JohnL

Buford and others often make assumptions. Julia Child was successful because, in part, she was entertaining. I am somewhat skeptical of those who attribute a "revolution" in food--I believe she was in the right place at the right time--the revolution was probably in progress and she certainly helped move it along. Additional assumptions are being made about today's culture. There is no doubt that there has been an explosion (far in excess of the boom Julia was a part of) in interest in food and dining and eating. Something is driving and sustaining it. Food has become part of the mass culture to a degree far surpassing what and where it was in Julia's early days. Naturally this expansion includes many people at various levels of interest. It is no longer a relatively small group of people with a more intense dedication to the food arts. Or Julia's housewives who yearned to cook "gourmet" meals for their hard working husbands and families. Times are different and the crowd is larger thousand fold! I question the assumption that RR and her thirty minute meals are less "important" to today's far busier people than Julia's cooking was in the sixties. I also have a problem with applying a level of "seriousness" to Julia (and others the cognoscenti have anointed) while deriding RR (and others the cognoscenti have designated as less than worthy). In fact, if not for the interest of thousands of people Buford designates as probably "in it for the entertainment" he probably would not have the audience for his book (and other food related writings) that he does. If Bourdain isn't a talented and entertaining writer his book gores nowhere and he doesn't get a TV show (on the FN) and an even wider audience. That is how it works. He has reached beyond those just serious about food and cooking and reached those less serious who are entertained none the less. maybe some of those in this larger audience will gain a greater interest and move on to the "real serious" stuff. It is not very smart to think that the success of the Food Network is not playing a very large role in driving (and capitalizing upon) the current interest (at all levels) of food interest today. It is also wrong to believe that at some point entertainment is key to driving large scale interest. The fact that his book (and others) is so successful is that he is an entertaining writer with broad appeal. To follow Buford's argument he would be considered a lesser food writer than say Escoffier (who appeals to those truly interested in food and cooking). To be sure, Buford has valid criticisms of the Food Network (no one is perfect). But I detect more than a hint of elitism or snobbery in his critiques. For someone who should have a prescience about the media, Buford has let his elitism creep in and blind him a bit.

10,000 gallons of Napa Valley merlot, anyone? ← Good stuff! I had a great Merlot Saturday night with my steak frites--a 2002 Pride. Really fine wine. Funny but the best Merlots are fetching record prices--there was a recent thread here re: Petrus with the 2005 going for $2500.00 a bottle! There are plenty of fine examples from California and Washington State (also some from LI) that sell out at high prices. So what gives? I believe the wine world can be divided into two distinct parts--bulk wines used for blending and for inexpensive wines. Then there is the rest of the wine world. Premium and super premium wines. There are often two different stories. The two worlds are often confused. Sideways? As usual, I believe the industry often wildly overstates the impact of these cultural phenomena. Sure the film had an impact--tourism was reported to have seen an increase. But the pinot noir "revolution" was well under way when the film came out. The film probably had less of an impact on both pinot noir's success as well as less impact on merlot's perceived fall from fashion than many in the business of wine want to believe. I also find some irony in Myles' drinking his most prized possession at the end of the film-- Cheval Blanc which usually has more than a third of its blend comprised of MERLOT!

Well you are correct to see the end game here. This is not about cruelty. It is about placing animals on the same level as human beings which ultimately results--if brought to the logical (illogical) conclusion-- no animals used in any manner for any purpose. Gruel from the matrix it will be!!! If improving conditions at these so called "factory" operations was a goal--then fine. And I for one would like to hear the debate. But this is a war with extremists and debate is futile. By the way--there is actually a "plants rights" philosophy out there right now--today foie gras, tomorrow Purdue chicken and then.................

Starbucks is less in the coffee business and more in the coffee based beverage biz. as Mimi Sheraton put it in another thread here--"They are in the milk business." That said--I believe they are raising the level of awareness of coffee served in its various forms and in many cases raised the level of overall quality. (most coffee shops around the New York Area were selling swill). As for a basic cup of Joe--Duncan Donuts has offered up a decent cup for years. (wisely for them they are trying to stay with Starbucks in the coffee area as starbucks has offered pastries etc). I still believe that Starbucks roasts their coffees too darkly (losing distinguishing characteristics--oddly many gourmet markets in NYC have long sold coffee beans that are too lightly roasted). Regardless, the success of Starbucks is a good thing and will lead to healthy competition. I do believe they have got to be nearing a saturation point though.

