rgruby

Because it's her job. Yeah, but nothing in that job description says "don't review the icky bits". So, she did her best and decided to note some of her culinary preferences. I don't think a reviewer has an obligation to like everything, or even to try everything. The primary obligation a reviewer has is to write good reviews. Her review isn't compromised by her preferences: she seems to arrive at a logical conclusion and a sensible star rating based on a reasonable sampling of the dishes. Beyond that, it's a well written review. Well written and good are two entirely different things. I agree, you don't have to try everything. But, an unwillingness to try things, as a food critic, my reaction frankly, is WTF are you doing? You don't have to LIKE everything - but you do have to know how it is supposed to taste (yeah, subjective to a degree) to tell me if the preparation at X resto is up to snuff. To me it's kinda like a chef who refuses to taste their own food - I don't trust them. A resto critic has to taste - or at least be willing to taste - everything. What the f*ck is wrong with cockscombs? Sure, we're not used to eating them. The same could be said for sushi 20 years ago. Whaddabout tongue? Lotsa people think that's icky. (Losers!! - if it's done correctly). I have not read the impugned review. But I would have thought a reviewer's obligation would be to educate me about the lesser known dishes and specialities of a resto that promotes and specializes in those kind of dishes. Long story short - of course our history and likes and dislikes will influence us-reviewers or not. But if you are a reviewer, at the end of the day, I want you to be able to say " this rendition of the icky bits of a sheep prepared in a Tuscan style" are better than some other place across town doing the same and Why. (I'm less interested in the why, but if it connects to the flavours on the plate - fill me in!). And to do that, you have to at least taste the dish in question and know how it is supposed to taste. You are NOT required to like the dish. If you're not prepared to do that (taste & compare and contrast with the ideal or original), then I'm not sure what value you provide as a reviewer, other than filling column inches. As for the general attitude of squeamishness, again I reject it completely but think it's within the legitimate spectrum of opinion. Obviously, I disagree Cheers, Geoff Ruby PS None of this is to infer Ms. Burros is not an effective resto reviewer. I have not yet read the review. (I'll be back in a couple days). But I do think, if you are a reviewer, you've gotta be willing to not only try it all, but figure out, recognize, and articulate, why resto X's nasty bits done up in a nice cream sauce are better than resto Y's. Otherwise you might as well tell me why the Swiss Chalet down the road is better than the KFC in Columbus. Ok. Sleep now. Sorry if this is incoherent> I hope this thread continues for a while as it raises interesting issues. A reply to Fatguy's post. We, um, disagree on a few things, I think. Tiredness overcomes me, but I think this thread touches directly on the question what is/should be the role of the restaurant critic. I hope an intersting dialog develops.

I'll try and answer a couple of questions about the Benriner with the caveats that I haven't used or looked at the thing in months. Not because I don't like it, but I'm handy enough with a knife and don't need paper thin slices all that often. I do pull out the mandoline if I want to do a large-ish quantity of very thin slices. My main reluctance to use it concerns the potential injury when cleaning it - but I have always washed it by hand. I don't know why I haven't just chucked it into the dishwasher now that you mention it! Also, I think it comes with three julienne blades (I have the small version) that differ in the width of the julienne from almost angelhair to maybe a quarter in or so (maybe a little less). And the Benriner lacks a blade capable of doing gaufrette cuts. Bottom line, the Benriner works, and is a third or quarter the cost of the Bron. I'd suggest buying a Benriner or similar, seeing if you actually use it - they're inexpensive enough, even if you end up selling it at a yard sale or something. Then, if you decide you want something more heavy duty, or need the gaufrette option, go for the Bron later. Cheers, Geoff Ruby

I'm thinking of buying a knife sharpening set up. I'm leaning away from a stone to something more foolproof. There has been much discussion about the Spyderco system, but not much mention of the Minosharp system by Global. Here's a link: http://www.chefsresource.com/knife-sharpener-mino.html Anyone used the Minosharp? Cheers, Geoff Ruby

