Exotic Mushroom

I would say absolutely not. A chef is not his cookbook. My point was that he doesn't have to actually be there after you've been trained by him or someone who he himself has trained and appointed to train you. Could the French Laundry, staffed as it is, without Keller ever returning, remain just as good a restaurant? I think that is a more appropriate question, and if Keller has done his job right, I think it could. Because he, through teaching and training, has become a part of his cooks. That isn't something you can get from reading a book and following instructions. What do you mean by "assembly line"? Because that's exactly what the French Laundry kitchen is. A bunch of people who put one thing on a plate and then pass it to the next person who then puts their part on the plate. I would say that as long as I remain committed to executing his vision, they will not diverge. If, at some point, I decided that I wanted to do my own thing, or cook my green beans just a little more al dente because that's what I personally prefer, then the cooking would be different. If I decided that since I like the way scallops and mushrooms taste together, so I was going to put them on a plate together, then it would be more my kitchen than his. Basically, he has trained me so that I know what he would do, and the way he has instilled his values in me, I won't forget them. Ever. They are now a part of me. So the kitchen would be his as long as I remained committed to keeping it that way. Of course, if he never returned, then he would not pass onto me the ways he his growing as a cook. And the food would not develop. I could keep cooking a snapshot of where he is at this particular moment forever, but eventually people wouldn't want to come there to eat it because it would cease to be interesting. A chef does need to be in his kitchen and constantly passing on how he is growing and changing, and I don't know if I'm qualified to say that such a thing requires x number of days per month or whatever. It varies from chef to chef. But I don't think you need to be there anywhere near every day to have it still be your food as long as you have a well trained person running things.

Personally, I am always more impressed with a chef when I go to his restaurant and he isn't there and the food is amazing than if I know he's slaving away in the kitchen all night without a day off ever. I disagree. You make it sound like a great chef, when he leaves the kitchen, is basically just handing his employees a cookbook and telling them to follow the recipe exactly. But that isn't how it works. A good chef instills a part of himself in his cooks. You can look at a dish you made and know that you should sprinkle a little more cheese on it because that chef doesn't like things looking too clean. That might sound silly, but I don't know exactly how to express it. How bout this? The other day, my chef left for the evening before I came into work. He had written down a special I was responsible for. He told me what was in it and that was it. But I know him so well that without him even showing me, I knew how he wanted it plated and exactly how much of each item he wanted in it. Or once, when he had also left early, he had one of my co-workers tell me what the special was. But I know his tastes and the way he combines food so well that I knew that my co-worker must have gotten it wrong when they told me it had scallops and mushrooms. Because those aren't two things that this particular chef would be likely to combine. And when I called him to verify, sure enough, the co-worker had been wrong. I don't know if the above example will just end up sounding silly, but I can't really think of another way to explain why I feel this is wrong. If a chef trains his employees properly, then everything that comes from them will be an expression of him. And even after you leave and work for someone else, when you cook, his signature will be permanently implanted on your cooking. You eventually start to see the chefs you've worked for in everything you do, even if you haven't seen that particular chef in years. (Now I am the one sounding gushy). I think that it's easy for any one person to cook wonderful and creative meals. What requires the genius is for that person to be able instill his entire food mindset in those who work for him so that it stays with them forever. When Ducasse says, "I am in all of my kitchens all the time," that is exactly my vision of what a great chef should do. That statement should be completely true, because everything you think about food, from the exact degree you like to cook your green beans to what you would combine them with to where on the plate you would put them will be inside every single person who works for you. They don't need you present to replicate your vision. Micromanaging is easy. Not being there is what takes skill. I hope Keller is up to the task.

I don't think there's anything wrong with ordering dressing on the side no matter what kind of restaurant you're at. For example, I remember back when I was doing pantry at a pretty nice, well-respected place, and the amount of dressing I was told to put on salads. Most of the salads would have been fine for me, but I felt like the caesar dressing was way too much. Apparently, most people like their caesar salads coated in what I personally consider too much dressing. And that's the way most places will serve it, since that's what people like. So if I'm getting a caesar salad, even in a nice restaurant, I'll order my dressing on the side. Ultimately, I think this is something that the cook should not waste time getting upset over. You will always have people asking for special requests, making changes that take more time for you to prepare the dish, and it's just something you have to live with. Who knows why people do or want the things they do? Best, I think, to just relax and stop asking questions. I have co-workers who get really irritated with substitutions and additions, but I personally just try to suck up the irritation and be please that someone is getting something they'll really enjoy. As long as the substitutions are within reason. I get kind of annoyed when people basically make up their own dish and demand it (from a neighboorhood grill I worked at once - "I'd like the veggie philly sandwich, but with no bread, a portobello mushroom, two meatballs, and brie"), but that's a pretty rare event. A few weeks ago at my current restuarant, someone apparently asked for ranch on their salad and it threw the entire kitchen into a fit about how incredibly insulting it was to us that they would even dare to mention ranch in our establishment. I kind of get where they're coming from, but even in that case, I suggested that we send someone across the street to get a small bottle of ranch. Nearly got my head taken off for that one, but we're here to please to customer, aren't we?

