Daniel Rogov

The gauntlet has been thrown down and who am I to refuse an attractively thrown gauntlet? Let me open by saying that in addition to being by profession a restaurant and wine critic, there are very few things in this life that I love more dearly than dining out. As a result of that love and what I hope is my professionalism, it is not unreasonable to also think of me as a client critic, for as restaurateurs and chefs have an obligation to their clients, so do clients have obligations to restaurateurs and those who work in restaurants as well as to the other clients in the restaurant in which they are dining. My client complaints fall into several broad categories and those might be dealt with regarding how diners relate to their personal behavior, the way they relate to the staff of the restaurant, the way they relate to the food that is served them and the way in which they relate to wine. (a) It takes only a few minutes before I come to actively despise those people who decide that a public restaurant is the place to carry on either their business or personal discussions and/or arguments at a volume and in a tone of voice that cannot help but be overheard by others who are not the least bit interested in their potential to earn millions, to divorce or murder their spouses, or the condition of their hemorrhoids.. Silence is surely not golden but a bit of discretion is always in order! (b) I have no objection at all to cellular telephones in their place but that place is not sitting on a table in a fine restaurant waiting for its not-so-dulcet tones to make themselves heard by all and sundry around. When I see people walk into a restaurant and each of them places a cell phone on the table I am reminded of the Wild West when people would place their pistols on the table. I think I would prefer pistols! If one is a doctor on call, a president or a prime minister I forgive the use of the cell phone but even those notables should have a courtesy ring (one that vibrates and does not ring aloud) and when answering their calls should walk to the lounge area or if necessary out-of-doors. We mere mortals should either turn our phones off or arrange as well for a courtesy ring. © With specific regard to the issue of bringing children to restaurants. I have no problem when that is done in mass-market restaurants but see no valid reason for bringing neonates, infants or children who cannot enjoy fine food to fine restaurants. That is what God made baby-sitters for! Nor is there any reason at any time to bring children to any restaurant if those children are not capable of at least acceptable behavior. I adore children but sometimes in restaurants with kids running around tripping waiters, annoying diners, making huge amounts of noise and sometimes hurling silverware and other potential deadly objects through the air I am tempted, as Oscar Wilde once did, to beckon the waiter and ask him to "please strangle the child". (d) I am not fond of people who insist on starting cross-discussions with strangers at other tables. It is inappropriate to ask others what they thought of their portions, to comment on their clothing or to otherwise interfere with their pleasure. (e) I am all for laughter. Laughing is even good for our health. I am, however, opposed to those who guffaw loudly in restaurants. (f) It does not take me very long to start having death-wishes directed towards people who chew with their mouths open. (g) I think there should be special torture chambers established (I exaggerate but only a bit) for clients who treat waitstaff as inferiors. There is no excuse to perceive waitstaff as servants or to speak rudely to them. There is no reason whatever for clients to touch waitstaff of the opposite sex (men are far more guilty of this than women), no reason to snap one's fingers or wave one's arms to gain attention (no matter how difficult it may be to gain the waiter's attention). Nor is there any reason to comment about the size of the breasts, thighs, backside or other parts of the anatomy of a waitperson. (The exception to touching of course is at the end of the meal, if the service has truly added to your pleasure, of shaking the hand of and thanking the waitperson) (h) We could discuss the logic and justice of tipping forever, but this is not the place for that. I will say though that in places where tipping is the practice I am not fond of people who undertip or fail to tip. Granted, if service is terribly poor, a smaller tip or perhaps in rare cases no tip at all is called for, but when service is adequate in places where the waitstaff work hard for their living, so should the tip be appropriate. I am also not fond of people who ask waitstaff members to do special favors and conveniently "forget" at the end of the meal that this extra effort should also be rewarded. (Before anyone attacks me on this, I much prefer the European system where service is automatically included, but in places where it is not or if the "service charge" goes largely to the owner of the restaurant, I am in favor of rewarding fine service with apporopriate tips. Keep in mind please that in many places waitstaff members receive very minimal wages and their true earnings come in their tips) (i) I do not appreciate clients who complain in a loud and/or vulgar fashion. When complaints are in order they should be presented calmly and quietly to the person in charge of the restaurant at the time of the visit. If no satisfaction is gained from that, a follow-up letter is in order. If no satisfaction is gained from that we have the simple and quiet revenge of neither returning to that establishment nor of recommending it to our friends. (j) I do not appreciate clients who have reserved tables in advance, arrive late and then complain about why their table was not held for them. Clients should know that if they arrive more than 15 minutes late their table may well have been given to someone else. If unavoidably delayed that problem can easily be circumvented by phoning the restaurant and telling them that you will be a bit late. (k) I believe that any dish can be returned if it proves inferior. That means though that the client needs take no more than a bite or two from the portion before calling over the waiter and asking for the dish to be replaced. People who have eaten half or more of a portion should not expect the dish to be replaced. (l) I also believe that bottles of wine can be returned once opened and offered for tasting but that only on the condition that the replacement is requested because the wine is in some way "off" and not because the client does not find it to his/her taste. I also believe that a single smelling of and sip or two of any wine should be quite adequate to determine whether the wine has gone off. It is perfectly acceptable in cases where the person tasting is not sure to ask one of his/her companions to taste as well, but that's the limit. It's like in the antique store – break it and you've purchased it. Drink it and it's yours!!! (m) I have a particular dislike of people who order, taste and return 2 , 3 or 4 bottles of wine, claiming that they are all off. In 99% of all cases that is done not because the wine is truly bad but because the person ordering is trying to show off for someone. In addition to being unfair to the restaurant, that is simply boorish behavior. Methinks the list could go on but indeed, enough for now and despite all of the above, I must say that when dining out I almost invariably manage to enjoy myself rather thoroughly. One of my defense mechanisms against people who behave in the above mentioned manners is quite simple – they simply cease to exist for me.

