Steve Plotnicki

This thread has been started for everyone who feels excluded by the Symposium which has started a similar topic. Everyone is welcome to post here which is where this topic really belongs. Also, I believe if anyone digs through the archives, I started a thread on restaurant criticism last spring. My biggest complaint about restaurant criticism is that it is consumer oriented. The amount of space it gives to the aesthetics of cooking and dining is extremely limited. One would think that this dynamic would be much more prevalent at newspapers but restaurant criticism in magazines is not much better although they devote more space to their reviews. Unfortunately that space is usually taken up by descrptions of what type of flowers the restaurant has or where the chef takes his yoga classes every morning. I wonder why no one writes about restaurants from the same perspective as other arts and other crafts? Why isn't the fall menu at Jean-Georges written about from the same perspective as the Richard Avedon show at the Met is written about? Isn't what a chef creates a personal statement in the same way? How come nobody writes about food and restaurants from that perspective? Is there not enough art in the craft of cooking for people to view it that way? I think the fact that publication insist on reveiwing restaurants as if they are reviewing the way a new Lexus drives, helps to perpetuate the growing malaise in restaurants everywhere. Would places like Daniel be as homogenous as they are if a serious restaurant reviewer was handing them their head on a silver platter for their ever increasing mediocrity whixh is the result of their cooking to a price point and not an aesthetic? I don't think so. I wish this would change about restaurant reviews. And I have to say that when I post a review on the site, I try to be cognizant of this point. Hopefully I am successful sometimes. And it isn't that I think the consumer perspective should be abandoned. Yes, a couple taking the train in from the suburbs for their anniversary needs to know if Daniel is worth the $500 it is going to cost them for dinner. But I think that issue can be dispensed with by some rating system that incorporates the quality to price ratio. Currently reviews are dominated by explaining that issue in detail. But I think that if magazines and newspapers were to treat restaurant dining more like they treat going to the opera or a concert, food criticism would improve tremendously. Until then, there will be no such thing as reviews being art. Currently, the only food writing I can think of which could be considered art are works by great writers like Liebling and Trillin. But the reason they are great is that they didn't write about food from a consumer's perspective. They wrote about food from the perspective of culture. That the food they wrote about was exceptionaly delicious was just something that whet our appetities so we could learn about the various cultures they were describing and the various situations they were in when they had the experience. I wish that publications would take note of this and adjust their thinking.

Aha, I didn't realize that it was the typical eGullet pedantry on display! Well I was paraphrasing what the narrative said because I am doing it from memory. For all I know it said important instead of instrumental. But does it really matter? In terms of food on a cultural and socio-economic level, is there anyone more important than Julia Child? Who, the Galloping Gourmet? That's why I don't think the distinction makes that much of a difference to the original point.

Stef - I didn't notice that. I asked my family but they don't remember it either. You can't go into the kitchen and you have to view it from glass windows at 3 different locations. So you don't get to stand next to the counters because if we did I am sure I would have noticed any difference in height.

srhcb - You are going to have to do a better job in disagreeing with the curators point about postwar isolationism then to imply the curator came to the conclusion about isolationism by themself. I understood it to be an explanation of the isolationism that people are generally in agreement about. And in fact I Googled the issue and from the initial evidence there is an abundance of writing on American isolationism after the war. So I would be happy to look at the third party evidence that shows this not to be the case. In fact, you will find the Internet littered with writings about America's historical isolationism since its inception. And that includes to this day with the current administration ignoring international referendums on things like global warming or being isolated on the issue of the death penalty.

Went to the American History Museum at the Smithsonian last weekend and one of the exhibits was Julia Childs kitchen which she has donated to the museum. Aside from seeing the kitchen itself being such a fun thing to do, including viewing videos of her shows (her wearing a fireman's hat while Jacque Pepin was using a blowtorch to make a crust on some dish was in particular a highlight,) and her unusual collection of interesting kitchen tools and gadgets, I thought the curators written narrative was by far the most interesting thing because it talked about how Julia Child was instrumental in helping to end America's post WWII isolationism. I instantly knew that they were right, and that this is the allure I find in a cookbook that I have always had a hard time expressing. A cookbook is a simple way for a culture to explain itself. Recipes, anecdotes, eating habits, customs, they tell you so much about how people live. And they communicate things in a concise way so you can incorporate the things you find appealing into your own culture. They also promote the exploration of other cultures because they humanize what otherwise might be strange. How many people who started out with a copy of Julia Child's books ended up with plane tickets to Europe because she made them feel comfortable about something that might have sounded strange and alien otherwise? There are other aspects of the museum's narrative that I haven't even thought about or can't get my arms around yet in order to put them down on paper. But I thought I'd throw it out to the board and see what people can add to it because it was the most profound comment about cooking I've seen in quite some time. I also know that this is an unusual American perspective on this, and that Elizabeth David might have played the same role in the U.K. It would be good if people can add to this from that perspective, or from the perspective of other nationalities where a cookbook author was instrumental in ending their isolationism. Of course, it also raises the question of why this wasn't the case with every country? Who is the Julia Childs or Elizabeth David of Italy, Germany and Spain? Or was postwar isolationism something unique to the victors and was some other dynamic going on in those countries?