I would think that differing levels of acidity in various citrus fruits (as well as their sizes) might affect how long they take to "ripen", but I don't see any reason why you couldn't preserve other citrus fruits. Go for it! Slightly off topic, the last batch I did, a couple of the lemons were not fully submerged in the juice. (I noticed this after they'd been in the fridge for a few weeks). I have not eaten any of this batch for fear that doing so might kill me. Anyone think they'll still be ok - maybe if I cut off the bits that are exposed to air? If there was botulism in the parts exposed to air, could it make its way into the flesh that was submerged? Should I just go and make another batch, dump this one and quit worrying? Cheers, Geoff Ruby

Maybe you haven't found them because you're spelling Filipino incorrectly. The first site that came up during a google search lists at least six Filipino restaurants in Toronto. I can't say if any of them are good, as I live in Winnipeg (which also has 6 or more Filipino restaurants, and a few other take-out only places), but you can try them and report back. My favourite Filipino breakfast is tocino with two eggs (sunny-side up) and fried rice with garlic. Only $4.50 at most Filipino restaurants in Winnipeg. Thanks for the site. Yup, it turns out there are a bunch of Filipino restos in town - most of them far from downtown. But it sounds like a trip up Bathhurst could be in order, as it looks like there's a concentration of restaurants - a couple in the 3300s. I'm guessing Lawrence or Sheppardish??). And, the site lists Mayette's, on the Danforth, as being around since the mid 80s. Also, a Mt. Pinatubo on Dupont. Anybody tried any of these? Any fave dishes? Cheers, Geoff Ruby

OK. We've all heard that TO is supposedly the most ethnically diverse city on the planet. I don't know if this is actually true or not (I've heard Singapore and LA might just overtake us in this department). Anyhow, it struck me that there are several cuisines that are extremely underrepresented - if not entirely absent - from the restaurant scene here. A few that spring immediately to mind: German - are there any purely Germanic restos in the old city of Toronto? I remember a place on Roncesvalles that did German and something else - but I have no idea if it is still there. Scandinavian - Ikea doesn't count. Russian - there are lots of folks from the former Soviet states - but few restaurants that I'm aware of (other than the place on Mt. Pleasant). Large areas of Africa - Sure there's lots of Ethiopean, a few Somali, a few Nigerian and Morrocan places, but I'm not sure that other areas of the continent are represented by restaurants. (There was - maybe still is - a place on Wilson near Dufferin that I never got around to checking out, and I recall a place on the Danforth that advertised "African" food. There's also a place on the Danforth serving South African Indian food). And, outside the downtown core I am less familiar with, especially Scarberia - so I am likely missing out on some places. Phillipino - Tagalog is one of the ten most spoken languages here, but I don't know of a Philipino restaurant, at least not anywhere near the core. NZ & Oz, various regional US - Southern/soul food, Hawaiin, etc. And the above are just a few of the most obvious examples. Spanish? there's a few, but surprisingly few. Thai? - well, there's a thai restaurant on every corner now. I think it's a bylaw - ther must be one Thai restaurant for every Starbucks. But what about Burmese? So what else are we missing? Of the examples above, have I missed or forgotten about any places, and if so, are they worth checking out? Cheers, Geoff Ruby

