Steve Plotnicki

"Whilst we were in Paris in January we saw one street market that we stumbled across on a Sunday morning that pisses over anything I've ever seen in England though it galls me to say it." Scott-Now why does it gall you to say that? We have loads of crappy markets in the U.S. and it doesn't gall me to say it at all. But Tony is right. The people are more interested in drinking than they are in eating. There is a line of thought I've heard expressed by people on various wine boards that say that France and Italy have good food cultures because wine drinking was encouraged in the home as part of the religious ritual associated with having a meal. But drinking at home is discouraged by Protestant culture and so drinking away from home became the tradition. There's a lot to be said for that argument.

Steve-Now that was an excellent post. And I'm certain I will take a trip to Lugar's for lunch next week.

Jon-I have a copy that I bought two weeks ago. It is quite well done and seems a fairly exhaustive collection of his recent recipes. The layout is exceptional with every dish taking up two pages with one whole page being a color photograph of the dish. Ambitious for an American publisher. Now will this book be translated into French to be released there? That phenomenon would signal the beginning of major changes in the high end book publishing business.

Sam-What is the French regulary and what is a Speldhurst Sausage?

Bux-Let me try this one. Disagree with how Pacaud used curry = Disrespectful Disagree for the reasons Peter stated = Disrespectful Think chefs should understand curry = Disrespectful Is that it? It must be because the way you have laid it out, there is no room to disagree without being disrespectful. The fact of the matter is that regardless of whether Peter might have been respectful or disrespectful, it has no bearing on how well Pacaud used the curry powder. The statement is either a true statement or not, and when Peter said it he is either being honest about it or not. I don't see how Peter's manners in any way impact a fair evaluation of Pacaud's dish? Maybe you can explain that to me and then I will understand what you are getting.

Of course the answer to the puzzle is "Yanglish." Here is the answer, Mark Federman of Russ & Daughters Sometimes things are sinpler than we might imagine.

My guess would be the Yiddish equivelent of Franglish or Spanglish, which is how most newly minted words are coined. And the word was craeted by either a shopkeeper who invented the word when asked by a landlord or signmaker what type of shop he had, or by housewives on the Lower East Side who needed an Americanized term for the shop that they bought their appetizers in. My kishkes tell me it was probably the latter example and it caught on in a big way. I have faith in numbers and there were more housewives than shopkeepers.

Steve - No they were perfectly integrated into the dish as if Anna from the "King and I" had prepared it. She was one of the first fusion characters don't you think?

" supposed the main reason I found the quote annoying is that it really read as disrespectful." Bux-I'm still lost here. What does respect have to do with the merits of the criticism? I mean how can he be respectful and still criticize the guy? And even if he can, how does being respectful or disrepectful impact on how Peter thinks the dish both tastes, and how appropriate he feels the dish is for that type of restaurant, including what his expectations for the restaurant were before he went there? See what Cabareles has taught me. How to frame a question in her truly original food probing style.

"You prefer French food. But this is a preference, not proof of superiority. It is arrogant to write off an entire cuisine on the basis of personal preference no matter how widely shared that preference may be and no matter who holds that preference. Food is fundamental and that means we all have a say, not just those who fulfil your nebulous and elitist criteria of being able to hold an opinion." LML-You keep stooping lower and lower. You have invoked the elitest argument as well as the it is unprovable argument all in one post. What next, how this conversation is too boring to continue? Sorry to tell you this but I am not trying to prove anything. For those of us who feel this way about it, it was proven a long time ago. I am just giving my opinion as to the quality of the cuisine, realitive to others. And I am asking why (for those who feel this way about it) it was poor for so long? If you do not feel that way about it, we have nothing to discuss. And if you want to convince me I am wrong about it(and everybody else who happens to feel that way about it, which happens to be almost the entire rest of the Western world excluding Brits,) than you are not doing a very good job and you need to figure out a different way. But it's fine with me to agree to disagree. I'm perfectly happy with my choucroute and cassoulet. And if it suits you, you can ride off into the sunset with your spam and mushy peas.

