Robert Schonfeld

Steve, I'd like to believe that you are saying these things stylistically, as a means of provoking argument, not that you actually believe them to be true, which they aren't. A number of us have replied on this subject. Repeating a declarative statement that is so unsupportable as to be simply silly doesn't help us to learn or to understand each other better. Neither does the proposition of an absolute, international standard. Everyone has already conceded that French food - sorry, cuisine - dominates the international fine dining establishment. To insist that it is universally better only detracts from the other accomplishments of your argument. I'm willing to believe that you win most of your arguments, but I'm also willing to believe you win them on style rather than substance. What do you say we drop this unproductive line and go out to lunch? Where do you go for paella in NYC?

And fashionable language and couture and art and design and on and on. This is the really interesting topic. Unless, of course, we have to go back to cheap eats vs haute cuisine. How and why? Inquiring minds want to know.

I don't question the culinary dominance of France in the modern era (in western culture), Steve. Whether or not your theory about geography is right is something else; I'm not a geographic historian. I did ask about the "why", and I do think this would make a very interesting discussion for knowledgeable parties, one from which I would be sure to learn. A longstanding fashion for things French has been suggested, and I agree with that idea, as one among others. The Italians were most definitely modernists in art, Steve, although no one is going to argue that Paris was not the center of the modern art world until WWII. Names you might know include Amadeo Modigliani and Giorgio De Chirico, among many others. I will gladly make you a good risotto. But suggesting that it will not be as good as a paella serves no purpose. You might as well ask if it will be as good as a chicken mole. Greatness can be found in complex cooking. Greatness can also be found in simple cooking. I think we've been here before. We don't have to agree on this.

Again we'd prefer that more people believed this nonsense, so that property values in Tuscany would decline.

Ok, so I'm not going to convince Steve that greatness can be inherent in simplicity (as opposed to cheapness), but I thank Wilfrid for cogently restating some of the ideas I expressed, including the important one about fashion. (Beware, out there, you fashion victims...) As for "nobody caring", well, we'd like to keep it that way. Bux and Cabrales, maybe one day I'll make some risotto for you. It will suffice in terms of articulation simply to make low moaning sounds.

I'm game, but my place is too small. How many can you accommodate, Bux?

More complex, sure. Better in an absolute sense, no. I don't hold myself out as an expert, just someone who's eaten a lot. Two fundamental reasons that I know of: -Italian food is based, as you have understood, on simplicity and emphasis on the quality of ingredients, rather than on complexity. This is intent, not accident or failure. -Italian meals are served as separate components, again, in order to emphasize the essential qualities of each component. For saying this, your picture will be posted in kitchens all over Italy, and not in a good way. For all its simplicity in conception, risotto (which can contain many ingredients) is extremely difficult to prepare expertly. I would offer to do it for you, but you seem irredeemably recalcitrant (also in a good way).

I think French cuisine "wins" because there is a market-driven predisposition towards it, just as there is for French painting and French furniture. Hardly anyone can explain why he or she prefers a Monet hanging above a Louis XV bombe commode, perhaps with a T'ang horse on it, to any other such combination; they just do. This is what I was getting at when I asked Steve about his familiarity with the marketplace. But I don't think it is helpful to look at these issues in terms of "winning". None of us Hatfields will ever concede to you McCoys that Tuscan beans are in any way "losers" to, or less interesting than, or less rewarding to make than cassoulet. I think this idea is a disservice to both dishes. Maybe the best conversation, or the best article, would be a comparative one, taking into account historical, social, economic, political factors.

So - and I'm really trying to understand here - is Steve's point that complex French technique is more popular on egullet, or in the United States? If so, that's maybe not so surprising. Since all will agree, I think, that complex food wherever it is found is worthy of analysis, I'm curious why complex French cuisine is more popular than complex Mexican cuisine, as exemplified, for purposes of this discussion, by Blue Heron's Mole sauce. The dominance of European tradition and descent in the U. S.in relation to the restaurant and food service businesses? An opportunity for culinary anthropology?

One of the reasons I go to "high end" restaurants is specifically to have an experience I know I will never have at home. But analyzing what I am eating is the last thing on my mind, unless sensory perception that is as complex as the food is considered analytical. Maybe this is a right side of the brain/left side of the brain kind of thing. I am still interested in thoughts about "high and low". Is the opposite of haute cuisine college food in Ohio? Is it dim sum in Vancouver? Why is French culture the epitome of "high"? Does the entire world believe this, or is there another point of view that values another culture as "high"? What is "high", anyway?

Steve, conceding that it *is* a different discussion, and noting your aptitude for sensing the marketplace, I would ask for your thoughts - and others' - on why that is the case. Why, in the context you have stipulated, namely the sort of discussion we have here (am I stating the context accurately?), French over Mexican? French over Chinese? French over Italian? High over low? Complex over simple? Expensive over cheap? Why is that? Is the other way around: Mexican over French; perfecting mole over perfecting gratins, etc., the dominant interest elsewhere? Where?

Granted, and I think we understand each other. I just wanted to draw the distinction.

Steve, does this mean that there are fewer words necessary to thoroughly discuss how to properly boil an egg, and more words necessary to discuss how to make eggs benedict, or does it mean that eggs benedict is worthy of more words? Here I disagree. I think that scarcely any home cooks have mastered the few basic techniques for, and make on a regular basis, impeccable scrambled eggs. Pepin has repeatedly demonstrated these techniques, along with others, such as the proper butchering for poulet pour saute. They are riveting to watch, as much so as watching him make a pithiviers or a bouche do noel. I do, however, agree with you that, demographically, amongst readers of food-related writing, more people may be interested in reading and discussing complex, rather than simple cooking. While this may drive editors' assignments, I'm not sure what else it says about anything.