The last, and only, time I was able to get a hold of some wild ducks (mallards i think - a hunter associate of my father gave them to him, and he passed them on to me), I pan roasted the breasts, and used the the rest of the carcass, including the legs, to make a sauce. A wild duck is likely to be lean, but I don't know that they are much leaner than a domestic chicken. The ducks I had had very very dark red to purple flesh - so I'm guessing the colour of the flesh of the ducks you have is not unusual. (Er,I'll try and stop putting two of the same words in a row in the following sentences!) But definitely, don't overcook them - I did this to one pair of duck breasts I had, and they got pretty tough - think dry roast beef. Medium rare at most, I would think. Personally, I would go as rare as you are comfortable with. I've heard that the type of duck, and what it eats, will affect whether it tastes "fishy" or not. This makes sense, if there are ducks that eat fish or plankton - but I don't know which species are likely to be fishy tasting. The ducks I got had a slightly gamy flavour to the skin/fat, but the flesh was fantastic (the ones I didn't overcook). I cooked the breasts with the skin on, but removed it before I ate them - because of the gaminess. I didn't think of trying to confit the legs, but I wonder if the gaminess of the fat would carry through to the legs. Perhaps you could render a bit of fat and see how it tastes before you decide to proceed with the confit - although I'm guessing you won't get much fat from the wild ducks themselves - so that might not be an issue. And, in my case, I just chucked the legs in with the carcass to make a sauce. (I did one with juniper berries and another with cranberries. Yum). The legs on my ducks really didn't have much meat on them at all - not sure it would have been worth the effort to try and confit, or even braise them given how little meat they would have provided. Good luck with the ducks, and let us know what you did and how it turned out. Cheers, geoff Ruby

Are you saying you're a non-NYer who's eaten in a good number of NY restaurants or are you saying his reviews sound fair to someone who hasn't eaten the food or suffered the service? It's one thing for the star rating to match the food description, it's another for the description to match the food. I'm a non-Ny'er who has eaten in few of the places he reviewed. I guess by "fair" I don't mean I agree or disagree with his evaluations - I can't mean that not having eaten in most of the establishments reviewed. By fair, I mean that I don't get the sense that he had an axe to grind, and I got the sense that he tried to give an honest and informative review of the food, decor, service. I felt he writes reasonably well - certainly better than most resto reviewers on this side of the pond - but he is not necessarily the most "entertaining" writer in this field. That can be a good thing. (I'm thinking AA Gill and a few others here) I just think he seems to get crapped on more than he maybe should - but again, I rarely get to eat where he and other Nyers eat, and maybe that just comes with the territory to a certain degree. I also wonder how much input the NYT editors have in deciding/influencing what gets reviewed - if any? I am aware that some feel he may have had a bit of, maybe not an axe to grind, but perhaps a feeling of wanting to make his mark in his early reviews - the 3 star to Boulud in particular comes to mind. I've only been reading him regularly the last year or two though - so that may be a factor in my opinion. And, he's my uncle. No, he's not - but if he wanted to take me out to dinner next time I'm in NY, I'd let him critique the meal. Hey, he could even pick the place. Cheers, Geoff Ruby PS - What do the NYers think of the resto selections over Grimes tenure. I understand a few of the 4 stars from Reichel's reign weren't revisited (or at least reviewed). Other than that - do you think he did a decent job of reviewing different cuisines and neighbourhoods. (I'm a Canuck - the u belongs there!) What should the next guy or gal (have they announced it officially yet?) do differently?

As a non-NY'er I actually found Grimes to be pretty fair - at least to the extent one can judge that from afar. (And, his writing was and is far superior to many others around the US and Canada. Take that for what it is.) Some of his non-spoken biases bugged me a bit - he was very obvious to me pro-Franco (maybe Italo as well) leaning, but these are the mother cuisines after all, and I didn't feel he necessarily slighted other cuisines when he visited. It just seemed he visited Italo-French places in a slightly (err, yeah, slightly) disproportionate frequency. But, given that, I feel he treated them fairly - the good ones got good reviews, the bad ones didn't. Fair enough. I felt that fancy surroundings got a bigger sense of importance than I would give them, but he was eating places where that counts for something more than I ever have. (And, perhaps, he and/or the editors felt that Asimov was covering the ethnic/ lower rent side of things. Which he was. Very well in my estimation. So there's a division of labout thing happening.) Some have noticd an uptown vs. downtown bias. I'm not sure which way it supposedly worked. I just remember reading that criticism. Reading from afar, I didn't get that - but, well I'll let others pick up on that if they wish. Hey, you live there after all! Some have also argued that they felt that Grimes was impassionate about his work. I dunno. I never felt he was Hemingway or anything, but I think he deserves more credit than some on this forum do. Did he ever get anything crazily wrong - like give something 3 stars that irredeemably sucked. Or are people quibbling because he gave something 2 stars that should have been 3 (or 1). I think NY was lucky to have him (check out the food writing in most of the ROW if you doubt me), and I wish him the best of luck in his future endeavours. Cheers, and let the flaming begin, Geoff Ruby PS Happy New Year!