LML-Sorry that once again, when you are lost as to how to argue on the merits you need to personalize everything. Your last response makes all types of personal accusations, accuses me of "picking and choosing," yet fails to address what is clear as a bell, and which I've repeated in numerous responses in this thread and others. You then set up a straw man argument that says I have said that British food has always been bad and I use that as my starting point. So now to set you straight once and for all, as well as anyone else who might not have understood me up until this point. I have come to this conclusion from my own personal experience of eating there. As I've said earlier, I probably have visted 75 times. I must have eaten between 300-400 meals there. I think that experiencing that many meals gives me some level of expertise about the subject. I then say that I have personal knowledge that almost everyone I know (except non-Brits) feesl the same way about it. Not that I wouldn't feel confident basing it on my own palate. But I do gain some comfort in numbers. And those who do like it are sort of similar in the way they assess the changes that have taken place over the years. Good now, but still predominantly bad outside of places and markets that serve the "upper middle." Got better somewhere in the last 5-10 years. Prior to that, generally horrible except at the highest end. Unfortunately, too much of that horribleness still exists today, especially outside of London and especially when it comes to eating "common" food. No working class equivelants of the simple "plats" served at French wine bars or trattorias who make amazingly cheap yet delicious things like Penne w Mozzarella, Fresh Tomato and Basil. So I'm not starting with the premise that it was bad then so it is bad now. It is quite the reverse. It is bad now. And my question is, when did that bit start? Was it always bad or did the badness happen as a result of politics, economics, social custom, what was it? And the reason I ask that question is because if it is better now, why didn't they make it better sooner? And it is on the basis of that premise that I have brought up Drew Smith, and that Steve Klc has raised Stephen Mennel. What those authors all say (and so do I) is, it would appear that it might never had to have been bad. Why the heck did that ever happen? Britain has good resources. Now if we don't agree that it is still bad now, or that it was bad over the last half century, it is difficult to have this discussion. But in light of Tony's last post which so artfully describes what France has available to its populace, and which highlights what the Brits don't have, you are going to have a difficult time convincing me as to your merits. Or as Yvonne would say, make me budge an inch. Now if you don't agree with this. If you want to believe that those sandwich shops that reside on streets that lead to the tube station serve up a product that is just as good as what a traiteur would serve to you, we will have a difficult time continuing this conversation because the basis for having it is a general understanding of what good quality is, and what qualifies as delicious. And just as a group of ten year olds do not have the ability to determine what art hangs in the Louvre, because it is neccessary for one who makes those type of decisions to understand the difference between good art and bad art, and that it's just not a subjective choice, you and I need to agree on what delicious is. And if you insist on defining it based on local preferences, and not take into account what is generally accepted as good and/or bad food, and you insist on relying on the empirical evidence that "it tastes good to us," we clearly will never agree and there is no point continuing.

Yvonne-You know I have been to England possibly 75 times. Maybe more. It isn't like I haven't had enough meals there to form an opinion. And while I haven't lived there and cooked for myself, I am a good student of what I see in butcher's and other types of purveyer's windows and I get a general sense of what the quality of food is like. So I do not understand what inch it is exactly that you want me to budge on? What concession to my opinion that you want me to make? Do you want me to admit that Stilton is a good cheese? Or that Devon cream is a special product? Or that the berries in June are unsurpassed by berries anywhere else (except fraise des bois and fragola) in the world? I would gladly admit that all those things are superb and maybe even superior over like things from other countries. But none of that changes anything for me. Countries either taste good or they don't. They either have a good smell in the air or they don't. A good baguette is a marvel. But if it comes with perfect cheese, salami and mustard (not to mention the wine,) in my book the country that does all those things perfectly, and balances them perfectly wins. Jim Dixon-Unfortunately our food tradition is based on English tradition. That is why we do not have a wine culture here. Wine was brought to the U.S. by Roman Catholic immigrants from Italy and Germany and that our basic culture was shaped by anglo-saxon tradition meant that it has taken us almost 200 years to figure out that we can grow, and want to drink wine. Jinmyo-When you start praising the virtues of bangers, I know we have nothing to discuss anymore. On the totem pole of sausages, they are a milimeter above frozen breakfast sausages that they sell in U.S. supermarkets. As for American meatballs, I don't know where Mario got that from because every meatball I've ever seen on these shores has bread crumbs in it. And I know this for a fact because I have an intolerance for wheat gluten and everywhere I go where they have meatballs I ask about the contents. Well in 12 years of having this condition, I haven't found a single meatball in the entire U.S. that doesn' have bread crumbs as an ingredient. So Mario is molto wrongo. LML-If beauty was in the eye of the beholder, then they would just pick any person off the street and tell them that they get to choose the paintings that are to be hung in the Louvre. So there is a definition of beuaty. The definition of beauty is one that is commonly held among people who have the expertise to know what beauty is. So yes indeed there are people who are expert in these things, and people who aren't. And there is a way to construct an order to these things, a way to construct a hierarchy. So I am perfectly comfortable saying that a bowl of porridge (something that I love to eat by the way,) is an inferior concoction to a bowl of congee. If you need me to explain why that is, I don't think that the rest of our conversation will be fruitful. It seems we are going to have to analyze the proper way to use the term ethnic. Do they consider the Dutch or Belgians ethnic? Not at all. And it would be the same in the U.S. But Italians are, and so are Germans. And the Irish definitely are. And all people from Asia are "ethnic" but not Japanese. Hmmm. I guess we are going to have to say that the term ethnic connotated that people were from another country and poor. I think poor is the key to the way the phrase is used. As for me being Jim Leff, nah, you're not going to be that lucky. But I do know Jim, we had diner once. We went to Tindo right after they opened and it was terrific. But my subsequent visits didn't yield as good a result.

