
Wilfrid
legacy participant-
Posts
6,180 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Store
Help Articles
Everything posted by Wilfrid
-
Gavin, it's still on the menu at St John's. I ate it this summer, anyway.
-
I agree with all the above about "home fries", or "left over fried potatoes" as we called them in the "old country". But I would never parboil potatoes intended for fries - in the sense of pommes frites or chips - or for roast potatoes. I have been roasting new potatoes - well, I don't know how new they would be, but they're small - quite a lot recently, usually out of their skins. One of those small, sturdy Le Creuset skillets, dab them generously with oil (duck or goose fat if you have it), perhaps some fresh rosemary, then about forty five minutes in a hot oven. Using the skillet, I turn them halfway through, because the heat of the pan is crisping and browning the bottoms of the potatoes. Drain on kitchen towel and do the Emeril thing with good salt. This method gives me a thick, crunchy crust and fluffy centers.
-
I'm also hilarious and a delight to read . GJ, I think you might be misreading what I said, or perhaps I put it clumsily. Is this better? "No Brian can be educated." I think that's obviously false. Some Brians might be hardwired as you suggest, but not all. And not many, I suspect. I mean, I've been educated somewhat over the last year in matters of taste by some of the old lags around this place.
-
Sheer laziness on my part, Your Honour. Hornby it is. And no, I think Aunt Dot is perfectly entitled to be left alone, and I do not remotely denigrate her for her tastes. I really don't. But I say that if she were to develop a sudden taste for philosophical novels set in the last days of the Austro-Hungarian empire, and concluded that Robert Musil is a much finer author than Nick Hornby, I would agree with her. "Aunt Dot", I would say, "You amaze me. But I think you're right. Musil is a much better author than Hornby." Just as I would applaud Brian if he were to say "Y'know, I think a drop of red goes much better with this chateaubriand than that prune juice ever did." I wouldn't say to either of them, "Nonsense, you were doing just fine as you were." Dat's de patronizing bit.
-
Sigh. But the menu's luvverly.
-
Joints don't have filters, Tommy, and they are often much larger than cigarettes, if your moving in the right circles. Not saying you're wrong, just pointing out the complicashuns.
-
Hmmm. I have some issues with F.Ille Ponte. Surprise prices on the specials in particular. Shame, because it's an amusing setting.
-
The scientists set aside their smugness long enough to spot that, Tommy. It is unthinkable that a study of the effect of diet on cancer risk would not control for smoking. No need to lose sleep. The literature on risk factors for cancer is vast. Many studies have reported beneficial effects of a range of diets, including diets high in green vegetables and fruit and low in fat. There are some studies which are anomalous, and report a raised cancer risk for such diets. Other studies suggest that your ethnicity rather than your diet (the two often going together) may be a factor. It's a whole lot of epidemiology, and who knows?
-
Tsk, tsk, tsk, Zeb and M'lord. You each entirely missed the point of the Educating Brian example. Of course it's possible that Brian would carry on drinking his prune juice. Absolutely possible. Just like Aunt Dot might keep on reading Jeffrey Archer after taking an Open University Lit course. Possible but irrelevant. I am saying what if he did come to prefer red wine to prune juice with his chateaubriand. My example challenged you to take one of the following two positions: 1. Brian (and all the Brians of this world) cannot be educated. Obviously false. or 2. When Brian comes to prefer red wine, this is in no way a step forward for him, or an improvement on his prune juice habit. I think you have to buy into 2., which is somewhat boggling. I would also say - and this may not be what you mean to imply at all - that this is a terribly patronizing and unhelpful position. It's as if I put my feet up with a copy of Der Mann ohne Eigenshaften and a nice bottle of Cheval Blanc, 1929, and said to myself: "Can't help if it Aunt Dot's still stuck on Jeffrey Archer and sweet milky tea. It's all the same really. That's just want Aunt Dot likes." It's "Let them eat cake". And now who's the snob? [Mark: I was at a concert on Tuesday, and a few people in the audience hated it, and spent their time yelling abuse - ineffectually as the band was so loud. I couldn't imagine why they stayed for the duration. And you haven't even paid for a ticket for this little hootenanny.]
-
I was standing in the rain a little while ago, reading Le Veau d'Or's menu and peeking through the door. Various things I have heard about the place make me want to try it, not necessarily for good reasons. It's clearly very old fashioned, but can anyone say if it's at least competent? Incidentally, it's cheaper than Sammy's Roumanian, but where - apart from ADNY - isn't?
-
Sorry, I missed Zeb's post first time round. It makes me a little sad, because as far as Zeb is concerned, poor Bob is ineducable. I speak from personal experience, which I don't plan to describe in detail here, when I say that it is possible to take someone with limited knowledge and understanding of food - who might very well claim to enjoy prune juice with steak - and teach them to try new things and broaden their horizons. It's rewarding and it makes them happy too. And they soon forget about the prune juice, It's called teaching, there's nothing elitist or superior about it, and I suspect no-one here would demur in the least at the idea of it taking place with respect to literature, art or music.
-
Clue: stuff one with meat and it becomes a sausage.