And anyone who's ever eaten out in a country where tipping isn't standard can list legions of horror stories about the abysmal level of service in those places. Tips motivate waiters to treat their customers better without a doubt. I'm not even sure I understand that what the argument is that tips don't motive improved service. Could you explain it, please?

Keith, the prices of your food would jump significantly higher than the 15% you're tipping if restaurants did away with tipping and payed waiters higher wages. The reason? Payroll taxes and other expenses related to the increased wages would shoot through the roof. That cost would be passed directly onto you. gastropimp is completely right. Tip on the whole bill, wine mark-up included. Here in CA, 20% is standard for decent service. Waiters at nice restaurants are trained professionals who have put in a lot of time and effort to get to the point they're at. To you, they may not seem as harried as the waitress at a little coffee shop, but I assure you that the work is very difficult. Part of their training and professionalism is to exude that calm, not hurried aura. This isn't really the place, but for those of you who complain about wine mark-ups, those are there for a reason. Restaurants have to pay to store wine, pay for the glasses they serve it to you in, pay the staff serving the wine, pay for the chairs you're enjoying the wine in, and so on. We have to make money somewhere!

But the point is that you have had fish that was frozen "the right way." Everyone has. We've all eaten it at pricey sushi restaurants and thought it was fresh. It's all frozen. Yes, there is a big difference between my home freezer and the freezer needed to store fish. Anything that is not at least -20C (and my freezer at home isn't even close) is not cold enough to kill the parasites found in fish. And the closer to non-freezing temperatures that you keep your fish, the more you will be able to tell the difference in the inferior taste and especially texture of the fish. I would never buy fish to eat at home that is frozen and keep it in my freezer. There is an enormous difference between the two types of freezing.

One particularly common parasite in fish is roundworm. It is not particularly obvious in a fish when you catch it that it is infected (It must be different than whatever kind of worms the fish you used to catch had). When consumed, it causes anisakiasis (which, believe me, you really don't want to get. Constant severe abdominal pain and vomiting for anywhere from a week to a month). The roundworm parasite is very common in many of the most popular fish we consume, especially salmon. It must be frozen properly before consumption to be safe to eat (at least -20 for 7 days or -35C for 15 hours). Freezing fish immediately after catching also eliminates the danger of Scombroid Toxin, which you also don't want. I was thrilled to see that article! I deal with all these ridiculous fresh fish evangelists at the time who run around saying idiotic things like "I don't even understand how they can have sushi on the East Coast. By the time they could fly it there, it's not fresh enough to eat." When I try to explain to them that their fish is required by law to be frozen, they become hysterical. I've actually gotten into some seriously loud public arguments about this. Shellfish are categorized differently. Roundworm is not a danger in eating shellfish. Your only concern with them is if they were not stored properly or if they have eaten certain types of algae (so they need to be harvested from waters known not to contain those algae). When fish is frozen properly, you will not be able to tell the difference between fresh and frozen. The frozen fish that ends up tasting terrible is, ironically, the fish that has not been frozen cold enough. That will adversely affect both the taste and especially the texture. If anyone wants to conduct a taste test, you'll need to catch the fish yourself, because there really isn't any way to ensure that fish you're buying has not been frozen. Almost all of it has.

Never had any trouble making a pie crust, but I can't make hash browns to save my life. And it's just about the only thing I can't do in the kitchen. I have tried every trick everyone has ever suggested to me, but I cannot turn out a decent hash brown no matter what I do. My one and only success with them was when we made hash browns in culinary school (oh, excuse me, "pommes roesti"). That day I managed to do it perfectly. I was so proud, I told everyone I knew. Then I tried to put them on the menu for my next five dinner parties. Always a complete disaster. I always go out to eat when I want a big breakfast for the sole reason that I absolutely cannot make hash browns, and they're undoubtedly my favorite part of breakfast. The whole situation is very, very sad.

