to have a big kitchen
and staff to do expert 'playing' and to construct a
body of knowledge and a serious art form based on
playing with the food took some serious
'comparative' economic advantage and interest in
art, sensory experiences, and food.  France did.
Maybe in 1789 some lost heads over it, but the
knowledge about the food remained!

But, now, due to rising economic productivity in
many places of the world, many people can toss in a
few Shitake mushrooms, etc. and otherwise play with
the food.

So, sounds like the 'comparative' lead of French
food is less large than it once was.

But ....  As standard of living continues to
improve, someone can go shopping on Saturday, buy a
few pounds of dried Morel mushrooms, and then get
out what the French say to do with them in cream
sauce for chicken.

Or, there are a lot of ingredients and flavors
coming forward and spreading around the world.

Then, what culture, country, and cuisine stands to
make the most of these?  I claim the French.  They
have more to stand on, more interest, and more
existing density of communicating and competing
expertise.  And, their 'methodology' is better:
First, they actually believe that there should be a
good 'framework', that things really should have
some sense and order to them.  Second, they work
hard to discover what a good order would be.  Third,
they borrow a little from science in that they are
'cumulative', e.g., stand on the shoulders of
giants.  Fourth, they work carefully, repeat over
and over, teach it, and write it down, fairly
clearly, right out to saying how much garlic to use
in grams (e.g., Escoffier).  So, in the end, the
dishes are built on the best foundation, are well
tested and practiced, fit well into a good
framework, are definite, documented, taught, and
repeatable, and, net, move the 'state of the art'
forward.  And, as part of that work, they can argue
for days about how appropriate it is to "sprinkle"
curry powder -- we have to note that this argument
is not just whether the specific dish was good or
bad but whether the practice was good in principle
and appropriate in a larger framework.  Right away,
then, we see the lion by his paw -- we are deeply
concerned with frameworks, principles, practices
that might be repeated.  Those concerns are very big
advantages.

So, to answer the specific question, I vote that
these advantages of French cooking continue to put
French cooking essentially as far ahead as before.
That is, some cook somewhere can make an interesting
use of a flavor, ingredient, or technique, but in 10
years, their effects will have been picked up by,
exploited by, incorporated in, and enriched French
cooking or likely just have been lost so that, net,
French cooking will have stayed the same or moved
ahead while the rest will have had a few good new
dishes on a few good days and then returned again to
what they had before.

Ah, back to coarsely chopped yellow globe onions,
coarsely cut sweet carrots, fresh parsley, fresh
thyme, dried bay leaves, fresh garlic, and clarified
butter mixed with vegetable oil!

[Bux]

and it seems that in order to undermine his opinion you have now reached the point where you are willing to say that you don't like his opinion because you don't like the way he stated it.

I've always tried to be clear that I didn't like his opinion of the dish in question, nor his view of curry in French cuisine and that I didn't like the disrespect shown to the chef he used as an example.

As for how the curry was used, he's isn't complaining that Pacaud used curry, he is complaining that they used it incorrectly (sprinkled it.)

Once again I will question your use of the word "spinkled" which Hoffman did not use. You quoted him as saying It was such an insular approach, as though nobody understood that curry isn't a powder that you don't apply cosmetically." I don't know what he meant by "cosmetically," but he did not mean visually cosmetic, as there was no trace of curry powder to be seen in the dish  or on the plate. I've said this before. The flavor of the spices had been infused in the exquisite sauce which was strained before it was put on the plate. No powder was used to decorate my plate and cabrales noted that there was no powder on her plate, nor any graininess in the sauce when she was there some years later.

It had this strange combination of tradition and the new, California and the Mediteranean. And the fact that Peter is a chef without formal training shows up in how the food is prepared and gives the place a feel of originality. It was the most organic restaurant I knew of (and it still might be) in NYC. Sort of one foot in Chez Pannise (in fact Alice Waters came and cooked there for a night) and one foot in the downtown art scene.

Sounds trendy. That's enough to keep me away. I am not a fan of "fusion," eclectic or trendy, although I am seduced from time to time by certain aspects of these things. I've eaten too many meals at the hands of American chefs who don't know how to walk, but think they can fly. Perhaps I have too much respect for chefs with professional training and can cook well enough myself not to pay others to create at will. When I am jaded by haute French cuisine, I find relief and interest in traditional rustic cuisine, such as that of Spain. Creativity without the basis of a firm tradition rarely works for me.

