Steve Klc

Margaret and others--have you had a chance to see the newest Gourmet, devoted entirely to the Bay area?

Also, while Steve mentions 1985 as a reference point--Gopnik actually moved to Paris in 1995 and is in essence focusing on more recent history--the last 5 years of the century. So when Gopnik refers to new, current or recent observations--"the new cooking in France" or the "lull in French cooking"--he's talking since 1995.

Jason--I had two meals in Rouen on a slight detour on my way to Tours--at Gill, worth every Michelin star (two) and at Le P' tit Zinc (I think it might have been a one star.) I came away from both terribly impressed with the gastronomic value of the American dollar outside of Paris. I had the most extensive/most expensive tasting menu option at each place--and left thinking I didn't pay enough. Also, I seem to remember a nice piece by R.W. Apple on Calvados not too long ago in the Times.

For a while now, I had entertained developing some type of book discussion club within eGullet--where one title might be discussed and dissected over a period of time by anyone who saw fit. I was originally thinking of either Patrick Kuh's wonderful "The Last Days of Haute Cuisine" or Leslie Brenner's "American Appetite," an irritating, underwhelming gloss. Then Bux and Steve Plotnicki's close reading of Adam Gopnik's extremely well-written "Paris to the Moon" burst on our scene in two different threads--calling particular attention to one chapter--one essay--within the book. (It must be genetic for the Gopniks, for Adam's brother is doing some of the best critical writing and thinking in the country at the moment for the Washington Post.) So anyone joining this midstream--consider buying the book, read that one chapter, it's in paperback and readily available--and let's see if there is interest in delving deeper into Gopnik's essay here as well. We will quote and excerpt, but you really should buy the book. Or, if you find yourself in a bookstore, read the chapter over a latte. This is by no means necessary--Steve has done a great job starting us off.

A plea--reiterated--let's try to keep this to the "Hoffman/curry/Pacaud/Indian fusion/other chefs using "Indian" spices/profoundly dishonest" thread--and enlarge the discussion elsewhere of the Gopnik hypothesis and any of these Steve Plotnicki tangents. Each is a worthy discussion on their merits.

Of course, Suvir, no encouragement of your greedy child is necessary when it comes to sweets!

Steve--you lose me--and diminish your own continued advocacy of Hoffman--the minute you say that Hoffman "went to L'Ambroisie to experience "classical" French cuisine" as if that were some valid criteria. To me, it isn't--and relies on some unproveable contract of belief and expectation between chef and diner. There's no such thing. What Hoffman "wants"--what baggage and/or limitations he brings to the table--is clearly irrelevant. And when you write that Hoffman "wants to eat curry prepared by people who are expert in curry. Not by people who are expert in French cooking technique" you only reveal his limitations as both diner and chef. You accurately assess that we don't see this specific issue the same way Steve--but I would like to pursue the larger Gopnik "light has dimmed" hypothesis in another thread--and to go beyond the Hoffman/curry quote. I encourage you to start a new thread--as Steve Shaw had urged--frame the issue as you see it--and let's weave our way out of India.

Neither of you mentioned a dessert cart--the glorious end-of-meal sequence in ADNY is: plated desserts are served with perfect temperature and textural contrasts, then an assortment of hand-dipped chocolates and tiny macaroons (disitnctly not Laduree-like!), each on a silver stand, are brought to the table, then a trolley--an outdated, often misused haute holdover--is wheeled by with an amazing array of prepared candies, lollipops, caramels and several baked goods, like madeleines. I see this as yet another example of the Ducasse genius for thoroughness--and I wonder if it played a role in your sense of the meal as a complete experience: Ducasse looked back and refined the use of a cart in such a way as to be beyond criticism--for nothing on the cart is at an inappropriate temperature. Of course, at this point of the meal in ADNY you will most likely be choosing an assortment to take home with you. But you are indeed encouraged to nibble anything--was this the case at ADPA? Also, were you served a separate dessert menu early in the experience--perhaps before the amuse or first course arrived--and asked to select your dessert?

Actually, Steve, if Hoffman was quoted as simply saying he didn't like the dish, that it didn't work for him, no one would have any complaint. Your extended attempts to defend and deflect for him are admirable, really admirable, but this is what he said--and only what he was quoted as saying--in the written record: "it was infuriating. It was a French dish with powder. It was such an insular approach, as though nobody understood that curry isn't a powder that you apply cosmetically. Nobody had read Madhur Jaffrey or really understood that curry isn't just a spice you shake but a whole technique of cooking you have to understand." Well, no, you don't have to have read Jaffrey, you don't have to have visited India, you don't have to understand a whole technique of cooking curry, and really talented chefs sprinkle powders on dishes all the time. Curry powder is anything a chef wants it to be at anytime--no more, no less. It carries no inherent quasi-religious cultural baggage. (Though a diner is of course free to bring any of his or her own baggage with them.) It wasn't even necessarily an insular approach--Hoffman would have no idea. Ferran Adria spinkles so many powdered and pulverized things on dishes--spices, ground dried vegetables, fruit powders--is he being insular? is he trying to appear modern? is he disrespecting some classical sensibility? Hardly. I still say it doesn't matter. I think Bux, Steve Shaw and I view Hoffman's comments as unwise, unknowing, presumptious--and I'd add, more than a little self-serving. And none of us would have any problem if he simply said he didn't like the dish. I appreciate that you are sharing more thoughts from conversations you've had with Hoffman. The fact that Hoffman feels he was accurately quoted makes this issue more clear, and clearly damning. I suspect--just suspect--he has no idea of how elite chefs cook and create and is a prisoner of his own myopia. (Which is, interestingly, how you are trying to portray French chefs.)

