Opson

Restaurants are a bit like politicians, you get what you deserve.

My name is Jaime and I live in Madrid. I work for a major advertising agency in a creative capacity, and recently I have been spending a great deal of time in London (a city I adore). Part of my job requires me to be present at sometimes quite tiresome business lunches/dinners, the highlight of which is the meal itself. I don't think I'm a crank, and am not anonymous for any particular reason other than when registering I liked the term opson (it means 'relish' in Attic Greek, as opposed to sitos, which means staple), besides which most of the members here seem to be anonymous. I base my opinions on my own observations, which are not encyclopedic but significant. I have no axe to grind, I'm just unfortunate in holding an unpopular position here. I am confused by your use of 'non-constructive criticism'. This has the potential to be an interesting discussion, but I get the feeling that your post is intended to discredit me as person in order to undermine my argument (please tell me I'm wrong). Finally, maybe I am being repetitive on this topic, it's a failing of mine, I like to see mutually satisfactory outcomes to this kind of conversation, but it's still my deeply held opinion and one that has been presented in good faith.

You answer your own question: because apart from some luminaries most chefs are plagiarists. The problem here is deciding upon who the luminaries are, or are not.

I quite understand this statement, because Achatz, Blumenthal, et al, have moved out of one box and into someone else's -- there's just not enough room for all of them. In fact, it's a pretty silly statement really, because were one to "move out of the box", one supposes that there is no frame of reference. I don't understand your willingness to believe this kind of cheffly rhetoric. Isn't it just more likely that these guys buy the books of their heroes and tweak the recipes a little? Isn't that what makes them appear derivative? In other words don't they appear derivative because they are derivative? Why do you prefer "inspiration"? Ferran Adria says creativity is not copying, inspiration implies creative innovation, while copying does not. Regarding your 'killer' argument viz. roasting, sauteing etc., it sophistry falls down on the common sense element. If I plagiarized a successful novel, would you accept the argument that as the original writer had not invented either language or the word processor then it could not be plagiarism? Once again, it comes down to a very British belief that they are capable of being the best at something if they put their minds to it. When Colin Welland, Oscar in hand, said, "the British are coming!", Britain really believed that they were going kick Hollywood's ass. Twenty Hugh Grant films later where is the great British movie renaissance. It's a similar story with food, you are all so desperate to feel you can lead the world in this arena that you invent heroes in whom you can see no wrong. Face it, Tarka, l'Enclume, The Fat Duck, Trio, Gordon Ramsay etc. are all counterfeit copies of European originals. This doesn't mean that you can't get a good meal in any one of them, quite the opposite, this guys know how to copy and copy well. Rather, it just means that their position in the culinary firmament is distinctly 'C list'. I'm sure that Russians, or Greeks, or the Irish would have no problem acknowledging their gastronomic position with relation to giants like France, Spain and Italy. It's only the British who can't accept it.

how many chefs roast, pan fry, boil and saute? why are they not accused of plagiarism? Every single one of them, even in El Bulli, use traditional cooking methods that's not the point. So what is the point? You specifically site plaigiarism of Adria's gastronomy via the terminology as your reason for, as far as I can see, not buying into it. Perhaps you can tell us what it was specifically about your meal here that you didn't like and what the other diners were doing to make it look like they were just pretending they liked it? Okay, instead of having someone prove plagiarism is wrong (unnecessary), why don't you outline why it's acceptable? Time and again, there are those on these boards who just won't accept wider viewpoint of where restaurants like l'Enclume and The Fat Duck actually come from. The point is, that if you knew you'd have to agree, and if you didn't (and I don't think you do) then you couldn't be in a position to make a refutation. Why do you think plagiarism gets cited about these kind of restaurants? Do you think it's crankiness, or would you be prepared to admit that someone might know a bit more than you do, and is able to place restaurants within a broader context of influence? Unless one is in possession of the relevant knowledge (are you?), every time you refute a claim like the Count's, you do so based on prejudice.

is there any reason other than a clumsy adria reference to think the Fat Duck is Spanish? Clumsy? If you read the continuing discussion you will no doubt have the means to answer your own question.

MobyP is right, of course, there is definite love for Heston on egullet, but just so you know that there is 'consensus' and there is consensus, here is a link to London Eating, which presents a more balanced view.

It's interesting that you should mention 'classics'. When does a dish become a 'classic'? Heston changes his menu less than he changes the decor of his restaurant, which is interesting because you would imagine with so much technology at his disposal he would be able to produce his revolutionary cuisine with far less effort than it appears to involve. Is not changing your menu for years, combined with conspicuous success the defining criteria for 'classic' cuisine?

Well, whatever. Clearly, there's no convincing Londoners that they're not at the culinary epicentre of the universe. Scott, like you I'm only ever a vistor to London, but I suggest that instead of trying local heroes like Ramsay & Blumenthal, you'd be much better served in that area by hopping on the Eurostar to Paris and eating at Gagnaire etc. But whatever you do, have wonderful time. London is a great city, better than most in so many respects, just not very good for high end dining.