[Steve Plotnicki]

Bux-All you have said is that you do not want to accept Hoffman's opinion as an expert because 1) you liked the dish in question and disagree with his assessment and 2)haven't eaten his food furthermore, don't like the type of restaurant he runs. Whereas Gopnik and I like his restaurant very much. So we are perfectly happy relying on his "expert" opinion, even if we might not agree with him. And you also seem to say he is being disrepectful just because he is criticizing Pacaud, an accomplished 3 star chef? I don't get that. So I dug into my archives and pulled out my notes from my meal there last May. May I join the list of those who have been disrepectful to Pacaud because based on the meal I had there last year, he's a pretty mediocre cook. Here goes;

"Dinner was at L’Ambroisie, the 3 star restaurant under the arches in the Place des Voges. This was my first time as I always found it a tough reservation. But again, bovine hysteria and the anticipated doomed economy have made it easy to get a reservation just about anywhere. The dining room at L’Ambroisie is formal. High ceilings and chandeliers and the walls are covered in printed fabrics that if they aren’t actually old, are certainly made in a way that makes them look as if they are hundreds of years old. Madame Pacaud (the chefs wife) is at the door to greet you and she beckoned a Maitre’d to take us to “table neuf.” The menu at L’Ambroisie is short. Aside from Taillevent, it is the only 3 star I know of that doesn’t seem to have a tasting menu. There are appetizers, fish dishes and meat dishes listed and unless you can find a compatriot to split things with, a multiple course meal means having full portions.

Madame Pacaud takes your order herself and she is a bit testy about the way the patrons pair their food. This is small problem because the menu isn’t very large. There couldn’t have been more than 15 dishes listed in total. She tried to reject my wife’s main dish as “two yellow dishes in a row” but my wife prevailed. And when I enquired about the leg of pigeon in pastilla (phylo leaves) and explained I had an intolerance to wheat flour, instead of being told that the leg was just a small piece served on the side and that the breast would be enough to eat (which is what I was asking her) I was led to order something else.

I sized up the wine list and decided that Marc’s late afternoon criticism was too harsh and that there were a bunch of listings that were worthy of our attention. But it was ages before the sommelier finally arrived. When he came into the room we were seated in, he checked what we had ordered for dinner before coming over to take our wine order. I asked him for 1992 Trimbach Clos St. Hune and he said “it’s too sweet for your meal "(Clos St. Hune too sweet?) which steered us to a different choice. And the second bottle we ordered was sold out so instead of getting a 1988 Henri Jayer Vosne-Romanee Cros Parentoux, we were talked into a 1987 bottling of the same. The following falls into the category of don’t listen to the sommelier when your gut instinct tells you not to
category.

1990 Leflaive Puligny-Montrachet Les Follatieres-Gee I thought this was sweeter than the Trimbach could ever be. Nice for a 1990 and in keeping with the good work Leflaive did that year but, I never resolved my palate around to drinking it as I it was calibrated for a Clos St. Hune. 89 points

1987 Henri Jayer Vosne-Romanee Cros Parentoux -I had heard that in spite of the vintage that this was really drinking well. Well I wished I had passed and ordered the 1990 Rousseau Gevry Clos St. Jacques they had listed instead. While there was nothing wrong with it, there was nothing special about it either. If the label didn’t say Jayer, it wouldn’t be worth drinking as it tasted like a million other wines 88 points

We fared no better with our food. My Crawfish Soup was lacking the intense “gout de coquillages” that one usually finds in the better French restaurants and my Tranch de Foie Gras avec Epices (a large slice of foie roasted with spices atop) was boring. A three star ambiance with one and a half star food. I must make a special mention of what we thought was poor service. Our captain was neither engaging nor did things on a timely basis. My wife summed it up perfectly as we were leaving, “there’s no reason to come back here” and we all agreed. Enough said."