Yvonne-You are way off. What I am saying is that in general, the French approach food in a way that makes the result better than almost anywhere else. And part of the reason is that they demand top quality ingredients to start with. Unfortuntely English Stilton, Arbroath Smokies (which I ate when in London 3 weeks ago) and whatever else you might list including Mrs. Lovett's pies just don't cut it. It isn't enough to overcome all of the bad. You say Stilton and I say that you need to point to 100 Stiltons to make up for that wretched pub food that is served everywhere in the country.Have you ever had a banger in a pub? To call that delicious is to not know what delicious is. For god's sake it's more cereal than meat. So point to as many specifics as you can. It won't change anything. England just doesn't have a "food culture" that rivals the other European countries that do. And what is the craziest thing, is that it is so easy to import the stuff from the other countries so it is available in the U.K. But for some reason the Brits are just as happy eating boiled ham as they are Serrano Ham. And what makes it even worse is that someone then comes along to defend how good the boiled ham is. And not only isn't it good, it sucks. And that it is the "people's choice" when San Danielle, Prosciutto, Serrano and Bayone ham are just a few hundred miles away, not to mention the dozens of other styles of artisinal hams available by same day truck, speaks volumes. You know there's a reason that people put there cars on the ferry or Eurostar, go to the French supermarkets in Calais, load up their cars and drive back to Britain the same day. How come nobody ever opened a French market in Dover? None of it makes any sense.

Bux-I really don't know what you are talking about. You either believe Peter or you don't. Think he is competent to make the statement or not. Think he understands French food or that he doesn't. Think he has enough expertise about curry or that he doesn't. It seems to me, if you don't think he can do any of those things, you can't rely on his opinion and you would also wonder why Gopnik did. But for Gopnik and I, Peter is both competent as well as knowledgable enough so we believe him when he says he feels that way about it. But you're perfectly happy to feel otherwise.

Yvonne-But France's offerings *are* superior to almost any place else, especally England. That is why my mind is made up. I've tasted them both and in general France trounces England. Does it surprise you to hear me say that only English people feel differently? I do not know of a single person who isn't English who would say that the food in England is better. In fact, I don't know of a single person who isn't English who thinks the food in England is any good! It might sound strange for you to hear me say this but, I'm one of the biggest supporters for British dining around because at least I can sift out the good from the junk. Most people make a face when you talk about eating in England. That you might have good bakeries that bake bread in a certain style seems to be more about acquiring a taste for that bread as opposed to holding it up to the light and saying that the bread stands up to a comparison with the bread from countries that actually do make good bread. Does anyone in England bake good bread? Sure, if the standard we use is the same standard as describing NY rye bread as good or NYC bagels as good. Maybe that's the best example. NYC bagels are great. But they are not world class bread. In general, bread in America is horrible, in spite of the fact that you can find a good bagel in NYC. But in general, bread in France and Italy is good. I don't know how else to explain it. I'm sorry if I keep picking on English food but it is "generally not delicious." I know that people who grew up there feel differently about it. But one's affection for mushy peas is cultural. An objective view of mushy peas is that they are horrible. There are so many things in the States that I eat day in and day out that I like, but which are in reality truly horrible. And if you were with me for lunch at any of the coffee shops that abound in Manhattan, and asked me if my chef's salad was any good, I might easily tell you it was "delicious." But it isn't really. It is really horrible. It is just that I have lowered the standard of what I call delicious to compensate for the poor quality of what is available for lunch so I can still feel that I am enjoying myself. Now is there any real ethnic food that originates from within the British Isles? I would hardly call Scottish or Welsh food ethnic.

