Steve Plotnicki

Wilfrid-No go back to the U.K. board where I have dealt with all of this and it is in the proper context.

Wilfrid-That is a fair recounting of the thrust of my post. It is too bad I do not have my copy of Drew Smith "Modern British Cooking" here because it speaks directly to many of the questions regarding agriculture, including who controlled farming, that you have raised in this post. I also need point out to you that the British are not the only ones I can point to who have a poor history of providing quality food for the population. Look at the story I told about the U.S. in the 60's and 70's and how the government intentionally tried to put small farmers out of business. But I have to admit that I believe that the food the Brits ate was particularly bad. Spam and marmite are merely symbolic of the depths that were hit. Your post also goes onto ask how governments provide for, or ensure that their populations have a sufficient amount of food to eat and that it is of requisite quality. Without naming them all (I'm not competent to) here are a few. Rules and requirements on borrowing money to purchase and operate farms. The kitchen sink is in this one. It could be anything from what percentage cash a farmer needs to have before he is eligible to borrow. Or maybe there are riders in his loan agreements that say he needs to produce x amount of kilos of his product a year. Or how about the underlying value of his land cannot fall below the amount of his loan or else the bank can foreclose. And in years where the prices are low because of overproduction, the formula works against him and the bank forecloses. Or how about banning the practice of sharecropping which would force a farmer to invest more working capital into his farm or have to sell it because he doesn't have the cash available to invest. And those are but a few examples of how governments control who gets to do the farming. And how about examples of how they affect the quality of what is grown. How about the Dutch government buying excess tomatoes to keep the price high in the marketplace. Do you think that Dutch farmers have an incentive to make a better product when the government buys the worst crap they make? Or how about the rules the French government puts on the vineyard operators in Chateauneuf du Pape where they limit the amount of grapes to be grown per hectare to something like the equivelent of 2 1/2 tons per acre. If the producers were to do whatever they wanted to, their yields might be 6 tons per acre. But wines that come from 6 ton yields would be of as worse quality, and would sell for far less than wine that comes from a 2 1/2 ton yield. Is not the French government ensuring the level of quality? Now I am no expert on this but I know enough to say that while the French started with fertile land, what enabled France to have culinary supremecy was two things. Easy access to money from banks for farmers/food producers and, strict government controls intended to maintain the level of quality that farmers/food producers had to abide by. No pale, mealy tomatoes for the French. No spam or marmite either. Food is just one more way that information and wealth are distributed to the masses. There was never a shortage of wealth in England, and certainly never a shortage of knowledge. Now who had the wealth, and who was knowledgable, well that is another thing. And I don't deny that in your home you cooked with fresh ingredients. We had fresh ingredients too. In fact those pale, mealy tomatoes are fresh. But quality is the issue. And when I say fresh produce I do not mean supermarket quality. I mean something better.

Tony-Once again, you can't use people we aren't talking about as the basis to disagree. We aren't talking about French peasants, we are talking about people in big cities who would have the use for a cosmopolitam lifestyle and the cuisine that goes with it. Have you ever see how many market streets there are in Paris? I can name maybe ten off the top of my head. And they aren't all posh streets. Go to the Marche Aligre in the 11th arr. behind the Bastille. That is thw working class market. But even at a working class market you will find all the indicia of a diet that anywhere else in the world would be considered luxurious. I do not know anywhere in the world where the government spends more money and effort spreading culture than they do in France. And the food and wine they make in France are part of the culture they spread. And it is to this day that the French governnent still tries to insure the continuance of French culture. If you own a radio license you have to agree to play 50% French speaking music. And people who have wanted to build movie theater complexes were given permission providing they build a screen dedicated to art films. So agreed that France had the benefit of its wonderful lands. But you know what, so did England but like the Americans they screwed it up.

"The mere fact that it's not what it once was is an indication that it's changing. One of the aspects of the picture you paint of the French is that the past twenty years have brought nothing but decline" Bux-No, no, no. That is the opposite of what I have been saying (and what Hoffman said too.) I said it hasn't been changing. It is mired in its traditions. And it hasn't declined relative to its past, it's still at the same level it was 20 years ago. But it has declined relative to how other cuisines and cultures have improved. That is why I keep using opera as the metaphor. High art where the standard repetoire is frozen in time. And Pacaud's use of curry hasn't really reinvented the cuisine into something new, it is just an accessory to a discipline that is already complete. A slight variation of a theme that is passed off as a revinventing of itself when all it really did was put the equivelent of a colored handkerchief in the breast pocket of a suit. The addition of color doesn't really change the substance of it. As to relvence being a compendium of the things you mentioned, yes I agree. All those things and more. What is relevent when the population has a history of eating canned food is different than when the population is fed on fresh food. Don't you think so? Steve-Yes I do mean French haute cuisine. But I think we are in slight disagreement when you say that in that list of countries the appreciation of haute cuisine amongst the middle classes is on the rise. While I agree with you that it is, I think that what they are looking for is a watered down version of it. A version that is somewhat homogenized and that represents their way of life better than the way the French 3 star experience does.