Now I can tell you that now that I am reading my notes, the resemblence to Peter Hoffman's experience is striking. Peter obviously wanted to order something other than the curry dish but was "talked into it" by the captain. And I had an amazingly difficult time both ordering the meal I wanted to and the wines I wanted to. In fact, ordering them was a struggle. They treated us like we knew nothing about food. I mean I know more about wine than that sommelier does, Clos St. Hune is sweet? Give me a break. What am I a moron? If anybody was arrogant it was the staff at L'Ambroisie, and that goes for the sommelier and Madame Pacaud. So I can now see Peter's experience in the same light. He came for a reason, and they "forced him" to change what he wanted why? BECAUSE THEY ARE FRENCH AND THEY KNOW BEST RIGHT?  And this is who you think should get my (and Peter's) respect?

[Bux]

Perhaps Hoffman was ill served by the quote as Gopnik used it. At several junctures along the way, I've noted that Pacaud is not my favorite chef, but I respect his food. I did love that one dish, by the way.

All you have said is that you do not want to accept Hoffman's opinion as an expert because 1) you liked the dish in question and disagree with his assessment and 2)haven't eaten his food furthermore, don't like the type of restaurant he runs.

Certainly not what I said, although perhaps what you read. I think it was a misreading of what I said. If you feel I cannot evaluate a person's statments fairly, honestly or properly because I had no interest in eating in his restaurant, there's no argument that will change your mind. I can only hope you will develop greater respect for me as you read what I say. But yes, having had the dish and having found it a sublime example of the evolution of the classic style of haute cuisine in France, I am bound to disagree with an assessment that finds the opposite.

It would be a whole other thread for me to enumerate the subtle differences between what I read in Gopnik's book and what you wrote as a criticism of your meal at l'Ambroisie. Without reference to anything else you've posted here and just on the words in this "review" I find all the evidence I need to feel you know the subject at hand. I may still disagree with your conclusions, but I understand your points. I also note that they are not presented as a claim that the whole of French cuisine is in decline either. You make a smaller point with a lot of corroborating statements. Gopnik attempts to make a much larger point by presenting an overreaching statement on a much smaller point and I found it a curious statement based on a narrow alien view. Your criticism is based on your understanding of French haute cuisine, while Hoffman's was based on his knowledge and recently gained expertise in a foreign tradition. That alone would make a major difference in how I react even if I didn't feel his recent focus on Indian tradition didn't blind him to an appreciation of western tradition.

That I understand you perfectly and that you misinterpret me, doesn't help this a whole lot either.  

[Steve Plotnicki]

Bux-I really don't know what you are talking about. You either believe Peter or you don't. Think he is competent to make the statement or not. Think he understands French food or that he doesn't. Think he has enough expertise about curry or that he doesn't. It seems to me, if you don't think he can do any of those things, you can't rely on his opinion and you would also wonder why Gopnik did. But for Gopnik and I, Peter is both competent as well as knowledgable enough so we believe him when he says he feels that way about it. But you're perfectly happy to feel otherwise.

[Bux]

I think that I pretty much presented my views as my subjective fellings on the matter in the beginning.

I supposed the main reason I found the quote annoying is that it really read as disrespectful. Moreover, I had that dish and found it well composed, refined and delicious. Not the most exciting dish I've had a major restaurant, but that's even more to the point. He used "curry" as it has been used in western kitchens for what I expect is the better part of the century. I've had American shrimp curry at least forty years ago and run into French use of curry on and off for almost as long. It's just an accepted part of the western flavor palette. Hoffman came off as weird and pretentious in my mind, by making it an issue and by attempting to criticize Pacaud for not understanding the mystique which I find needn't exist. If Hoffman's own menus were not so eclectic and if Hoffman had Pacaud's training I might have found his comments less offensive.

Since then I've been attempting to explain why I felt the way I did. What I found is certainly not what others may find.

[Jinmyo]

What I found is certainly not what others may find.

Um. Is it a cube of demi-glace? It's kind of shivery and translucent. Or is it...

[Steve Plotnicki]

" supposed the main reason I found the quote annoying is that it really read as disrespectful."

Bux-I'm still lost here. What does respect have to do with the merits of the criticism? I mean how can he be respectful and still criticize the guy? And even if he can, how does being respectful or disrepectful impact on how Peter thinks the dish both tastes, and how appropriate he feels the dish is for that type of restaurant, including what his expectations for the restaurant were before he went there? See what Cabareles has taught me. How to frame a question in her truly original food probing style.