-
A: Yup. B: I prefer to keep it vague, and that may be a difference between Steve and me. I am not talking about some rarified cabal of merchants and professionals, but broadly - indeed - about people who take some interest in food, eat with catholic enjoyment (c. J. Arlott), and have some experience and knowledge. There's no special qualification I have in mind. C: You and whose army, tosh? But ultra-violence aside, that's precisely the point of difference. The food at Sammy's was so negligently badly prepared, that if you told me that same meal was a good meal, it would indeed give me considerable pause as to your ability to judge a restaurant's skills. Just like if you told me Archer was an important novelist, I would surmise that the novel was not your field of expertise. None of which would make me think you an inferior person.
-
For sure. That's another reason I have been going to the trouble of typing "chateaubriand".
-
I went out of my way to do no such thing. And suggesting the red wine votes are coming from a hand-picked minority is like suggesting that the Edmund Spenser votes are coming from Eng Lit professors. A self-selected minority, possibly, but also an informed one, possibly. Notice how both sides are using a rhetorical flourish to add plausibility to their cases: Tony and His Ludship say "steak and chips", I say "chateaubriand". Because it's harder to sound reasonable when you claim that beer beats claret hands down as an accompaniment to chateaubriand. But why shy away from the harder case I set out? Lots of people did (and still do) prefer to drink milky, sugared tea with steak. Are there really no grounds for saying "Fine, that's their preference and I respect that, but broadly speaking red wine does go rather bet with a nice piece of steak?" I am encouraging you to confront this absurdity. P.S.: Let me try one other angle. Last week a number of eGulleters ate a meal at Sammy's Roumanian in New York, which I believe we unanimously loathed. I think it follows from the position that Tony and His Grace are arguing - if I understand it correctly - that the meal was fine, we were just the wrong set of people to eat it. In other words, if a group of people had savored the food with delight, the cooking at Sammy's would then be excellent. I just find this approach profoundly implausible.
-
That would also happen if you held your breath long enough.
-
...and did the Greeks know they were speaking Ancient Greek?
-
Hehehe. On what do we base our judgments of value - whether they be ethical judgments or more general judgments of taste? What validity is there in making evaluative comparisons between individual judgments of taste? How do the judgments of individuals lead to the creation of a hierarchy or canon of taste? These questions have fascinated millions of people since, oh, around 400 BC. Other people are bored rigid by them. I fall into the first camp, and the second camp might as well get used to it.
-
Wilfrid, I'm not talking about the third world or something. The overwhelming majority of the population in Europe and the USA do not drink wine with their meals. I'm sure that also applies to Australia, New Zealand and South America. Ther's a hell of a lot more people eating steak and chips than drinking wine with their meals But if that's true, it just brings me to the hot, sweet tea argument. If most of them are drinking hot, sweet tea (not saying they are, mind), I think it would just indicate that gastronomic standards are not set by majority behavior. Is that snobbish? More people are reading Jeffrey Archer than are reading Iain Sinclair. That doesn't set a standard for excellence in the modern novel.
-
"Sushi" means it's served on vinegared rice. Whatever it is.
-
Uh oh. Steve, I can't get to wear that outfit in New York. My Beloved won't let me out of the house in it.
-
One of Jaybee's wine choices reminded me of a perfect meal chosen by John Arlott back in the Fifties. Wouldn't be so bad on this occasion either: Fresh sliced prosciutto crudo with a modest Italian red Lampreys a la Bordelaise. Cheval Blanc 1929 Paella. Rioja, Paternina - he didn't specify the vintage Single Gloucester cheese. Chambertin - he did specify a vintage, but I've forgotten Tokay Essencia Burp.
-
Meat. And if I have to choose one kind, I guess pork because of it's potential variety.
-
Not equally available it isn't, but that's a political debate and not, in my view, for eGullet. On topic: Tony, I can't tell you how much I would prefer to disagree with Steve, as that makes life more fun. But this time I am with him, although my position is both more nuanced and more evolved . Certainly, wine isn't an issue for most of the world's population. But neither is steak frites, so I'm not sure where that point gets you. Personal reminiscence. Growing up in the UK in the '60s and '70s, what was the typical drink which accompanied dinner in the evening. I am talking about an ordinary family, eating at home? Well, unless you were from a pretty posh family, I would contend that it was a "nice" cup of tea. Some daredevils might open a bottle of light ale. A glass of milk, perhaps. Wine was rarely seen on the table, except a bottle of Liebfraumilch to accompany the Christmas turkey. Times have changed, and for the better I would say. Repeating myself (as everyone else has), I cast no aspersions on an individual who prefers to drink a cup of tea, milk and two sugars, with their chateaubriand. They are certainly not a worse person for doing so, and it doesn't necessarily follow that they have a poor palate - they may have excellent reasons for drinking the tea. But I maintain that, as a broad, general standard, there are drinks which accompany chateubriand better than sweet milky tea. And I do not think that standard has been set exclusively by wine merchants or by an elite of fine-becs. And I do not think it is invariable. But I think it's progress.
-
I note that publicity-shy, don't-put-me-in-your-guide Shopsin is prominently featured in Time Out's cover story this week ("Main Street, New York" - no, it's not online). Kenny's political ramblings are described as mainly right-wing. I had previously seen them described as anarchist. Not that all anarchism is left wing (of course, of course). I must say, if it wasn't for the warm encomia on eGullet, this is a place I would avoid like the plague.