g.johnson

About half a generation. You're outré, I'm avant-garde.

I would add the proviso that critical opinion can change very rapidly. The metaphysical poets were thought second rate before Eliot caused a reevaluation. Anyone saying that Dylan was America’s greatest living poet in the 60s would have been ridiculed, but that is the position of serious, conservative academics like Christopher Ricks*. Although I doubt the same will happen with Pam Ayres, other “obviously correct” judgments are certain to look stupid in the future. As an afterthought on putrescence, I wonder if there are any flavors for which one cannot develop a taste with sufficient training. Think durian. And I hear that Blumenthal is working on his curry and custard dish as we speak. * Famous for complaining that there is a prejudice against English people in English Departments.

Of course. Most people posting here will agree on many matters of taste. However, you have admitted that these judgments are historically and culturally contingent. I think you must also accept that taste must be physiologically contingent since it is evident that there is a continuum of sensitivities to different tastes. It does seem likely to me that there will be some tastes (e.g., those suggestive of putrefaction*) that no one will ever like unless they’re Komodo dragons. However, we’re generally not talking about eating rotting flesh or, for that matter, curry and custard. We’re talking about steak and salad dressing. And on those topics there are no absolute judgments and reasonable people (i.e., everyone other than Plotters) can disagree. *FYI, two of the chemicals produced during putrefaction are putrescine and cadaverine.

Delouis Fils Fresh Mayonnaise is very close in flavor and texture to homemade but, despite using no preservatives or stabilizers (unlike Helman’s), keeps for a lot longer. From the sell-by date it has a shelf life of months and after opening it seems to keep reasonably fresh for several weeks in the fridge. I recall reading that finer, industrial emulsification helps preserve it, but it doesn’t seem a very convincing explanation unless the process is so violent it denatures the enzymes responsible for spoiling. I don’t know whether there’s any explanation on their website which my horrible French prevents me reading.

I believe that the reason to prefer diver scallops over non-diver scallops is that the shells of the former are less likely to be damaged. How frozen diver compare with fresh non-diver, I wouldn't like to speculate.

The decision on how much it’s appropriate to pay at a restaurant is largely irrational. No one who goes to Michelin 2 and 3 star places is worried that they won’t be able to pay the phone bill if they opt for a $250 tasting menu over a $150 menu. But people do have limit on what they think it’s reasonable to pay. For me the limit used to be around 80 for food. So I cheerfully ordered a couple of £80 tasting menus in England over the summer but balked at a $120 menu at Le Bernadin.

“Day boat” and “diver scallop” might entice me for the reasons already stated but the other terms sound like marketing more than anything. “Line caught" conjures up images of individual fishermen with rod and line but is likely to mean industrial scale long line fishing with thousands of baited hooks strung from kilometers of line. The fish is may be less damaged than those caught in a net and crushed by the other ton of fish, but they’ll probably still be frozen at sea. (My father-in-law was one of the last deep sea line fisherman working out of Aberdeen.) I’d never heard of ”troll-caught” but it means the same thing as "line caught".

Buy a dictionary.

You don’t think bombastic assertion of rectitude and snide dismissal of dissent is snobbery? Even the insecurity that the rodomontade seeks to disguise is characteristic of the snob.

We use a single wooden board for everything. I rinse it under hot water after cutting chicken, and when finally cleaning up, otherwise I wipe it with a rag or paper towel. Never unintentionally poisoned anyone.

Obviously a bloody commie.

With some difficulty, Austerlitz by W.G. Sebald. At the risk of seeming more of a pretentious git than I do normally (hard, I know), I believe Sebald's Rings of Saturn to be a masterpiece. Austerlitz has the same qualities but far more longueurs.

You can tell that he's an elitist because he omits the unnecessary and incorrect extra "the". Greek O level, grade 3.

It would be easier to teach a goldfish chess than to explain irony to Plotters.

It's true. I really don't care for hoi polloi.

But I still can't help myself from pointing out the following. How could somebody with as poor a palate as yours tell who is a connoiseur and who isn't? Look up 'soi-disant'.

We now have the comic spectacle of the soi-disant connoisseur arguing that taste is a matter of majority opinion.

Perhaps you should write a self-help book for all the poor lefties. You seem to have the jargon down.

I can prove the solution to the math problem is correct. Prove to me that sprite (or red wine) tastes good with steak. You cannot. Your only recourse is to quoting the majority opinion. By that argument, GWB is 'objectively' the best person for US president.

To describe someone as 'wrong' is a value judgment.

Do you mean to say that a person who has worts that almost completely cover their face and body can be considered handsome or beautiful? What about fatness? Regarded as a good thing a hundred years ago and still is in some parts of the world. But is now thought ugly in the west.

Bring it on, Essex boy. You can say the same thing about connoisseurs. But I am really not arguing that super-tasters are better tasters (though in one sense they certainly are) only that they cannot be considered deficient tasters. Just trying to head Plotters off at the pass. 1) If you are willing to admit cultural and historical context why not physiological context? 2) I am not arguing that there are no standards but I don’t see how it’s possible to describe anyone who does not agree with those standards as wrong or mistaken. Idiosyncratic, maybe, but not wrong. Statements like ‘the earth is flat’ are wrong. Statements like ‘Sprite tastes good with steak’ are not wrong in anything like the same sense.

No I'm not. No I do not. There is such a thing as good taste. Happy? However, good taste is a matter of opinion.

Quite. But the super-taster is a better ‘reader’, not worse, and can detect the presence of chemicals that you can not. You cannot say that she doesn’t taste sour where you taste sweet (unless she’s lying). You therefore cannot reasonably claim that her reaction (“I don’t like this”) is wrong. All you can say is that the majority reaction is different. So we are left with the position that two people, equally trained in tasting, can reach different conclusions. In other words, taste is subjective. QED.

I don't see how that is materially different then saying that they avoid the foods that they are sensitive to in restaurants. The posts crossed. Of course it's relevant. You have been claiming the existance of 'objective' standards of taste on which everyone can agree. This presupposes that everyone (with sufficient training) tastes things the same. They don't. When a super-taster says that your favorite wine is, to her, too bitter it is not because she isn't trained but because she tastes it differently. And it is absurd to suggest that she is wrong.