[Bux]

It seemed disrespectful, because I felt he hadn't done his homework on western use of curry for 700 years before he criticized Pacuad for not having read Madhur Jaffrey on curry. It seemed disrespectful in that he spoke of absolutes after emeshing himself in the "mystic" of one side of the issue. It seemed disrespectful, because he used the word cosmetically cosmetically in what struck me as a term of disrespect for Pacaud's command of French technique. Thus it struck me as disrespectful and arrogant when he said:

It was such an insular approach, as though nobody understood that curry isn't a powder that you don't apply cosmetically. Nobody had read Madhur Jaffrey, or really understood that curry isn't just a spice you shake but a whole technique you have to understand.

how does being respectful or disrepectful impact on how Peter thinks the dish both tastes, and how appropriate he feels the dish is for that type of restaurant, including what his expectations for the restaurant were before he went there?

He didn't talk about taste, as I recall, it was all about technique and the audacity of use without reading Jaffrey. Curry can be no more than a flavor to a chef in the west and it's rather absurd to deny that, in my opinion.

[Steve Plotnicki]

Bux-Let me try this one.

Disagree with how Pacaud used curry = Disrespectful
Disagree for the reasons Peter stated = Disrespectful
Think chefs should understand curry   = Disrespectful


Is that it?

It must be because the way you have laid it out, there is no room to disagree without being disrespectful.

The fact of the matter is that regardless of whether Peter might have been respectful or disrespectful, it has no bearing on how well Pacaud used the curry powder. The statement is either a true statement or not, and when Peter said it he is either being honest about it or not. I don't see how Peter's manners in any way impact a fair evaluation of Pacaud's dish? Maybe you can explain that to me and then I will understand what you are getting.

[cabrales]

There are other reasons Nobu's signature dishes are what they are because of his Japanese influences -- (1) black cod with miso -- miso is rampantly utilized in Japanese cuisine and sweetening it in the way it is would not necessarily be natural to French chefs, . . . .

[In another post]

The reason that Nobu created that dish(es), was that he was eager to experiment. That draws the inference that French chefs weren't the ones to come up with any of those dishes because they weren't looking to experiment . . . . Why Savoy only stuck a toe in the water as opposed to someone like Nobu jumping in over his head is one of the things this discussion is about. . . . .  But exactly how far can a 3 star chef push the envelope before what he serves isn't French food anymore?

As for it being dominant, you mean dominant as in the best? I agree with you there. But something that is the best doesn't neccessarily have more relevance than something inferior to it. In fact, quite often things inferior have more relevance than things that are great.

Steve -- I don't disagree that Nobu might have been willing to experiment, but why do certain French chefs have to experiment drastically if what they have is already widely sought after and considered very good? Also, in pointing out the potential Japanese ingredient or Japanese cuisine inspirations of some signature Nobu dishes, I was trying to pursue whether the experimental "leap" might have been more natural for Matsuhisa, given his background and training, than it might have been for a traditionally trained French chef. Meaning, I do think leading French chefs experiment, but, for their background and sensitivities, they are less likely to have come up with Nobu's signature dishes.  You might view Nobu as "jumping" into the water, given your appreciation of French food and background. For him, the steps might have been less drastic. I am not saying they were or not; just that one could imagine they might have been.

That Nobu's black cod miso was less of an experimental leap for him, given his background, than for a French chef is supported by Jeffrey Steingarten's article "Nobu's No-No" (US Vogue, March 2002):

"Nobu marinated it for three days in a special miso -- the tangy, sometimes sweet, paste of long-fermented soybeans and rice or barley -- then broiled it for cirspiness and roasted it to finish. A twist on the traditional Japanese veresion, which is marinated in the lees (or sediment) from the brewing of sake . . . ."

The article describes Nobu's use of monkfish liver in a manner that supports the above point:

"We happily went on to a pate made from the liver of the monkfish -- a traditional Japanese recipe transformed by the salty, oily pop of salmon roe."