IMOP there is a major problem with any pizza that is delivered! Putting a pizza into a cardboard container begins a steaming process that is deadly in its impact upon the crust. It is increasingly worse the longer the pie spends in that box to the point that the crust becomes soggy and takes on a wet cardboard flavor. Leaving a boxed pie sitting anywhere is an awful practice whose perpetrators should be fined and or prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law!!!

Dottie and John have taken "brave" steps to demystify wine??? I must admit that I find their column geared to a sort of lowest common denominator--sort of a "dummies" level approach. It is fine for what it is. FYI--the couples writing to "demystify wine" schtick is quite old. Elin McCoy and John Frederick Walker pioneered it back in the eighties in their column in Food and Wine. (there may be another earlier couple but I am unaware of them). They also IMOP did a much better job with much more style in their writing than John and Dottie who sometimes engage in a too precious baby talk kind of cooing about wine. (they sometimes sound like Stuart Smalley). I recommend "Thinking About Wine" by McCoy and Walker (it may be out of print). Bravery is hardly an attribute I would apply to what John and Dottie are engaged in. I am curious as to what the "Whine Dictator" is and your choice of "vestigial" and "inaccurate" to describe the writing in that publication. Maybe it is just me, but vestigial seems an odd descriptor hence my curiosity. As for "The Accidental Connoisseur" I agree. This is a brilliant and wonderfully written book. Osborne is a gifted writer (by the way he has a new book just out "The Naked Tourist"). interestingly he is not really demystifying wine--he is actually celebrating the mystery of wine. I would add (in agreement with another poster below--or above) that "The Art of Eating" Ed Behr's quarterly publication is a must read for anyone serious about food and drink and travel etc.

here here! well said

Time for a little perspective! Right now, somewhere there are audiophiles decrying the low taste (or lack thereof) of the hoi poloi who listen to poorly made CD's on third rate boom box's and distorted mammoth surround sound systems. Also at this very moment, there are groups of people who are deriding the poor uninformed dolts who are driving Toyota Camry's (don't they realize that they can get a vintage BMW 2002 for the same price?). and there are folks who are wondering how anyone can go to the movies these days (it is not "cinema" anymore since the sixties). Like stephen king novels? well that isn't literature! You are obviously a small step above comic book freaks. Sign your checks with a parker ball point and not a limited edition blah blah blah??? This game covers a lot of territory! It is all well a good to be a connoisseur--a gourmet (or gourmand) or whatever. It is quite another to look down on those who do not share your passion. By the way--what are you listening to? ←

and a true foodie is only in it for the love? I'm sorry--the Food Network is about reaching enough viewers to justify its existence. To believe that Public TV or any other media outlet is not about the same thing is to be naieve. Yes there are differences but they are differences by degrees. JGV or Alain Ducasse need to reach an audience and generate profits same as Burger King. Many people appreciate these chefs and others like them and also eat at Burger King. There are audiences that often overlap. There are distinct audiences. TV Food Network is going for a broad mass appeal. Other efforts are targeting niches. You are correct to view RR in the proper context. She is an entertainer who cooks. The cook who entertains (read Emeril) can garner larger audiences many of whom are not interested in food enough to attend the culinary institute or watch less entertaining folks like Charlie Trotter on PBS. Lack of interest in food (is not a sign of anything) it is what it is. Different strokes etc etc . in fact, I would consider the person who can appreciate BK as well as Ducasse to be a true gourmand!!! Certainly a cut above those snobs who can't enjoy a tasty burger once in a while!

Time for a little perspective! Right now, somewhere there are audiophiles decrying the low taste (or lack thereof) of the hoi poloi who listen to poorly made CD's on third rate boom box's and distorted mammoth surround sound systems. Also at this very moment, there are groups of people who are deriding the poor uninformed dolts who are driving Toyota Camry's (don't they realize that they can get a vintage BMW 2002 for the same price?). and there are folks who are wondering how anyone can go to the movies these days (it is not "cinema" anymore since the sixties). Like stephen king novels? well that isn't literature! You are obviously a small step above comic book freaks. Sign your checks with a parker ball point and not a limited edition blah blah blah??? This game covers a lot of territory! It is all well a good to be a connoisseur--a gourmet (or gourmand) or whatever. It is quite another to look down on those who do not share your passion. By the way--what are you listening to?