Wilfrid-The reasons that the British ate spam and marmite and the French didn't is that the French upper classes agreed to feed the lower classes in France far better than the upper classes in Britain agreed to feed their lower classes. It is really that simple. How well a population eats is simply a matter of how wealth is distributed. Macrosan touches on it in his post. The French invested in creating high quality ingredients because they set up an internal economic and social system that 1)taught the populace what good food was and 2)provided them access to it by making it affordable to them. There is no reason that a similar phenomenon couldn't have happened in Britain because it is happening there now. So while I agree with you that the results of the war(s) had impact on both countries, the reason that Britain was on the other side of the boot was that it was well behind in what the governing class deemed an acceptable way to feed the population before the war(s) ever started. What was always amazing about it (and it goes to the Spam, Marmite example,) is why the British population stood for it for so long? You know a similar thing happened here. During the 60's and 70's the U.S. government stopped subsidizing farmers and as a result, as soon as there was a year with bad weather or some other malady that would limit production the farmers couldn't pay their mortagages and the banks foreclosed. And in fact the U.S. government wanted the foreclosures to happen. The thinking was that if farming fell into the hands of a few strong companies, then they would find a way to feed the population for less and create efficient distribution systems in the process. But while the price of tomatoes migh have come down as a result, the beautiful red and luscious tomatoes that were once readily available were no more. They were replaced by a commercialized version that was pale and mealy. Those tomatoes and other foods like them were the inspiration for the new American cuisine. Because people were so unhappy having to eat those things at home and at restaurants, all types of artisans, both on the farming side and the restaurant side sprang up to create a new way of looking at food. It wasn't just sustanance. It was as Macrosan put it, value added that improved the quality of our lives. And when a chef like Larry Forgione offered a "Terrine of Three American Fish and their Caviar", it was an epiphany not because he pointed to the existance of fish in our rivers and streams, it was an ackowledgement that there were now fisherman who were willing to wade into those waters and pretty much hand carry the fish to the restaurants that were willing to serve them. Forgione himself recognized this and the descriptions of the dishes came with explanations that the vegetable you might be eating came from "Small American Farmers." So the spam and marmite comment is not to identify it as something the British ate at a given time period. It is to say that they accepted it and it should have never happened. And I'm glad to see that it has changed. The result being that London has turned into a great place to eat when it used to be a poor one for a city of its size and diversity.

Cabrales-Let's not confuse enjoyable with relevent, although there is bound to be some overlap. Of course the 3 star experience will always be thrilling to people who are experiencing it for the first time(s). But they are hardly qualified as experts in a conversation that is about the comparative importance of the French school of cooking vs the other schools. To me the proof is in the pudding so to speak, how things taste. Not tastes as in good or bad, taste as in interesting vs non-interesting. Relevence is merely a term that describes how much interest something attracts for the time it exists in. Nobody is saying that haute cuisine will in the future not attract a sizeable or meaningful audience. Of course it will. And you can include me in the sizeab;e audience that will still eat meals in that style and in that environment. But that doesn't neccessarily mean that what they will do will be interesting. That is an entirely different question. Fat Guy-The reason I use opera as an example is that it is one of the only high art forms I know of (and maybe the only) that was commercially successful with the mass public in its heyday. I don't think it is difficult to say that the audience that attended or followed opera is similar to the audience that frequents culinary palaces. And unlike other forms of art where you need special skills to understand what the artists mean, you do not need any special skills to understand an opera. The stories are easily understood. A 3 star meal is similar in that concluding whether something is delcious or not is a skill that any common person has. But standing in front of say Guernica, that is something more difficult to appreciate. So to me, the fossilization of opera and what is happening to haute cuisine have many similarities. Macrosan touched on this point in the "Dimming" thread on the General board.