The obvious Japanese inspiration relating to the choice and preparation of raw fish is described, among other things, in the context of the influence of Nobu's travels on his preparation methods:

"Nobu's raw-fish dishes were powerfully flavored with cilantro, red-pepper paste, olive oil, and fresh chilies. These are ingredients that Nobu . . . had discovered during a three-year sojourn working in Peru -- where raw fish (used in pungent ceviche and tiradito) is as common as in Japan." (Nobu also has some Peruvian-inspired meat preparations.)

[Ruby]

Suvir-Your posts are out of line, espcially for a moderator. It would do you well for you to remove them. Nobody here has a "fractured sense of self" and how dare you say that about anyone who is participating in earnest about a discussion that has been instigated by another one of the moderators.

As to the merits of what we are discussing here, especially comparing the gastronomic culture of different countries and parts of the world including creating a hierarchy of them, it is nothing different than what is discussed in universities all over the world every single day. Nobody calls them arrogant or chauvenistic. Is it arrogant to say that at the time of the ancient Romans they had a superior culture or more evolved society than the rest of the world? Gee I don't think so.

And I find your last point about curry, again, especially from a moderator to be especially disruptive. In the context of this discussion it is as intelectually dishonest as it comes. You are the first one to flock to, and or criticize a place that serves good and/or bad food, including using a good or bad garam marsala. The world isn't all a big blob of garam marsalas that are all the same and which are all interesting no matter who uses them, at least not to the discussion here. And finally, I have refrained from saying this but;


BABBO *IS* AN ITALIAN RESTAURANT

Now do me a favor, the next time you choose not to participate, please make sure your decision coincides with your actually not posting.  Don't first post a meandering political thread that has nothing to do with the discussion and which is intended to make the participants feel bad and also insults them and then announce you're not going to participate in the thread. D'uh, we're not stupid you know.

Steve - Yowza! I hope I never get on your bad side. Methinks you came down hard on Suvir. He sounds very knowledgable to me and just because he's a moderator on e-Gullet, he's still entitled to his opinions. He stated he was only going to respond once, in that particular post, because I got the impression he didn't want to get sucked into a long drawn-out debate.

I love good repartee and clever analysis of any subject but your response to him hit me as a bit mean-spirited and cranky. After all, this is a food forum, not war. Just my two-cents.

[Lord Michael Lewis]

Regarding Suvir; firstly, I suspect that English is not his mother tongue, so well done for being able to caulk your hull in a foreign substance. Secondly Survir, I imagine, comes from a different cultural background than many of us so what may appear meandering and political to Plotinki is probably germane to Suvir.

Plotinki, instead of scanning posts in search of chinks (the armour type), why don't you make an effort to assimilate what posters mean. You are too competitive regarding debate and being competitive in one's autumn years is not consistent with either wisdom or the advice of doctors.

[Bux]

Plotnicki: Bux-Let me try this one.
Disagree with how Pacaud used curry = Disrespectful
Disagree for the reasons Peter stated = Disrespectful
Think chefs should understand curry   = Disrespectful
Is that it?
It must be because the way you have laid it out, there is no room to disagree without being disrespectful.

It's not it and I would suggest you reread what I've written and re-examine both what I've actually said and how I've phrased it. It's certain not disrespectful to disagree with Pacaud on how he used curry. The reasons a person states would actually connote some respect if that person were trying to establish a dialog. And finally it's certainly not disrespectful to think a chef should understand his ingredients. None of that applies to my estimation of Hoffman's remarks and I certainly didn't lay it out at all as you would like to make it appear I have. Here is what I said and I don't know how you get from this to what you have posted.

Bux: It seemed disrespectful, because I felt he hadn't done his homework on western use of curry for 700 years before he criticized Pacuad for not having read Madhur Jaffrey on curry. It seemed disrespectful in that he spoke of absolutes after emeshing himself in the "mystic" of one side of the issue. It seemed disrespectful, because he used the word cosmetically cosmetically in what struck me as a term of disrespect for Pacaud's command of French technique.

Plotnicki: The fact of the matter is that regardless of whether Peter might have been respectful or disrespectful, it has no bearing on how well Pacaud used the curry powder. The statement is either a true statement or not, and when Peter said it he is either being honest about it or not. I don't see how Peter's manners in any way impact a fair evaluation of Pacaud's dish? Maybe you can explain that to me and then I will understand what you are getting.