Adam-Well aside from the subjective discussion if it is crappy or not, and you seem to say that since the onset of the 18C it has declined, which also happens to be the period we are discussing. But you are saying it is mainly a matter of culture and not economics. But the inference of your statement was that a tradition of dining is stronger among certain cultures than others. So if you don't mind me asking, are you Catholic or Protestant? And was/is food culture a function of religious upbringing.

Bux-All you have said is that you do not want to accept Hoffman's opinion as an expert because 1) you liked the dish in question and disagree with his assessment and 2)haven't eaten his food furthermore, don't like the type of restaurant he runs. Whereas Gopnik and I like his restaurant very much. So we are perfectly happy relying on his "expert" opinion, even if we might not agree with him. And you also seem to say he is being disrepectful just because he is criticizing Pacaud, an accomplished 3 star chef? I don't get that. So I dug into my archives and pulled out my notes from my meal there last May. May I join the list of those who have been disrepectful to Pacaud because based on the meal I had there last year, he's a pretty mediocre cook. Here goes; "Dinner was at L’Ambroisie, the 3 star restaurant under the arches in the Place des Voges. This was my first time as I always found it a tough reservation. But again, bovine hysteria and the anticipated doomed economy have made it easy to get a reservation just about anywhere. The dining room at L’Ambroisie is formal. High ceilings and chandeliers and the walls are covered in printed fabrics that if they aren’t actually old, are certainly made in a way that makes them look as if they are hundreds of years old. Madame Pacaud (the chefs wife) is at the door to greet you and she beckoned a Maitre’d to take us to “table neuf.” The menu at L’Ambroisie is short. Aside from Taillevent, it is the only 3 star I know of that doesn’t seem to have a tasting menu. There are appetizers, fish dishes and meat dishes listed and unless you can find a compatriot to split things with, a multiple course meal means having full portions. Madame Pacaud takes your order herself and she is a bit testy about the way the patrons pair their food. This is small problem because the menu isn’t very large. There couldn’t have been more than 15 dishes listed in total. She tried to reject my wife’s main dish as “two yellow dishes in a row” but my wife prevailed. And when I enquired about the leg of pigeon in pastilla (phylo leaves) and explained I had an intolerance to wheat flour, instead of being told that the leg was just a small piece served on the side and that the breast would be enough to eat (which is what I was asking her) I was led to order something else. I sized up the wine list and decided that Marc’s late afternoon criticism was too harsh and that there were a bunch of listings that were worthy of our attention. But it was ages before the sommelier finally arrived. When he came into the room we were seated in, he checked what we had ordered for dinner before coming over to take our wine order. I asked him for 1992 Trimbach Clos St. Hune and he said “it’s too sweet for your meal "(Clos St. Hune too sweet?) which steered us to a different choice. And the second bottle we ordered was sold out so instead of getting a 1988 Henri Jayer Vosne-Romanee Cros Parentoux, we were talked into a 1987 bottling of the same. The following falls into the category of don’t listen to the sommelier when your gut instinct tells you not to category. 1990 Leflaive Puligny-Montrachet Les Follatieres-Gee I thought this was sweeter than the Trimbach could ever be. Nice for a 1990 and in keeping with the good work Leflaive did that year but, I never resolved my palate around to drinking it as I it was calibrated for a Clos St. Hune. 89 points 1987 Henri Jayer Vosne-Romanee Cros Parentoux -I had heard that in spite of the vintage that this was really drinking well. Well I wished I had passed and ordered the 1990 Rousseau Gevry Clos St. Jacques they had listed instead. While there was nothing wrong with it, there was nothing special about it either. If the label didn’t say Jayer, it wouldn’t be worth drinking as it tasted like a million other wines 88 points We fared no better with our food. My Crawfish Soup was lacking the intense “gout de coquillages” that one usually finds in the better French restaurants and my Tranch de Foie Gras avec Epices (a large slice of foie roasted with spices atop) was boring. A three star ambiance with one and a half star food. I must make a special mention of what we thought was poor service. Our captain was neither engaging nor did things on a timely basis. My wife summed it up perfectly as we were leaving, “there’s no reason to come back here” and we all agreed. Enough said." Now I can tell you that now that I am reading my notes, the resemblence to Peter Hoffman's experience is striking. Peter obviously wanted to order something other than the curry dish but was "talked into it" by the captain. And I had an amazingly difficult time both ordering the meal I wanted to and the wines I wanted to. In fact, ordering them was a struggle. They treated us like we knew nothing about food. I mean I know more about wine than that sommelier does, Clos St. Hune is sweet? Give me a break. What am I a moron? If anybody was arrogant it was the staff at L'Ambroisie, and that goes for the sommelier and Madame Pacaud. So I can now see Peter's experience in the same light. He came for a reason, and they "forced him" to change what he wanted why? BECAUSE THEY ARE FRENCH AND THEY KNOW BEST RIGHT? And this is who you think should get my (and Peter's) respect?

