macrosan

My guess is, Tony, that less and less people are affording it the status it once had. For a start, you and I have downgraded it so surely it's just a matter of time before people get to know that .... I first found eGullet in a desperate attempt to find something better than Zagat for New York recommendations. For the UK, I always used Egon Ronay, but when that folded I tried the Good Food Guide, and the Consumer Association book (?). I guess after giving them up as unsatisfactory I might have found eGullet that way too I know there are some who won't like it, but I still view eGullet's main value to me as being a provider of restaurant information which I can interpret to my needs, qualify, and confidently act upon.

Thanks, Cabby, now I know Maybe Comme Chez Soi are demonstrating a massive amount of self-confidence, which on my experience there would be entirely justified.

Surely that's the nature of Michelin, Tony. There's a big culture-timelag. I've never possessed a Michelin Guide, and I don't think I'll ever buy one. I'm interested in going to their starred restaurants, but I don't think I need their book to do that. I'm much more likely to ask people here for their experience than to look for somewhere in the MG. Incidentally, when I looked at the website of Comme Chez Soi (my most recent Michelin experience) I noticed that they didn't give their Michelin rating a mention anywhere. Is this a requirement by Michelin that their recommendations can't advertise it ?

My perceptions of newspaper critiques of restaurants derive only from the UK marketplace, which I suspect may be very different from that in the USA. The UK has a much more recently established popular interest in dining out, and the quality of restaurants in the UK is, I think, widely acknowledged to have made huge advances only in the last twenty years. So I suspect that restaurant critiques in the USA have established a much more mature position than those in the UK. As is the case in so many other fields, it is likely that what the USA offers today is what the UK will offer in ten to fifteen years. It is interesting to observe that many food writers have established a format which depends more on the creation of witty, entertaining prose than on culinary content. I always use AA Gill in the Independent Magazine as my prime example of this oeuvre. Gill is indeed a witty writer, and it may be that he possesses a good level of knowledge about matters culinary, but his typical restaurant review rarely spends more than a couple of paragraphs out of twenty giving any “hard” information on the restaurant he is (allegedly) reviewing. Perhaps this is primarily because readers of newspapers consider food to be a trivial subject, not really worthy of serious discussion. Food seems to be viewed as merely a vehicle for letting loose the literary talents of those who cannot find an outlet in the old media of magazines such as Punch, or Men Only, most of which have, of course, now disappeared. I suspect that travel writing used to be like this. Clive James used to write a travel column in national UK newspapers, and his “Postcard from …” series established him as a brilliant and popular writer. In fact, most of his writing was more entertaining than informative. James was highly skilled at observing local culture and custom, and at lampooning the people in the countries he visited, and he successfully transmitted an accurate “feel” for the people and the places he was describing. But no-one could decide on whether or not to take a holiday in Paris, or Hong Kong, or Australia based on the information that James provided. Nor was that James’ intention. Over recent years, that type of travel writing in newspapers seems to have been largely subsumed by more straightforward information-based reporting. A glance at the UK Sunday newspapers will demonstrate immediately that travel has become big (advertising) business. Every week brings reports on holiday destinations around the world, supporting pages of advertising at the ratio of maybe three advertising pages to every page of reports. The reports themselves are detailed, researched accounts of everything from inoculation requirements to seasonal mean temperatures, and they are mostly written in an unfussy, dry journalistic style. Perhaps food writing is lagging ten years behind travel. I cannot agree with the proposition that newspapers are artificially foisting restaurant reviews on the public in order to support current advertising revenues. My guess is that revenues from this source are tiny. It would be interesting to hear from insiders what the real numbers are. It may well be that newspapers are trying to expand restaurant advertising revenue, and that what they are doing is trying to attract the public to read their “soft copy” reviews with a view to creating a dynamic of increasing advertising matched by hardening reviews. That seems a perfectly valid marketing approach to me. There is often a tendency for people to think of newspapers as exercising “mind control” over the population. Some believe that the newspapers adopt a position, disseminate propaganda, and persuade the public to their point of view. I do not subscribe to this view. It is true that newspapers provide many people with their main source of factual information, although television is increasingly usurping this role. But I am certain that newspapers follow public opinion, they do not form it. Newspapers can indeed act as the centre for public rallying cries, and can harden their readers’ views on opinions they already hold, but they will only create or change opinion through the facts they present. In the context of restaurant critiques, newspapers will present their readers with the material that the editors believe their readers desire. They will not, and should not, attempt to bludgeon their readers into reading serious hard reviews, but as soon as they detect that an important segment of their readership is ready for such a change, then they will make that change. Of course, they will be taking a risk in any such move because their perception of public opinion is limited, but publishers and editors are in the business for risk. It seems that in the UK restaurant critics of the style and stature of Fay Maschler, writers of compelling information-based reviews upon which readers can make serious judgement, can be counted on one hand. I understand that there are scores of critics of that quality in the USA, and I would guess that there are correspondingly high numbers in other countries (such as France) with a long-established restaurant industry. Perhaps we just need time.