I had dinner there on Thursday night after the Almodovar movie and my sandwich was great. Jaybee, next time I'll call ahead for you. Or just tell them to let the chef prepare it any way he wants .

Doesn't the ice cream melt and spill out of the mochi when you put it on the grill?

For us wheat sensitive, mochi filled with ice cream at Nobu is the dessert of choice.

Similar but not quite the same. Religious discrimination and mild persecution aside, you can decorate a x-mas tree and not have to alter your lifestyle. It's just indoor gardening . Not eating certain foods or certain pairings of food is altering your lifestyle. And as Vivre-Manger says, eating is a more basic human need then gardening . And you can't compare a once a year custom to an everyday event. I think that you are pointing to an aspect of human nature that breeds competitiveness between sets of people. I don't necessarily think that what you are describing is engendered by religion, although human nature might use that aspect of it as a launching point to create a social difference and you get segregation based on class distinctions that originate from religion.

Okay then how about I say they are not rooted in morality and ethics, but they are intended to perpetuate the religion at the expense of morality. How's that?

But that is the entire point. Religious laws that revolve around controlled behavior that isn't rooted in mainstream logic necesarily impose one's beliefs on others. If the only way outsiders can particpate is to adopt your belief set, even temporarily, you have imposed your faith. That is why a non-Jew can particpate in a candle lighting ceremony and it will have no real concequence to them. But when they come to your home for a sabbath dinner and you keep kosher, they have to alter their lifestyle to participate. Like any other thing which is rooted in oppression, even if it is a mild oppression like not eating milk and meat together, being confronted with it makes the outsider question why they are different? Where the hypocrisy lies, is the Jewish tradition of welcoming strangers into their homes is spring-loaded with a simultaneous slap to their faces that says your food and custom of eating isn't good enough for us. So I agree with you it isn't the same level of imposition, but it is imposition and that can't be a good thing. Yes we all live with it because many of us maintain a connection to our religion of birth, whether through theology or culture. But let's be honest. Anything that promotes either systematic exclusion or makes people feel inferior in some way cannot be a good thing.

Who were often in bed with the religious leaders in their country. Or in some instances they were the religious leader in their countries.

Kiku's post is excellent. And Wilfrid adds the good point that non-dietary ritual can also have the same impact. But the real issue for one strain of this conversation, which is what Nina was trying to explore, is which rituals and laws have negative social impact and which ones just reinforce ones needs for spirituality but do not have external concequences towards people from other religions. As to your question number 8, I think the complexity of kashruth has more to do with preventing Jews from converting to Christianity then anything else. That is why the plain language says "unclean to you." In and of itself it segregates because it makes for, them and a you. The "you" are instantly indentified as pork eaters and the inferences (which are mostly negative)get drawn from there. Political correctness would just say "unclean" and not distinguish between race or religion. Once religious writings identify right and wrong that is based on race or religion, it is all downhill from there. The hallmarks of democracy were the elimination of race and religious discrimination. It is hard to believe the Judao-Christian world would be so occupied with that concept if religions didn't historicallty discriminate against people of other faiths in the first place.

What a question. Lots of people on the site that's who. The same people who pay between 200-300 euros for a tasting menu at 3 star restaurants.

Look at radical groups like the Klu Klux Klan, Jewish Defense League and Al Qaeda, just to name three, and how their actions are based on a perverted interpetations of "god's writings." Why is Macrosan justified to follow god's words and they aren't? Because we like his definitions better? Well believe it or not that happens to be the case. We allow people to follow god's words providing they do not violate the rights of others or do not break any laws. But what about rituals and customs that have a negative impact on society but do not break laws? Should we just tolerate them? Or should we point out their negative impact?

But $40 a pound (the rough equivelent) is what they charge at places like Maison au Chocolat or Neuhaus for their chocolates. And while I can't comment on whether Marcolini is in their class, the price isn't really shocking.

Now where is Macrosan explaining how this doesn't promote segregation?

