russ parsons

i haven't talked to thomas about this in a while, but i do know that eric actually gave notice last spring and had remained on as a personal favor to thomas and the staff to help get the french laundry back up and running. i don't know how long he is/was planning on staying around, but i do know that he has a deal already done to open his own place in washington dc. he certainly isn't bailing, rather, he went out of his way to take one for the team.

it will be fairly obvious. the cap is very thin and you will notice pretty easily that the marrow has turned from hard, almost calcium-like in appearance, to a jelly that wiggles when it is moved.

henderson's technique (which i just tested) worked great and it couldn't be simpler: roast the bone at 450 degrees for about 20 minutes, until the marrow is jellied under the browned cap. that's it. the salad is just chopped parsley and capers.

well said adrober. i haven't eaten at per se, so i wouldn't dream of arguing with your description. but i did have a couple of thoughts: 1) aren't we lucky to live in a world where we don't have to choose between the two styles, or more accurately, where we can? i've had plenty of meals like bertolli describes and i would never want to give them up. but i can't imagine having to give up those amazing flights of fancy that chefs like keller provide, either (incidentally, it's curious that you quote bertolli on this since, personally, he is one of the most cerebral, least earthy chefs i know ... and that's not at all intended to be a criticism). 2) again, i haven't eaten at per se, but i have eaten pretty often at the french laundry and the thing that inspires me about that restaurant is exactly that keller is able to wed the intellectual and the passionate. almost every time i eat there i have a dish that makes me throw back my head with laughter at the surprising combination of flavors and the sheer unexpected deliciousness of it. 3) i seem to recall that you are just beginning your eating adventures. do you think your opinions might change in a couple of years? one of the odd things about eating in this country is that everyone expects to start out an expert. anything that is great takes some learning about (and that's not just for fine dining ... witness the passionate and learned arguments over barbecue). do you think that further down the road and with a little more experience, some of the subtleties that seem cold now might intrigue you more? there is a common pattern in wine appreciation: people start out with cabernets and zinfandels, the bigger and riper the better. then they move on to pinot noir. subtlety takes time and experience to grasp, but that doesn't mean it's bad.

this is certainly true and i should have made that point. it's just that there are so many ways of writing about food these days that recipe writing is only one of them. and maybe even a fairly minor one (speaking as someone who does it himself). i'm perfectly happy with good writers who aren't great cooks and so they collect great recipes from interesting (and hopefully unusual) sources. as long as they're attributed as such.

two thoughts on this: 1) i think you have to be passionately interested in a subject before you can write well about it. i can't imagine being passionately interested in food without having done some cooking. that certainly doesn't mean in a professional kitchen, nor does it mean formal training. But cooking is not brain surgery, not even classical piano playing. the demands of technique are not so high that someone who is interested couldn't master enough basics that they could put together a good meal. i wouldn't trust a food writer who can't make a good vinaigrette. 2) as a writer, you should think of your expertise as a kind of iceberg--only the tip should show. remember that no research is ever wasted, even if it doesn't show up explicitely in the story. i'm convinced that research has a "ghost life" --that even when it's not in a story, the information and the gathering of it informs the story and is discernable to the reader. some people can write very simply and you instinctively trust that they know what they're talking about. other people throw a lot of facts and figures at you and still you're left wondering.

the blackening one usually gets with artichokes is caused by an enzymatic reaction, which should have been prevented by the cooking. maybe they were undercooked? anyway, if it is enzymatic, i haven't noticed much flavor damage from it, though it does look uglier than sin.

let's just say per se is not an unknown quantity and that the manhattan foodies who will be eating there regularly are probably fairly well known. hell, they could probably book those tables just with french laundry regulars.

let's be clear: this is strictly supposition based on one person's interpretation of how he thinks things work. it may or may not resemble reality. it does seem to me that in the case of the diner on this thread who had actually eaten at the restaurant, he didn't seem to have suffered any ill treatment because of his relative lack of celebrity. i do know that restaurants like this will typically hold 3 or 4 tables for regulars--the folks who spend lots of money with them. that seems to me to be reasonable enough. and it does seem quite a leap to associate this with alexander haig getting someone else's reservation cancelled, no? i also know that when i eat at the french laundry, i almost always get a 6 or a 6:30 reservation. that way i have plenty of time to enjoy the meal and be out by 12:30 or 1. a couple times a year, i like my boring fine dining and i like it to last a long time.