Bux--we'd still be having the same discussion about an American chef mistakenly making assumptions and missing the big picture if Pacaud had sprinkled Chinese Five Spice powder on langoustines instead of curry powder. (Assuming Hoffman had just read Barbara Tropp instead of Madhur Jaffrey.) And just fyi, going back even earlier than your sources, Escoffier had codified curry sauces at the turn of the century--and how they needed to be adapted from true Indian curry in order to suit Western tastes. So, one might be able to argue more persuasively that Pacaud was looking backward in his use of curry powder, rather than trying to "appear modern." That is if one even recognized the validity of the point, which I do not.

Tommy--you report, we decide. When are you making it for us?

Simon--my take on the "thread about the use of Indian spices in French restaurants" is that it is a non-starter based on a faulty premise. A misperception. My fear is that certain people cast certain aspersions on "fusion" as they do "foodie." It's convenient and fits an agenda. Food evolves in a big global cauldron of swirling ideas and experiments, with alot of poorly conceived, poorly executed experiments--some resist, some forge ahead--all at different pace. It's contrapuntal and punctuated. Sometimes a lone chef can push things along--take Gray Kunz--someone with talent who even regressive culinarians say "gets" the fusion thing. To him, though, he's just cooking, using the tools at his disposal to create an interesting and tasty edible experience. We now have a book--a written record of how he sees things--and I suspect that book will become very influential in how chefs continue to refine what "fusion" means to them. Perhaps the book will help eliminate the need to even discuss fusion anymore. All "fusion" does is distract. I also fear that when one generalizes about specific "fusion" dishes and ill-conceived mistakes--they're misconstruing "fusion" as a valid entity. It isn't. I see "fusion" as a deep culinary prejudice. When an Adria or Conticini looks to America, they see an opportunity to express their spirit as a Kunz has--and I just don't accept "fusion" as anything other than a media-imposed term, used to describe something they don't understand. What cuisine or modern contemporary cooking is not a fusion of ideas, ingredients and styles? It's easy and defensible to say the French have resisted change--but the best chefs have always approached other cuisines and ingredients and co-opted them. As Steve Shaw says, it is a function of speed--of acquiring critical mass. That's all Pacaud was doing with "curry" on his langoustines at L'Ambroisie. Sprinkling curry powder on a dish is nothing more or less than sprinkling a little salt or cracked pepper on a dish--and it is not very astute or correct to indict any chef for doing this. One should simply judge the dish and whether it worked. This is how the best chefs work--treat all these flavors, spices, ingredients and techniques as options--and figure out how to integrate them in what they do. Sugar was sprinkled as a spice 400 years ago. Mostly all of those spices referred to as "Indian" or Oriental or exotic were used all across Europe in the Middle Ages--as others have mentioned--and were often used in mixtures of a dozen spices--in sweet and savory things in what is now the UK, France and Italy. One way of looking at that Passard tomato is that it is nothing more adventurous--flavor-wise--than something already done in the Middle Ages. (This is apart from the "technique" involved to cook it--and apart from the visionary notion of a tomato as dessert.) Techniques of other cuisines can be integrated, or not. Perhaps in other dishes, the three-stars of France will embrace the true Indian techniques of bringing the flavors out of spice slowly that Suvir and others have eloquently revealed on this board--perhaps not. Perhaps L'Ambroisie blended their "curry" mixture according to an old Indian home chef's tradition, we really don't know. No one should care whether they do or do not, least of all an over-rated American two-star (under Reichl, probably a one-star under Grimes in the new NYTimes.) But that didn't seem to matter to Hoffman, the over-reaching American chef conveniently used by Adam Gopnik to further a "light has dimmed" hypothesis. The only relevant thing to say about that dish is--whether it was interesting, good and worked in the flow of that meal. So what if it was "a French dish with powder" as Hoffman is quoted as saying? It is irrelevant and specious to extrapolate, as Gopnik quotes Hoffman, that it was as "though nobody understood that curry isn't as powder that you apply cosmetically. Nobody had read Madhur Jaffrey, or really understood that curry isn't just a spice you shake but a whole technique of cooking you have to understand." All of this may be true. None of it matters one wit. So Simon, I'm uncertain what you mean when you say "fusion food with particular reference to Indian inspiration" because I suspect we will not agree on what actually is "Indian-inspired." Because if your lead examples for this are Michelin-starred chefs using spices that have been used in Indian cooking, that's not enough of a connection for me. I'd suggest my previous hypothetical--that of Pacaud, possibly roasting spices per long established Indian traditions would be a valid example of "Indian influence," were it true. What are other examples?