Steve Klc-A copy of the Mennel book is being held for me at KA&L and I'm going to pick it up this afternoon. But do you have a copy of the Smith book on hand? And if you do, can you post an excerpt of the section I have been paraphrasing if you have a chance? I won't have access to my copy for nearly a month.

Adam-You are just saying the flip side of the coin I spoke of on the "crappy" thread. The reason that the food wasn't all that good for so long was that the population didn't have enough money to care about doing the things that improve the quality of their lives. Now that they have it, and the equivelent of a strong middles class, especially a strong upper middle class exists, they are starting to use it in ways that make a difference. So that leaves at least these two questions to be answered. One, was the fact that Britain's socio-economic system managed to not create an upper middle class for so long one of design, or one of coincidence? And second, how do you explain that France and Italy had acute interest in food without a middle class existing in neither of those countries. Or is that second statement incorrect?

Adam-About three years ago. Lovely place. True Michelin 3 star environment and cooking is at that level too. I would describe the food as your basic modern day take on classical French cuisine with all the expected Alstatian inspirations. My meal was very enjoyable though not what I would describe as cutting edge. I ate a "Pot de Foie Gras avec Truffe" which was my own individual terrine of foie gras that was studded with truffe. It was of the consistancy where they served it to me in scoops like one would get a scoop of chocolate mousse by hand using a soup spoon. My wife had a prawn dish with Thai spices that she loved. We then split a roast chicken with truffe under the skin. I remember we had a great bottle of some Zind-Humbrecht Gewurztraminer V.T., I believe a 1990 but I can't recall specifically as I write this. But it was an education in how Alsatian sweet wines can be drunk throughout the meal, even with the main course.

Project-You are taking the quote out of the context of the article and saying that by itself it doesn't support the thesis. But the article has numerous examples of where French cuisine has "dimmed." But your variations of how the curry could be viewed are all correct. He could have passed it off as a "one-timer." But if you read the article, the rest of the paragraph about L'Ambroisie talks about the perfect Hare dish he had. So the curry dish is isolated as a "single" example. But it is the writer (Gopnik,) he's the one who plucks the quote out of the air to make the larger point. The author of the quote is only making a small point. He thinks the curry dish is wrong. As for the rest of your post, that is a terrific analysis. But I don't think it is speaking to my question. Like I said earlier, nobody said French cooking isn't relevent. The question I asked is, is it as relevent as it used to be? Now there are many definitions of what relevent means but, I have used it as if to ask if it is as influential. And one would think that just based on the fact that chefs who cook with other techniques now have global impact, and that is a phenomenon of no longer than 15 years or so, the answer seems like they must have. Bux-It is presented as an opinion. If he had liked the dish instead of not liking it you would have gladly accepted his "opinion" about it. But you disagree with him and it seems that in order to undermine his opinion you have now reached the point where you are willing to say that you don't like his opinion because you don't like the way he stated it. As for how the curry was used, he's isn't complaining that Pacaud used curry, he is complaining that they used it incorrectly (sprinkled it.) I am surprised to hear you say that you have never eaten at Savoy, even after reading the menu. It was at one point, among the more interesting restaurants in NYC. It had this strange combination of tradition and the new, California and the Mediteranean. And the fact that Peter is a chef without formal training shows up in how the food is prepared and gives the place a feel of originality. It was the most organic restaurant I knew of (and it still might be) in NYC. Sort of one foot in Chez Pannise (in fact Alice Waters came and cooked there for a night) and one foot in the downtown art scene. Over the years I probably ate there 30 times, but haven't been in a few years now as I think there are more interesting places to go to these days. My conversation with Peter about his quote was at the time the article was published. Just to show you how people take things differently, Peter and I marveled at how Gopnik captured the essence of what he was trying to say while you find it "arrogant." But it seems the difference between you and I that I see is that I believe the basic premise of the article (that the cuisine is in crisis) and you don't. And you have "attacked" the quote because it is arguably a pivotal point in favor of the argument that it has dimmed. Suvir-Your posts are out of line, espcially for a moderator. It would do you well for you to remove them. Nobody here has a "fractured sense of self" and how dare you say that about anyone who is participating in earnest about a discussion that has been instigated by another one of the moderators. As to the merits of what we are discussing here, especially comparing the gastronomic culture of different countries and parts of the world including creating a hierarchy of them, it is nothing different than what is discussed in universities all over the world every single day. Nobody calls them arrogant or chauvenistic. Is it arrogant to say that at the time of the ancient Romans they had a superior culture or more evolved society than the rest of the world? Gee I don't think so. And I find your last point about curry, again, especially from a moderator to be especially disruptive. In the context of this discussion it is as intelectually dishonest as it comes. You are the first one to flock to, and or criticize a place that serves good and/or bad food, including using a good or bad garam marsala. The world isn't all a big blob of garam marsalas that are all the same and which are all interesting no matter who uses them, at least not to the discussion here. And finally, I have refrained from saying this but; BABBO *IS* AN ITALIAN RESTAURANT Now do me a favor, the next time you choose not to participate, please make sure your decision coincides with your actually not posting. Don't first post a meandering political thread that has nothing to do with the discussion and which is intended to make the participants feel bad and also insults them and then announce you're not going to participate in the thread. D'uh, we're not stupid you know.