I am printing that photo of FatGuys and I'm going to eat it, it looks so delicious. Thanks for the write-up, Jay. Having read about Craft here some time ago, it never made my list of must-go places, but I've now revised that opinion. Do you have a view on whether there is a minimum number of people to maximise the enjoyment of this kind of "multi-dish" meal ?

Macrosan isn't so young either. Jaybee Yes, I do eat at the bar, but they will serve the tasting menu at the bar for a minimum of two people. I assume that this minimum would apply at a table.

I have been wanting to try the pasta tasting menu for ages, but I always end up eating alone at Babbo Terrific review, Suzanne. I could almost taste the food. That bread comes from Sullivan Street Bakery, and I think the one they usually serve is called Pugliese (?). Ever since I found that out, I buy the stuff as soon as I arrive in New York, and I eat it like candy

Ever so many years ago, I used to work every Sunday at a deli. We had an electric meat slicer, and knives. Whenever people asked for sliced meat, we would ask "Machine or hand sliced?". The only time I remember anyone asking for machine was a very smart lady (a regular) who said "Machine sliced, and very thin. It's only for some guests we have coming over". Machine slicing imparts a smooth, hard, sometimes shiny texture to the surface of the meat. I guess that's because of the speed of the rotating blade. Hand slicing just never does that. A real expert can cut meat wafer thin, but it still has much better texture than from a machine.

I recently bought a 200gm box of Leonidas chocolates (in London) for £10, and I thought them over-priced, but these are double that price I'm not a great fan of Belgian chocolates anyway (just not my taste) but I guess Marcolini is not trying to provide value for money in the normal sense, he's offering something unique, that maybe only he can conceive and deliver, and is deliberately charging a premium price for that. Not dissimilar to Sketch, perhaps. I have absolutely no problem with this. If people are willing to pay the price, then good luck to the man. And if thwey're not, well in a free market he will go out of business, and that's also OK. It's not as if he's conning anyone about what he has on offer, nor that he's taking unfair advantage of a monopoly of an essential product. Wiull people be able to tell the difference between these premium chocs and other "lesser" brands ? I must admit that I'd like to see a blind tasting done, and I woulkdn't mind participating myself But as I've said on other occasions, it doesn't always matter whether people can tell the difference, provided they're willing to believe in it.

Charlene, CLICK HERE and you'll get a soundtrack of sorts. It's far from the best I've heard, but it'll give you the general idea. I believe there are hundreds of recordings of it.

I don't think you can be entirely sure about that, Tommy. I mean, the peppermill and the wine glass fit, but .... I enjoyed Ivan's piece. It was entertaining, and it struck chords on the subject of dining (especially dining alone) that gave it authenticity and relevance at eGullet. I have to say that the thread title and forum were poorly chosen, and I would rather have seen it in the General forum with a title like "The Lone Diner" or some such. So bravo, Ivan, please don't allow the churls to deflect you from your mission (whatever that is) nor from providing the rest of us with some entertaining insights.

Not (of course) to drift off topic, but I often hear "Duelling Banjos" in my mind, even when I'm not hacking my way through the dense forests of Sussex. That is the most superbly evocative piece of film music I've ever heard. I also get the visual of the young banjo player.

I'll give the third vote for foie gras, although I confess to being somewhat influenced by having seen a flock of geese being reared for its production, and that was not an edifying sight. At the end of the season, I am also (temporarily I hope) bored with game birds -- pheasant, partridge, grouse, wild duck -- which I've eaten at least once a week since mid-October.

"ALL" ?????? Wow, Steve, that's a big "all". Yes, you may be right that we're just waiting for right instrument to be invented so we can physically see an electron, but as at today you have to believe that such an instrument, when invented, will indeed provide non-circumstantial evidence of what you currently believe to be the case --- that electrons do in fact exist. Now I have no problem believing that, but you have been demanding a higher standard of proof than I find necessary.

Yes, no and yes in that order. I still consider myself to be a Jew because I am. Even if I failed to observe a single law, the most observant Jew in the world would call me a Jew. A bad Jew, maybe, a non-observant Jew definitiely, but a Jew nevertheless. My religion isn't about dogma. In fact, although Judaism is positively littered with minutiae in terms of observation, I consider Judaism as a whole to be a non-dogmatic religion. We have a tradition called pilpul which is where learned men get together and spend hours discussing the nuances of a single word in the Bible or the Talmud. For orthodox Jews, the Torah itself is sacrosanct, but a huge proportion of Jewish observance and custom is based on a thousand years of rabbinical discussion and interpretation. Many of the laws and customs are arcane and outdated, but these are almost all of little importance. The centrality of the religion is a set of values, and a code of human behaviour, which are both practical and sensible. So for example one could argue that "Thou shalt not commit adultery" is dogmatic, since it is unequivocal and brooks no argument, but I simply view it as entirely practical and sensible. What defines me as a Jew is far less my observance of kashrut or my belief in God's vengeance, than my adherence to a set of moral values and my commitment to my culture. Despite an earlier comment by SteveP, it is simply not the case that I would get "thrown out of my religion" for eating pork. So yes, I am allowed to take all sorts of liberties with custom, ritual, and minor laws and still remain a Jew. Incidentally, LML, yYou are right to observe that you might want to avoid me at the next party we both attend. I have to admit I'm sorry I barged into this thread --- I should have known better. But I hate to see my religion misrepresented in public, particularly to non-Jews who might actually believe what all the Jews here are telling them. Having started to correct various errors and misunderstandings, people keep asking me questions which I now feel obligated to answer.