First of all, Bravo to Food Tutor, for she is doing nothing more than surviving and holding on to her job by playing the game by the rules set for her. In restaurants of the type descrbied by Food Tutor, the fault is not that of the waitstaff but of the owners, managers and consultancy teams they have built. I will say though that restaurants like that receive my trade twice - the first and the last time! Among my own pet peeves - 1. Walking into a restaurant at which I am a total stranger and someone greeting me with a hyper-warm and solicitious "Hi, and how are you today?" as if they know about some terrible and probably fatal disease I have and may not even know about myself. 2. Being told the name of the waitperson. I respect waiters and waitresses enormously when they do their job well and I am well aware of the very hard work that they have (physically and psychologically). Frankly though, I care no more about their names than I do about their marital status, the health of their mothers, or whatever problem they may be having with their automobiles. My portion of that contract is to behave like a gentleperson, to pay my bill, to leave an appropriate tip (in places where that is the custom). 3. Related to the above, I'm all for warmth but am all against familiarity. I acknowledge that waiters and waitresses are not my servants but we have entered into a kind of social contract - that it is their responsibility to present my food and to aid me in whatever problems I may have while in their care, and not to become "pals". (Don't misunderstand - at meals when the service is especially good I am the first, on the way out, to thank the waitperson and, if it seems appropriate, to shake their hand..... I will not, however, give them my business card) 4. Almost as bad as the waitperson with problems with peripheral vision (he/she never sees you until it is convenient for them) is the one who hovers over you asking continuously whether "all is well" or some variation on that theme. No civilized person can enjoy dining when interupted every few minutes with questions that are asked entirely out of rote. 5. In my role as restaurant critic one of the things I do on entering a restaurant (any restaurant, no matter whether the most prestigious or the simplest) is to stand at the door and time the number of seconds or minutes Ihave to wait until someone greets me. I don't give a hoot how busy a restaurant is at any given moment...someone should be there to greet incoming clients. Enough of a mini-rant. And believe me, when someone starts an appropriate thread I can also come up with a long, long list of things that irk me to the point of screaming when it comes to customers.