there may have been something of a gasp, i don't remember. it also could have had something to do with the food. in 30 years of banquet dining, i can't recall a more disastrous dinner (and that includes my days as a sportswriter!). seriously, jacques is a great favorite of many members of the association, as well he should be. and anytime there is a competition like that, people like to try to figure the conspiracy (the italians have a perfect phrase that translates something like "the secret truth" ... which does not necessarily have anything to do with the facts). there was something similar with my book. people repeatedly told me before the awards that i was a shoe-in because a) i was a journalist and people would be trying to curry favor; b) i had spent so many years on the judging committee; c) i was nominated in two categories. nah. shut-out, 0-2. THE BASTARDS! but it was an honor just being nominated ... as for this particular award, i was split. amanda is a friend. i don't know jacques quite as well, but his book editor is my book editor and a dear friend. personally, i liked both books but thought both books had some flaws. more to the point of this discussion, perhaps, it is hard to think of anything in any awards competition that could shock me anymore.

all awards are weird and meaningless, unless you win one. i've experienced that from both sides of the aisle, as a judge and having had a book nominated (and articles, of course). i was a founding member of the iacp cookbook committee, at least in its current incarnation (there was an earlier competition that splintered off amid much bickering and eventually became the beard cookbook awards). this was probably 15 years ago, i and a half-dozen or so other cookbook writers, journalists and cooking teachers gathered for a week in louisville (actually, seemed like three). they locked us in a conference room and we developed the competition from scratch. it was a very interesting process. we created the categories and defined them, created the steps of the judging, created the ballots that determined what the books would be judged on. each step was carefully debated to ensure the best possible result and, certainly, the most ethical. when we were done, we were well satisfied that we had created a model competition. basically, three judges are assigned to each category (they don't know who each other are). The books are sent out and the judges read them and score them on a variety of factors. those ballots go back to the accountants and they come up with the top finalists (three, i believe, or maybe 5). a list of those finalists are then sent back to the judges, who are supposed to cook a minimum of three dishes from each book, and then re-score them. finally, those scores are tallied. that said, i don't think there has been a year go by where at least 2 or 3 categories struck me as just impossibly weird decisions (and i'll certainly include the two years i was chairman of the committee--when i hand-picked every judge). there is just something that happens in a process like that that leads to unexpected results. and that is even without teh supreme court's assistance. oddly, i don't recall an instance where the result seemed to be the result of prejudice, just bad (in my opinion) decision making. the list of the judges are published, but they're in the program which, i think, i tossed. in general, they are journalists, cookbook writers, cooking teachers who don't have a book published in that year.

i wouldn't dream of arguing with your right to criticize her judgement. i haven't eaten at those restaurants, so i can't say whether i agree with you. my only quibble--and this may seem picayune to anyone but another journalist--is that you should be criticising her judgement, not her qualifications to make that judgement. there's a difference between saying "i don't agree" and "you're less qualified than I to make that criticism." has amanda made bad calls on restaurants? perhaps. if so, does she have the background to know better? almost certainly. to me, that's an important distinction. and as for the times surviving this, i think if they can get past howell raines, jayson blair and, hell, judith miller, they can get past this.

soba, i'm sorry if you feel i misquoted you. personally, even after re-reading, i don't think i did. let's be clear about our definitions: "informed and credible" pertains to knowledge and background--the facts of the review and the credentials of the critic. you can disagree--even violently--with someone whose opinion is informed and credible (in my experience, actually, those are the best arguments). a one-star review for Asiate is not a "stylistic problem" but it is a matter of judgement (referred to in my original quote). she just didn't like the restaurant. if she had said, for example, that lumpia originally comes from careme (to pull an absurd example out of my ... hat), then that would go to informed. if she had only limited experience eating in good restaurants, then that would go to credible. and while it is true that some folks on the gullet disagreed with her spice market rating, i will repeat that another "informed and credible" critic gave it only 1/2 star less--hardly worth a four-page dissection. as for her controversial review of montrachet, sorry, i don't know of anyone (other than, possibly, drew nieporent) who believes that that has been a three-star restaurant for several years. furthermore, i'm a little confused as to "I feel that the position is suitable more towards a writer who's been around for quite some time, with the appropriate skill set". let's see: trained at la varenne; well-travelled; well-informed on ingredients, techniques and trends; author of two books; six or seven years at the times ... what exactly is missing from that skill set? except that you don't agree with her. criticize amanda's critical judgement or her literary style, but i really don't think you can criticize her credentials. that's all i'm trying to get at.

