Jaymes

Coincidence? Or a some sort of mad peach power at work.... Yesterday I drove over to Fredricksburg, the home of Texas Hill Country peaches, and bought a bushel, then stopped by the grocery store and bought some freezer bags and Fruit Fresh in order to do just what F52 suggests....peel and slice my peaches, sprinkle them with Fruit Fresh and freeze them for use sometime in the winter. Fruit Fresh is a powdery product that comes in a small can usually displayed in grocery stores right by the canning jars, etc. You sprinkle it on cut fruits and vegetables to retain their color, taste and freshness. I confess I've used it for years, but have never bothered to look on the label to see what's in it. Just did... dextrose, ascorbic acid for preservatives and a little silicon to keep it all "free flowing." (Sounds like something I could use for myself )

Miss F52 - hold down your "alt" key. Now, while holding it down, on your number keypad on the right hand side, press the 1,6,4, in that order. Now release. Voila... an eñye. ¡¿ñÑéáíóú! (Sorry - just showing off )

When I sell my novel and I'm rich and famous and can treat us both, of course.

How, pray tell, would you sum up the meaning (hidden or otherwise) of the above? Could be too much for my powers of interpretation, Jaybee, and I could have it all wrong, but I believe here he is lamenting the fact that unfortunately in celebrity chefdom, or in one who aspires to celebrity chefdom, as in most other areas of modern human endeavor, peer pressure, ego, and avarice all rear their ugly heads.... a three-headed monster. That rather than being able to simply enjoy the skill of expert preparation of these dishes from another country, someone like, say, Rick Bayless, usurps credit for traditional Mexican dishes (and therefore a huge part of Mexican history and culture because that is what cooking is) because due to monetary, ego, peer pressure et al concerns, he must stay at the top of the celeb-chef heap. At least I THINK that's what that paragraph means.... Could be wrong. Could be right. Never know.

What a fabulous post! I'm going there as soon as possible, of course. And the image of the band heading off to a quinciñera! Good job, Jess. And I am hoping that since it's a bakery, they will have some of those delicious Mexican panes dulces... maybe even Tres Leches cake!! Thanks so much for taking the time to let us in on your just-discovered secret! Muchisimas gracias.

It appears that I am neither intelligent nor sophisticated enough to discern the hidden meaning that others have found in John's piece. I simply read it to mean that when one approaches an unfamiliar cuisine, one should do so with respect and humility and the understanding that cuisine is only one part of a larger overall culture and history of a people. And that however "odd" some aspects may initially seem, perhaps there are reasons of which a newcomer cannot possibly be aware. To me it just boils down to one thing.... When Sandra and I go to India for a year in order to study cooking, we should say as rarely as possible: "But back in the USA we do it THIS way."

Nope - I think you've pretty much summed it up right there. At least that's how I see it.

And I guess that is true... I hadn't really considered it that way but, yes, I have been thinking of this thread in regards to a fine chef and his/her creations... ...as opposed to the entirely different (and time-honored and appropriate) custom of hollering instructions back to the short-order cook.

Actually, although I didn't know "E" personally, I heard that his favorite was FRIED peanut butter & banana sandwiches.... ugh. I s'pose someone should Google it and get back with us so we'll know for sure... I mean, an important question like this and all. Edit note: Thought instead of suggesting that someone else Google it, I would. Indeed, on one of the sites referenced, it says that E's favorite food was fried PB & banana sandwiches.... ugh.

Spoken like a true primadonna. Thank you for the "prima donna" compliment. I should be so lucky. The thing is, in our free society, even the "haughtiest of chefs" has the right to open a business and offer for sale whatsoever products he/she chooses to offer. And you (i.e. the public) have the right to go elsewhere if you are not pleased. I will not Plotnickitize this argument by continuing to restate my position over and over and over. So, this is probably pretty much it for me. It's obvious you have some sort of chip on your shoulder. I can only suggest to you that you open your OWN restaurant and run it as you see fit, bowing and scraping and acquiescing to all who come in your door, omitting the peppers in the Stuffed Peppers, the garlic in the Scampi, cooking the steaks to shoe leather, and giving into whatever other whim crosses the minds of your customers. That is your right. And folks can come on eGullet and savage your choices. That is their right. That's the American way, you see.