I know This' nationality thanks, but I point out the relationship with Adria (which goes back to the early nineties and produced the now notorious foams), because if one took this board as a guide one might end up believing that Herve This was plucked from obscurity by Heston Blumenthal, just as one might be led to believe Molecular Gastronomy was Heston's 'invention'.

I don't mean Spanish in the sense of typical regional dishes, I mean Spanish in the sense of the culinary vanguardia. As Gordon Ramsay's cuisine is modelled on Guy Savoy and the like (French), so Heston's food is modelled on Ferran Adria et al: foams, gels, pop rocks, Herve This, deconstruction etc. (Spanish).

Is this it, the best that London has to offer? The Waterside Inn is terribly passe now. You can eat well in a classic French style, but then if you wanted to to do that you'd be better off going to France. Gordon Ramsay, is much the same thing, a French restaurant in London. All good quality, but hardly as good as you find in Paris, whilst aspiring to be the kind of thing you'd find in Paris. The Fat Duck is now firmly on the international 'to do' circuit. Again, rather than being French, its a Spanish restaurant in the mould of El Bulli, but with lots of cheffly whimsy thrown in. If you don't want to take a stroll down Heston's memory lane, then half the stuff on the menu will be meaningless to you. Also you must be careful of not liking it. Many people on this board hero worship Heston and saying things like, 'it doesn't taste nice' about his food is liable to make you unpopular here. If I were you I'd go to J. Sheekeys, and Simpsons on the Strand for some pretty genuine, pre multicultural British fare, and spend the rest of your money on the various wonderful 'ethnic' restaurants like Hakkasan, Noura, Zaika etc. that make London such a good place to be. I do, however, recommend st John, which seems English, but rather defies categorization. In my opinion, the restaurants in London that get a lot of attention one do so because there is nothing better on offer. London is not NY, Paris, or Barcelona in terms of smart dining. Smart diners realize this and stick to what London does best rather what London produces by way of emulating successful foreign models.

At lunch the other day in the Fat Duck our server let slip that Heston Blumenthal has bought the next door pub, the Hind's Head Hotel, which has got to be ten times the size of the Fat Duck. No idea what he plans to do with it, but I'm sure that it will involve guest rooms à la Waterside. Lunch was poor, to be honest. Where does this reputation for hyper-creativity come from? Well, not from the dining room, apart from one or two twists and additions he hasn't changed the menu in 3 years! Well, actually, he has. The prices have gone up since last autumn by about 40%!

If you think being lied to doesn't matter, or if you don't care about the quality of consumer information, then not only are you being deceived, but you are also deceiving yourself. However, this is your problem. This very contradiction, which you are attempting to present as a flaw in my analysis, is the reason why Restaurant Magazine is not up to the job of preparing a credible ranking. They cannot prepare a credible ranking because they do not have the resources, know how, or integrity to do so. Nevertheless, despite their insignificance and unsuitability for the task in hand, they have managed to get the results of their poll plastered over the world's media. It would be much harder to object if Restaurant Magazine weren't an insignificant entity. I'm not really sure what your point is here. I get the sensation that because you don't give these things any importance, you seem to think that no one else should either. Well, I think you you acknowledge that the methodology of Restaurant Magazine is flawed, which means that the results are worthless; which means that they are not 'the best'; which means that by presenting them as such Restaurant Magazine is lying. So the only point at which we differ is that you wish to impose your continually repeated 'So What' morality on anyone who chances upon this discussion. Why? I have to say that unless you can make a better case for ignoring deception than 'So What', then I think your contribution to this thread is effectively over.

Okay Zagat have a 'most popular' (not 'best) list for NY. Zagat also publish guides globally. Michelin comprehensively cover some of the most culinarily important parts of Europe (and the UK). Nevertheless ,neither of these guides, even attempts to put forward a global ranking. Perhaps if Michelin tried a Europe-wide top 50 there might be some support for it; i.e. they have credibility, infrastructure, and history on their side. Nevertheless, they would still be open to many of the criticisms levelled at Restaurant Magazine. This is why we have to critically examine the scope of Resaurant Magazine's puported list. First off, they're not Michelin, or even Zagat, they're a very small circulation UK trade publication whose status does not correspond with the task they claim to be undertaking. Secondly, they have absolutely no infrastucture, or even method, with which to assess restaurants. This leads us to ask why should Restaurant Magazine even consider that it's capable of producing a list of the top ten restaurants in London, let alone the entire globe? The only reason that I can see for the insignificant Restaurant Magazine taking on this global ranking is that no other organization (including important ones that might possibly be capable of turning in something semi-credible) is so madly arrogant to imagine that the public would swallow such a ludicrous proposal. Well, in this sense Restaurant Magazine has been thoroughly vindicated. The public is crap, and the global Press, and PR nursemaids of the restaurants involved make no distinctions as to the validity of polls. If Restaurant Magazine say yours is the best restaurant in the world, then it is, who cares who/what Restaurant Magazine is, who cares how they arrive at their conclusions? It's only strange people like Marcus and myself (2 on the planet) that think this matters. We're in a minority. Restaurant Magazine has successfully decieved everyone (except 2), into whom its ranking has come into contact. This takes skill and audacity and for that they should be congratulated.