Cabrales-Well of course you can describe me as jaded. But I think that describes many people who have steadily eaten at the types of places we are describing over the last 20-30 years. Using Savoy as an example, technically it was all one could ask for. But creatively it was predictable. Sometimes something can be predictable yet delicious. The lentil and truffle concoction fit that category in my book. And the parmesan in the artichoke soup made that delicious, but unpredictable which I liked. I have no doubt that Savoy if he wanted to could whip up a meal that is exciting on all levels. But if he attempted to do that and it ruffled the feathers of the Michelin inspectors, he wouldn't have his third star. That would be an economic catastrophy for him. So he is in a sort of box. And since the standards for the box have been set from within France (the insular approach Hoffman speaks of,) in certain ways he has fallen behind what is considered modern by a segment of the public that is interested in fine cuisine but who are far more discerning than they used to be. As for Club Gascon, it is interesting because they have changed the format of dining. They aren't the first to do this mind you. About 3-4 years ago, Alain Lllorca the chef at the Negresco Hotel in Nice served a "tapas" meal of French dishes as his tasting menu. He stopped doing it after a year or so. I'm not sure why. You know Savoy could have done the same thing CG did. He could have served a Foie Gras tasting menu that served all small portions and were laid out in a fashion that would resemble courses in a meal. But that is an iffy approach if you want that third star. Katherine-Thanks for staying on script. The way this conversation goes is that someone comes aboard and makes a comment about wealth, the person responding points out that 1) wealth per se doesn't have anything to do with what we are talking about and 2) people who usually raise that issue in that manner are of modest means. Then all too predictably, the original poster accuses the responder of saying something that they didn't say in the first place. So let's take it from that point on. Nowhere have I even implied that *you* are of modest means. All I have said is that in my experience people who raise wealth in the manner you did usually are. Considering that the cuisine we are describing is laden with luxury ingredients like truffles and foie gras, lobsters and fancy meat and fowl, not to mention Grand Cru wines, the ability to afford the dinners is a precondition of participating in the discussion. Does that bother you for some reason? I mean if it does you are within your rights to raise that and I am sure you will be met with numerous responses. But in no way am I dismissing you summarily. But I have summarily dismissed your accusation of pomposity until you raise the issue in earnest, and not in a manner that attempts to use people who post here (that would include me) as a vessel for communicating the point. Point number two. It is typical in this type of back and forth that a person who has been called on the carpet takes a post and cuts and pastes it so a single sentence appears out of context. You have done that here by cutting my quote about the French being better off if they decided to learn English 100 years ago. It is a slightly dishonest approach in my opinion. You then try and wrap the quote in an untouchable inference by saying "No comment." That tact is to be able to deflect no matter which way I respond by your being able to say that isn't what you meant. Sigh. But I will give you the benefit of the doubt and once again I will try and engage you in a discussion on the merits. Here goes. In the last 20 years, the French, certain people contend, have fallen behind both culturally and economically compared to both their neighbors in Europe as well as countries outside of Europe that are both economically and culturally strong. Do you agree or disagree with that? And secondly, if you think that is at all true, do you think that part of the reason for this decline is because unlike other European countries who made it mandatory for schools to teach English, the French have never had a coherent policy about it? And would it also be true to say that another reason would be that the French have been slow to read authors like Madhur Jaffrey, while other cultures have more readily accepted writings from outside of their own country? And to bring this issue full circle, is the reason they haven't read Madhur Jaffrey because they insisted on reading her in French and because of the size of their market, it didn't make economic sense to do the translation and new printing?

Vivin-First of all, I have a few songs on some of those CD's you mentioned. Keep buying them. The royalties help pay for three star meals. But the answer to your question ranges from, the increase in use of Indian spices in 3 star restaurants is fashionable to, it reflects the effects of globalization and the integration of Indian culture into everyday western life. Do you know that when I was in London 2 weeks ago, some poll was released that showed that curry was now Britain's number one dish. But I guess that is better than Germany though. Kofta Kebab was their number one dish. Go figure.

Bux-But it is broke. That's the point of the article and the point of the book. You obviously don't like Hoffman because that quote isn't enough to turn someone off that book. Whether you want to ascribe it to my opinion, or you want to admit what Gopnik's book is really about, the entire book is about the French way of life being or becoming obsolete, and France being stagnate and befuddled as to how to fix their problem. Of course all of this is written in the context of Gopnik's love of Paris. Yes that's there too. His love of the light, and the open air markets, and even silly rituals the rich invented like having hot chocolates by the pool in the Ritz. And you know what, I love all those things too and I love to partake in them. But moreover the book is replete with examples of how things don't work there because the people don't have a clue that their way of life has made them fall behind their neighbors. Things like the strikes they have which are constantly interupting everyday life. Like the girls at the health club handing out caramels to people in celebration of the workout equipment arriving. Or how Gopnik describes the ashen look that French schoolchildren have at the end of the day from an antiquated system of learning that is based on rote. Or how Alexandra (forgot her last name,) who is now the chef at Nick & Stef's Steakhouse describes that there is a single way to prepare a chicken and if you prepare it any differently a supervising chef comes over to tell you to throw it away and start over. Why? "Because it is no good that way. That is not how we do it." Or how that group of people tried to save the Balzar. The entire book is summed up in that chapter. What is it exactly that those people are trying to save? Is it anything but a way of life that doesn't exist anymore? All Hoffman's quote is but one more example in a book that has dozens of examples like it. You know I am in France between 3-5 times a year. I eat many great meals there and I eat quite a lot of boring meals there. And the way I act out the emotions that a great meal causes me to experience is to sit down at my keyboard, write up my notes and post them on the various chat rooms I participate in. Well I was in France for 5 days the week before last and although I ate perfectly fine there, I pretty much had what are for me boring meals. Even my meal at Guy Savoy which I thought was very good was sort of baseline boring and as you see, Cabrales posted the notes on the meal. I haven't been moved to yet. But I was moved to post on my meal at Club Gascon in London. Now that was an interesting meal. And while Guy Savoy was a far better meal than my meal at CG, the CG meal was far more interesting that Savoy. Cabrales-I appreciate your points but I don't think it speaks to Hoffman's point which is much simpler than the discussion we have been having about it. When you say that curry used in that context is appropriate because it has been used that way for eons, that isn't the standard Hoffman uses. What he says is that standard was okay when we didn't know any better. But now that we do, it isn't good enough. And he doesn't mean to say that Pacaud shouldn't use it that way. He means to say that he has no interest in eating a meal in a 3 star restaurant that uses it that way. But for some reason, Bux and Steve KlC refuse to believe that Hoffman knows enough about curry to make that statement. Not credible as an expert as some would say. Katherine-I have no problem with you calling me pompous because, no doubt on occassion I act that way. But I am a little unclear in this instance as to why you said that. Maybe I am jaded because of the numerous Internet discussions I have seen where someone who is without means interjects the notion of wealth into a response. In fact the combination of the notion of wealth combined with the accusation of pomposity is almost making the alarms go off. Had you chosen the word "elitest" instead of pompous they would surely be ringing loudly. But I might as well steer you straight on the merits here. You said that I said that, "French food is irrelevant because it has failed to mirror all the changes in a certain narrow style of dining now popular with wealthy patrons." No that's not what I said (nor what Peter Hoffman said.) The point is that over the last 100 years French dining *did* mirror the changes. But now they haven't been keeping up to the extent that is needed. And I think the French would be much happier if 100 years ago they made a concerted effort to learn English. And they would have been far better off they had read Madhur Jaffrey back then too. Especially since she is only about 55 years old.

