hjshorter

I'm headed to Charlotte this weekend to hang out with my sister, sans husband and kids. I'd like to surprise her with a nice meal out - looking for upscale and inventive. What's hot right now? Is David Pasternack's place open yet?

I was a little surprised myself that molto e's post didn't include any references to Southwestern or Mexican cooking, which would have been my vehicle for touting the power of the indigenous local tradition. Does the large population of retirement transplants in Phoenix hamper attempts to change the dining scene?Comparing the original article to the GQ piece...they picked slightly different targets, with Seftel lamenting the proletarian tastes of the masses and Richman sneering at the Nouveau Riche, although there's probably some overlap in the two populations.

Yes, but is it French? I'm no culinary anthropologist (my specialty is Neanderthals - not very refined cuisine ) but here is what a little Googling turned up...From The Frugal Housewife, 1803: Apparently it went from a luxury item to "frugal" in the 19th century. I'm willing to take a stab at it, as soon as I figure out what a "shivered palate" is.

Quite a few people thought that markk wasn't the one with a sense of entitlement. Can you give some evidence of that?

No, but that scenario might happen in Manhattan. Part and parcel of the glorious Melting Pot that is America, right? Or is it, as Charles said upthread, our "faux multiculturalism?"I'm not even gonna go there on the Italian cuisine crack.

Thanks for the link. This reads like p0rn: And I could barely stay awake until the end of this sentence: Perhaps Mr Seftel might have a different opinion of US food in another city?

I wouldn't feel too sorry for him. He knows exactly what he's doing.This is spot on:

(I will admit to not having the time to reasearch this - I have to make some school lunches. ) But Le Guide did not spring forth from the brow of Escoffier; it was specific enough to composition and technique that the techniques and compositions must have existed a long time prior. I think Taillevant was the first attempt at codifying haute cuisine for the upper classes in the 13th century - the cuisine described is very different but the intent is the same. And what about La Varenne?

I have a caution/comment/complaint regarding the duck rillettes. The recipe instructs the reader to chop the duck into small pieces with a mallet or cleaver before chucking in the oven with the stock & wine to cook down. This results in tiny shards of bone strewn liberally through the cooked rillettes, which must them be painstakingly picked out by hand thereby destroying the texture of the finished dish. I spent well over an hour sorting through, and my guests were still picking duck bones out of their teeth. I'm making them again this week but will skip the cleaver step. And one compliment... The chocolate cake with fleur de sel is fabulous and easier to make than the creme anglaise It's served with.

During the last presidential election John Kerry was excoriated in the press for preferrring elistist (and foreign!) swiss cheese on his cheesesteaks while George Bush II favored the more proletarian "whiz." John Edwards and wife always celebrate their anniversary at Wendy's. George Bush I lauded pork rinds and disparaged broccoli. Clinton was seen as loving Big Macs and downhome chow like spareribs. There's a story like that about every American president, or candidate - even in their food choices they must seem to be of the common people and not wealthy, extremely educated politicians."I want to live like common people I want to do whatever common people do" That's what I have assumed Tim was talking about and not regional French cuisine. I used Escoffier's name for effect and not strictly for accuracy as that style of cooking evolved long before he put his Guide together. The solid, round, earthy regional French has become food for the upper class only recently.

I thought Haute cuisine was what Tim was talking about - Frenchy-French stuff like ris de veau a la financiere au vol-au-vent, Coulibiac, Bavarois Clermont, aspics & all that fancy shit for the upper classes.

Perhaps I was a little imprecise, but sweet Jebus on a crutch...settle down people. More food talk, please, and less Adlai Stevenson. Meritocracy, as opposed to prestige gained by being a member of the ruling class. Egalitarian. And less likely to worship at the altar of Escoffier, according to Tim. I think the codification of French cooking techniques has contributed to the French culinary hegemony. What do you think?

Not specifically, no. Maybe greater intellectual talent? We fancy ourselves a meritocracy, but there's a strong anti-intellectual streak in the USA. Those that are "too smart" are sometimes seen as more elitist than the wealthy. Being a "gourmet" is the food equivalent of the ivory tower academic or the pointy-headed intellectual. Busboy chastised me for causing that earlier today. I'll give you a hand out if you need it.

I am no more forgiving of authors that are utter pricks in real life. They get a pass if their prose captivates me into forgetting it. M.F.K's does not.

My goodness, Maggie, thank you. I was certain I was the only one who felt that way and was hesitant to speak up. The Art Of Eating was read twice in my late teens, then set aside and has sat unopened for twenty years.I prefer to do rather than read about, and so prefer to read cookbooks, rather than "food writing," but a few favorites are: Elizabeth David, Laurie Colwin, Richard Olney, Nigel Slater, and always the encouraging voice of Julia Child.