Three points, perhaps a bit off -topic but still perhaps relevant: 1. Fast food is not and should not be taken as synonymous with junk food. I object to junk food in every possible form, but let us consider that included in various parts of the world as "fast food items" might well be oysters, New Orleans spiced shrimp, felafel, shwarma (or, if one prefers donner kebab), beignets, knockwurst and other sausage sandwiches, sushi, dim sum, and a host of other items all of which, when prepared well from fine ingredients can make for superb dining experiences. Perhaps our objections should thus be not to "fast" bug to "junk" foods. 2. Might we also consider that one meal daily of "junk food" might do our children relatively little harm? As Gael Greene of New York Magazine wrote many years ago "...even a McDonald's hamburger comes with at least some lettuce and tomato on it and contains a decent amount of proteins and other nutrients" . Me wonders (I do like using that phrase from time to time) whether that BigMac will do them any more harm than the peanut butter and jelly, salami or tinned tuna with mayonnaise sandwiches on "white bread" that they bring with them from home. I suspect that there are a good many of us here (myself included) for whom there are fond memories of school lunches of humongous hero sandwiches of ham, cheese, lettuce, tomato, tons of mustard or of the Issac Gellis, Sabrett or Hebrew national hot dogs gulped down on rolls and laded with rather enormous quantities of sauerkraut, fried spiced onions, ketchup, mustard, mayonnaise and just about anything else we could pack onto the top of those rolls. May I ask that we also keep in mind another of Gael Green's aphorisms: "In the heart of every gourmet lies the soul of a fast-food junkie" . Heck, I know that Sabrett's hot dogs are not "good for me" but whenever I'm in New York City one of my great pleasures is to start off at the Grand Central Oyster Bar with a dozen oysters (lemon only thank you) and then to find one of those hot-dog carts and have two dogs loaded (as I did as a child) with just about everything that I can get on top of the hot dog without making an absolute fool of myself or a mess of my clothing. Finally, with a nod toward the future, there will be those of us who start off on McDonalds and eventually graduate to Tournedos Rossini and there will be those who do not. But now we are getting away from food and into issues that have their basis in psychology, sociology, anthropology, aesthetics, economics, and moral philosophy....and this is surely not the place for that.

I finally got to see the film. Truth is I've been in cities in the USA and Europe where it was showing but waited until it came to Tel Aviv. My problem with the film has nothing to do with McDonalds. My problem with the film is that it is blatantly anti-intellectual, so blatant in fact that I might even call it unintelligent. I admit that although I consider the fare of McDonald's vastly far from excellent in any way, I have no objection whatever either to their existence or to those who care to dine there. I cannot admire those who choose to dine at McDonald's three times daily but then again, I would not admire the fool who dined on lobster Thermidor, tournedos Rossini and crepes Suzette three times daily either. In either case, blaming McDonald's is something oddly akin to blaming the chef who prepares my lobster Thermidor. As to the film - I do not mind that the film is anti-McDonald's. That is the director/film-maker's privilege. What I mind is the simplistic and totally anti-intellectual approach to the subject. The film has set out to document something - in this case that dining at McDonald's three times a day and always accepting the larger portions is foolish. That is not something that needs documentation - it is obvious in the same way that saying that drinking three bottles of wine daily is not good for one's health or that driving blindfolded on a superhighway might offer a certain modicum of danger. Only idiots would do such things and only anti-intellectual idiots would do it in the name of making a film. Not defending McDonald's! Defending a bit of intelligence.

Ye gods, good people - we have omitted to date two of the world's most splendiferous sandwiches: Peanut butter and bacon and peanut butter and banana. As to the chow mein sandwiches referred to earlier, I remember about 2,000 years ago when Nathan's Famous in Coney Island served those (on the same side of the shop selling lobster rolls). Trick was to start off (ideally at about 11 p.m. on a cold winter's night) with two hot-dogs (lots of mustard), go on to two orders of French fries (more mustard if you came from Brooklyn, catchup if from other parts of New York), go on to at least two each of lobster rolls and chow mein sandwiches, and then return to two more hot-dogs. Curious.....does Nathan's still serve chow mein sandwiches?

Because of time limitations tonight (deadlines beckon and I am getting ready for a trip abroad), let me just say for the moment that the dish named after the Marquis de Sade was done so by chef Georges Blanc and for several years was listed on his menu when the restaurant was still called "La Mere Blanc" at Vonna. The dish, "cuisses de grenouilles a la Sade" was of frogs' legs with cream and shallots. The Sacher torte is named after Franz Sacher, the conditore who used his money to build the Hotel Sacher (the Vienna located conditoria, the torte, and the hotel are still extraordinarily popular) The dish named after Humbert Humbert was done so by a chef whose name has been lost to history working in an Istanbul restaurant who playfully renamed the traditional meatball dish kadin budu kofte after Humbert. (The joke of course is that "kadin budu kofte" translates as "Young womens' thighs")

Jackal, Hello... As to certified perverts, let it not be mine but societies' to make those judgements in this case. Truth is that I find some of the people so "listed" to have been really quite charming. Among those on the list: The Marquis de Sade, Vlad Dracula, Atilla the Hun, Lucky Luciano, Lizzie Borden, Adolph Hitler (I will NOT give the recipes for that one!), Meyer Lansky and Humbert Humbert.

Melissa, Hi... Before we start on this long route, two comments: (1) Certified checks or cash only (and if cash I invite a banker to check each note to make sure there are no counterfeits) (2) Let us all keep in mind that many of the recipes named after these illustrious and not-so-illustrious characters are based on the most classic and thus often quite outmoded rules of traditional French cuisine. That does not imply that they should not be made in their originals. In fact, going that route can be great fun. As to Ludwig - A Light Meal with Ludwig the Mad Daniel Rogov In a recent book, Heidelberg University history professor Albert Werner suggests that Ludwig II of Bavaria was not deposed from his throne so much because he was insane but because his behavior "was embarrassing to those who thought their king should present himself in a more dignified manner". Ludwig was possessed by a psychotic lifelong passion for designing and building fairytale castles. He was also, as one of his generals wrote, "a man possessed of an un- imaginable genius for making others feel ridiculous". In his personal life as well as in the political sphere, Ludwig was taken to doing things on impulse. Theodor Hierneis, a cook at Ludwig's court described the king as a man of "unapproachable grandeur". Hierneis also wrote that "the whims of the king were enough to make any of us mad". Hierneis was referring to the frequent impulses which would make the king leave his residence in Munich and go off to one of his numerous palaces or hunting lodges in the Bavarian Alps. Since the king expected formal meals wherever he went, the kitchen staff was forced to precede him with "the necessary cooking utensils, tablecloths linen napkins, and an entire service of fine China plates" and often had to work in primitive and makeshift surroundings. Even mealtimes were erratic, for Ludwig sometimes rose for break- fast at about 6 in the afternoon, often took dinner at two in the morning and then had a light supper at 6 or 7 a.m. In addition to having to turn night into day the royal cooks also had to always prepare food for four, because even when Ludwig dined alone he imagined himself to be in the company of French kings. To further complicate matters, Ludwig insisted that all of his meals be served in the style of Louis XIV. Ludwig enjoyed his meals but, because he had tooth trouble, his chefs had to create delicacies made of finely minced ingredients so that the king could enjoy them. On June 13,1885, Ludwig dined in his favorite hunting cabins in the Tirol. The meal started off with a consomme with liver dumplings, hechtenkraut, a traditional favorite of German royalty and trout with Hollandaise sauce. After a lemon sorbet, Ludwig continued with chicken fricassee, a pate made from wild venison meat and peas. The desserts included fruits in wine jelly and vanilla ice cream with orange sauce. After dinng, Ludwig complemented his servants on the quality of the meal. One year later, after he had been declared insane and deposed from his throne, Ludwig drowned in a lake near the cabin he had once enjoyed so much. After allis said and done, it may be that Ludwig's major failing was that he behaved more like a romantic Wagnerian hero than a 19th century monarch. Following are two recipes, the first dedicated to Ludwig by his devoted cook Hierneis Consomme Ludwig 5 slices white bread, with crusts, cut into dice 1 cup lukewarm milk 350 grams liver, with all membranes and blood vessels removed 50 grams kidney fat 1 small onion 2 eggs 1 teaspon salt pinch of marjoram rind of 1 lemon, grated about 1 cup breadcrumbs 8 cups beef consomme Soak the bread in warm milk for 15 minutes and then squeeze out the excess milk by hand. In a food processor or blender grind together the bread, liver, kidney fat and onion. Stir in the eggs, salt, marjoram and lemon rind and gradually add the breadcrumbs, a tablespon at a time, until the mixture is firm enough to be shaped into dumplings, each about 4 centimeters in diameter. (The dump- lings can be most easily made if the hands are wet). Bring the beef consomme to a boil and into this gently drop the dumplings. Reduce to a low simmer and cook uncovered until the dumplings float to the top (15 - 20 minutes). Serve the dumplngs in the soup. (Serves 6 - 8). Hechtenkraut 1 kilo sole fillets 1 medium onion, sliced 2 stalks celery, with leaves 8 peppercorns 1/4 teaspoon salt 12 slices bacon, diced 2 medium onions, chopped coarsely 1 cup dried breadcrumbs 1 1/2 kilos sauerkraut 1/2 cup butter 3 tablespoons flour 1/2 cup sour cream salt and paprika to taste 1/2 kilo shrimp, boiled and shelled In a heavy saucepan with water to cover poach the sole fillets together with the sliced onion, celery, peppercorns and teaspoon of salt. When the fish flakes easily to the touch of a fork remove it gently from the liquids. Strain and set aside the liquids. In a large heavy skillet fry the bacon and in the fat saute the chopped onions until they are golden brown. Butter a 6 cup souffle dish and with 1/4 cup of the breadcrumbs coat the bottom and sides. Place in a layer of 1/3 of the sauerkraut. Over this place a layer of half the onion-bacon mixture, and on this place a layer of half the fish. Repeat this process so that the final layer is of sauerkraut. In a small saucepan melt 3 tbs. of the butter and into this sir the flour. Simmer, stirring regularly, over a low flame until the flour begins to brown. Add enough water to the reserved liquids in which the fish were cooked to make 21/4 cups. Add these liquids to the butter and flour mixture, mix well and add the sour cream. Stir until the mixture is smooth and season with salt and paprika to taste. Place the shrimp on top of the sauerkraut, pour over the sauce and sprinkle over with the remaining breadcrumbs. Dot with the remaining butter and bake in a medium-hot oven until the sauce is nicely

When they wrote that lttle ditty "dear,dear what can the matter be" they were anticipating this thread. The list is simply too long to go into. Dishes have been named after whores, courtesans, princes, princesses and queens; kings, princes and emperors; generals, chefs and confectioners. If that isn't enough, dishes have been named in the nonor of composers, authors, actresses; gangsters, saints, a collection of certified perverts, and in general a goodly number of the members of various royal families. Also after quite a few fictitious characters. To share a few (just free-associating and not even looking at any of my references) - among those you will find dishes named after: Madame Pompadour, Madame Recamier, Cardinal Richelieu, Rossini, Sacher, Brillat-Savarin, Agnes Sorel, St. Spiridon, Suzette, Talleyrand, Vatel, the Prince of Wales, Emile Zola, Varenne, EmpressEugenie, eleven different members of the de Medici family, Ludwig the Mad, Fanny de Beauharnais, Grimod de la Reyniere, Caesar Ritz, Escoffier, Anna Deslions, Louis XIV, Henry II, Henry IV, Lucullus, Mirabell, Mistral, Monselet, Murat, Nesselrode, Odysseus, Inspector Maigret, The Dukes of Albufera and Abrantes, Apicius, Auber, Berlioz, Madame du Barry, Colbert, Dumas, Edward VI, the Prince of Wales, etc, etc, etc With all due respect to the "Talleyrand" list referenced above, my own puts that list to shame. I've written at one time or another about dishes named after some 560 various people. I'll make you a deal – send me a very (!!) generous advance and a good contract and the manuscript for the book will be on your desk within nine months. Should your bank account not be up to that, should anyone care to post specific questions about specific dishes or people, I'll be delighted to post here.

At the risk of being pompous (I am sometimes accused of that and sometimes even acknowledge it) let me put forth what I refer to as my "hypothesis of expectations" as it refers to dining out in general and chefs in particular. One decides, for a multitude of reasons, to enter a specific restaurant and from the moment that decision is made, all that surrounds us leads us to construct a series of expectations. If an eatery cries out "fast-food" by its plastic tables and stools fixed in place and photos of the fare over the counter where orders are placed with clerks in uniforms, one pretty much knows what is in store for them and from that, the aromas, the other diners in attendance, one has a certain set of expectations. On another hand one walks into let's say what I call a quasi-German weinstub in an American city, replete with waiters and waitresses in lederhose, heavy plastic beams designed to look like old oak, and huge beer steins, one has another set of expectations, in this case of mass-market food that may be tasty but certainly has very little relationship to "the real thing". On yet another hand, we walk into a restaurant, are greeted by a formally attired maitre or matiresse d'hotel, note a dining room of impeccable décor, find menus bound in leather and a wine list often thicker than the last book we read, we build yet another set of expectations. In the first case, I would not even dream of finding a chef and possibly not so much even a cook as a young person trained to man the appropriate food-producing machines. In the second, not so much a chef but a cook, possibly one with a fairly untrained staff. In the third, however, my expectations are far higher. As to our hopes for the food. Once we have committed ourselves to dining in any of these three places, all will be fair and legitimate so long as our expectations are met. I have no right to complain about the quality of a Big Mac because I knew well and damned right what I was gong to get when I ordered it. My expectations were met and all should be well. At the ersatz German establishment, if my cordon bleu is made of flattened and pounded chicken or even turkey breasts and not veal, I should also have no complaint. That is what the restaurant led me to expect and in that I accepted their terms. When it comes to the fine restaurant and the chef, the same applies. So long as our expectations of the service, ambiance and culinary level of the dishes we receive meet the expectations that were set up for us, all is fair. Receiving a Big Mac at McDonald's is perfectly acceptable, receiving that at Chez Panisse or Alain Ducasse would not be. To use another example, I anticipate one thing when I order a liver pate in a Jewish restaurant in Tel Aviv, another when I order it at a phony or mass-market French restaurant in San Francisco, yet another when I order it at a neighborhood bistro in Strasbourg, and yet quite another when it is offered to me at Guy Savoy's in Paris. Thus, in a simple phrase, my expectations of the chef are those that are built for me and those that I accept when I enter a specific restaurant. If the restaurant does not set up the set of expectations that I wanted in the first place, I simply should not have entered or, having done so, should have left without dining. On the other hand, even in the simplest of eateries, if the food meets those expectations, I wil be pleased. In a "better" restaurant, if the chef and/or restaurant outstrip my expectations, I will be delighted. If they do not live up to my expectations, I will be disappointed