Cabrales-According to Nao Sugiyama, and this is what he told me if I understand him correctly, he invented the famous Black Cod with Miso dish when he was the Kaiseki chef at Matsuhiso in L.A. But that is an aside. And you have no dispute with me about why those dishes were more likely to be invented by a Japanese chef than a French one. But my example of the spicy crab isn't specific to that dish, it is to that style of dish. The reason that Nobu created that dish(es), was that he was eager to experiment. That draws the inference that French chefs weren't the ones to come up with any of those dishes because they weren't looking to experiment. Look remember when we were at Guy Savoy last week and we ate the artichoke soup? My comment was that I liked the parmesan cheese shavings because they added a different type of texture to the dish that I found to be unusual. The typical way a chef like Savoy would approach parmesan would be to pulverize it into a cream or a foamy substance that he would dot the soup with to spice it up. But what was interesting about Savoy's dish (at least to me) is that letting the natural heat of the dish melt the cheese is more in line with Italian cooking stratagia than French technique. Why Savoy only stuck a toe in the water as opposed to someone like Nobu jumping in over his head is one of the things this discussion is about. Yes Savoy's use of Parmesan, or Pacaud's use of curry, whether one likes those dishes or not, can be portrayed as pushing the envelope. But exactly how far can a 3 star chef push the envelope before what he serves isn't French food anymore? As for it being dominant, you mean dominant as in the best? I agree with you there. But something that is the best doesn't neccessarily have more relevance than something inferior to it. In fact, quite often things inferior have more relevance than things that are great.

Macrosan-First of all I must say that your ten pounds is firmly in my pocket due to Cabrales paying your bets off last Saturday night at Guy Savoy. It appears I am better suited than you are to assess certain egos. But you said the following, "I recall the food as being generally unexceptional, but also uncomplainable." Are you describing the food or life in England (rim shot please.) At The Dorchester I took my jacket off mid dinner and nobody said boo. In fact, my dinner guest wasn't wearing a jacket.