Six more: Favorite Brand Name Country Italian (A clearinghouse special I'm guessing) Salsas by Rick Bayless (pl;us a VHS tape of his show - does that count too?) Zuni Cafe Cookbook by Judy Rodgers Cooking by Hand by Paul Bertolli Taste by Sybill Kapoor La Mia Cucina Toscana by Pino Luongo. Seven if you include the World Atlas of Wine by Johnson and Robinson Cheers, Geoff Ruby

I also prefer Sahni's book to Jaffrey's, but I don't think either one will steer you wrong. I think there's also a 1,000 Indian recipes (or something like that) which might be a good idea if all you want is recipes, and lots of 'em. Cheers, Geoff Ruby

I was over at a friend of mine's two nights ago. She is an environmental lawyer, and was telling me about one of the cases she had worked on recently. It involved emissions from a teflon coating facility, allegedly causing health problems downind, bird kills and so on. The case is still before the courts. Apparently, the chemical causing the (alleged) harm is flourine or flouride (I can't remember exactly). She suggested that heating teflon coated cookware to a high temperature could also release toxic compounds. She basically said, don't do it. I do it all the time, especially for stir fries. Has anyone else heard that heating teflon coated cookware to a high temp could be a health hazard? Cheers, Geoff Ruby

I ate at Patria - another place where the f-word could be used. I was there the last week in September. I understand the chef is opening up a new place - or had just opened up a new place close to when I visited. I have no idea if the food there (Patria) suffered for this. I did post a question here as to whether Patria was still a good place to eat, and no one dissuaded me! I must say I do tend to favour fusion, and/or asian influenced places. Well, middle eastern, north african too. Straight French or Ital interests me less- perhaps because I've never really delved into the higher end places of either cuisine, either at home or on my travels to, well, France and Italy (and Spain and ...). So, there's my personal bias and limitations of my palate and experiences involved here as well. About Patria - a good meal, the first course, a serving of 4 different ceviches, sticks in my mind. My wife and I both had the tasting menu. So does the cheese course, because I found the cheeses really uninteresting. I'm not really an expert on this either - very much NOT an expert, but all the cheeses were firm to hard (no, runny stinky cheeses) and fairly mild. Nothing that would offend anybody. But I was also tired after walking around a goodly portion of Manhattan below Canal, so that may have affected my enthusiasm, or lack thereof, by the end of the meal and a very long day. And, I was only there once. And, I did enjoy my meal - but I don't feel it was in the same league as any of my three visits to Susur. Re: eating at a Michelin starred place - I hope to rectify that soon. I'll be in Europe, most likely Italy, for most or all of the summer, and eating in Michelin starred places is going to happen. Not sure in Italy - hoping to get to France and Spain as well, and possibly the UK, but we'll see. (Ooh, that's another question - I'm going to be there by myself - can one eat solo in such places and with the wardrobe I intend to bring (I travel really light - backpack light - no tie, no jacket, nice-ish pants and shirt?). And just a note on the Susur/ Michelin star thing. I raised this as an issue partly because I've never eaten at an M starred place and wondered if Susur's food measured up. Part of this was my belief was there was no way it couldn't, given my meals there. Apparently some agree, some disagree. Still, far above the other spendy meals I've had here and elsewhere. I know service, ambience, chandeliers, crystal, cheese courses/carts and a bazillion other factors (wine lists / pairing with the food etc.) influence the Michelin star rating system. Susur may suffer in many of these areas. I kind of like the slightly funky vibe of the place though. OK, I'll leave it at that - I don't know that it's time yet for another discussion of whether Michelin should do North america and who would rate. So, I wish you all a happy holiday season, and better eating (and cooking if that's your thing) in the new year. Cheers, Geoff Ruby

I have to wonder; If Susur's isn't doing food that would rate a Michelin star, why all the hubbub, profiles in Gourmet etc? As I mentioned, I haven't eaten in a Michelin starred resto, but I have eaten in a NYTimes 3 star, and Susur was far and away the more memorable meal. I would like to think that Susur is swimming in the same waters as Keller and some of the other American chef's that are expanding beyond the strictly Cal-Ital-French vernacular, although Tetsuya's in Sydney, looks like the closest comparison I can think of. I haven't eaten there though. So, to those that have eaten more widely and perhaps better than I, who else is doing the type of food that Susur is doing. (Trying not to use the F-word). Is anyone, anywhere, doing it at a higher level? Is Susur doing things - well, food, things - at the level of a Keller or Trotter, Bouley or Boulud, if perhaps not as consistently in the eyes of some. And, although there were highs and lows in my meal there, I wouldn't describe these as hits and misses. More like highs and even higher highs. Cheers and happy hols, Geoff Ruby

Is there at least any decent Mexican? Cheers, Geoff Ruby

If anyone knows of websites for some of these custom knife makers and would care to post them that would be great. Thanks, Geoff Ruby

Malcolm, its gonna get more frightening. I too have a law degree - did the lawyer thing briefly - and am married to a lawyer. I'm pretty sure you're in the Toronto area. So am I. We're freaking everywhere. Cheers, Geoff Ruby

I too was a lawyer for a short time. Not short enough actually. Am currently a culinary student. Not sure what the future holds, but it ain't lawyering. Food-based writing - would be interesting, but I'm not sure I have the expertise! Then again, I didn't have the expertise to be a lawyer (beware lawyers just out of school - we all suck), and I was one of them. But I digress. And, I'm not that great as a writer - but that doesn't seem to stop a lot of the food press. So, kinda me too, too. I was tempted to ask Mr. Steingarten who his favorite food writers are/ were and if he patterned himself after anybody - at least at first. But I've already asked a couple of questions - I figure I'm already way over my limit. If anyone else figures these are worthy questions to add to the Q & A please go ahead. On a general level, I'm not sure what lawyers bring to the table regarding food writing. Their training should make them objective, able to see many sides of an issue. They should also be able to write well. Anybody who has seen a lot of legal writing will certainly be able to cite many examples where this is not so. Also, legal writing is just that - legal writing. It is specialized, with its own particular terminology and style. Good legal writers will not necessarily be able to switch automatically to good food (or other non-legal) writing. Although, I suspect good legal writers will be more apt to be good food writers than poor legal writers. I could be wrong. Many lawyers also make decent moola. This is not always the case, despite the stereotypes. Nonetheless, many lawyers, especially in our larger cities, will have the means to experience the "better" (i.e. more expensive) restaurants by virtue of their incomes, contacts, expense accounts etc. This is valuable training for any aspiring food writer. An experienced palate is hard to come by without experience to high quality restaurants (which means $$). Are lawyers engaged by food? Not the ones I know personally - but the evidence here on egullet is that many of them are. I think much of the attraction to food writing by lawyers is that being a lawyer sucks - I fucking hated every second of it (can you tell) but that good food, cooking and dedicating ones time to such pursuits might actually be more noble than many aspects of the practice of law. (I don't mean to knock lawyers or our legal system, by the way. I married a lwyer, some of my best friends are lawyers. I just don't want to be one. Ever again.) I personally loved the research and writing aspects of the lawyer thang, but hated lawyering. (The litigators here will know what I'm talking about). Food, like law, is a topic so vast that one could never possibly scratch more than the surface in a lifetime. But, it'll be fun to try. Cheers, Geoff Ruby PS - if anyone wants to ask JS about the molecular gastronomy movement, I'd certainly be appreciative. I forgot I wanted to ask him about this, and have already asked two questions, so I'm reluctant to ask. (Yup, trying to sneak more questions in. If other people care.)