Substituting the word "discuss" for "analyze", my answer would be: quality. It's all about quality, whether the eggs are boiled or golden.

As usual, the FG asks so many of the right questions. For the record, I am as interested in reading about boiling eggs or making burgers as I am reading about making puff pastry from scratch (any of you non-professionals ever try that?) Someone has already said that so much depends on who is doing the writing. I am also more interested in experiencing great simple food than I am interested in experiencing great complex food *on a regular, ongoing basis*. Not that the latter isn't a real enjoyment for me; it is. One problem is that the opportunities for doing the latter are very limited, and going to ADNY, or any of the small handful of distinguished fine dining establishments in the city once a week just isn't my style. (It might be an interesting question on the side to wonder what kind of appreciation is accorded the experience at these places by people who are the once a week or more regulars in these places. The same, or different than that of writers here, and why?) Btw, I've been to Dinosaur, a Syracuse legend, a bunch of times. Real smoked wood pit barbecue - and good blues.

If there's a pizza field trip in the offing, may I ask to be included? Has anyone ever had pizza in Italy? The current Gourmet reviews an Italian restaurant in LA (LA!) where the proprietor is said to make real Roman pizza, without saying what that is. To me, it's a very long, thin-crusted rectangle light on tomato, cut into smaller rectangles or squares, or it's "pizza bianca" - just cheese - often baked in the same way. The technique for stretching the dough into the long rectangle is tricky. Further to an aspect of the debate at hand, is pizza "cheap eats", or high quality simple food, or both? Can eating simple food in a restaurant ever be fine dining? Do others consider it very interesting to learn the nuances of producing simple food that may also be cheap eats?

One reads often of chefs having the ability to "get the most from" or "concentrate" or "intensify" the flavor of an ingredient. My interest in this right now applies to vegetables. Can anyone offer ideas about how to achieve such results? For example, in making a puree of peas, what method or technique might one use to get the deepest, richest flavor? Does it involve a particular treatment of the ingredient itself, or perhaps the addition of another ingredient which brings out the flavor of the principal ingredient? For example, Bugialli points out that basil is added to a basic tomato sauce not for its own flavor, but to bring out the fuller flavor of the tomatoes. All comments, advice, suggestions welcomed.

I'm sitting here before leaving for the dreaded barbecue. Nothing like standing around in near-100 degree heat watching someone commit a crime with a gas grill. I think the FG is right that Steve's post gets at fundamental differences in the appreciation of food. For me, there is as much to appreciate from a sensory - and even from a critical - standpoint, in a superbly well-prepared hamburger, or, dare I say it, in a plate of handmade tagliatelle touched with the juices from a veal roast, as there is in Adria's golden egg or his deconstructed brioche. There may not be as much to analyze, but there is as much pleasure, albeit of a dramatically different sort. I would tend to agree with Steve that, while what he calls "cheap eats", and what I would call "simple food" is perhaps less of a challenge analytically, it nevertheless remains for me a passion with considerable reward. Not that I won't someday take the cab ride to El Bulli, but I'd do the same - I've done the same - in anticipation of a perfectly fried plate of baby squid out of the water less than ten minutes.

Morgan Manhattan delivers. It's only money...

I use Morgan Manhattan in Queens for my few things. We recently had a number of bottles from the first case deposited there 25 years ago. They were in perfect condition.

Many thanks for the fine dispatch, Robert. Where else but here could we get such reliable, intensive, evocative reporting? I'm looking forward to your next installment.

This vignette, particularly in contrast to the most charming anecdote about the Chinese couple, brings to mind the importance for me of service in a restaurant. While there is no doubt that diners who are regulars deserve and will receive an exceptional level of attention, it is the occasional customer, whose sensitivity and appreciation for the experience may well be as great or greater than the regulars, who is at times treated less than well. I'm reminded of the elaborate and, apparently, successful, efforts of liziee to make herself known at places she favors. What I'm wondering is, should it be necessary to go to any lengths at all to receive a level of service that is commensurate with the way in which the establishment represents itself to its entire target market? Not that the guy at Bouley deserved to be treated like a member of the family, but did he not deserve the professional attention of the waitstaff to the extent that his request for the check would have noticed and acted upon the first time?

Oh, yes, SuzanneF, so many places worth going to and sure to be enjoyable. Mazal and I do it all the time. My comments were just my own point of view on the Italian dining scene in NY as it might relate to the "gotta go there" idea. I appreciate your observation about thread wandering, and all I can say is that I was never good at accepting discipline. As for "gotta go there", in one sense, none except Alan Ducasse, because, as I understand it, the experience is literally unique in New York and therefore, to a person who likes to eat and enjoys the restaurant experience, worth a look. In another sense, this idea is also probably true of a couple of hundred places I don't even know about; places which, if not unique, are representative of the best of their kind; maybe an extension the the FG's idea of the best pasta here, the best fish there, the best wine list another place. In this sense, I am a follower of Calvin Trillin. I'm lookin' for that piece of pie.

What the FG says on the subject of Italian restaurants in New York is largely accurate. If you are stuck having to go to one of these places, it's worthwhile knowing what your best bet might be. None of them, though, is in the "gotta go" category. The ones I suggested will at least provide a satisfying full meal. As for Il Mulino, the crowd, the noise, the wait, the prices charged for the crowd, the noise, the wait; not for me. I'll decline the new thread and bow out here. The subject is too depressing.

There are no authentic Italian restaurants in New York City. Roberto's would be considered an authentic Italian-American restaurant. If you want good Italian food, try Felidia, Babbo, Fiamma Osteria or San Domenico.