Oddly enough, Waldorf Salad, in its original form and by its own name, is probably at its most popular today in the cafes and bistros of France and in the Veneto and Piedmont regions of Italy. As to changes to the recipe, I've seen it served with various combinations of nopolitos, black cherries, cashew nuts, cinnamon, star anise, jalapeno peppers and even with the addition of crabmet. Call those what you like, but don't call them Waldorf Salad please.

One question and one comment...... The question - has there been life worth living without butter? The comment - the Greeks have a wonderful word - metriopatheia. Simply stated, moderation.

Karen, Hi... A few quick thoughts - one person's reactions to your above questions: With regard to the "spark of talent": I am in full concurrence that the spark of talent and/or "the fire in the belly" is necessary to the creation, development and later continuation of the "great chef". However, keeping in mind though that the vast majority of diners never physically get to know or even see the chefs preparing their meals, it is not the spark that counts but the results that appear on the plate and how they appeal to the eye, the nose, the palate and an overall aesthetic. Does the spark "show" on those dishes – damned right it does. As to the difference between European and American support systems – I cannot help but think that to a large extent, Europeans will be straightforward in their biases while Americans will show them in what are considered more "subtle" or politically correct manners. In the end, however, much the same social, sexual and cultural biases. As to the lionization of chefs – not a new phenomenon but one that has taken on a new luster in the last three decades. In the case of Americans, much of that is accounted for by the fact that starting in the 1970's Americans began traveling abroad in ever increasing numbers and were exposed to both food and wine as important parts of the cultured and civilized life-style. In the case of Europeans who have a far better record in treating chefs well, the newer movement may well be due to the ever-spreading influences of public relations and exposure on television. As to business skills – if the chef does not have business skills he/she had damned well better have a not only committed but honest partner that does. No business skills, no success; no success, no stardom; etc, etc…

Chefette, Hi… Responding to several of your points. (a) Of course those that I would list as "great chefs" are not great only because of their innate (or developed) understanding of food and incredible cooking ability, but without those, no matter how good managers they may be (men or women), and no matter how good they are at playing the system, they never would have been thought of or acknowledged as "great". In a phrase, no matter how much Marvin Shanken loves you, without talent it simply isn't going to coalesce. (b) I think we have to make a distinction between those people who are great cooks and those who are great chefs. The cooks deserve enormous credit (often when dining I will ask permission to enter the kitchen not to thank the chef but to thank the brigade) © In general I would concur that greatness is defined as "widespread recognition…" but that does not have to be necessarily so. (d) I'll take just a wee bit of umbrage in your charge that all of us male food writers fail to recognize greatness when it is produced by a woman. First of all, let's keep in mind that some of the most influential food writers and critics of the late 20th and early 21st century are women. Second, agreed there are plenty of chauvinists out there and a great many of them are men venting their fears and hostilities against women. Not all of us though. Some of us actually think of ourselves not always as men or women but as people. (e) As to all of the glossy books printed by wannabe (I've always liked that term) great chefs, heck, I've got bookshelves full of them and can't for the love of me find out where, if at all, many of those chefs are now working. Glssy books are neither a requirement nor a permit. Nor does celebrity necessarily connect with greatness. Correlation and causation do not at all walk hand in hand. In this case we are talking not about rejects but those great chefs waiting yet to be discovered. Its all something like intelligence – no product, no intelligence (that's Piaget, not me) (f) As to the great women truck drivers or construction site managers – we don't care about that here because this is a culinary site. If we don't care about it in reality and everyday life, however, we have a problem. (g) You are very possibly correct about the recognition of the chef in the last decade, but in that primarily if you are referring to the United States. France, Italy, Spain, Morocco, China and other countries were well "into" the concept of chefs as admired stars long, long ago. (h) As to your self admitted "slight simplification" – sorry but I'll disagree again….I know a heckuva lot of male chefs who pursue their profession for the satisfaction and love of food, cooking and the culinary arts. Now of course we're getting into the question of when the ego of the chef (or the person in any profession for that matter) outgrows their physical being and their talents. On that note, please see me reach out to you with an olive branch.