My own existence as a sentient, creative, intellect is my proof. When you can show me how a human being can create that from nothing then I'll consider your alternative. If you think that's circumstantial, then give me your (non-circumstantial) evidence for a black hole (and I mean physical evidence, not evidence deduced from a tautologically designed piece of scientific apparatus). That is by far the most offensive thing I've ever seen you post on this board, particularly given that it's aimed at me. I hope you regret having made the remark, and that you'll edit it out, and then I'll edit this out.

That's sad, Tony, because that's a different God from the one I was brought up on. The God I was introduced to as a child was just like my father --- he was a God who loved his creations, wanted the best for them, saved them from awful events, taught them and gave them opportunities for life. Of course he was also able and ready to exercise discipline, but even when he was doing that he cried to himself. Also, like my father, he made mistakes and was (sometimes) willing to admit that. You would have to be awfully selective in your reading to have produced your view, I think. Well not in the Jewish religion. No, not according to the Jewish religion, they're not. But all of the above is just the religion that you and I were taught, that we grew up with and either did or did not accept before we reached an age of philosophical reason. When I acquired the ability to reason for myself, I re-examined my view of and my belief in God, and I actually rejected some of what I was taught, and learned new ideas for myself. So for example, I rejected the notion that kashrut was an all-or-nothing option, and adopted my own idiosyncratic version. I rejected much of the detail of Moses'/God's dealing with Pharaoh in Egypt, because they did not reconcile with my developed view of what God was, and what He might or might not have done. And there are a number of detailed aspects of observance and interpretation and custom that I find unacceptable to my learned values, and which I therefore discard or modify. To some Jews, that would make me a heretic, or a hypocrite, but I can live with that label. What I didn't do was to pick on a few specific aspects of my religion and culture which I found to be unpleasing, and conclude that the whole package needed to be thrown out.

Now now, Wilfy, that's not what I said, tsk tsk. What I said was that the process of creation of a scientific hypothesis was not importantly (in relation to the discussion between me and the Prof) different from the process of creation of a religious belief. Both require original conceptualisation and conversion into expressible and credible form. The end results could not sensibly bear any resemblance (pace your Mr Quine) and more than a scientific hypothesis resembles the Mona Lisa.

If this is genuinely the case, and not your trademark backpedalling, then you must be profoundly religious. If I understood your premise or your parenthetical reference or your conclusion, I would reply

Heaven (or some humanist equivalent thereof) forbid. No, my argument for the existence of God is entirely based on rational deduction. I agree about Dawkins. I have read several letters from the guy in The Independent, as well as seeing some TV interviews. I think he sees himself as having been placed on earth simply to demonstrate his own superiority over other mortals. My point about black holes etc was that even scientists required a leap of faith to put forward their theories, since at the time of their postulation they could not be proven. In fact, at those times, they couldn't even predict a situation in which they could ever be proven. I would disagree that there is any important difference between the process of creation of a religious belief and the creation of a scientific hypothesis. Moses said "I have seen the Lord" and Archimedes said "Eureka" (well maybe he didn't, but it makes a good story).

There's a hotel/restaurant called Horsted Place just outside Uckfield. I've been there twice in the last 18 months, both at small (24 people) conferences. Service is excellent, wine list excellent, food very good (and probably better for a non-group meal), setting and ambience very good. Although actually in East Sussex (about 15m north of Brighton, just west of the A23) a restaurant I used to like very much is The Chequers at Slaugham 01444-400239. I haven't been for a few years, but they had a varied and interesting menu, and the food was excellent.

As far away as possible from the pot.

Natural selection. .... Yes, Prof, but natural selection from what, and who created the process of natural selection ? My point is that science denies the creation of something from nothing, therefore it has to believe that something has always existed. But if the oldest thing that science knows about is (let's say) the universe, then science by definition cannot explain what existed before the universe, and from which the universe was naturally selected, or evolved, or whatever. I'm simply suggesting that the something that science knows nothing about might well be what non-scientific believers call "God". At the very least, a scientist should acknowledge the probability, even if not the certainty, that there are some thoroughly fundamental issues behind and around our existence which we cannot even begin to explain with our current knowledge. The concepts of God, and religion, and faith, are simply ways to attemopt to acknowledge our ignorance, and are surely as valid as mid-20th Century scientists' faith in the concepts of black holes and quasars and the Theory of Relativity.

Nina, I will read that site in more detail, but let me give you s spot reaction to their premise. If spirituality dervives from genes, who created those genes so to operate ? How else would I explain it ? Well how about just saying that God does exist ?

On who's authority have you learned this? On whose authority do you ask this ? Don't side-step the question. The question is the answer, Nick, and the answer the question :enigmatic smile: