Wilfrid

Bless you, Jordyn. And I think JD made it even more clearly. If Steve's point about geographical location is to have any value, he has to show it made a difference independently of the other factors, otherwise it can be erased without any loss of content or explanatory value to his theory. A lot of intelligent, well-informed people have contributed to this discussion, and have repeatedly told Steve that he's wrong on this one. The fact that he sails on blithly - "France is a hub" - is mildly annoying. But I am consoled by the fact that I probably annoy him more than he annoys me.

Er, yes, that's what I said, although it would be more precise to talk about a set of shared criteria derived from Western cuisine: who owns the palates doesn't really matter. But I think some of the people in this forum assume that dominance is meant as global supremacy. I agree that such a claim would be - well, I wouldn't use the word "irrelevant", I'll stick with meaningless.

Fair enough. I did read a paper about probability theory which seemed to offer a possible way of selecting between such programs, but it was a quick scan in the library, and I am really behind the ball on this kind of stuff. I note what you say about Feyerabend. Coming from a scientist, that's scary, but doesn't mean it's wrong.

Big issues, Jordyn. My opinion, which I've expressed before, is that rational judgments - about food and other matters of taste - can be made in the context of a shared set of criteria. Certainly, food and wine critics will differ in their views in some respects, but there are also very broad areas of agreement, as there with art and literature. And where there is disagreement, it is usually possible to see why - it's not just a matter of spontaneous, divergent impulses. I think the art critic Peter Fuller, for example, was wrong about Andy Warhol, but I can see why he took the position he did, and I understand his reasons. I think formal French cuisine scores higher than any other against a certain set of gastronomic criteria - criteria, to be fair, which the French experience decisively helped to formulate. I just don't know how well it would perform set against criteria derived from a Chinese, Japanese or Indian milieu - less well, I suspect. Universal standards of taste, independent of such criteria, are meaningless to me. lxt - I think the broad thrust of your comments on knowledge is very fair. To be picky, I would say that induction - the gathering of data in the hope that a hypothesis will ultimately be verifired - is no longer regarded as a valid method of proving a hypothesis, although it's certainly a big part of what scientists do. It has been argued, notably by Karl Popper, that we gain knowledge by trying to falsify hypotheses, in other words by looking for counter-examples; but however neat this seems, it just doesn't seem to fit what researchers actually do. Recent thinking (Lakatos) has been more modest. It proposes that rather than attempt to identify proven (true) hypotheses in the sciences, we should draw up criteria to judge the merit of research programs - in other words, which lines of enquiry are most likely to produce data relevant to the hypothesis of interest. I think that's consistent with the views of some probability theorists, but I do not pretend to be up-to-date with this stuff. All very verbose, but applicable, I believe, to some eGullet threads. Some hold out more hope of enlightenment than others!

Steve, ya mischief-maker. Don't mislead the newbies. I have been saying ever since I joined eGullet that French food is my favorite. Read my unedited Members Bio, if you don't believe me (pompous heap of tripe that it is). I not only believe it is the best within certain defined parameters, I love saying so. Anyone who follows the dinner thread will know that ninety per cent of my time in the kitchen is devoted to trying to make mainstream French cuisine. I haven't popped up here for a while, because I agree with most of the remarks, and think the debate is really about a misunderstanding of "subjectivity" and "objectivity" which is unlikely to get cleared up. I come over argumentative and pedantic when we get to your whacko theories about why things are the way they are. lxt - I just read your post, which I thought was helpful. I should perhaps clarify that I mentioned fashion as one of the reasons French food may have made its way across borders - along with the French language and other signifiers of sophistication. I agree the fashion, if that's what it was, would not have survived without quality to back it up. Where I disagree with Steve on this point, is that I don't think gesturing at the quality is a sufficient explanation how and why French food has been so exportable.

Yes, The Capital - by some distance I think. And the pleasantest surprise - Le Pigalle.

Soba, you did go a bit wobbly towards the end there!

I'm not sure I would call an arrondissement a neighborhood. KIDDING!!!

Actually, I deleted my last post, Steve, because I felt I was repeating the same points already made by myself and others. But you have made it all very simple. If Germany, Britain, Italy, Spain and the rest were, like France accessible to travellers, which of course they were, it directly demonstrates that France's geographical location - in comparison to the claimed remoteness of other European countries - is irrelevant. The other factors you mention very likely are relevant. I thank you.