Chefette, Hello.... It seems to me that you left out several items in your list of qualifications to attain great chefdom - those being a good palate, knowledge of food and foodstuffs, a devotion to one's profession and of course, talent. It would be a sad, sad day when any woman or man perceives success in any profession, especially one involving issues of taste, as merely a matter of manipulation. Please correct me if I am wrong but it is entirely manipulation to which your five points speak. From the point of view of either people who perceive excellent dining as part of the civil and civilized life style as well as from that of the great chef we are indeed (in your words) "talking about the ability to do great cooking or great food". If not that, why are we even discussing the issue?

Joanne, Consider the following before your own skepticism about human nature - If you don't trust your employees, why did you hire them in the first place. Perhaps I'm naive but I continue to believe that there really are some decent people out there.

Hill Valley's advice (above) of placing yourself in the proverbial shoes of your employees is the only valid approach. The question of whether you formally owe your employees a one-month or two-week notice (depending on how long they have been employed) is merely a legal one but one you should indeed check through your attorney. The more important question - that is to say, the moral issue involved - is one of fairness. Indeed there is a question of risk involved in either telling or not telling your staff but all moral points of view carry a certain element of risk. That though is what hopefully sets humans in at least a somewhat different category than most other animals. I am not naive enough to believe that honesty is indeed always the best policy. In this case, however, I cannot help but feel that honesty and fairness walk hand in hand.

Willie, Hi I'm not quite sure how to answer your question. If you want to know what the locals eat - simple enough - we eat pretty much the same things that you would be eating in New York, Paris, San Francisco, Verona, Vienna and Barcelona. Jerusalem has its fair share of French and Italian restaurants, fsh and sea-food emporiums, steak house, cafes, tapas bars, even wine bars. We even have many of the same fast food joints that you'll find in those cities. On the other hand, if you want to dine on Middle-Eastern food, well that's quite a different story. Give me a clue and I'll try to help.

Karen, Hi Once Again.. Not all that clear cut, I fear, for the work of the chef can fall into multiples of these categories. How nice though to put aside sex, gender and sex-roles and focus entirely on the role of the chef qua chef. At all levels being a chef is both a job, an occupation and a trade (that is to say, one's employment and certainly one requiring a certain level of skills). At a somewhat higher level, however the role of the chef becomes indeed a profession, one needing no less training, experience and specialized study than that of any other profession. If the professional is lucky, he or she will find the professional to also be a vocation in that the person and the job fit together well. (If anyone reading this is by now thoroughly confused, no fear, so am I) To compound possible confusion, I fear that we have to add another specific term to the list of options– an avocation (in the sense of a "calling"). And then to debate whether we consider the profession to be the work of an artist or an artisan. Ye gods…..but isn't that as true of the carpenter, teacher, sculptor, script-writer and critic as well? As to changes in the roles – indeed yes, for probably starting with the advent of Paul Bocuse was born the notion of the chef as super-star. On that note, it is now 8:43p.m. in Tel Aviv, I am going to back off, pour a small Armagnac and light a good cigar. And in case anyone is wondering about the advantages of life in Tel Aviv as opposed to that in the USA – we can buy Cuban cigars here quite legally!

Luchi, Hi... We are in full agreement about Moul Yam, Arcadia, Catit, Carmela ba Nachala, Cholelys, Odeon and the now departed Arania. Our disagreements about Yo'ezer and Chimichanga are not about their culinary value but about their categorization. I use the term "casual" in the sense of "laid back". Perhaps that clarifies a bit. Perhaps my problem is that in the use of that term, I am not being "Israeli enough"....that is to say, measuring more on the international scale that I expect/home restaurant to meet. Our disagreements about Raphael and Artichoke are more basic – relating to the quality of the cuisine and more. For the moment at least, I'll stand with my evaluations but of course respect yours as well. I will be revisiting both in the next month or two and will of course write my reactions in HaAretz. I cannot comment intelligently on Barcarola at this point as I have not re-visited since Itay Shalev wandered off, as Itay Shalev is prone to do. I really must get back there to visit but somehow Kfar Saba does seem about 1/3 kilometer from the end of the known universe. What the heck…..we're not that far apart in most of our comments.

