jhlurie

macrosan, what are you trying to say?

France was also a central point for being conquered. Does that affect this thesis?

According to SteveP, White Castle mini perforated burger things Hah. Steven Shaw's got the edge on this one. Everyone within driving distance with any true appreciation of greasy hamburgers knows to go to White Manna in Hackensack instead.

Geez. All of the controversial things I've said here and THAT'S the one you get upset about? Very simple, you took Steve's quote out of a larger discussion where it was obviously a side issue. You fully revealed that fact that you did it, so no wrong was done by you (in fact you later reminded us of the fact that you were the one who did it), but that's the very definition of "out of context". I felt in necessary to bring the fact up, because my emphasis has been that the statement was too absolute. But in fairness to Steve, I had to admit that I didn't know if he had always meant it that way, or whether it was a bit of casual wording which would have been more clear in the larger context. In other words, Steven, I never said you did wrong, I was questioning if I did wrong. Relax.

Heron, sorry, my proper statement should have been that Steve THOUGHT that the arguments arranged against him were about populism. And they weren't, at least in my terms. I'm not trying to turn his arguments around against him, except where it's fairly done.

Hah, Jason. We know the pattern. This will mean a good weekend crowd from now on, and a busy few months of every day traffic. Then, as always happens, sanity will return and most nights you'll be able to get back in again. The restaurant will permanently have better attendance, but the wave will peak, at least until the Bergen Record does its inevitable copy-cat thing in four or five months and the cycle starts all over again. Overall the folks at Saigon are bound to be very happy. As I said, at a minimum, a "Very Good" is assured weekend traffic for quite a long time.

Your words, John, make me think of another parallel. The following words aren't necessarily specifically aimed at you, except that your post made me think about this. I am not a fan of opera. I haven't the upbringing or the cultural baggage to appreciate it. I'm sure in time, with the proper exposure, I could learn to tell the difference in the quality of various operatic performances. But meanwhile I subsist on less lofty forms of music and find my enjoyment therein. (Okay, I'm being a bit sarcastic, but it doesn't damage my eventual point) There are huge differences between music and food (John himself has spoken about them before, I believe) and we don't want to rehash them here. But clearly the appreciation of one particular type of music--opera--is situational. I appreciate the things that I know, and the variants of them, more than I do the things that are, at this point in time, out of my reach. Why is food any different? Why all of this talk about "developing a palate" if we don't acknowledge the value in each step of the process? That's my main objection to a measuring system of relevence that isn't situational. And I am talking about relevence, not the ultimate quality of the food, which is a bit of confusion a few people may have. And the ability to, and interest in, analyzing something is inherently related to its relevence. That's my whole argument, front to back.

Bux, with due respect... that's not what Steve originally said. I realize the quote was taken out of context, but the implication was that there were two alternatives, period. The original argument was that the big tree was always of more importance than the little one, and clearly that's not the case. Nobody's arguing the fact that the bigger the tree, the bigger the, er... noise. Well, maybe Fat Guy wanted us to when he started this, but that would be ridiculous! We're getting pretty philosophical here if we are equating some kind of ultimate... interest scale... based on inherent complexity. Still, in my mind, relevence (and interest) is always situational. It has everything to do with the individual, although hopefully that's not the same thing as it being "personal" in an emotional sense.

Our positions are not that far apart. I DON'T necessarily think that high end restaurants are the pinnacle of interest for most people. My comment was that anyone interested in food preparation (and that's certainly not everyone, including myself) is always looking to elevate their skills. Bold statements can be made here about how only high-end restaurant food is analytically interesting, but that's CLEARLY not true to someone who's GOAL is to be able to duplicate the effort themselves, and whose skills are not at that level. Your point that not everyone's personal choice will drive them to desire to duplicate those dishes at all is another point entirely, and also valid, and neither point detracts from the other. This spins off into that whole debate about french food vs. Mole, I suppose. It all goes back to the single cogent point that interest is defined by the audience. The kind of absolutes some would throw around just aren't realistic.