Was that not a News of the World Headline? Tee hee. And, Matthew, the Lindsay House experience - which I presume was the Soho restaurant - was that pre-Corrigan? (Incidentally, if the thread was restricted to this year, strike my earlier post - I haven't been that unlucky!)

A little ketchup on the side. Just in case. What's wrong with that?

Goodbye thumb. Got to try that, if only once! Also, will be stuffing wet paper towels under my board in future. Thanks, Rochelle.

As was Germany's, as - largely - was Britain's.

Helena, I am hoping you might weigh in with some thoughts on why French cuisine became prestigious in pre-Revolutionary Russia?

Amy Trubek's Haute Cuisine: How the French Invented the Culinary Profession, which I just found cited in an online doctoral thesis, looks dead on point. Is anyone in a position to comment on its quality? I am linking to Amazon, not to promote their service, but because you can look at the Table of Contents and stuff: Here's the link.

Steve, I am being careless today. Spang is indeed not about this subject. But I found her very compelling on the narrow subject she does address - the origins of the restaurant considered right alongside the development of the concept of restaurant-style dining. Yes, the title promises much more, but what I most liked was the sense I had of a serious historian, who had read the primary sources, reflecting the sheer complexity of the topic. Refreshing change from the anecdotal. I also liked her willingness to analyse contemporary art as well as written records. Sokolov I have read, and I mean to look again at the weekend to refresh my lousy memory. I also have the Willans book, which is very attractive. I know there are some more potential sources at the New York Society Library, but those must await a little leisure time. Any chance of an eGullet research grant?

Robert, we had a thread on New York paella once, and I think the conclusion was you go to JFK and get on a flight to Spain.

Steve, I may try and get a list together (and thanks for your suggestions). This is the book I have recently found most impressive on the subject, by Dr Rebecca Spang. It made me realize that the fairly straightforward story of the development of the French-style restaurant from the success of the restorative-soup-selling business is only part of a far more complex history. Gavin and Jon: I take your point. I was assuming, quite unfairly, that everyone had read the Expensive/Cheap thread. I am referring to the enormous success of the French in setting trends for menu and service-styles, exporting cooking techniques, and establshing a repertoire of dishes in moderate to upscale restaurants in at least many parts of the world during the course of the last century. I agree that French gastronomic hegemony is not absolute, and it's also very clearly under challenge. To be honest, I was also hoping to direct the discussion away from "Is French food the best?" and to ask about why and how it's reputation and prestige was histrocially distributed.

You have moved beyond comprehension, Steve. Let's disregard the fact that it's simply and obviously untrue - especially for the last 150 years - that people needed to travel through France to get to Italy or Spain. Accept your assertion for the sake of argument: can you not see that all these geezers travelling through France to get to other countries travelled in those other countries too. You can't hold that belief, but also argue that Italy and the Iberian penninsula were isolated from foreign travellers. Make your mind up. The bit about products being transported around France just mystifies me. Are you saying that it was possible transport food around France, but not around Spain and Italy? Don't get you at all. The other thread is not "my" thread. I am just trying to be tidy. And "IT IS BETTER" - even in capital letters - does not offer an explanation of how French cuisine achieved the pre-eminence it has which I find intellectually satisfying. I hope your famous book delves slightly deeper.

I'm sure that's partly right, Bux, but I'm conscious of it being a more complicated story. For example, in the post-revolutionary period, and for some years, British-style restaurants were the vogue in France, and London was considered a gastronomic destination. It didn't last - of course, of course. It doesn't seem to be a linear story of successful development. I did cite an excellent book about this recently, but right now I can't track it down. I will do so. Here it is, and an excellent piece of analysis it is too: Click here And here's Dr Spang.

Yes, I was knocked out by the chickeny taste of the chicken at Grand Sizchuan. Shortly before being paralysed by the Sizchuan peppercorns.