Much to respond to here. Let's see, where do I start? Simon-I think the use of the word "Club" is no accident. Regardless of the many different meanings of the word and the implications, London is the epicenter of the concept of "club culture." Club music in London has transcended merely being music and is an entire lifestyle that includes fashion as well. Second, Club Gascon isn't influenced by French cooking, it is French cooking. Pascal has modernized the cooking of an entire region of France using all French products. What makes it interesting is that he left his native land to do it. One wonders why various French chefs left France to ply their trades. Already in these threads the names of Jean-Georges, Jacques Torres and Pascal A.'s name have been used as examples of people who somehow advanced French cooking practices but left France to do it. Steve KlC- I'm not sure I am asking if the French are ahead or behind the curve. What I am asking is if the curve they are on is one with much relevence anymore. Last year I ate at the Fat Duck. And while the meal I had there had all the indicia of a modern meal, from a cerebral perspective, my recent meal at Arpege was every bit as modern. And one could argue that it was more daring in a way. Just not in an obvious way. But I am trying to parse the intelectual argument from the practical argument and it is easy for me to say that it appears to me that Adria is having a greater impact on food culture than Passard is. Why? Well there seems to be a bunch of chefs running around New York & London with aerosole cans. But I haven't seen the tomato (which is just a confit process) anywhere. In fact, it is sort of amazing to me that in this health conscious society we live in, some U.S. chef hasn't created a vegetarian dining concept based on Passard's technique in order to corner the healthy but delicious market. Cabrales-Good research job. But I'm not sure how much those examples bolster France's relevence. First, nobody said that French cuisine wasn't relevent or that it wouldn't be relevent in the future. The question is how much of an impact it is making. That it has an impact on a classic French restaurant in L.A. isn't at all surprising. It always will. I have a little Argan oil story for you. You know that one of the things I do to keep myself amused is to import Alziari Olive Oil into the U.S. (a commercial plug I guess.) And about 3 years ago the owner of the shop had a bottle of Argan oil there and gave us some to taste. He had the entire history of the oil with a picture of the tree the goats eat from blah, blah. So I'm not sure France has any bragging rights about that one since I believed the oil comes from Morocco and anybody who imports the oil would have acces to it. Fat Guy - It's about time you figured out you needed to agree with me. Try and remember that next time you have the urge to disagree. But let me try and straighten you out from the one place we differ. You said; "I think it's simply the inevitable result of other countries catching up and eventually overtaking France. France is a tiny nation in perpetual economic crisis. Nobody could possibly not be amazed by all the French have accomplished in the culinary arena -- they lead not only in restaurants, but also in wine and cheese and lots of other things having to do with food. But when three hundred million Americans or even a whole lot of Spaniards turn their attention to beating the French at this game, how long can France hold out?" Since the backdrop for this issue is really about wealth and information distribution, I'm glad you brought it up because I think this issue is at the heart of Gopnik's book. I think that for a century, the French were able to keep their population happy by doing a good job of distributing their natural resources. In lieu of having an opportunity to accumulate wealth, people were happy to have a Bresse chicken once a week, or once a month depending on their situation. The French created a way of life that made the population's quality of life better than anywhere else I know of. They brought a semi-socialist point of view to these things. Everyone was entitled to eat at a baseline level that not only was quite acceptable, but was at an amazingly high standard. Don't forget that a mere 300 miles away the Brits were eating Spam and Marmite. But along came the U.S. and the wealth we created was so enormous, and the popular culture(s) we created as a way of fueling our economy and furthering our ideology were so pervasive, that given human nature, people in France wanted high salaries and McDonald's rather than that Bresse chicken. In other words, wealth meant freedom of choice and given the choice, people wanted the money rather than the chicken. I mean who wouldn't? You could always buy the chicken if you wanted to. So it isn't that France is a tiny nation in a constant economic crisis. That was always the case. But the solution the government had offered for nearly 100 years didn't fly anymore. I think this point speaks to things not only inside France, but to the way they treated outsiders as well. If you asked a Frenchman why his country was great, he would show you a Bresse chicken and explain everything about it's superiority from the color of it's feet and feathers to telling you how it is labeled and numbered so people aren't fooled into buying a fake. Now that was a good rap before you and I had been there 5 or 10 times and ate that chicken enough times so we knew what to expect when taking that first bite. But once we had that chicken under our belt (in more ways than one eh?), and once others tempted us with things like Nobu's Crab in a Spicy Cream Sauce, the chicken wasn't good enough evidence anymore. So now we have distilled this issue down to a single point. Why is it that a French chef didn't come up with something like the Nobu dish? Aside from the spicing regimen for the dish, which could have probably been replaced by a hundred different spice mixtures or approaches, why didn't some French chef make the creative equivalent in France?

Cabrales - Let me rein you in a little here. Although it was entirely appropraite to do so, you have used a definition of relevence that has led us down the intrinsically better path. That wasn't the intent of my question when I asked it. I am using the concept of relevence in order to probe whether French cooking technique and creativity are still having the same impact on chefs, cooking styles, cooking techniques and any other important aspect of fine dining outside of France. What I'm really looking for are chefs outside of France who are copying what todays roster of 3 star French chefs are doing. For example, if New York menus were replete with copies of Guy Savoy's artichoke and truffle soup that we had, that would be an example with much merit to it. Or if there were variations on Passard's tomato cropping up everywhere. I want to know if the body of knowledge that we can define as French cuisine is spreading to the rest of the world the same way it spread in the old days. Not the classical aspect of the cuisine. The contemporary portion. And although the question implies a comparison with the impact other cuisines and chefs are having, let's put a pin in that one for amoment as well. Strip away whether the likes of Nobu, Testuya. Floyd Cardoz etc. are having any impact on fine dining. Are the most recent wave of top French chefs having any current relevent impact on what we eat at top restaurants outside France these days and if so what is it?

Bux-The evidence that curry has been used by French chefs for 100 years is of no signifigance to Hoffman's point. Hoffman isn't just saying that Pacaud was wrong, he is saying that it was always wrong. And now that we have Madhur Jaffrey etc. we know better. And he doesn't mean wrong as in tastes bad, wrong as used improperly. There are many things we did, both culturally and socially that we look back on and realize we were wrong about. How about eating chow mein? Doesn't it taste good?