Steve - You are absolutely correct that anyone in the service industry SHOULD strive to make people happy. Happy customers are the undisputed direct route to financial security and job satisfaction for any business. That goes without saying... too simple and obvious a concept to even be worthy of argument. And you are also correct in pointing out that making people "happy" is not necessarily the same as "educating them" or forcing them to eat whatever you want them to eat. Although if one is capable of doing just that in a pleasant manner, all the problems are solved. But it seemed to me that the focus of this thread is not so much what chef/owners SHOULD do; but rather, what they are OBLIGATED to do.... ...as in the odious remark that "they exist to serve me."

You are correct that your aunt has the right to have the food she orders cooked as she likes it. She can exercise that right by patronizing a restaurant that will do it that way. She NOT have a right to DEMAND that every single business person concurs with her every request, no matter how unpalatable. She simply doesn't. But if enough people agree with her tastes, the business will either close, or change its ways to suit her and others like her. And furthermore, the chef does not "exist to serve you." That is ludicrous. If you wish to have a chef who "exists to serve you," you are perfectly free to hire one. Put him on salary, tell him what you like and do not like and advise him that he serves at the pleasure of you. But to believe that you can order business owners around in order to satisfy your every whim is unbelievably arrogant. I just hope that in another life, you come back as a business owner with nothing but customers like yourself.

And of course, that's the crux, isn't it. Had my client said, "Look, I'll give you a thousand bucks extra if you'll just fix the damn shrimp without the garlic," I'd have said, "Sure, Darlin' and would you like me to get down on my knees and feed them to you one by one?" So, I guess it's the age-old question.... we know what we are.....and now we're just arguing over the price. (But also....I would have gone running around the party, saying to all the guests, "You know, that shrimp is SO MUCH BETTER with garlic in it.")

Just one more comment, and then I absolutely MUST go prepare my Snapper Veracruzano or we'll have no dinner at all my house tonight, properly prepared or not... In the matter of restaurants refusing to cook steaks well-done, in fact, lately I have even seen it printed on the menus! "Because we cannot ensure the quality, we do not prepare steaks well-done." Or some such something... But it's printed right there, on the menu, below the steaks, so no one has to even get into a quibble with the waiters.

Oh, but I did, for years, operate a successful catering business... I recall one particular conversation wherein I had suggested a "Shrimp Scampi Style" dish to the client. She asked what was in it, and when I told her, she said, "Oh...I don't like garlic, can you just leave it out?" To which I said, "Well, without the garlic it doesn't really have much taste... may I suggest the Salmon Balls instead?" She decided that was better, and we were all happy.

No, I have never operated a restaurant, but I've sure eaten in a lot of them. And, I sometimes ask for something to be prepared a certain way, or order something not on the menu. And often the chef will do his/her best to prepare it how I have requested, but just as often, I'll be told that they do not have those ingredients, or the kitchen is busy, or that they are unaccustomed to that dish, or even the much less classy, "no substitutions." I don't get offended....unless they are haughty and unkind about it. If I ordered the "Seared Tempura Tuna" to be cooked well done (as a companion did recently at a local restaurant), and was told (as was she) "That dish does only comes rare," I would do what she did....order something else. I don't expect the kitchen and staff to be my personal servants, as though I, like Oprah, had hired them to do nothing but my bidding to the exclusion of all else.

And you know Nina, I'll tell you another thing I learned from years of business.... The idea of "losing a customer"..... Especially in a consulting-type business, where you want your customers to rely on your judgment... you don't want those customers who always think they know more than you do. They are never worth more to your bottom line than they cost you in time and aggravation. You want long-term customers who value you and what you do and who take your advice and opinion. They are a joy to work with and for, and a financial boon, and they love you and what you do and recommend you to others. Those are the customers with whom you want to cultivate a longterm relationship. The other kind of person who thinks you simply don't know what you are doing is a customer you are better off without.

Of course there are legal and other restrictions (such as zoning, etc.) that influence what one chooses to sell. For purposes of this argument, I didn't feel the need to delinate that.

Again, speaking as a former business owner, when someone insists you sell them something you would prefer not to, what happens is that of the people who order the shoeleather, many will not be happy with it, and will go around complaining to everyone they know that they went to your supposedly "fine" restaurant and simply couldn't see what all the fuss was about. In the short run, okay, you get the business, but in the long run... it usually costs you... in many ways, both financially and in job satisfaction. You just can't be all things to all people.

Which gets us back to the question posed in the "palate" thread. Of course, that's all subjective and is, as you stated in your earlier post, a question with no answer. It's like which color is prettier: purple or turquoise? But back in the beginning of THIS thread, I understood the question to be whether or not the chef "ought" to have to cook good steaks well done, even knowing they would taste inferior, if that was what the customer wanted... going on the theories of "it's the customer's money" and "the customer is always right."

Yes, everyone is "entitled" to choose but no one is "entitled" to dictate, in a free, capitalistic and democratic society, what a merchant must proffer. That is one of the most sacred tenets of capitalism. If I open a restaurant or any other business, I choose what I want to offer for sale, whether it's shoes, or baseball memorabilia, or automobiles, or rare chunks of beef. That is the first step. The customers then decide if they wish to buy what I have chosen to offer. That is the second step. Period. If I don't want to offer for sale any particular dish (or other product), no one has the right to make me. Ergo, if I do not wish to sell New York strip steaks cooked any more than medium rare, that is absolutely my prerogative. It's just not negotiable, nor is it some big question for the ages. It's simple. And the people who are "entitled to choose what tastes good to them" are also entitled to take their preferences and money elsewhere. And if I cannot draw enough customers to buy what I DO choose to sell, I will not be able to stay in business, but that is the unavoidable choice that retail business owners make every single day. If someone comes into my "Medium-Rare or Rarer Cafe" and demands their steak well-done, I have the right to instruct my waitstaff to say, "We believe that particular cut of meat does not have enough marbling to be cooked well done and still remain properly juicy, so WE DO NOT OFFER THAT. We can prepare your steak medium rare, or perhaps you might prefer to choose another dish that we DO offer, such as this chicken dish, or that salmon." This is not to say that I or anyone in my imaginary restaurant has the right to be rude or condescending, but I should not be forced or coerced into selling a product I do not wish to sell. It just so happens that I did, for eight years, own a business. And sometimes we would get clients who attempted to dictate to us what we should sell them. It only took me the first year in business to learn that acquiescing to ill-informed demands was exceedingly bad policy. If we sold someone a product that we knew to be inferior, or that we didn't believe in, or that for some other reason we just did not wish to sell, it would invariably come back to bite us in the butt. So, I and my staff would simply say (in an unemotional and nonjudgmental tone), "I'm sorry, but we just DON'T OFFER THAT. We believe you would be happier with another product that we DO sell, and we can explain to you the features and benefits of the other product." If they insisted on the inferior product which we could neither endorse nor guarantee, we would just say, "I'm sorry, but we do not offer that. Because we do not sell what you want, we believe you would be happier elsewhere." Period.

I found just the opposite in my father. He claimed to be salt intolerant and never used it and never ate spicy foods, but as he got into his late 80s and on into his 90s, he ate food I cooked that had reasonable amounts of salt and lots of chiles and gobbled it up. I don't think he could taste any of it, and I don't know if this was something going on in his taste buds or brain or both. In any event, the prospects sound dismal. Well... on the other hand, it is quite possible that nature is just continuing to take care of us. We slow down as we age and our bodies need fewer and fewer calories. So, sure enough, taste buds die and we want fewer and fewer. Frankly, I'm looking forward to it. I'll be much happier loving food much less. Maybe I can get "into" donning trainers and speed-walking the malls instead of endless quests for ever better patés and cheeses!!

Cafe Annie has an international reputation, I'd say the loftiest in Houston, and is certainly "splurge-worthy." You should check into it.

Again, Toby, interesting subject. Isn't it funny how something we think we know so well, is really completely unknowable. Also in my casual research following your question, I discovered that it is believed that children have far fewer taste buds than adults. And as infants, primarily have taste buds sensitive to sweetness, which is, it is thought, required for the urge to drink mother's milk. And that, as one ages, the taste buds gradually die, resulting in the decreased appetitite (particularly for spicy foods) of the elderly.

I wonder if there are similar physiological variations between individuals when it comes to olfactory receptors. I shouldn't be surprised. I did a little investigation on Google and discovered, among other things, that men's and women's taste buds differ slightly, with women's being more sensitive and discretionary. Probably because in the cave days, we gals were busy tasting weeds and leaves and berries and deciding what to take home that wouldn't poison us all, while you big brave guys were off tramping about, talking dirty, scratching yourselves and looking for woolly mammoths to gore. Ya big lovable lugs ya.