Bux-How can you say it is unsupportable? It's the guys opinion. It doesn't need support. That's how he feels about it. I don't find it arrogant either. What's wrong with a person who has some understanding of curry being unhappy with what they think is less than the perfect use? As for Peter's knowledge of French food, I think he's pretty knowledgable. I mean I've had a number of discussions with him about it. You know you keep overreacting to this quote and I don't know why? Have you and Peter had a falling out? Did he not treat you well at the restaurant? I mean it's easy enough to say you just don't agree. What's the big deal? And you still haven't answred my question that you said you were going to answer once I posted the quote.

Jeff-I actually had a birthday party in the upstairs room at Savoy something like 6-7 years ago. I think we had 40 people. I like the upstairs room better in the winter when they are cooking in the fireplace. But it is nice and quiet up there. Not formal at all and without pretention.

Let's see. British fish is good but it is hard to get it really fresh. And the varieties of fish available seem awfully limited. You can get a good piece of sole in many places but quite often not much else. British game is reportedly superior but I'm not much of a game eater so I can't help you. I don't find the meat to be very good, not even at the high end. It has a taste to it that I find distinctively British. The French have much better meat and so does America. Some British cheese is really good, especially hard cheeses. French soft cheese can't be beat. British bread is more like American bread, generally awful. French and Italian bread are far superior. As for what you remember with fondness, there are many things from my youth I remember with fondess that if served to me now I would consider awful. I mean did people really know good from bad? And how much of it is relative? The British Macaroni & Cheese, with some mustard, Worcestershire sauce and crumbs atop, that is the type of thing that someone can remember fondly from their youth. But if you grew up in Lyon, and the macaroni & cheese was flavored with a little gravy from a beef stew that was simmering for a half a day, could you objectively say that the British version is any good?

Suvir-What did you eat for lunch? Look we are speaking about high culture. When one says that French cooking is "superior" to some other type of cooking, all we are saying is that the art of preparing a meal in the French style has evolved more than the culture we are comparing it to. Clearly, Vitello Tonato is a more complex use of cooking technique than a tuna fish sandwich and in my book, it would be okay for a speaker to say that Italian cuisine is a "superior cuisine" to what they serve in coffee shops. Of the course of time, different nations have been the cultural and economic leaders of the world. And over time, who the leader is changes. England had it's period when it was culturally dominant (Shakespere?), France had its period and America is having its period now. Will it change in the future? Sure. Who will it be? Looks like India from where I sit. Just look at how many people of Indian background use this board? Do we have any Dutch? Any French and Italians? Bux-Here is what Hoffman said, word for word, "But then I got talked into ordering one of the chef's specialties, a mille-feuille of langoustines with curry, and it was infuriating. It was a French dish with powder. It was such an insular approach, as though nobody understood that curry isn't a powder that you don't apply cosmetically. Nobody had read Madhur Jaffrey, or really understood that curry isn't just a spice you shake but a whole technique you have to understand." Now answer my question.