Tony-You keep changing the demographic group my question is pointed at in order to bolster your argument that French cuisine was never really relevent. I don't know how to explain it any better. My question is directed at people who did, do, or would find it relevent. Secondly, you are wrong about opera, in fact, classical music was always an important part of European popular culture although it has waned in recent years. In fact during the 19th century opera arias were the pop hits of their day in many countries. Finally, opera and other forms of high art formed the basis for many of todays popular recordings. A simple example are Andrew Lloyd Weber's famous songs. They are constructed in the manner of opera arias. And there are countless pop songs which have been inspired either harmonically or structurally by classical music, if not ones that quote passages directly. Cabrales-You have pointed to a major reason why French cuisine has lost some relevence to people. Sticking with my musical analogies, the difference between French cuisine and many other cuisines is both a matter of taste combinations and cooking technique. It is like music that is based on scales that do not exist in Western culture, often using instruments that do not exist either which means the technique one has to apply to those instruments is foreign. Looking at it in that light, the loss of relevence isn't a function of poor cooking on the part of France, it is a function of new and different culinary cultures being available to the western palate. That I believe was Simon's point. Your next point about compatability is the issue which started this string of debates which was in the infamous curry example. Was the curry compatible or not? Aside from the subjective nature of the question, along with the various subjective responses we have gotten so far, putting it in that light makes it easy to see why the curry is at the edge of the line on both sides. Simon-Part of the "crisis" the French are having today is that their refusal to be english speakers has left their culinary stars unable to communicate with the rest of the western world. It is interesting that the cooks who were media heros in the both the States and Britain were housewives, not professional chefs. We had Julia Child and you had Delia Smith. And that isn't to overlook Betty Crocker and Mrs. Beaton from earlier eras. The French media stars were 3 star chefs. But the reason we didn't end up with Paul Bocuse on TV is that he can't speak to us. Tony hit on this point in one of the other threads (lingua franca) though he hit on it from the traditional outsider's perspective which is, when you visit France the people won't speak English to you. Now that might have an effect on a tourist from Hartfordshire who might be asking some surly French waiter what the meaning of Gigot is. But the French miscalculated and were unprepared for the type of competition that globalization created for the hearts and minds of consumers. They didn't need to speak English to make my life easier in France, they needed to learn it because their competition was coming into my home country speaking English and was competing for the consumer purchase dollars they were used to getting for themselves. Nowhere is this more evident than in the wine business where exports of French wine are slipping in favor of sales of U.S. and Australian wines. I wonder if a culture that has looked inward for so long can learn new tricks and begin to look outward in order to reinvent itself. For some reason that question is making me think about Club Gascon. And I guess the point isn't lost on me that Pascal went to London to do it. Not Paris.

LML - I do not worry about A & B. Actually it isn't a phrase I coined. Someone on one of the wine boards used it to describe my onscreen personas. But if ever the phrase Plotnicki-esque means as much as the term Runyonesque I kmow I will have accomplished something. As for C & D. Well we all know the French don't think so. But I disagree with you. They are not the best qualified to answer that question. My original question is about the relevency of French cuisine *outside of France." How could the French be best suited to answer that question? I mean they are in France. As for D, it isn't a statment of fact, it is a statment of what my perception is. Like I've said, I might be wrong about the place(s). But for my forthcoming trip in May, I am trying to book at Bras, when booking at L'Esperence or Cote St. Jacques would make my life, and travel schedule easier. I just don't have any strong desire to go to those places.

Tony- You are wrong about French people and where they dine. If you have ever spent any time eating at starred restaurants in the provinces you will always find locals dining there for special occassions. You see the French have spent lots of energy making sure their population appreciates chefs the way the British appreciate football players. 3 star chefs in France are media stars. So it isn't unusual to travel a long distance to eat at a place like Troisgros only to find a family of of six locals taking papa out for his 60th birthday. As for people who have no interest in fine food, you can't use them to make any point. This discussion isn't about people who have no use or interest in fine food, it is for people who care about it alot. That people in Afghanistan never heard of Alain Ducasse bears no weight on this discussion. Because if you did not already know that when I said "relevent," that I meant *for people who have cared about it in the past,* you know it now. Steve KlC-I didn't pick 1985 on account of Gopnik. I know Gopnik moved in 1995 but at the time he wrote his article the "crisis" had been going on for some time already. 1985 is a date I picked because it is around the time that haute cuisine "peaked" in my opinion. Between then and maybe 1990. Now to try and move this conversation along, who do you think were among the first chefs who broke from French traditions? Wolfgang Puck is one that immediately comes to mind with his pizzas and his seared tuna dish. Paul Prudhrome and his blackened dishes may be another. Who else was around at that time that was doing it? Guys like Larry Forgione really practiced French technique if you ask me but used American ingredients. Forgione's Terrine of Three American Fish w Caviars was probably the most profound American dish of the time. But it was really French technique applied to local products.

Tony-Sorry. I wan't trying to be critical of you. But this was a nice topic that has gone astray because of a certain response which is intended to divert the conversation away from the topic. Tis a shame that someone has the power to do that if you ask me.