I've always felt that if you take an olive and squish it really hard and eventually wind up with a fairly useful and healthy oil... it's okay. But otherwise... I've never had much use for them. Particularly offensive to me are ones that have been pickled. Not sure why. Oh well, Rachel and I collectively are probably bumming out the olive lovers. Then again, I like tomato sauce but I'm not fond of raw tomatoes. Maybe there's a theme here.

Really, despite what Steve thinks, this is not a debate about populism. While it's true that the most emotional objections to his position centered around the economic component of his argument, the heart of the dispute was simply--at least as far as I'm concerned--centered around an initial mis-statement that seemed to imply that food fell into two extremes. We've all, by this point in the argument, agreed that such is not the case--even if a few of us arrived there through the back door. Food, and what we make of it, and say of it, falls along a spectrum. Steve seems to see everything through the lens of someone who's greatest pleasure is in discussing, analyzing and breaking down the components of his finest meals. His goal seems to be to refine that knowledge so that he can seek out, and judge, even better meals. This may or may not be accurate, but its the general perception of him, and overall its not a bad way to be perceived--since in our own way its what most of us are here for. But others come to eGullet with the goal of building their own knowledge, in hopes of being able to prepare, or consume, better food themselves. They've been exposed to less, and are starting from a simpler place and building up. We can be dismissive and say that this falls under the category of "how to find the best hamburger", or whatever they are preparing or seeking, but those people are probably perfectly happy to analyze mid-range cuisine because it is of the most utility to them. This is no way alters the fact that more complex preparations are more interesting to the proper audience, it's only a cogent point in my little thesis that the interest in the topic is defined by the audience, not by some absolute formula based on the complexity of the preparation or the expense or rarity of the ingredients. People find the most interest in what is of the most utility to them. A struggling college student in Akron, Ohio might find a discussion of the food at Guy Savoy In Paris of interest, but they're also going to find considerable interest in a discussion of a local restaurant of far less stellar reputation. Similarly, that same student might find some enlightenment in an analysis of how the best dish at Guy Savoy was prepared, but an analysis of something less ambitious might also be of burning interest to our student, if he or she is attempting to prepare the food themselves and slowly elevate their skills. Again, this is not a question of populism--it's a question of practicality. Everyone who bothers with a board like this wants to eat as well as they possibly can. Its why they are here. The questions of dollars and cents are only a limiter on their efforts--it doesn't define them. You can't dismiss all lesser efforts with a broad brush by saying that its also "okay to discuss how to find the best burger", as if finding everything except for the finest preparations is simply some kind of treasure hunt. People who appreciate fine food don't come full formed... they elevate themselves to that point by climbing through some very interesting, and worthwhile, middle levels. Their interest in those levels is real, and probably quite passionate, and must include plenty of worthwhile analysis--for them, and those who are also on the same journey.

Orik, I bow to a superior knowledge of both mathematics and philosophy! Well, at least nod my head.

Let's amend that to "Most commercial BBQ is Junk" Okay Mark, point taken. Sorry. I should have known that either you or Klink would get on that, but I was trying to use Steve's own words to most effectively open my argument.

But that's not what was originally said. The original comment had more to do with economics--haute cuisine versus anything and everything else. And the start of this conversation asserted that there was little to nothing to discuss about anything except for the high-ticket end of the spectrum. Also, Steve's analysis of what is or is not interesting was limited to the complex, and there were implicit connections to it's expense or exclusivity. It's perfectly okay if he limits his own interests. But to put everything in two barrels--expensive and cheap eats, interesting and boring, worthy and unworthy, choucroute and hamburger, is to carry the argument too far. The differences between these things are a matter of degree, not a sharp line. A simple food--an egg let's say (to please Cabrales) can be prepared in about a million different ways, and even some of the cheapest and easiest to prepare can not only be infinitely satisfying, but also a proper, interesting and most importantly relevent point of conversation. The analysis will never challenge that of a more complex food, but does it really have to in order to be relevent and worthy?

As we all know, Steve, the people at Chowhound can be somewhat limited too. It's the height of arrogance to champion a hamburger over choucroute, only its reverse sobbery. It's like the rich man who's proud that he still drives a Cadillac instead of a BMW. If he drives the Caddy because he's more comfortable, fine, but if the Cadillac takes on almost mythical proportions in his mind--if he yearns for that car beyond all others for no good reason other than the fact that he's spent years telling people how comfortable it is, and how much he loves it... ...then he's a nut. Food's the same way. But not every one is a rich man, and I mostly mean that metaphorically. People have different levels of cooking experience, different bank accounts, different upbringings, etc. A discussion about the technique of making the perfect hot dog may be of more utility to someone with less ambition, or less experience, or less money. It may be less pleasurable to some people, although certainly nobody is forcing them to participate, but it has its purpose and we shouldn't be either dismissive or scornful of it. You yourself are now using the word "less" to modify the word "interesting" now... and that's been my whole point all along. Sure, its "less interesting", but in the right hands and in the right time its interesting enough. You shouldn't change your opinion one iota. Fine and complex food is your passion, as it should be. Leave lesser food to lesser mortals, and we'll all be happy.

tommy, don't bait me. I won't fall for that hook, line and sinker.

Most BBQ is junk. The only argument here is that all food is measured by the complexity of the technique used to prepare it. Admittedly you are mostly referring to discussion of the food, and not the quality of the food itself, but even those lesser items have plenty of value for discussion. Jokingly, quite a while ago, we had a discussion about Steve Klc and what we'd like to see him prepare. This was in the formative days of Jinmyo's little "I like Pie" joke, and unknowingly I stated that I'd like to see Steve prepare something as simple as a pie, because it would be far more interesting to see something achievable by most of us from start to finish, rather than to see one of the more elaborate presentations we know he's capable of, but that his "audience" could never achieve. My point is... that your discussion has to be catered to your audience. Find the intesting elements in making a pie, or beating an egg, or cooking a hamburger, and you open someone up to greater things eventually. eGullet would be the haven of snobbishness that a few critics say it is if it didn't realize that. Nobody here is going to debate that fine food is... finer. But a discussion of how to make the best possible chicken soup may have quite a bit of interest--and even wider value--than a discussion of the best Michelin 3-Star restaurants in Paris. Luckily this site has room for both.

Watch it, chum!

I'll be honest and admit that if Steve P. simply trades the term "less" for "not very", than our positions become basically identical. like so: to: Maybe this is a nitpick, if that's what he meant and this is just out of context. After all, it was Fattus Gaius who chose the comment, not Steve P. himself.

Hate to quote myself but... It's more what and how you analyze. Food is more than just what you put in your mouth and taste. You can have a pretty deep analysis about other aspects. In other words... I think we agree. As for the main point, what are your thoughts on that? Really the whole thing balances on an individual interpretation of the word "interesting". Fine food is MORE interesting, more subtle, than cheap food, sure... but that's not really all that was said. There is plenty interesting--and I'm talking about being able to analyze--in a $5 bowl of Pho. A hamburger, maybe not, but even that... maybe... if the analysis is about more than just the nuances of its taste or the cooking methodology. Andy said it well: It's just TOO dismissive of the possibility that there are other things to analyze or talk about outside of fine dining. The statement isn't discussing a LEVEL of interest, its setting up two alternatives--interesting; not interesting.

Beach, I don't think Steve P. is doing that. And he's not talking about people's favorites, or even what they most enjoy. To Steve's credit, he's never pooh-poohed the taste of "cheap foods". It's a very limited argument in scope, about what types of food are INTERESTING to discuss and/or analyze.

Plenty of people would disagree strongly with that statement. You can take that argument to him, sir. I know that mine is more... easily winnable.

No, Jin, that's the whole point. You can't possible set Hamburgers and Hotdogs and Fine Dining as the only two possibilities with a definitive statement of that type.

I'm not sure he can win this one, if he's prepared to argue it. If his thesis had simply been that fine cuisine is more interesting than cheap eats, he would have had a slam dunk victory. But its very different to say that everything else is "{not} very interesting on an analytical level." All someone has to do is to find a single example to disprove it. This is just to point out that this particular argument is not his strongest. He's had a few hundred others to balance it out.

Steve is eloquent... but he's been known to over-generalize to win an argument.