i've chimed in too many times here defending amanda. she is a friend. but soba, you've got to be kidding me. "if she were informed and credible"? that's absurd. of course she is. no one has quibbled with any of the facts of her reviews. they have argued with her judgement, both of her choice of restaurants and of her evaluation of those restaurants (which are valid, though it does seem to me that the difference between her 3 stars for spice market and somebody else's 2 1/2 stars is far from decisive). what you cite as problems are stylistic, not substantive (which is not to say that they should be ignored, just that they don't go to either "informed or credible"). i think amy has hit the nail on the head (bad pun considering amanda's lack of girth, i guess). nobody seemed to mind her when she was dong reporting. it was the latte stuff that lit the firestorm. i said then and i'll say now that those were not my favorite pieces of hers, but i did admire her for trying a new approach. and just to point out that mileage may vary, her book collecting those was named the best book of the year in the literary category at the iacp, as judged by a panel of journalists, chefs and cookbook writers.

it's usually just amanda. she makes people foam, for some reason.

brooks, my memory of the softshells at galatoires was that they had a very definite crust. is that incorrect? when i did a recipe last year, i tried the one from their book, but even i found it too thick. i added a lttle more milk (iirc) to thin it and it worked gloriously. though a friend who cooked it said it was too thick for her.

and i'll respectfully disagree again, with a somewhat contrarian view. i like the milk, egg, flour crust sometimes. it gives you a good solid crunch and i haven't noticed it interfering with the crab flavor. i do love softshells and homemade tartar sauce.

are you sure about that? i know the great east broadway is closed, but i was positive i ate at a stubb's barbecue that was out about 50th street. kind of weird location. big hall where they also had music. i may hallucinate about stubb's barbecue, but i'm usually aware that i'm doing it. check this out: http://www.interoz.com/lubbock/stubhist.htm

that's exactly my recollection. most folks order beef ribs there, which i consider an abomination. i will repeat my recommendation of stubb's barbecue, if only for historical reasons. when i lived in lubbock (uh, 25 years ago), this was one of the most amazing places on earth. great bbq and stubb was a great fan of musicians, who repaid his interest by coming in to play a 25-seat bbq joint on their nights off. regulars were guys like joe ely, butch hancock, jimmie dale gilmore, stevie ray vaughn, los lobos, terry allen, etc., but i also saw ray charles play piano there one night, and ate ribs with muddy waters! that place is long gone (though there is a statue of stubb in its place ... drive out east broadway and you'll see it). the current stubbs barbecue is much bigger and somewhat more corporate-seeming (granted, most anything would be more corporate-seeming than the original stubbs). but i took my daughter back 4-5 years ago when her godfather [just bragging: jd gilmore] was inducted into the west texas music hall of fame and the bbq was quite acceptable.

i'm sure there are people better advised than i on this list. but there's good Q and good tex-mex in dallas. is stephen pyles' place still open? i've always liked him and his food (his mom and dad used to run a truck stop in big spring where i always stopped back in my sportswriting days).

i haven't been back to lubbock in several years, but i believe stubb's barbecue is still open. it's not what it used to be (or even where it used to be), but i found it to be much more than a shadow of its former self. there is also a county line barbecue and as i recall it was much prettier, but i can't say i ever cared that much for their food.

i buy my coffee from supreme bean here in southern california. they sell in 1/2-pound vacuum-sealed pouches, which works out perfectly for me. with a one-pound pouch, halfway through i'd have to adjust the grinder one stop finer in order to get the right espresso. the 1/2-pound pouch eliminates that. i store them in the freezer until i open them, then keep them on the countery in a sealed container. probably not the very best way, but it works just fine.

uh, sorry, nope. he opened primi, though donato potto ran the door. as for the claim on the website, i think piero would probably be embarrassed that someone was saying that on his behalf. i think he can safely be described as "one of the founders of modern high-end italian restaurant cooking in america." and you can still get a pretty damned good meal there, particularly if you order the tasting menu.

which is why we have multi-page threads of speculation, advice, criticism, etc., whenever zagat comes out, right? fact of the matter is, nobody likes restaurant critics but everybody reads them. everybody thinks they could do better, whether it is the avid foodie who is convinced he knows more about the esthetics of fine dining, or the "regular guy" who is positive he knows where to find better food for a whole lot less money. that's just hte nature of the job. the important thing is: they're both reading them.

just fyi, a note from laura cunningham, who runs hte front-of-the-house for both per se and french laundry and as much of a lunatic perfectionist in her way as thomas is: "we had over 2000 calls to make to reschedule people with very hectic and busy schedules..it takes approximately 3 calls to the same person to reschedule...." seems to me, that's a pretty heroic attempt to do the right thing. it may be that there were things they could have done better, but i can't even think of another restaurant that would have done that much.