Wilfrid

But remember, they have to be significantly dumber than the Belgians. (In fact, we are having the same argument we had a long time ago about the British and the French; because there are people here who can't grasp the fact that, over a long period, many British people, having experienced French food, continued to prefer British food. That's a real problem for the "non-relativists" unless they think there's different physiological wiring going on, or take a racial view of relative intelligences.)

Since we're having the same conversation on most of the active threads, perhaps it doesn't matter much.

Funny thing is, the Dutch probably like their food that way. Because there would be nothing to stop them eating like the Belgians if they didn't. Brainteaser: Is this because 1. The Dutch have different olfactory receptors than the Belgians? 2. The Dutch are dumb? 3. Preference in food is as much a social and cultural construct as something arising from a chemical analysis of what is on the plate?

Edit: never mind.

Yes, you are. I'm not talking about discos. African food, especially cous cous, is to the young urban French almost what a Saturday night curry is to the English. You see, France used to have these colonies... But I will drop the issue, as it was meant as a footnote, and it's not really pertinent to the thread.

Did you ever look at his book, your Grace? It's very much his style, so I wasn't suprised. He leavens it with a dour - to use his word - wit, I think. Book, pictures, food, restaurant - it's a whole minimalist package.

No, you can take my word for it. Paris alone is packed with African restaurants, offering cuisine from Senegal, the Cameroons and the Ivory Coast in particular. I don't know how you missed them.

Why are they so popular in France? I thought the French had better palates than the Tibetans.

Aaaaahhhhaaaa. So that's how they do it (deferring to authority).

Interestingly, even if they started off with a round sheet, there would still be wastage. Fascinating.

Depends what's there.

In anticipation of sunshine, why not share ideas for day trips with a food theme, accessible from the City. There's a grey area, because someone living in Manhattan might count a trip to the other end of Queens as a day trip, even though remaining within city limits - I mean, Brighton Beach and Coney Island are day trips for me. So interpret it freely. Obviously, I'm looking for tips for myself, but the thread doesn't have to be all about me. Let's talk about seafood at City Island. Let's talk about New Haven Italian. Let's talk about what's good to eat among the Russian eateries of Brighton Beach. Off you go.

This kind of factual background is essential to understand the issue, Tony. My contribution is that immigration policy in the United States has been far from a level-playing field for all ethnic groups and "East Asian" immigration was barred for much of the last century by the 1917 Immigration Act. This must be one major reason the States doesn't have the history of Indian cuisine that we have in Britain. I discovered, to my surprise, that Chinese immigration was also barred for much of the last century, but had been of such volume in the nineteenth century that a large Chinese community was already well established.

Tibetans? Ironically, Senegalese cuisine is very popular in France, where perhaps it doesn't suck. I knew that, but what I just learnt is that it had a historical influence on the low country cooking of South Carolina, which I think it one of the more interesting American regional cuisines. More here.

Yes it was. I think the round ones have a smaller surface area. Only marginally smaller, but I presume they are making millions of 'em. Please perform a laboratory experiment to see if I'm right.

In another question, Vanessa - aptly I thought - drew an analogy between your direct, to-the-point writing style and your cuisine. I found the good-natured but no-nonsense approach exemplified not only in the text of 'Nose to Tail Eating', but also in the photos. In some ways, I think the photos are as revolutionary as the recipes. Dishes are shot directly from above, set out on a real (real looking, anyway) table. People have already started to eat them, and used cutlery - even resting on the plates - and glasses of wine are on display. This is such a departure from the pristine and pretty school of food photography. Were you involved in this aspect of the design, and were you consciously attempting something very different?

Oh, please don't lets have a link to that. My afternoon will be gone.

Anyone think how much paper is saved by producing circular, instead of square, tea-bags?

While I don't object to the threads being merged, my question was a little different from the original. For example, Pan very reasonably says: That's exactly what I said my practice is, so it seems you approve. I wondered if anyone thought it was poor form. Similarly, Stone is talking about situations other than one I asked about. The closest analogy would be, if the restaurant called me well in advance of my reservation, and told me they'd oversold and had to cancel me out. It's not really a precise analogy, because I may have really wanted to go to that restaurant above the many others available, whereas it's going to be rare that a restaurant really wants to seat a particular couple.

Also the kitchen rolls with more frequent perforations, so you choose a smaller sheet. For those little jobs.

Thanks for those notes, Paul. Although E Bulli sounds interesting, this is the place I'd really like to visit.

Flip flop again. You said there wasn't a demand for it at that price point. Which is it? As for enjoying food with flavor and texture, I'll defer to A.J. Liebling, thank you.

And not always then, right?

If your contention is that Indian cuisine can be prepared and served in a $100 a head context, but it would need to be fussied up a bit, I don't know what the debate is about. It's possible that the fussying up would mean promoting blandness and toning down challenging flavors and textures; I find this all the time at the most expensive restaurants, because they have a significant, high-spending percentage of their clientele who need to be reassured and babied. The reason so few cuisines have made this step is the historical expectation of the clientele that expensive food is French. One other point: It's not a question of refuting the statement; I'd just like to see some evidence that someone had tried and failed. If, for example, restaurants like Nobu and Jewel Bakko had failed in New York, one might have drawn an analogous inference about Japanese cuisine. It is a comparatively recent phenomenon that Japanese cuisine has been accepted at that level, outside the Japanese business community, in cities like New York. Indeed, the fact that France has a near-exclusive grip on that level seems to me to support the contention that we are dealing with a cultural rather than a gastronomic phenomenon.

That's very interesting. At the risk of saying something obvious, my approach is to try to grasp the basic structure of the cuisine in terms of starches and what one might call garnishes. It doesn't work for every cuisine, but most cuisines seem to be built on a set of carbohydrate staples, which are then garnished for flavor. The most obvious garnish is whatever protein happens to be available and affordable, and then one moves up the ladder of elaboration to spices, herbs and sauces. One example I have at my fingertips is Dominican food. The building blocks are rice, beans, plantains, yucca, and potatoes. These are garnished with chicken or pork and pig's offal, goat and cheap cuts of beef ; fish and shellfish if you fish or can afford to buy it. Then the secondary flavorings: cilantro, garlic, onion, green peppers. And so on. I think that model applies very widely, and it helps (me at least) to internalize the basic structure, and understand the cuisine as variations on that structure.