This, to me, seems like the logical response to finding oneself in a situation where one is too weak or has too little endurance to meet the demands of one's professional environment. It's what I did. And that's exactly what frustrates me about many women kitchen workers and what I believe contributes to the sexist attitude of the industry. They don't. They expect people to make allowances for them because they're girls, and girls just aren't as strong. I've consistently come across this bizarre attitude of entitlement from women who seem to think they shouldn't be held to the same physical standards as everyone else simply because of their gender. They want to be treated differently. And so they are, but not in the way they want. I'd generalize based on my experience (which may differ from others') that the men who have difficulty with the physical requirements of the job tend to be far outnumbered by the women. Maybe it's because men don't feel like they have the "I'm a girl, so I'm not very strong" excuse to fall back on, so they see no other option than to acquire the strength and endurance expected of them. There's nothing wrong with crying as an emotional response. God knows I've cried over being reprimanded. There's been times when I've barely made it down the block after leaving work before I burst into tears. But I don't do it while I'm working. I belive you said you were a lawyer. Surely you wouldn't start sobbing in court, or in a meeting when something upset you? You would suck it up and do your job, then wait until you were back in your office or until you got home to shed some tears. It's the same thing. You can't start crying in the kitchen because things don't go you way anymore than you can start crying in any other workplace. It's unprofessional. I'm in my late twenties, and I've been cooking professionally for about 12 years now. The thing is, it's not that I had to prove myself way back when. It's that I have to prove myself all the time. Every time I go someplace new to work, I have to start all over and prove that I'm not that wimpy girly girl. Every time someone new joins our team, I'm the one who has to show them that I deserve respect. And I don't resent any of my co-workers for taking that attitude towards me, because I understand why they have it. I've developed it myself. I admit to being suspect of women co-workers, but I think that I have good reason to be based on experience. It's certainly not that I believe women are incapable of being cooks. There's just some mystery reason why most of them aren't. What I do resent is the many women who I believe are responsible for causing this attitude. Why don't they work harder to fight to disprove the stereotype? That's the only way to we'll ever overcome it. But apparently girls will go on being girly girls, men will go on continuing to assume they're girly girls who can't pull their weight, and nothing's ever going to change.

Okay, clearly people are more interested in taking personal offense or leaping to conclusions than taking even a moment to consider an opinion on what might be source of what is percieved by many to be a serious problem in the restaurant industry. I simply tried to suggest that perhaps the reason kitchen workers tend to have an attitude about women is because in their experience, women don't perform up to par. And while there are many who can, they are expected to prove themselves the exception before being accepted. I didn't have an attitude towards women cooks when I started. It's something I've developed over years of seeing them come, fail, and then leave. I have a great deal of respect for those who do perform up to par, but as I've said, I've found them to be the minority. Just for the record, I'm female and 5 feet tall. And I'm going to bow out of this discussion now. It doesn't seem very productive.

As far as the physical requirements, I'm not sure exactly how much things weigh. Well, we usually get 50 pound boxes of bones. Other parts of our order are heavier. Pots filled with liquid are a lot heavier. You're on your feet working for 12, 14 hours a day. It's pretty physically demanding. I personally don't think I've ever made a co-worker cry. But I am not talking about women breaking down into tears over offensive sexual remarks or personal insults. I'm talking about simple criticism (which tends to take the form of yelling and screaming) that everyone is subjected to when they aren't performing up to expectations. Being yelled at for being too slow, or for preparing something wrong, for example. The thing is, there's no reason I can see that most women shouldn't be capable of performing these tasks. I manage. My point is that for whatever reason, most of them can't (or don't). Why don't they lift weights at home so they'll be stronger? I don't know. Why don't they just try to hold back the waterworks until they get home? I don't know. But I think that the fact that many women act like they're entitled to special (nicer) treatment because of the gender is a big part of the reason there is sexism in kitchens. It's borne of experience. This is a two way street. Perhaps the women in that program behave with the same levels of professionalism that are expected of everyone else. Thus, they are treated equally.

I said "particular", not "particularly." As in "specific". I'm certain many work environments are equally or more agressive. But each of them are so in their own specific way. And I'm just suggesting that maybe people should consider that this is a specific environment where women tend to not perform as well as men. I'm not making any judgements about women's inferiority in general.

Well, I already stated my two main complaints in my first post, but I'll repeat them if you need me to. First, I find that women are often physically unable to perform the neccessary tasks before them. For one, most of them can't lift things. They can't help put things away because the boxes are too heavy. They can't lift heavy pots. And so on. It's irritating. These are things that everyone in the kitchen needs to be able to do. If they can't, it becomes a problem. My other main issue is that they get upset too easily. When they are criticized, they cry. They get treated the exact same way as everyone else, but are too thin skinned to handle it. As I have said before, this certainly does not apply to all women. But it has been my experience with the vast majority of women I have encountered in kitchens, and it has been consistent enough to cause me to form a low opinion of women cooks as a group. That said, I am happy to reverse my initial skepticism when a co-worker proves herself to be capable. I'm not trying to be hostile or inflammatory. I honestly think that this is a useful point of view to consider in a discussion of sexism in kitchens. Maybe it's there (to some extent at least) because it's warranted.

There are women who fare well in professional kitchens. However, in my experience, most do not. I wasn't suggesting the women are "inferior," just that they tend not to be well suited to a particular agressive and physically demanding environment.

I hate to say it, but perhaps part of that attitude is based on the fact that women in general aren't really that good at kitchen work. Kitchens are extremely high pressure and labor intensive environments, and oftentimes women just can't do it. I mean, can you blame cooks for having an attitude about women co-workers when they're constantly getting girls who come in to work for like a week before they quit, and then spend the whole time there asking people to help them lift heavy things or breaking down into tears when they get criticized? I'm not saying all women are like that, but it seems like the vast majority of women I encounter in kitchens are just plain not as tough as men. Personally, I hate it when I see a woman join the team and generally assume straight off that she's not going to last. She has to work extra hard to prove herself. It may be sexism, but it's sexism based on actual experience.

I guess I expect a little to much of people, then, because I don't think that concern would or should be feigned. Personally, I do care when someone at my restaurant has a less than satisfactory experience. I care that they enjoy the food I cook them, and I care that they are treated well by the front of the house staff, even if I have nothing to do with it. If a customer returns a dish, my regret is completely genuine. I usually send them out something extra (out of my own pay) to make up for it because their experience matters to me. I think it's just an issue of having pride in your work. I would assume that if someone apologized to me for unsatisfactory serivce or for making me sick that it meant they actually did regret what happened. If they don't care how their patrons are treated, why are they even in the service industry at all?

But I think the problem that both reesek and I are having is that there was no apology. There was simply money thrown at the problem without an accompanying apology. And for me, it is completely inconcievable that anyone would consider a free glass of wine to be an apology for a serious service error. It certainly never crossed my mind. I assumed that the wine was simply a gesture to mollify me until the manager could attend to the situation. If I had any idea that that was going to be their entire attempt at restitution, I would not have consumed it. Perhaps there are different levels of service expected for different types of restaurants. beans, you apparently think that comping a glass of wine is adequate to make up for a forty five minute wait for service. Maybe it is, if that sort of thing happens often at the establishment in question. But if the standard of service is set higher, then the standards of correction should be higher as well. For example, where I work, I can only think of one time where something similar happened, and the whole place was up in arms all night trying to make the patrons feel better about their experience. I'm certain they were given free liquor, the manager spent a while talking to them, and in the kitchen we made up a bunch of special treats which the chef brought out to the table personally. We seriously regretted the error, we wanted them to know what an awful mistake we thought it was, and we did everything in our power to ensure that they would come away from the restaurant feeling good about the experience and wanting to return. Their patronage mattered to us, and we made sure they knew that. The thing is, a glass of wine is not an apology. A $100 gift certificate is not an apology. Saying "I'm sorry," is an apology. That was all I wanted, and it never happened.

Tommy, do you really believe this? If a restaurant made you sick, or treated you terribly, would you want to return if you just got $100 back for your pain? You wouldn't feel slighted not getting an apology? I mean, the way reesek described her experience, it sounded like they basically told her she was wrong, that their food didn't make her sick, and that they didn't care - but here's some money to make you stop whining. Would that really satisfy you?

Where'd you live in SF, stone? I don't think I've ever seen an apartment kitchen around here like that. I wanna live there!

Actually, after the first fifteen minutes and several "We'll be with you in a minutes", I pulled out a book and waited out of sheer morbid curiosity as to how long it would take. Also, I had been out of town for a month and had been looking forward the entire time to being able to eat at this restaurant again. I love their food. I really, really wanted to eat it again. When I accepted the glass of wine, it was under the assumption that a real apology was forthcoming. The glass of wine meant nothing. I eat there all the time (as I said before, at least once a week). And if I'm eating at a restaurant that charges $30 for an entree, does anyone honestly think I care about a $10 glass of wine? If I had known that was going to be the extent of their apology, I never would have accepted it. I would have walked out, and perhaps made a scene on my way to the door.

beans, I don't know anything about Ohio's laws, but in the west, it is fairly common practice to comp drinks for customers - either to assuage someone who's upset, to be nice to a regular, or for a number of other reasons. But you can't seriously think that giving someone a free glass of wine is an appropriate reaction to such a egregious service error? It took me forty five minutes to be waited on! With three servers and a dozen other customers present. Dealing with unhappy customers is no doubt an unpleasant part of management's job, but it is a part of their job nonetheless. And you can't simply ignore such mistreatment and then expect the customer to forget about it. Had I be given a sincere apology, I probably would have written the experience off as a one time mistake. However, because I was not, it is clear to me that they don't value my patronage and therefore, they have lost it forever. Do you really think that I should be satisfied with a free glass of wine and no apology? What do you think the best way to handle the situation would have been?

I think that when a high end establishment screws up, throwing money at the problem is exactly the wrong way to go. I think that if I were reesek, a sincere apology would make me feel much better than any amount of money. It sounds like what irks her the most is how dismissive of her complaint the response was. I had a terrible service experience recently. I went to the downstairs cafe at a nationally known restaurant where I eat probably once a week (and I eat upstairs every three months or so) and had to wait forty five minutes to be given even a glass of water. It wasn't even busy at the time, but even if it was, that's no excuse. When I told the waiter after I was finally acknowledged how long I had been waiting, he comped me a glass of wine and that was it. I expected at the very least the manager would come apologize to me personally and most likely offer a gift certificate or something to encourage me to return. But monetary reimbursment, in that situation, was really immaterial. I wanted to be made to feel like they actually did think treating me that way was a terrible mistake. I wanted to be told by someone in a position of authority how sorry they were. And in the end, the $10 glass of wine just felt like a slap in the face. That's what a loyal customer deserves after being made to wait nearly an hour? Even though this was my absolute favorite restaurant, I don't think I'll ever return. I faxed a letter of complaint to both the manager and chef/owner the following day, but never heard anything about it. I think it is absolutely the responsibility of restaurants to go to great lengths to mollify their customers when they screw up. And for me at least, money has little to do with it. What's important is making your patrons feel like they matter to you.

I think it's fine for a food critic to have likes and dislikes. If she doesn't like anchovies, she doesn't like anchovies. There are very few people out there (and none I've met personally) who don't have any food/flavors that they just plain dislike. For my part, I can't stand olives. I've eaten olives over and over again just to try to learn to like them, but I'm starting to think it's just never gonna happen. Some things you just can't help. However, I agree that as a critic, you need to be willing to try pretty much everything, especially dishes that are important to the menu. To refuse to eat tripe because - why? it's gross? is just completely unprofessional. Any serious food critic needs to be a lot more open to pushing their boundaries than that. After reading that review, I find it nearly impossible to take Ms. Burros seriously.

I'm glad to learn I'm not the only one who doesn't soak beans. I read in Mexican Kitchen years ago not to do it, and so I haven't bothered ever since. I've never noticed a difference. It's funny how many people insist that you absolutely have to soak beans beforehand. I always tell them that it's a myth, but they just look at me like I'm insane. As far as pot liquor goes, I like to save it and use it to make rice the next day. edited to add: rancho gordo, I just clicked on your link and saw that you're in my area! I live in Oakland (I generally do Jack London square market on Sundays), so next Saturday I'm gonna head up to Grand Lake and try some of your beans.

Somebody upthread asked about Staubs. I have LC, but my mother has a Staub which I greatly enjoy cooking with when I visit her. The lid fits tightly, and it's nice and heavy. Good point somebody made about it not being suited to doing things like making roux, though. I hadn't thought of that. But great for stews and braises. And a question about the LC dutch ovens - can they be put it the oven? I've never tried it, because I'm afraid that little knob on the top would melt. It sure would be handy if I could do it, though.