Karen, Hi..... I think we're together on all but one thing and that not a matter of principle, in that I do not think the great meals are all that few and far between. I do, however, wish they were to be encountered even more often and ever less far between. One of these days (but not now, lord, not now) you and I will get into a discussion about whether there can be a "moral hedonism".

Arielle, Hi Again... Your response much appreciated. Let me state loudly and clearly though that kindness plays no motive whatever in my writing or thinking .. simply the presentation and discussion of what I perceive as a series of injustices. Perhaps as much as I am a critic of restaurants and wine, I am even more of a social critic - that is to say, not the one setting out to right the wrongs but simply to observe and report on them, hopefully bringing them to wider attention. I do not believe that any man or group of men can "give" women their freedom or their equality. That freedom and equality is inherently there and it will be women who take it and not men who "give" it. I remind myself as well that freedom is far more than "another word for nothin' left to lose". It is however part of freedom to voluntarily and with full knowledge give up parts of that freedom in order to exchange for other things, hopefully those things no less moral or fair than freedom itself. The key words in the preceding sentence being, of course "voluntarily and with full knowledge"

Karen, Hello…. Albert Camus once observed that "the only important question is suicide". He was wrong. The only important questions are questions that deal with morality. And for me, I go along with John Rawl's definition in that "there is nothing difficult at all in defining morality. Morality is fairness" Indeed,I do believe that we, collectively and as individuals would be enhanced were women more equally represented in many positions, including the top levels of chefdom. It is not necessarily that women collectively would offer "a different sense or savor" to the culinary world but that this sense and savor would be addedto and supplemented individually and in a somewhat more personal sense. On a more pragmatic level, from personal experience I do believe that women (collectively and individually in this case) might well add a touch of more controlled ego to the culinary experience. There are moments – alas, quite a few moments – when I sit and talk with many male chefs, those in Israel, in Europe and on North America, and what I hear is too often ego out of control, the need to project the essence of "the superstar". On the other hand, when meeting with many women chefs what comes across is a more healthy ego reflection – the "I want to, I can and I will" attitude rather than the "it is due me because of my inherent genius". Not so much modesty perhaps as a kind of gentility, a reflection more of the inner rather than the outer self. My bias? Perhaps. As to the ultimate "why should I care" - simple enough. As/if the world becomes more egalitarian it cannot help but become more gentle. And that is something sadly lacking in today's world. Will women add specifically to our culinary pleasure? As the talented and creative men add, so will they. That, and the aspect of fairness involved are quite enough for me.

Arielle, Hello.... You take umbrage to my hypthesis that women, at least in some ways are oppressed. Assuming that you are correct and my hypothesis is wrong, how do we account for the fact that throughout the western world, including governmental agencies, women in the same positions and with the same experience as men receive less pay; that in a world where just a tad over 50% of the population is composed of women that far less than that percentage are represented in city, state or national governments; that of top positions in universities, hospitals, law firms, over 80% of the "leaders" are men. If you assume that women do not want these positions or equal salaries, there is merit to your argument. I do not make those assumptions. Perhaps I am wrong.

Boris, Hello... It would be interesting to know how you arrive at the figure that about 50% of the one-starred chefs in Italy are women. The Michelin guide lists the names only of those chefs who have earned three stars and then only lists their last names. If you could supply a source for your data, it would be much appreciated. My own experience in the last eight years dining in approximately 280 of the best restaurants in Italy has been that only 11 of the chefs were women. At the same time, albeit a bit off topic, let me disagree with you more than a bit about your suggestion that Italian cuisine is less innovative or creative than French. My own experience has been that those terms are applicable to fine restaurants and fine chefs everywhere. It is true that you will find little innovation at simple trattorias in Italy but that is also true at the simple neighborhood bistros of France, and that no matter how excellent they are, for one of the roles of such places is precisely the reproduction of excellent tried and trued dishes. On the upper level, however, whether in Verona, Venice, Firenze, Roma, Sorrento or wherever else you travel or live in Italy, you will find no less creativity than in Paris, Lyon, Epernay, Nice or Collognes au-Mont-d''Or. Or, for that matter, the Napa Valley, Seattle, the Boston area, Atlanta or New York.