russ parsons

i did a piece on the new wave of gyutous, japanese chef's knives based on the old French style, and i was completely won over. i own a misono ux10 that has almost completely replaced by old wusthof. i tried santokus, but found them really too light (gyutous are much lighter than german knives already). but i'm a pretty beefy boy and i do understand that women and those of more delicate frame might like santokus.

i do agree there are sometimes problems with writers going overboard in creativity ... some reviews seem to be much more about the critic's rich interior life than about the food ... but surely you're not advocating a consumer reports style coverage for restaurants? if cooking is an art, then it must be embraced on an artistic level, which calls for impressionistic creative writing. a restaurant is not a honda. without naming names, my local newspaper (not the times), has a critic that reports in a "just-the-facts" manner. each dish is a paragraph and he details every aspect of preparation from ingredient to technique (as derived from an interview with the chef). we do find out that a dish included a sauce that came from sysco and black pepper, but not what it was like or whether it was any good. furthermore, let's not mistake "good entertaining" for "bad entertaining" (the only difference being that one works while the other does not). there is nothing wrong with being entertaining in your writing. in fact, i would say that is a pre-requisite for good criticism. not the only one, to be sure, but a prime one.

this is a very timely post for me because i'm working on a piece on mackerel (mostly purchased from japanese groceries). i have been a little confused by the labeling. here's what i've found (feel free to correct me): Aji, which is usually labeled as Spanish mackerel, is Tracherus japonicus, jack mackerel or horse mackerel, not Spanish mackerel. Sanma is Cololabis saira, saury pike or pike mackerel. True Spanish mackerel (Scomberomorus maculatus) is Sawara. There is also something called Japanese Spanish mackerel, which is Scomberomorus niphonius. King mackerel is Scomberomorus cavalla Saba seems to be a variety of fish. Either Scomber australasicus or Scomber japonicus (one’s I’ve seen seem to be scomber japonicus). anyone have anything to add?

it's important not to paint with too broad a brush when you're talking about these issues. as for bux' last post, neither dorie nor michael hold themselves out as a critic--someone who is supposed to be delivering impartial opinion. they are unreservedly "writers", who are free to indulge whatever passions they may have. furthermore, i think it's critical that patricia wells publishes in france (though, certainly, in an english-language publication). there has always been a major difference of opinion between american critics (who see themselves as consumer reporters, and therefore need to remain anonymous in order to get the "true experience") and french critics (who see themselves as ambassadors of the arts, and therefore want to get the best the chef has to offer in order to better judge it on its true artistic merits).

i almost always blanch the smoked neckbones because without it the smoke is overbearing and can be bitter. blanching the bones gets rid of that. i cook the beans with teh bones in, then remove the bones before serving.

Where are you getting these figures from? sadly, personal experience.

c'mon daniel. let's get real. a good blurb might sell [MIGHT sell] 200 books. at the standard royalty rate, if the book had already earned back the advance, that means $600 (and for most books, that money is strictly theoretical since they never earn back their advance). does that sound like enough money for someone to compromise their integrity?

so that's how she ended up with "hustler's honeys"? thought it was a cookbook? maple syrup... mmmmm. got a book coming out?

sorry lesley, as someone who blurbs and has been blurbed, that is not my understanding at all of what the transaction is. my interpretation is much more like this: "so-and-so sent me the book; i looked at it; it's pretty good; i'll write two sentences." of course, an alternate interpretation could be: "so-and-so sent me the book; it totally blows; but he/she is too important for me to piss off; so i'll write two sentences." regardless, there is not a hint of "my team" or certainly of a financial link. maybe things are different in canada, though, where the people are nicer, eh?

just to be clear: i think some people are attaching much too much weight to a cookbook blurb. it's more like a polite introduction, not like someone has signed on to become a celebrity spokesperson for the book (whether this is as it should be or not is a matter for another debate). i would be willing to bet that if you walked up to any cookbook author and asked them who had blurbed their books, they would be hard-pressed to come up with more than 2 or 3 names--no matter how many books they had written. conversely, my guess is that if you had asked jean-george (before the whole review brouhahah) whether he had blurbed hesser's book, he would have had to check the back cover to find out for sure.

first, hesser was not criticized for mentioning a "friend's" restaurant; she was criticized for mentioning a restaurant owned by someone who had once blurbed one of her books. right or wrong, let's get the facts straight. second, what would have been the preferred construction for ms. wells' sentence? "except at the hands of the chef Joël Robuchon, with whom I wrote the book "Simply French." now, that sounds a whole lot more objectionable to me. rather, what i found grating was the needless name-dropping in the first place. what did robuchon have to do with the story? why mention him at all? it would have been far more elegant just to say "among the best i've ever tasted" and leave it at that.

i've got one and it's one of my favorite kitchen tools. bank up a good fire, put a couple chickens on the spit, 45 minutes later you've got a real feast. on another weber-related matter, i'm in the market for a new 22.5. does anyone have one with that ashcatcher underneath? taht's the one drawback to the weber (along with the fore-mentioned lack of adjustability).