Having lived in the UK for two years and traveled to Canada frequently (and Australia on occasion), the style of the equivalent of TVFN in each country (and BBC "Saturday Morning in the Kitchen") is quite different, both in the cuisine and in the style of presentation. There has been only minor cross-over onto US TVFN: what comes to mind is Iron Chef (Japan), Two Fat Ladies (UK) and, this season, Nigella Lawson ... otherwise, it's US hosts and US styles ... which (conveniently) matches to the marketing of host books, cookware, etc. ... US viewers have never seen Giorgio Locatelli, Tamasin Day-Lewis, Jancis Robinson, Antonio Carluccio, just to name a few ... ← Jancis Robinson appeared on the TV Food Network here as host of a show called "Grape Expectations" her co host was frank Prial (of the NY Times). Sort of (as she describes it in her book) a "Siskell and Ebert" on wines. Later, I recall her being teamed with Alan Richman.

You make some very good points. Popular culture will always be attacked by the intelligencia. Elitism is not really a bad thing. Snobbery is. So is arrogance. It seems that many critics and writers today, rather than providing insight, are stooping to personal attack. Rather than use style and wit (one wonders how many of these writers actually possess any) they go for sensationalism and bombast. Ironically, Mr Morago actually becomes that which he attacks! His piece is shallow and shrill--he takes on the traits of a "caricature." He admits he doesn't understand the success of the people he "skewers." This, I believe, is a lie. The role of any critic (popular culture or otherwise) is to understand the subject and to provide some insight to his or her readers. Mr Morago is either unqualified to write about popular culture (I doubt this) or he has decided that by sacrificing insight for low brow attack he (and his column) will be "noticed." He could raise the level of journalism but he chooses to go for the big audience (kinda like what he accuses Ms Ray of). Part of the problem is the proliferation of blogs and electronic media etc which I believe are forcing print journalists to stoop to their often low level of discourse. As for this "qualified" and "paying of dues" nonsense- who exactly determines who is or isn't qualified? It is fine to feel self satisfied and confident to be one who "is in the know" about anything, part of the cognoscenti, if you will. But when that satisfaction turns to smugness or snobism, feelings of being anointed so to speak, then there is a problem. As a film buff, I love the irony of the cognoscenti who look down upon popular culture despising Jerry Lewis as decidedly low brow while elevating the French Cinema to godlike status. To their chagrin, they can't seem to explain why Mr Lewis is elevated to godlike status by their counterparts in France. So life goes on!

any "inside" info on how the 05's are at the moment? also who made wines worth noting (and searching out).

as do elitism and snobbery!

Today transfats and tomorrow what? Butter? Chicken, duck or goose fat? Lard?Heavy cream? Marrow? Sugar? Adult public should be educated and allowed to make choices. Children need the protection until they too are educated. ← How about alcohol? Beer, Wine, Spirits? Everyone who believed it was ok to go after tobacco should look at the argument (successful) against it carefully. The same argument (with a bit of modification) can be made against alcohol. The slippery slope is greased with lard!!!