I'm all over the map--but your comments about moisture are important. I usually mix and vary cheeses depending on the other toppings, like how much water is in the tomato and how much oil I'm putting on, but I seem to find myself in the fresh mozzarella, low moisture mozz, fontina, parmesan, pecorino camp. Sometimes the aged provolone with the brown crust by that guy in California. I also always add olive oil and herbs--again in different mixtures--like dried oregano and red pepper and fresh thyme (often) or rosemary (less so). Sometimes sea salt if not alot of the grated cheeses. I haven't gotten into the garlic thing as much as others have. Always thin crust, always blackened.

I'd be happy to say one pizza is better than another--and defend why, too, as I suspect you would be. Some things just are better. Like my statement that no deep dish pizza can be good. Let me add another variable in to the mix--what about grilled pizzas? And for anyone that hasn't had New Haven pizzas, we're basically talking variations of thincrust brick oven pizzas.

Steven--are you saying one pizza is better than another? Aren't you disrespecting the diverse regionalism between Chicago, New Haven and New York and with other countries? All kidding aside, I agree with Steven that good thin crust pizza can come in many forms--Liza, I've had pizza parlor pizza that equalled the best "designer" or sophisiticated pie, if we even allow for that category. Dough, mozz and sauce, pinch of dried oregano. That's it. Of course, many good pizzas that I've had in Italy were more like flatbreads--and as others have mentioned--have salad or grilled seafood on them! (Like rocket) I'll further extend this to say that, for me, it is not possible to have good deep dish pizza--the ratio of dough to topping and cheese is too out of balance. I have less of a problem with the New Haven style pizzas, and would consider them different and a bit less good than those of NYC with a thin, crisp blackened crust.

B--I suggest you weigh your Mom's "recipe" out and compare it to others here, too--otherwise you're spinning your wheels testing things you can't quantify or calibrate. After you have your technique down--then you can start playing with flour and sugar substitutions. It's easy to like mathematical elegance, expressed in volume, in theory--but it is not a guarantee of performance and can hinder consistency. And if you have one of those oven thermometers, make sure you take a reading of your oven--and compare see if it matches up to your setting.

Roger--can you provide any links to Australian articles in newspapers or magazines discussing the Manfield/Adria connection--ideally where she is quoted about the experience? As you may know from my previous posts, I recommend her dessert book.

For winodj and anyone else following the steak--be sure to go here: http://www.egullet.com/ib3....2;t=158 Ducasse does steak, in simple interesting fashion.

I'd also like to recommend "The French" by Theodore Zeldin, written in 1982. The short chapter on "How to eat properly" rings the truest for me. The book is also quite funny and introspective.

If true, Lesley--what's worse--one person finding cute sweaters and playing with the basic home recipes of others--which really has passed into common currency, so unsophisticated to be almost inherently unoriginal--like I see Nigella--or building entire glossy magazine staffs and media empires around dumbing down, stealing, re-working what professional chefs and pastry chefs do--and most of the time not crediting said chef? I'm not talking about celebrity chef puff pieces--where the magazine gains by the name association--but all the other pieces by food writers, personalities and in-house staff.

This cake sounds really interesting ChefGrrl. Of course, Simon, you probably have the advantage of working with the UK version of "How to Eat" and blessedly have at your disposal sugar and almond measurements in weight rather than volume. No tedious 1C+2T or 2 and 1/3C or heaping teaspoon for you Europeans. (With this "cake," though, precise measurement is not as important.) I'd suggest you use almond flour rather than ground almonds--since grinding your own almonds almost never works out well at home. (The flour is what is left over after a large percentage of the almond oil has been pressed out--and works better in alot of baking applications.) I admire the fact that Nigella writes "It was only after I did this cake a few times--the route it took to get to me was circuitous, as these things can be--that I realized it was more or less food writer Claudia Roden's orange and almond cake." A lesser writer would have left this out.

Hey Miss J--there are lots of other professional bakers and pastry chefs--and home hobbyists--that post and lurk here--let's give everyone a chance to weigh in on this. This is expanding into several issues and I do have a few thoughts about diets,lowcarb, chocolate, "flourless" cakes and sugar substitutes, too--anyone else?

Tedious but necessary in the modern world we live in, ahr. Read Steven's announcement Lesley and if you have any questions, e-mail me and I'll help.

Suvir & Patrice--I suspect I would have disliked the pairing, too--but did not want to influence the answer. I have tried to understand Canadian icewines and paired chocolate desserts extensively with Canadian icewines to very limited success--and I've never achieved an ideal pairing--where both the chocolate dessert and icewine are enhanced. (I've done most of my work with Inniskillin and Hillebrand Estates.) And I haven't been to Montreal yet--but when I do go, I'm going to trust the opinions of Patrice and Lesley C--and perhaps we should take a roadtrip so all of us can make desserts together? I have this idea that the 4 of us use the same ingredients--and then each do dessert independently--and then taste.

Lesley--you are so chaste. are we talking about that long-haired, motorcycle-riding star of American Iron Chef infamy? I have heard he has a delicate touch sauteeing mushrooms.