it does seem like some gulleteers need to have their naive-meters checked. let's see: you sign up to do a show on fox(!); it's called hell's kitchen(!); and it's starring Gordon Ramsay(!). these were not innocent victims. they are poor deluded slobs who will do anything to get on tv. in fact, unless i'm mistaken, in the introductory interviews, a couple of the contestants alluded to Ramsay's reputation (a simple google would give them everything they needed to know). furthermore, they were not chosen because of their culinary acumen (obviously), but because they fit a series of "character roles" the producers had in mind when they started. this is totally contrived "reality" television--i.e., the lowest and basest examples of human behavior placed under a microscope and exaggerated. but honestly, where in the world did they come up with dewberry?

it's important to get a few definitions right: vine-ripened and on-the-vine are not the same thing. vine-ripened means the tomatoes are left on the plant to at least breaking stage (when you begin to see pink). on-the-vine means that the tomatoes were clipped with the vines attached. but if the vines are not attached to the roots, there is precious little nutrition available. i think the reason people like tomatoes with the vine attached is a) they look like they should be better; and b) there is a smell to tomato vines and leaves that reinforces the impression of freshness. on-the-vine tomatoes can be just as good as any other supermarket tomato (which, inseason and picked right, isn't bad at all), but they are rarely any better than that.

do check out the zephyrs. i tested them side by side in the showroom and there was quite a difference in noise. But of course, that could be just the way they were set up in the showroom. and that definitely did not include a roof-mounted fan.

even more primitive, i usually make vinaigrette just by tossing some oil/acid/salt right onto the greens and giving them a vigorous tossing. works just fine for dinner.

no. a vinaigrette is by nature an unstable emulsion, not intended to last for more than 5 or 10 minutes.

i put in a zephyr venezia a couple of years ago and havent' regretted it. it moves the amount of air i need and while it's certainly not silent, it is much quieter than the other hoods i tried in teh price range (around $1,000, or so, installed)

i'm normally a pretty basic vinaigrette guy--like paula i soak the minced shallot in vinegar for 5 or 10 minutes to soften it, then add the oil and shake it in a small jar (i've found this makes a smoother, longer-lasting emulsion than whisking or stirring with a fork). but there's a neat technique in bouchon where you emulsify half of the oil with mustard and vinegar in a blender and then add the other half gradually. the result is a vinaigrette that is almost as thick as a mayonnaise--not the one holy vinaigrette, but certainly a nice version.

c'mon, you're telling me that in a city that has frontera, topolobampo, blackbird, charlie t, alinea, moto and who knows what else since the last time i was there, people are still so insecure they care about what a new yorker thinks? now THAT'S midwestern, in my book. everyone in the food world knows that chicago is one of the top food cities in teh us. as far as people getting brainlock, i was a victim of this recently when i was visiting some non-foodie friends in austin. i wanted bbq so they took me to a place they thought i'd like because it was "different" (some good ideas--black sesame seeds in teh cole slaw--some not-so good--pureed pineapple in the sauce). what i really wanted was the the same old, but a great version of it. sometimes people don't appreciate what they know too well.

i don't think you need to salt it heavily at all. in fact, i don't season the skin side until after the fish is cooked (i did it again this weekend--salmon with pea shoots and mushrooms--and i also realized that i usually only cook the salmon on the skin side. then i place it meat-side down on a hot plate to finish cooking while i finish the dish. this results in fish that is just about medium-rare on the meat side while well-done closer to the skin. don't know any way to avoid that part. also, very high heat to start, then immediately reduce the heat to medium, by the time the heat goes down, the skin will be well on the way to crisp. also, i don't use a pan to press the skin down, just press gently with a spatula. that's all it takes.

fennel is one of my favorite vegetables--cooked or raw. i was fixing dinner at some friends' house the other day and made a very simple salad of raw fennel sliced fairly thin (too thick and it can be fibrous; too thin and it gets limp), dressed with just olive oil, a very little garlic and some chopped up fronds. you don't really need to add an acid with fennel, but if you insist, a squirt of lemon would be ok. this is a very standard dish at my house, during the winter i'll serve it 4 or 5 times. it never gets old.

i think it was a pretty shoddy piece of reporting done by someone who was looking for a quick hit-and-run piece. it's a very different thing when you're covering a beat; when you're going to have to go out and talk to folks again and when your reputation means something. i'm very proud of the fact that the people i write about almost always feel they've been treated fairly, even if they don't like what i wrote about them. it's a matter of short-term vs. long-term.

this discussion really has been interesting. what fascinates me the most is what seems to me to be an underlying assumption that chefs--and therefore restaurants--should be held to some sort of ethical standard that goes beyond the job they do (make food that tastes good). i do think the word "celebrity" is a key. it's almost like the "rock-star-ization" of chefs has led to this ... we respect chefs' culinary abilities and therefore we expect that we should respect them in all ways. but for every bono, there's a jessica simpson, and for every alice waters there's somebody with bucks in their eyes (and, of course, in both examples, there's a huge gray area in between).

what a weird argument. sorry for being so blunt, but those are two completely dissimilar situations. a customer has a right to expect a restaurant critic to deliver a fair and impartial review of a meal; all they expect from a chef is something that tastes good and won't make them sick. if the food doesn't taste good because of using bad products they're endorsing, the public will stop going to the restaurant.