Dirk Wheelan

If not to tell the 'whole story' warts and all, what then is the function of Psaltis' memoir? It is entirely consistent to hold a negative view of something without needing to construct a positive role for oneself. Indeed, given that Psaltis uses his criticism of the French Laundry to amplify his own talents, when Psaltis omits to include an episode that reflects negatively on himself it seems reasonable to claim that his memoirs have been constructed as vehicle for his self-aggrandizement, and thus the lack of balance is significant in that it allows us to evaluate the information that Psaltis does include in the book.

Indeed it 'can' stand alone as literature, but not until one can establish for it a literary genre. Superficially, this appears to be auto-biography, but given that Psaltis is hardly an A-list chef, and doesn't have an audience clamouring for his memoirs, then we can also assume it has a self-promotional value as well. When we couple this with Psaltis' iconoclasm and unwillingness to provide a balanced account of events at the French Laundry, the whole project comes across as a PR exercise designed to aggrandize Psaltis. Knocking others, and being economical with the truth to make yourself look good belongs to no branch of literature that I'm aware of. As for categorizing anyone who objects to this as 'detractors, partisans, boot-lickers, and hired guns from the Keller Cavalry Brigade', well, that just makes you appear equally, but oppositely, partisan.

How do you envisage the process of establishing 'disrespect'? By this I mean, is it sufficient to merely feel 'disrespected' before lashing out, or should one firmly establish disrespect has been committed before slapping? Also, which of these scenarios do you imagine most reflects the Psaltis incident?

If the guy did what Psaltis said he did, he's a jerk. It was a jerky thing to do. Anyway, jerk is a low-level jab in my books. I didn't call him an asshole or an idiot, I just called him a jerk. So sorry if I offended you. ← Even from the most perfunctory reading of Pim's post, it's entirely clear that she was not objecting the the term 'jerk', but to Psaltis' violence. Indeed, the victim of the 'slap' may even have been an 'asshole' or and 'idiot', but this doesn't mitigate the slap. Rather, it only serves to further humiliate the person who was slapped, by suggesting that he 'had it coming'. Or would you accept that anyone who thinks of you, Lesley C, in these terms is entitled to slap you?

I'd like to add my thanks for your contribution, Doug. Just one question: Given that the French Laundry is Keller's restaurant, and that the menu is his creation, why were you surprised that your creative input was not enthusiastically received by the team there?

Just repeating this over and over is not going to alter the fact that, all other things being equal, anonymity adds to the value of the review for everyone but the critic. I think you underestimate the bearing that 'the fears of restaurantgoers' has on the industry. Indeed, it's not just restaurants and critics, but a public also, which pays to be served by both of them.

I don't think anyone is arguing that. ← Then I think you should carefully re-read Bux's last post. On the other hand, if you carefully re-read the last few pages of the thread, you'll notice that an effort was made (by me) to distinguish between general food writing, and the far more specific task of restaurant reviewing. As I said then, there is no reason why a restaurant critic cannot learn everything he or she needs to know by experiencing the end result; namely the meal. The only perceivable benefits of the schmoozing approach to restaurant criticism are benefits for the critic himself. I repeat, I am only talking about restaurant criticism.

And then there's the anonymous critic who does understand the food... I don't understand why this fallacy is so popular on this thread? I agree when you say that anonymity is 'important', but that good writing is more important. However, what I don't agree with, and what no one, despite some impressively convoluted logic, has demonstrated, is the assertion that anonymity and good writing are mutually exclusive. Although it would be convenient for all those arguing for celebrity critics' superiority, anonymity and good writing are not at variance with one another. Indeed, if we ascribe some value to anonymity, and a greater value to good writing, then the combined value of the two is greater still. Consequently, by your own reasoning, well written anonymous reviews are the ideal towards which critics should be striving. On the other hand, I quite understand why many food critics wish to promote themselves. The problem is when they justify this self-promotion up with the pretext that it somehow makes their work better. It doesn't. It just enhances their status and reputations. Of course, there's nothing wrong with this... if one cares to admit it.

I quite agree that it is a greater 'personal' challenge to be a critic and be engaged with the industry, but only in the sense of maintaining an impartiality that could be far more simply gained from not engaging in the first place. From the perspective of a consumer (again, I'm assuming that reviews have a function to impartially inform the consumer) where's the benefit? Your argument for not being anonymous suggests that, at best, it can be as good as anonymity, so what's the point of complicating the task with self-promotion? Clearly food writing in general would suffer from this approach, but in the case of restaurant reviewing specifically why should anything more than the dining experience be necessary? I don't see how buddying up to chefs helps write good reviews, although I can see clearly how it can undermine critics' integrity.

Really, I would have thought that, at least functionally, they were more or less the same. There is thread somewhere on the UK forum with byline photos from all the major restaurant critics. The same level of conspicuousness cannot be said for Michelin's inspectors. No doubt an absolute division between food producers and food assessors would be difficult to maintain, but as your 'secret shopper' analogy demonstrates anonymous assessment has a unique value for consumers. In fact, I've yet to see any coherent argument for why 'celebrity' critics serve the consumer better, although it's very clear why it serves the critics not be anonymous. On the other hand, from the consumer perspective, anonymity, or at least distance from the establishment being assessed, is clearly more valuable if the function of a review is help decide where to eat. In addition, this impartiality also seems fairer to the restaurant trade itself in that everyone gets judged on their functional merits rather than on their level of critic cronyism.

Only if their role is to be reduced to that of a secret shopper. Critics should be experts with first hand knowledge of their subject which means at least some fraternising with "the enemy." ← I'm thinking quite specifically of restaurant reviewing, and there seems to be no reason why one can't learn everything there is to know about dining out by .... dining out! On the other hand, the stuff about maintaining close ties with chefs or restaurateurs being okay seems like a way for food writers to keep their options open and take advantage of the power they wield. Regarding, 'secret shopper' critics, well Michelin do it and it's no coincidence that their evaluations carry the most weight in Europe. If you ask me, individual critics reject anonymity not for 'meaningfulness' issues, but because anonymity denies them the opportunity of self-promotion, and the attractions of a role in the food media circus.

I'm afraid I utterly disagree with this. Critics have to decide who it is they're serving: the dining public or the dining industry. Perhaps it does require insider relationships in order comment 'meaningfully' for insiders; e.g. in the trade press. On the other hand, writing for a public outside the industry requires none of these relationships in that for a review to be useful, the experience of the critic should echo the experience of the diner, and not V.I.P. Too many critics want to have it both ways, they want to schmooze with superstar chefs, and impress their friends and associates with their V.I.P. status in smart restaurants, yet they also want their readership to believe they're just and impartial. Only the most arrogant critic would expect not to be challenged on this type of behaviour.

I would be interested to know what Durack's point of reference is? Indeed, despite its epigrammatic glibness, this statement is, as Andy points out, essentially meaningless.

Not true! I'd love to know why you make this mental connection, and indeed, why you think other people would find it funny. Do you make any other humorous associations with other interest groups? How about angling?

Challenging preconceptions about humour

Let me put this in the simplest possible terms, and then be done with it. - With technique I can achieve the results I want. - I know what perfection is. - With technique I can achieve perfect results. There's something wrong here, isn't there? No one knows what perfection is, but the reason dining keeps changing so much is that certain chefs set themselves up as visionaries who claim to produce perfect results. What are we saying, that only now in the 21st century has the culinary ideal been revealed to chefs? If this is the case, then effectively, we have come to the end of the gastronomic road, and are eating in a golden age. (BTW, I know exactly what MG is, but I'm talking about the application of MG as a PR tool)

I disagree with your polarization, perfectly cooked vs. grey and oxidized. This is exactly what MG plays up; a binary opposition of before/after, good/bad, and even if MG were a massive improvement over traditional technique this would still be a gross, and deceptive, simplification. As you yourself say your reference for pork belly comes from Ducasse and HB, so it's hardly surprising that your experiments fall short given that you don't recreate their exact techniques, not to mention dining context. 'Warping', 'oxidization', 'imprecise' textures are not in themselves negative qualities. Indeed, to a certain extent they are the defining characteristics of roast meat, and eliminating them alters the end result to such an extent that argument becomes worthless; which is better the mashed or chipped potatoes? If you envisage a result that you wish to achieve and then find a technique by which to precisely achieve it then that technique is the 'perfect' way to achieve that result. However, it's much harder to demonstrate that the result is 'perfect' because the result is merely how one imagines perfection. Any argument about 'best' ways of cooking must be developed from consensus on 'best' results, this consensus is not clear as some people claim. Indeed, I object to the practitioners of MG stealing the initiative on this question. I don't think it's acceptable that chefs be both judge and jury on matters concerning their own food.

i can't help but feel these two statements are linked in some way ← Any particular reason? Or is this just a cheap shot?

This wasn't directed at anyone in particular. I'm just ranting about the obsession with process over results. The only way to judge cooking is by its end result, and however much you go on about probes and molecules, it doesn't change what's on the plate, but only the perception of what's on the plate. Every spring I play golf in les Landes, which is a short drive to Bordeaux, particularly la Tupina. I must have eaten there fifty times, every time it's fantastic, and there's not a plastic-bag to be seen. There could be several reasons for this: - I'm a philistine and don't recognize quality. - Good cooking has always existed and is not dependent on technology - Perfection is a relative term I favour the second reason; MG chefs and traditional chefs are equally capable of cooking well, but I reject the inference that MG has a monopoly on perfection. As I said, it begins and ends with what's on the plate. If people want to talk process that's fine as long as no one is under the illusion that process supersedes results.

I have a problem with adjectives like 'perfectly cooked'. If I buy some steak at Lidgates, let it come up to room temperature and cook it either on a grill, or in foaming butter, or whatever, and let it rest for a few minutes. It tastes fantastic. Where is the improvement in sous-vide-ing it and then blowtorching etc? It seems like a long-winded way of achieving a traditional effect. On the other hand, I had a lamb dish at the Fat Duck a few years ago, and although the flavour was nice the overall texture and appearance of the meat was very odd, in fact I thought it was unpleasant, and certainly not 'perfectly cooked'. I'm all for technology in the kitchen if it demonstrably improves what is being cooked, but I would wager that an experienced cook can get the same, if not better, results by braising pork belly, than can be got by sous-vide and stirred water baths. The only difference is that the latter sounds more exciting. I'd also wager that a lot those that get overexcited about things cooked in plastic bags have little experience of competent traditional cooking, because if they did they wouldn't be so free with the 'perfectly cooked'. The claim of MG is that it can produce 'perfect' results, but in order to do so its practitioners would have to know what 'perfect' was, and, as its not clear that we can be objective about this, their use of the term is consequently tantamount to making the claim that their own cooking is 'perfect'. On the other hand, if you claim to be able to access 'perfection' through plastic bag cooking then you are backhandedly designating all non-plastic bag chefs as 'imperfect', which we all know is bollocks. So don't be so gullible, and learn how to braise.

Having fathered four, now adult, boys, I entirely understand an infant's debilitating effects on one's reason. Indeed, not having a mewling gnome to contend with, I've just read this thread from start to finish, and despite some apparent lacunae it's a truly fascinating read. Should culinary history ever become a respectable subject for study, I have no doubt that threads like these will provide historians with some of the most valuable primary source material imaginable. Well done egullet! Just terrific.

Bravo. That's entirely disprovable, and about as logically useful as saying: the extent to which you enjoy Racine will depend on how much you value antiquity in food; how much pleasure you derive from 'tried and tested' formulas in dining, and your experience in eating at similar bistros. ← As you can I was quite careful in wording the above, and the term 'the extent', I think, makes what I've said fairly clear. If you are the kind of person who enjoys fashion & novelty, yet have not experienced a Fat Duck like experience, then the chances are these factors will enhance your enjoyment of it. On the other hand, if you don't value fashion & novelty your enjoyment won't be due to those reasons; and if have have eaten at Gagnaire, for example, then the stylistic impact may be somewhat diminished. However, as I also made quite clear, this doesn't mean to say that you won't enjoy it, it just means that you won't enjoy it as much, which might still be very much indeed. Nevertheless, please feel free to do more than merely allude to your logic-chopping abilities.

If you're the kind of person who believes in 'The 50 Best Restaurants' type things, then clearly hype is important to you, and part of the pleasure in eating at The Fat Duck will come from participating in the PR. Personally, I find the excessive hype gets in the way of the food because it makes me doubt that Heston's motives are entirely gastronomic. Best restaurant in the world or not, though, there is still plenty to be positive about as regards the food (especially the ALC), and in this category of dining, there are only a handful of other restaurants working to comparable standards in the UK. In the end, the extent to which you will enjoy the Fat Duck, will depend on how much you value novelty in food; how much pleasure you derive from the 'fashionable' aspect of dining, and your experience of eating at establishments of a similar level. Whatever you feel about the above, you're not going to have a bad meal, the worst that could happen is that you might leave doubting that Heston is God after all.

Heston Blumenthal and the Guardian are parting company. Tiffanie Darke of the Sunday Times Style section, announced that the world's best chef will be her bitch from now on. To what extent Heston's departure is connected with this: http://www.guardian.co.uk/food/Story/0,2763,1474710,00.html and this: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,...1509266,00.html is clearly a matter for speculation. Jay?

No one is doing anything of the sort. We're talking about restaurateurs who publicize themselves with an explicit association with MG. It so happens that this angle is associated with haute cuisine at its trendiest. Even chefs like Anthony Flinn, who vehemently denies being a devotee of this publicity gimmick, still continues to be identified as an exponent of MG by people who should know better. Consequently, given the title of the thread, we're talking about restaurants associated in the public mind with MG, rather than what MG is. However, we can't talk about the in-situ technological application of the science behind cooking processes in this context because it's everywhere. To give one example, the ultra traditional Roux brothers were the first to spot the potential of 'sous vide' and purchased the rights to its exploitation in the U.K. As long ago as the eighties, they had low temperature controlled stirred water baths which they used to cook sous-vide pigeon and lamb using a stopwatch! MG, as it's understood, is the science of making your food 'sound' more interesting than it really is, which is probably why it appeals so much to fashion victims.