This is exactly what I noted in my earlier post. This is not brain surgery it is simple basic selling technique. As I also noted--too few wine shops understand, let alone employ them. Successful sales (of anything) is about understanding the customers' needs and wants and fulfilling them. I rarely follow any recommendation unless the sales person takes the few minutes to find out what my interests are. The worst thing a sales person can do is make assumptions about any customer. What they need to do first is: --find out what the customer is going to do with the wine. Is it to go with dinner? (what are they pairing the wine with?) is it a gift for someone else? (what kind of person is the gift for?) what wine's have the customer had that they like? Dislike? Does the customer seem to be interested in trying new things? This goes for sommeliers too! Nothing annoys me more than a sommelier (experienced or fresh out of wine school) saying --"ok you are having the veal and she is having the salmon--I got a killer wine for you." Some simple questions to determine my level of experience with wine and what I might like and what price I would be comfortable with would be better! What I am seeing in wine and spirits today is a better emphasis on education which is good-- but a distinct lack of selling knowledge/skills. Part of the problem is that wine retail sales jobs are relatively low paying so you tend to get the wine geek who has awful selling ability. A good sales person will avoid these jobs because they can make much more money with their talents selling myriad other things. So, the industry would do well to provide some sales training. Unfortunately, there are few in the business at retail or wholesale who are very skilled here. A good thing is keeping customer data bases and trying to establish and maintain a good relationship with customer by understanding that customer's likes and dislikes. Customers trust people who take an interest in their likes and dislikes and possess the knowledge (and inventory) to meet those needs!

Gary's in NJ offers it for $2500 a bottle--that's a savings of $4,800 on a case! (I don't know if a case discount applies.) Sad? only if your "evening tipple" is first growth Bordeaux. I doubt that many people will even see 05 Petrus when it arrives there are only around three thousand cases of the stuff to meet a worldwide demand.

Buckshot is a wonderful sign! The only time, I can think of, that finding metal in one's food is a sign of authenticity!!! by the way My understanding is that the "shot glass" we use to measure/drink spirits evolved from a small glass placed on the table to deposit buckshot!

This is truly great news! One of the great dining experiences in my modest life was eating a Scottish Woodcock at Nico at Ninety in London years ago. You are correct, I believe, to cite the Brits as masters of game cooking. I intend to avail myself (and friends) of the offerings at Orsay. thanks for the heads up/reminder!

The popularity of wines is not necessarily a result of a market being adventurous or not. If one looks at the history of the wines you note as well as the nature of the grapes used to make them it is easy to see why they have not become widely popular. Perhaps you would like to specify which wines from these regions you are noting. --there are many and many styles. (one reason for the relative lack of popularity here). Incidentally, these wines have had trouble gaining popularity in the French market where they compete with other French wines. That said, there are some good reasons why more of them will arrive in wine shops here and more people will try them. As for Yellowtail, it is a well made easy to drink wine. Attributes a lot of people in many countries around the look for. It is aggressively marketed and it is available (the Australians are brilliant in marketing wine here and elsewhere). It is competing with simple basic low priced table wines from all over the world available here. Let's face it. Average wine drinkers most anywhere in the world drink basic everyday table wines. Many people who enjoy Yellowtail drink other wines and many are willing to try other wines--I see em all the time in the wineshop. We have our own wine industry here in addition to imports. If we were not adventurous then how to explain the explosion of the Rhone Rangers here? Or the popularity of Malbecs from Argentina or the wines from all over Spain? How about Portugal? We are seeing new wines from Italy both red and white--from primitivo to vermentino--soave's back as well as Bardolino and.... I am starting to see more wines from Greece and there has been some great growth for Austria's Gruner. It takes time. If the wines are good and they are available --people will try them and we can sell them.

Your argument was not glib at all. IMOP this is a basic case of rights and freedoms and choice. Unfortunately, there's big money in regulation. and big corporations have big money. by the way--this goes hand in greedy little hand with the demand to regulate salt! Just when I finally found the perfect diet for myself--lots of salt to get my blood pressure high enough to force the foie gras through my veins!!! It is interesting to note that today with all the evil stuff we ingest our life expectancies are higher than ever.