If the element of disrespect is unimportant, why dwell on it. For me it had importance only in that Pacaud comes as the more highly respected of the two from third party references. I will be happy just to say that in my opinion, Hoffman was wrong and demonstrated a lack of understanding and appreciation of both contemporary French food and that of the last 100 or more years. I've pretty well laid out what I know already and others have posted more interesting information about Pacaud's influences. India has just not had a monopoly on these spices for hundreds of years, but Hoffman seemed to believe they did and that he had the key.

[Steve Plotnicki]

Ruby and LML-I plain disagree. According to Suvir, a discussion about how the sophistication of cooking techniques vary from culture to culture should not be had because it neccesarily describes certain cultures as inferior. And if Suvir wants to feel that way about it he is entitled to do so. But it is plain rude for him to come onto this thread and lecture me and anyone else who is participating as if we are doing something wrong. There are people who happen to believe that some cultures have evolved to a greater extent than other cultures when speaking of specific ways that development has been applied. Haute cuisine vs peasant cuisine is but one example. And if Suvir wants to make a poltical statement in that regard, let him go find a political board to do so. Or let him raise the issue in the context of the topic we are discussing.

But this conversation was about the superiority of certain cuisines, and I intend to have it whether he likes it or not. And if it didn't happen to be the topic of countless books and endless discussion everywhere from universitys to this board, I might look at it differently. But it is the topic of endless conversation and endless speculation. And to act like it isn't and that he doesn't know it is a lie.

Bux-Now I understand. You just disagree with Hoffman about whether the curry was an appropriate use. The rest is just superfluous to the fact that you disagree with him.

The rest of your response it is intended to undermine the weight of his opinion. You do that by saying he hadn't studied the use of curry in French cooking for the past 700 years or however long you said. That's where you lose me. Why isn't it enough to disagree with Hoffman based on the flavor of the dish? Why the need to go to the next step which is, Gopnik shouldn't have relied on him? I mean I know Peter for a long time and I have respect for his knowledge of French cuisine. I'm sure Gopnik is the same as me. And you haven't offered any evidence that the guy isn't knowledgable. Yet you draw the inference from his statament that he hadn't studied the use of curry in French cuisine. I mean I don't see how you got there, nor why you are trying so hard to(emphasis) get there.

[Bux]

Bux-Now I understand. You just disagree with Hoffman about whether the curry was an appropriate use. The rest is just superfluous to the fact that you disagree with him.

This what I first wrote on the subject.

"I agree about Gopnik, but more for the culture (small "c") than the food. I enjoyed most of his Paris to the Moon. Was his 1955 New Yorker piece the one that started with the Passard tomato by any chance? It was an article that gripped me until I came to the part where he quoted Hoffman (Savoy, NYC) on Pacaud's use of curry. Everything unraveled for me. The same thing happened when I reread that part in the book. I put down the book I was voraciously reading and couldn't pick it up again seriously. I finally finished it by ignoring the chapter and skipping around until I had finished readying everything else. Hoffman is entitled to his opinon, but I couldn't figure out what led Gopnik to quote it."

The rest may be superflouous as it is in honest response to your rather persistent questions and prodding.

The rest of your response it is intended to undermine the weight of his opinion.

Indeed, did you expect me to support his opinion when asked to further explain my opinion?

You do that by saying he hadn't studied the use of curry in French cooking for the past 700 years or however long you said. That's where you lose me.

Why are you lost when you know I'm responding to your questions regarding why I find his opinion less than one I would quote as expert?

Why isn't it enough to disagree with Hoffman based on the flavor of the dish?

First of all, Hoffman didn't mention the flavor. This was a major part of my disatisfaction with the statement quoted by Gopnik. Earlier in this thread I said: "He didn't talk about taste, as I recall, it was all about technique and the audacity of use [of curry] without reading Jaffrey." I've long held the position here that it's the taste and flavor that should count and not whether any French chef observes the techniques applicable to classic Indian cuisine--a cuisine which you yourself have held as far less advanced than French cuisine, without fear of offending. I'm finding parts of your posts on this subject fascinating in terms of successful debating technique, but absolutely disingenuous in terms of the discussion.