HI, Haven't read the whole thread, but roasting an eggplant in the oven without making sure it has a goodly number of pricks in it can cause consternation. And swearing. Lots of swearing. Cheers, Geoff Ruby

Mr. Steingarten, Thanks for your part in enlightening us about the "French Paradox". I now eat a lot more butter. And, after hearing that there is also a "Thai" paradox, I don't worry too much about coconut milk or oil either. I have also banished margarine, at least the partially hydrogenated kind, from my kitchen (although there is some shortening in there). My question is: have you come to any further conclusions regarding the French paradox? In particular I would like to hear your views on the new bogeyman trans fats. Cheers, Geoff Ruby

Mr. Steingarten, Thanks for joining us here at egullet. Do you have any thoughts on the Spain is the new France hullaballoo. Are standards, or at least innovation, lagging behind what the Spanish are doing? Are there other countries (the US or the UK spring to mind) that could also be considered to be overtaking the French in culinary achievment? Or, perhaps, is this all a bunch of nonsense? Cheers, Geoff Ruby

Reinhart's book is getting some pretty polar responses. From those who don't like it, what are its specific faults? Shaping has already been mentioned - could you give some more info regarding how Reinhart is poor in this area? (I own the book, and have been looking forward to trying some things out of it - just haven't gotten arround to it yet.) And, since I own the book, glad also to know that some much more experienced bakers than I have been getting good results from it. Would just like to know a bit more about its faults I guess. Thanks, Geoff Ruby Oh - didn't it also win some fairly major awards - IACP maybe?

Mostly hardcover, for the reasons so well stated by many: in short, if a cookbook is going to be used a lot, its going to be abused. But, if the book is just a collection of recipes, softcover is fine (I'm less likely to make reference to books that just give recipes and don't give me context). And, I'm hoping to move in the next year or so - softcover has advantages there. So, yes. Cheers, Geoff Ruby

Not a problem! I wish I'd taken pictures though! Can't really imagine doing that during a meal, but it'd sure help me remember things a bit better. Cheers, Geoff Ruby

Trying not to wade in. Trying. Not. To wade. In. Again. It seems to me, that there are a couple of factions here (Oh really?!). Without trying to put words into peoples mouths (which is surely worse than putting the Sante Fe sandwhich in the same location) - there are those that take RBs pronouncements at face value that he believes this is a step in the right direction for BK (and presumably fast food behemoths in general). I will call this the subjective view, as it refers to RB's opinion regarding the sandwhich. You can agree or disagree, but as far as we know, that is his opinion. And there are those who point out the Chef's Collaborative's mission statement and principles - and argue that - viewed objectively - Bayless' endorsement of the sandwhich in question appears to violate some of the principles. (That others could argue they don't is not the point I'm trying to make. The point is, there is RB and his honestly held opinions - which we can't know except from his public statements on the matter - and the CC's mission statement and principles, which surely Bayless' endorsement of the SF 'which can be measured against in some objective manner). So, my question is, has Bayless come out and stated (and hopefully specified which) specific CC principles this sandwhich helps promote? Is the sandwhich any good? Subjective. (Mostly). Is it better than BK's or their competitor's other sandwhiches? I'd argue this is also subjective (mostly) but could also have aspects that could be judged objectively. Is it step in the right direction? Opinions may differ. Can the sandwhich and its promotion (by RB or otherwise) be said to adhere to or promote the CC's mission statement and principles? I'd argue that there is a basis for evaluating this on a relatively objective basis (they're vague enough to allow argument - but that is perhaps another subject again) From what I've read, I think there is a pretty strong argument that this sandwhich isn't doing a whole lot to support the CC cause. Anyone with an ongoing relationship with CC want to ask them if RB will refer specifically to all of their mission statements and principles and detail how the sandwhich fits with each of those? Cheers, Geoff Ruby