But does "desire to eat fugu off a geisha" really = "solving quadratic equations?" Does intellectual superiority goes along with an appreciation of food?. That seems to be an unspoken -and occasionally, spoken - subtext of some of the discussions here and elsewhere. The hoi polloi (like insipid food show presenters, eat at chain restaurant, scarf micro meals, don't like foie gras...) because of ignorance. ETA: That's not even getting onto class issues - high farmer's market prices, the lack of decent gorceries in poor neighborhoods, the disposable income required for food adventuring, etc.

Sigh? Why so sad?This is the most interesting discussion I've seen on eGullet in months. Bravo to Tim for initiating it; you even got me posting again after months of lurking. Theres's room for PoMo critic critiques, cuisine comparison, cupcakes, and world hunger discussions on this site.

Good point. I would add that its not just his spreading-the-word orientation, but spreading the word to those who might not be worthy of the knowledge, that gets under the skin.Elizabeth David may have much to answer for in regards to British post-war cuisine but she'll get a pass from me. Reading "An Omelet and a Glass of Wine" in my 20s was crucial to my food conciousness.

Tim, that's how I feel when someone says to me "Oh you like art? Who's your favorite artist?" I mean, are we talking about Mannerism? Abstract Expressionism? Folk Art? Magic Realism? Surrealism? Dada? Postmodernism? That said, not every art movement appeals to everyone that identifies themselves as an art lover. I'd bet you a pound (that's about $1.95 US these days, right?) that a great many people can identify an artist, or style, that speaks to them more so than others. And so, not every cuisine will appeal to everyone that self-identifies as a "foodie" (try to control yourself, Charles). And then might it not be perfectly possible to say "French" in answer to your question, just as it's possible say "Picasso" to the art question?

But that's a comparison that cannot be made without a consideration of the past. And when considered in light of historical and cultural factors, absolutely unfair to the Irish. ← Yes indeed, it's unfair to the Irish (of which I am one, I must point out!) but it doesn't make it any less true. For the record, I'm one of those people who thinks that "Irish food" (whatever that might mean) is really good when done well, and I'm certainly not here to knock it, quite the opposite in fact.Well, if an Irishman can't define "Irish food"...lack of an identifiable cuisine would be part of the problem, right? I haven't been to Ireland (yet) but it seems that there are a number of people determined to correct that, and that blanket statements about "Irish food" aren't taking into account that "Irish food" is still evolving. Of course most of the chefs attempting to accomplish this are using French cooking techniques, but that's a different discussion.

I still find myself daunted by The French Laundry Cookbook, probably because of the time involved in most of the recipes. Bouchon is very detailed, and still time consuming, but much more accessible.

Since appreciation of food is such a personal thing though. . .I wonder, if you had a choice (not among the "many" foods but among just a few that hit close to home) between Ferran Adria's food (I won't merely say Spanish or any other less specific term here); French food; or the food of your parent's generationCan we define "French food?" Are we talking about the cuisine of Careme and Escoffier or provincial cooking that focuses on seasonality? I have already abandoned the food of my parent's generation due in most part to better food education, the availability of higher quality ingredients and exposure to wider variety of ethnic cuisines. And I suspect that's true of many 30-40 somethings here in the USA. But that's a comparison that cannot be made without a consideration of the past. And when considered in light of historical and cultural factors, absolutely unfair to the Irish.

Relativist PoMo hippies don't eat at chain restaurants. Besides, in my subjective opinion, Chili's tastes like crap.Tim sez: "Romaticized Francophilia" in the USA, specifically in regards to dining, goes at least all the way back to Jefferson, does it not?

Oh, absolutely. I am reasonably positive that there is better Southwestern/Mexican food available in Phoenix than anywhere in France - setting aside the relative merits of Mexican vs. French cuisine.

No no no. If it is hard to quantify then isn't it merely a subjective opinion?** (My emphasis in the original.) How is it honest to point out that X is better than Y in matters of subjective opinion?**I am pretty sure Heidegger would have something to say to me about that statement, but I can't objectively say what it might be. ← All rely on argument and evidence. I would argue that although things may be subjective, they are not merely subjective. Also, does the mere presence of a number denote objectivity. If ten people in a room pick the cassoulet over the bangers and mash then the subjective truth in that sphere lies with the cassoulet, but the same might not be the same in another circumstance. Foucault might suggest that these perceptions have significance only in historically created matrices of power. ← Foucault also said "language is oppression." Merely asserting that French cuisine is better than British, or American, is not an argument, nor is the presence of a number "evidence." I would argue that there is no objectivity in matters of taste. Impossible. And if that makes me a relativist hippie then so be it.