Bux-Well you speak to many different issues but none really to the point I raised. Which is, are French chefs as influential as they were 15 years ago and is French cooking technique as important as it was then too? Nowhere in my statement do I say that French chefs and technique aren't important. But I do ask what the relevence is to the modern diner of Passard's almost vegetarian, or Gagniare's cuisine laden with sheets of texture and taste. Who are they influencing in your home town? Bistro cooking, brasseries, etc. are not part of my question. Of course they are relevent. We have copies of them right here in NYC. But we don't have copies here of any of the 3 star chefs. In fact, as Fat Guy points out, Ducasse had to come to NYC to bring the "3 star experience" here. Why didn't we have it before? As for the French and their ability to react, geez, I guess you either disagree with the entire point of Gopnik's book or maybe you have just missed it. Which is to say, the French have had their head up their asses for so long, thinking that their system of doing things is perfect (and it was once upon a time,) that the world has passed them by and now it is too late. So while you might want to frame this debate as one of creativity, as I said in my original post here, my goal is not to create a debate about subjective matters. So I have asked a simple question. Do 3 star chefs that are working today have influence on young chefs who are working outside of France? And if you say yes, name some and who they were influenced by. Or do you think that people like Adria and Nobu have more influence on young chefs than someone like Pacaud does?

Suvir, Ruby and Tony - I'm sorry you got sucked into LML's prism. While it seems he has much to contribute to the substance of this thread, he prefers to change this thread into a discussion about the appropriateness of his response. If you just ignore him and refuse to play that game, he will decide whether he wants to participate in earnest. And I'm sure I will shortly have one of his trademark tirades against my person for pointing this out. As for Samuelson's quote, I think he is right. That's what globalization means. It is starting to be that I have more in common with people in other countries who happen to be in the same socio-economic group I'm in, or share the same interests I do than other New Yorkers. That's why there can be a Nobu in every country and it can be successful. It transcends borders, which is I believe Samuelson's point. And if Nobu is able to bring the cuisine to a new level, it won't be driven by any one nationality. It will be driven by the totality of his customer base.

"The curry powder cannot possibly come as a surprise to anyone familiar with French haute cuisine. Even in my limited experience, I've seen it on plenty of menus used in varying ways. It's not usually used well, but it's no surprise to see it." Fat Guy-But all Hoffman is saying that the standard of what is acceptable has changed. French chefs historically got away with it because people didn't know any better. Now the standard has changed because literature on how to use it properly is widely distributed. As for a hot dog at L'Ambroisie, I wouldn't find anything wrong with it. A hot dog is nothing more than a shape of a sausage. Pacaud could make a fancy hot dog out of say lightly smoked pork and serve it with a little puree of saurkraut. In fact in Alsace that would probably pass as sufficient refinement of a peasant dish. And aside from the fact that you would probably be belching it up the rest of the meal, it might pass mustard But a Nathan's hot dog could not be served. Whatever Pacaud serves, it has to taste like 3 star French technique has been applied to it. The technique applied to a Nathan's hot dog tastes like it's been applied by a person wearing a hair net.

Because the discourse about Peter Hoffman’s quote in Adam Gopnik’s article on the decline of French cuisine was so spirited, both Steve S and Steve K suggested I begin a thread on the substantive part of the topic which Steve K describes as, has the light dimmed in France? Or as I might say it in my own Plotnicki-esque style, does the flame on the stove of a French kitchen burn less brightly these days? Before I sat down to write this I imagined that the entire issue was a red herring. A subterfuge in order to have yet another subjective argument about food. But then I realized I wasn’t going to get sucked into a discussion about whether chefs like Alain Passard are as technically proficient as one like Paul Bocuse was in his heyday. Nor would I get into a discussion about whether the food today is as delicious as it was in the old days. To me the issue is distilled to its essence by asking only one question. Is the cooking in France today as relevant as it was in 1985? To me that is the heart of the issue. And the little examples we can point to, like the Pacaud use of curry just add weight to how relevant it is and why. Since I like answering my own questions, (a neurotic Jew thing, it’s the forerunner of talking to yourself) I can say that I am clearly on the side of the less relevant argument. And to further fuel the flame, I think the curry example is good evidence of that. I think Gopnik’s article makes that point nicely and succinctly. I think chefs from outside of France still come to study in France to learn French cooking technique. But when they start practicing their craft on their own they turn to influences outside of France for creative inspiration. That is a phenomenon that only began 20 years ago. But it has spread like wildfire. Does this mean that French cuisine is dying? Not in the technical sense. It is far too ingrained in Western culinary culture to be eliminated. But as I keep saying through the opera metaphor, it is becoming about as relevant to our everyday lives as opera is. It is for the few who know how to appreciate it. The rest of the world is now eating curry and sushi. So do you agree with this? Have I placed French cuisine in a box that it doesn’t deserve to be in? Please don’t hesitate to say so. I can accept that I am wrong. I for one love French cuisine and I would love someone to show me what I am missing. But until then, please excuse me if I skip dining at the L’Esperances of the world because I know in advance exactly what they are going to serve me, even if I have never eaten there. Of course that is not the case in all such establishments. You would never see me turning down an invitation to Gagniare or Passard. But I am afraid if I went through the list of 3 star Michelin places in France, I would opt out of eating at at least half of them, maybe more.

"Steve--you lose me--and diminish your own continued advocacy of Hoffman--the minute you say that Hoffman "went to L'Ambroisie to experience "classical" French cuisine" as if that were some valid criteria." Steve KlC- I don't understand why I lose you when I make that statment. If I said to you that I went to Honfleur to experience the light that painters who were expert in applying a technique which came to be commonly known as Impressionism painted in, would you be confused the same way? I'm really unclear as to why that wouldn't be an appropriate reason to visit Normandy. And further, if we found an Impressionist painting that was painted in a location where the light isn't anywhere near as refracted as it is in Normandy, would my comment of "he captured the wrong light" be a valid one? Is Impressionism just a style of painting? Or has the word come to define a certain technique applied to a specific type of light? You see I keep using musical examples because music is replete with instances where artforms are complete in their repetoire. Nobody is able to make additions to the standard repetoire that are of real interest to people who follow the artform. As a short list, there hasn't been a great opera (I mean commercially and widely accepted) since the 1890's I believe. And there are no great swing songs like Take the A Train written anymore either. Broadway musicals? Yes if you call Lion King a musical and not a Las Vegas production and I say it's the latter. Lion King will not in my opinion become part of the standard Broadway repetoire that will be performed for at least the next few generations. Jazz? Any tenor sax palayers who have brought the instrument beyond where Coltrane brought it? In 40 years it hasn't happened. And all Hoffman says (and I hope this is my final defense of him) is that what I have described has happened to those artforms has happened to French cooking. And he points to the use of curry as evidence. And if you don't see the use that way, and you just see it as a spice additive, well the point doesn't do it for you. And also if you see cooking as a continuum, and not as something where a new generation of chefs have broken the line of order and have bee materially influenced by chefs outside of France, you will never be able to put any weight on his statement. Which brings us right to Gopnik's point about French cooking having dimmed. So let me cook up a post on the topic. Steve - I think you are just applying a fancy way of making the "if I like it it's good" argument. I just don't feel that way about it. To me opera is opera. It isn't R & B. And French cooking isn't the practice of making currys. When I sit down in a place like L'Ambriosie I want the French haute cuisine experience. Can curry be a part of that experience? Of course it can. Was it in the instance in Gopnik's book? It might have been. But it doesn't sound like it to me.

Shaw - When I wrote the last post I had not read your response to Suvir but it is relevent to our discussion. You are just looking at life through the lens of food. It is sort of like life imitating art. I think that is backwards. Food is an artform that is imitating life. The reason that pastrami goes best with a certain type of mustard and good rye bread is that the flavor combination reflects the Jewish experience. It is why Irish corned beef tastes different than Jewish corned beef or salt beef. It tastes of the Irish experience. I mean I know nothing about curry powder but I would bet you a Katz's pastrami sandwich that as you travel through the various regions of India, the recipe for your basic curry undergoes slight changes and it is probably at least partially because of the demography of the region. So it isn't that you can't put mayo on a pastrami sandwich. The issue is what does it mean? If it actually meant something to somebody I'm sure it would have caught on.

Shaw-I guess there's a reason that some people become lawyers and some people become media moguls. Let me 'splain this to you. There is nothing wrong with Aretha singing Habanera providing you didn't pay your good money to see someone sing in the style of Leontyne Price. That's exactly what Hoffman says. He went to L'Ambroisie to experience "classical" French cuisine. And when he had the hare he actually experienced it. But the captain talked him into the curry dish and he was angry about it because *to him*, that dish isn't representative of what "classic" French cuisine is about. To him, classic French cuisine means that the chef has technical mastery over his ingredients. He didn't feel Pacaud had that when he tasted that dish. Now you might disagree with that and feel Pacaud indeed is a curry expert. Or in your case and Steve KlC's, it doesn't matter. If it tastes good then it flies. But that isn't Hoffman's standard. He thinks it's a misuse. And to a reader who hasn't been there, the example stresses the point of the article which is that for the century that France had cultural dominance over cooking, they were able to synthesize outside influences into their cuisine. It was perfectly fine for it to be French cuisine with foreign accents. But the point the book is trying to make is that due to the informational flow of the modern age because of air travel and things like faxes and the Internet, mere accents in cooking aren't good enough any more. "Well sure you expect that, but there's a lot of room for maneuver within the bounds of what can be reasonably expected by an audience. Operas, ballets, and classical music performances have been integrating foreign elements since the beginnings of those forms." Well that's not the real issue. Had R & B not been invented, Aretha might well have tried to become an opera singer. But her particluar skills are better applied to R & B than opera. And when I say that I wouldn't want to see Aretha sing the Habanera (or Pacaud use curry,) it implies that I understand that there is a better use for her voice. It has nothing to do with whether she can sing the habanera. It has to do with two things. My desire to hear opera sung by someone who is an expert in singing opera. And my desire to hear a great R & B singer sing R & B, not opera. Hoffman's quote is exactly that. He wants to eat curry prepared by people who are expert in curry. Not by people who are expert in French cooking technique.