The thread about Fine Dining vs. Cheap Eats opened up a discussion about why and how French cuisine achieved dominance in so many territories beyond its borders. The fact of the success of French cuisine - not worldwide, I would say, but throughout most of Europe, North America and elsewhere - seems undisputed. But how did it come about, especially over the last 150 to 200 years? If someone has the answer, go ahead, but I think it would be interesting to do some research on this subject. I have read plenty of books about the development of French cuisine within France, and about the invention and development of the restaurant, as conceived in France. What I am having trouble pinpointing are any secondary sources on the successful export of French cuisine to other countries, and its dominance in hotel and restaurant catering. Reading suggestions would be very welcome. Let me throw out some hypotheses, all any and of which might prove to be unsustainable. 1. A fashion for French food went along with a fashion for other aspects of French culture; the language, especially, but also manners, arts and dress. Of course, this explanation may work better for some countries - Russia - than for others - Britain. 2. One shouldn't discount the role of exceptional individuals. Many of the leading French chefs of the last 200 years spent years cooking outside France. Escoffier's influence on upscale dining in London is well-documented. 3. What about hotel management? French and Swiss proprietorship of hotels abroad doubtless favored the recruitment of French chefs. 4. And an idea advanced on the other thread: a French passion for order, cataloguing and codification, carried into their cuisine, made it a tangible, exportable body of knowledge. These are first thoughts. Better ones are solicited.

I don't think I can add much to what Jordyn (and Toby) have said. We all know Steve hasn't done his research yet. We are trying to save him some time by pointing out that, given the huge traffic back and forth throughout the whole of Western Europe - especially if we are talking about the last 150 years - the travel theory doesn't explain anything. Your own descriptions point out that people were often travelling through France on their way to somewhere else, which alone makes the theory that France's location was privileged absurd. English, German and Russian travellers, for example, had ample opportunity to pick up the cuisine of Italy and take it home with them. French cuisine was preferred. Democracy has been an on-off affair in a number of European countries, of course. But if it is to help explain culinary supremacy, one would at least look for some consistency of association between democracy and exceptional gastronomy. As has been pointed out, this is not evident in Britain, the Scandinavian nations, or, I might add, Holland. You may say - well, that's because France also had the terroir, the ingredients, and so on - but that doesn't show that the "democracy theory" adds any explanatory value. Thanks for giving up the argument about "modernism". * To emphasize once again, I am not suggesting that the international success of French cuisine came about because of "promotion" or good marketing by the French. I am interested in considering why French food became fashionable, and I suspect it is a difficult question and will need some research. I will start a thread. To clear up the messy stuff. Steve, I never said you modified your position. I just pointed out that you ignored me the first time I asked what "era" you were referring to. Your style and tone on eGullet add much color and interest to the site, but I don't think they give you much room for asking to be cut some slack! I don't see you giving much quarter in debate * This, of course, is to provoke you to raise it again, so we can name some more artists.

Let me demonstrate my good faith by helping out here. I think French cuisine is dominant, and justifiably so, within what might be called Western restaurant culture. In other words, the mainstream of upscale restaurant cooking in the West (I'll come back to that) has its roots very firmly in codified French haute cuisine, French cooking techniques and Russian-service (popularized by French chefs - Escoffier, okay?). This pre-eminence has fed back, within limits, to home cooking. I am using "West" in a cultural sense, if that's okay. I mean Western Europe, North America, and other parts of the world which have inherited that culture to a significant degree - pre-revolutionary Russia, Australia, parts of the Caribbean. I also, and crucially, include Western-based or Western-founded hotel businesses. I stop short of claiming French cuisine is globally dominant, and there is indeed a lot of globe left over. (British modernism: I was holding back on the Irish. Shaw, Synge, Jack Yeats...)

French cooking is dominant throughout Europe and North America, and lots of other places too. No argument. Okay? I think when someone posts a theory here, it's fair game to pick at it - especially if it looks wrong. People do it all the time. I did ask you which era you were referring to. I didn't want to discuss the Roman legions. You mentioned them. If we are concentrating on the last 150 years, which is very reasonable, geographical location is obviously not so important. Also, I don't think there's much to choose between systems of government - in most European countries at least - for much of that period. I think the best place to look for reasons for French dominance, other than the unarguable quality of the cuisine, is to explore how it got exported and adopted as fashionable gastronomy in countries as disparate as the UK, Russia and the United States - maybe a thread for tomorrow. Modernism in Britain? Okay, here we go: Henry Moore, Wyndham Lewis, Basil Bunting, Walter Sickert, David Bomberg, Stanley Spencer, Herbert Read, Virginia Woolf (Bloomsbury in general), and guess where Pound, Eliot and Whistler hung out?