Yes, I think it is. Your analogy about regional and ethnic foods is very valid. I am a curious eater, but most of my friends stick with what they know they will enjoy. For many people, the opportunity to relax over a meal or a bottle of wine is rare, and they want to order or buy something they know they can enjoy. I'm guilty of that as well. I have a favorite restaurant here in Paso Robles, Villa Creek, that used to serve this fabulous duck plate--tender, juicy slices of breast, garlic mashed potatoes, and jalapeno jelly--and since my male companions would invariably drink syrah, it was always my choice. I got so boring that when the owner walked by me, he would mutter, "Quack, quack, quack!" ← These are good points. However, I sense an attempt to generalize a bit here. The fact is, everyone is seeking a comfort level to one degree or another. Food, wine, clothing, automobile, homes/neighborhoods to live in etc etc etc. Everyone all over the world. In America we just have more choices more options. Even with wine. We are not locked into a tradition of drinking the "local wine." (not that tradition is bad). If Americans were not adventurous to a fairly large degree, there wouldn't be so many varieties of wines from so many countries sold here. If faced with the situation you cite, I would engage that customer---providing I sensed they were not in a hurry. I would ask what they like about the specific wine they are looking for and how they came to "discover" it --or why they are interested in it. from there I would let them know that I am aware of the wine (maybe I tasted it) and understand their interest in it. This takes a couple of minutes--then I suggest an alternative. Too many salespersons are "programmed" --if they ask for this sell em that. What selling is about is understanding the customer and his/her needs and motivations and then providing an option. Even if this person remains unconvinced they will remember that you took interest in them and may return! Remember, you have no other way of knowing how that person came to want the wine they are asking for--what possible trial and error they went through etc.

I agree with everything Brad said. Here's my three cents. I worked in marketing and advertising for many years before entering the wine trade here in New York. A purchase decision is reached via many ways often many considerations. Your role at the retail level as a salesperson is often only one small part of this. First, that customer has determined what they want to buy. They may have reached this decision in many ways. Friend's recommendation, a magazine article, advertising, a tasting event (they may or may not have tasted the wine before entering your store), a critic's recommendation, a combination of any/all of the above, whatever. They may or may not be receptive to an alternative. There are hundreds of wine shops in Manhattan (plus the internet and catalogs) where they can find what they are looking for. If they are a regular customer of yours, you may have established a level of trust or they may still not be open to your alternative advice--they simply want a specific wine. Reading into this is sheer folly and attempting to generalize about people's "comfort" or lack thereof is also wrong. It is important to understand that it is wrong to feel someone should trust you because you work in a wine shop. They have little or no idea who you are or what your expertise is or if you could understand what they are looking for-- they only know you are selling wine. Unfortunately, I can personally attest to more failed than successful instances where (as a consumer) I accepted advice from a wine salesperson. Often, though, customers will be willing to accept your recommendation, it is just plain wrong to expect them to every time. It is a shame, but, the state of the business is such that while there are many fine and knowledgeable people working in retail there are plenty of people who are not so good at selling or understanding wine. So, people arrive at a purchase decision via many ways (all are valid to one degree or another). They may or may not be receptive to your suggestions--they may or may not be looking for a "comfort" level. You may or may not get an opportunity to show them what you know. Maybe they live in another part of town and just happened to be in your neighborhood and don't want to establish a relationship with you and your shop. Maybe they are buying the wine for someone else. There are a hundred potential reasons that have nothing to do with you personally or your shop. I certainly wouldn't question their motivation.

The article in question was linked in this thread. See Chardgirl's post of Sept 18th. IMOP the article is fine in offering some details as to how spinach is produced. It comes from a someone with a particular point of view and an axe to grind. Interestingly the writer criticizes the FDA for its actions (as too sweeping) and then closes with "if I am wrong...." In doing so the writer makes the case for the FDA's actions. The fact is--until the investigation turns up some answers then everyone is right (or wrong?).

I love this soup! I also believe that while a dry light to medium bodied red would work well--a chianti in this style would be fine.--you are correct to go for "rustic" as opposed to a polished glossy refined red. However, I rarely drink red wines with soups. I find that most red wines when accompanying a hot liquid based dish often seem flabby. (slightly chilling the red can help.). Something about a warm liquid with a hot liquid. (even though this dish is very hardy it is still liquid based) With rustic white beans and cabbage soups I go for a white wine and the refreshing qualities a cool aromatic white can offer. I like aromatic whites in these instances. Staying in Tuscany, I believe a vermentino would be close to perfection. One from the Bolgheri or Colli di Luni. These are refreshing and aromatic with wonderful herbal, melon flavors and often a salty note (similar to that one encounters in a Manzanilla). Speaking of Manzanilla--a dry sherry would be outstanding with this soup (and a bit daring)!! Manzanilla or an oloroso (dry not sweet) would have the flavors to mate well with the dish. I would also recommend a glass of white vermouth! With this dish one can have fun and get creative with pairings!!!