In fact, here you began this thread by saying:

Does this mean that French cuisine is dying? Not in the technical sense. It is far too ingrained in Western culinary culture to be eliminated. But as I keep saying through the opera metaphor, it is becoming about as relevant to our everyday lives as opera is. It is for the few who know how to appreciate it.

and then very recently in a thread on db bistro you say:

An amazing accomplishment that is in line with the French way of constructing/deconstructing foods to meet a social and gastronomic purpose.

Club Gascon and Daniel Boulud's three restaurants could be cited to explain the need for French chefs to go abroad to find willing diners, or they could be cited to show how French chefs have both the backbone and adaptability to please foreign audiences. L'Astrance and Hiramatsu can be cited for the need for French chefs to go abroad or to import foreigners to revitalize the cooking or to show the fundamental strength that exists and allows for inovation and foreign influence. All in all, all four of those indicate that the world is changing and that France is changing with it. I can't really answer the question of the light shining on France and can't predict where others will look, but it's safe to say that those who look at France closely with a bright light and an open mind, should not be disappointed. This is not to  discount the  brilliant work being done in Spain or the states, but I'd note that these chefs have all been strongly influenced by French cuisine.

[Steve Plotnicki]

"Club Gascon and Daniel Boulud's three restaurants could be cited to explain the need for French chefs to go abroad to find willing diners, or they could be cited to show how French chefs have both the backbone and adaptability to please foreign audiences."

Well now we're getting somewhere. The difference between how they are cited has to do with whether the person citing them thinks they did a good job of integrating foreign influences into the cuisine or not. Now in this example, Peter thinks Pacaud didn't integrate it well. What's wrong with that?

And when I ask that, to me, whether you agree with  him isn't relevent to Gopnik's use of the quote. And I must remind you, we are having this dialogue not because yuou disagreed. But because Gopnik relied on the quots. you asked why Gopnik relied on the quote a number of different times. Hoffman is a successful chef. And while you might disagree with that, being obejective that is a proper characterization of him. I mean the guy has run a successful restuarnt that has pretty good critical acclaim for what, 15 years? So what you have here, is a successful chef who feels a certain way about it.

What's wrong with that?

[Bux]

What's wrong with that?

Lest we go off in circles again, you'd have to define "wrong." Would it be wrong for me to say I think Ducasse runs a sloppy kitchen? Would it be wrong for me to say I feel Hoffman doesn't appreciate French food. I'm not sure either would be wrong if you feel I'm entitled to say what I want. One would be wrong if you feel I should say only what I believe based on the evidence available to me.

you asked why Gopnik relied on the quote a number of different times.

I said "I couldn't figure out what led Gopnik to quote it." I suppose I could have well said "I felt the quote better portrayed Hoffman's unfamiliarity with French food than any fault in French food." Whatever I said, meant that I didn't agree to such an extent that I could no longer follow the thread for I believed it was based on a premise with which I could not agree.

It's well and good for you to defend the chef you know. I don't really want to crticize anything about him other than the statement which I judge from my own knowledge of French cooking and from tasting the particular dish in question. Had he been a prize winning chef with a four star restaurant, for me, that statement is enough for me to question his appreciation for western food. What's wrong with that and why would you expect me to make any sense of what Gopnik wrote based on Hoffman's statement?

I said:"Club Gascon and Daniel Boulud's three restaurants could be cited to explain the need for French chefs to go abroad to find willing diners, or they could be cited to show how French chefs have both the backbone and adaptability to please foreign audiences."

to which you replied: Well now we're getting somewhere. The difference between how they are cited has to do with whether the person citing them thinks they did a good job of integrating foreign influences into the cuisine or not. Now in this example, Peter thinks Pacaud didn't integrate it well. What's wrong with that?

You write well and express yourself well, but you don't read me carefully or read too much intohat I say. When I say you can support opposite arguments with the same statement, I mean exactly that. Anyone can put two different spins on the same fact. One can interpret facts differently. Does a chicken really cross the road to get to the other side, or just to leave the side he's on?

As for what's wrong with Peter thinking Pacaud didn't integrate it well, I haven't a clue. Gopnik offered no explation other than the Pacaud hadn't read Jaffrey.

[macrosan]

Anyone remember this one ?

[Jinmyo]

Anyone remember this one ?

Yes, those were the days.