Hard to assess where I'd put Citronelle on the continuum of French restaurants. It is very un-NYC like in feel. But if I had to compare it, it reminds me most of the oldline restaurants like Lutece. Formal but not too because it is almost in a bistro setting. Citronelle is a bit more generic then that but only because it is in a hotel and the space has a bit of a generic feel to it. But the scope of the cooking reminds me more of that type of place then anything else. Like if La Cote Basque if it was actually serving good food. Or maybe a place like JoJo if it was good. I don't think the food at Citronelle makes a big statement, nor is it intended to. And I don't say that as a criticism. Because the trick to the cuisine is that it is very delicate and subtle. In speaking with the staff, they feel that Michel's background as a pastry chef gives him a unique approach to the flavoring and the architecture of the dishes. From my limited experience I could understand that comment but would need to eat there three or four more times to really understand it. As for it being in the "elite national class," I think they are not in the highest tier but in a tier just below. And I think that is a matter of scope more then anything else. They are just not working at the same level of intricate technique as a place like FL or J-G if you ask me. So when you ask how they would fare in a place like NYC, they would be at the top of the Rachou, Schillinger etc. class. Whether or not they would ratchet it up to be in the Daniel or Jean-Georges class is something I can't answer. I don't think it's a function of being able, I think it's a function of desire which might mean why Michel owns restaurants in DC and Santa Barbara, two places where he is a big fish in a medium size pond. I can't find my credit card receipt but I recall the cost to be $150 per person. I thought that was reasonable considering the meal they served us and the size of the portions.

Wear one with black prison stripes going downward. That will make you look thin. I'm tired of Foie gras as well. Maybe because I find so few specimens that are really good.

Yeah what he said.

Tha laaksa had lime juice. I didn't notice any tamarind. It was really delicious though. I had a Yin Yang plate which was half a bowl of Sweet Potato Curry Cream Soup and the other half of the bowl (same bowl with a wavy partition) of Date Nut Raisin Rice. It was fantastic. We also had Papusas with Beef. They were not authentic, though they weren't bad. I was disappointed to hear that they don't serve Johnnycakes anymore. But I was also proud of myself for finding a dish they don't serve on my first attempt . The sloppy Joe was well, sloppy.

I was actually in DC with my family over the weekend and Mrs. P and I had the chef's tasting menu at Citronelle on Friday night (we sent the little P's off to the Capital's game via the metro.) I immediately picked up a copy of the magazine as how could I pass up an issue with the 100 best restaurants? From an outsiders perspective and not knowing most of the restaurants, but as someone who has pretty good instincts based on what they read as to whether something is worth writing up to begin with, 100 restaurants was a stretch for that town. 50 would have seemed more legit to me and even that is probably a strech too. Citronelle was very good though a little traditional for me, even though they try and liven things up with Asian spicing and ingredients. I could eat there anytime, but there isn't really anything to distinguish it from upper middle French restaurants in other cities. Richard's technique is a little unusual and that creeps into the cuisine. But it is more of an affectation and stylistic and doesn't go to the core of his cuisine. Probably the best dish we ate was roast Maine sea scallops on a bed of shredded jellyfish. And a chestnut soup thickened with pureed porcini mushroms and Foie gras was another standout. They sat us at a table adjacent to the kitchen and they turned our chairs so we were facing the chefs all night. It was quite a show. They did have a great wine list and we had a 1996 Meo-Camuzet Vosne-Romanee Chaumes which was stellar. And the service was great too but someone called ahead for us so I can't say what happens for tourists. I wonder how Pangaud's restaurant is? When he was in NYC, he didn't impress me at either location he cooked in.

Macrosan - It doesn't matter if they ever invent an instrument to see electrons because they have already proven they exist through scientific experiments. You cannot put forth any evidence that god exists, circumstantial or otherwise. The only thing you can do is to point to the fact that science can't absolutely prove evolution from day one. But if you look at how things evolve which we have been able to trace, we can prove evolution from day **** until today. That would be good circumstantial evidence to support a theory that the world could not have been created by a greater being. Show me any evidence at all that says god ever did anything? You see I think you, and other Jews like you, are silly to hang onto that theology. I promise you that one day in the future, probably not too distant but not in our lifetimes, people will discard that type of thinking. Then they will find a way to lead spritual lives that are not intended to promote segregation or the lack of self-esteem because Jews cannot have what others have in life. And if you do not think that is true, just look at how conservative and reformed Judaism were invented so Jews could fit in better. Five thousand five hundred years of pious rabbinate ordering people around by the letter of the law started to go down the drain because people realized the words don't really mean anything and nothing was going to happen to you if you didn't obey god's commands. And what better evidence is there than you? You pick and choose the words and meanings that suit you and you disregard the words that don't suit you. Isn't that hypocritical?

But all you are saying is that some circumstantial evidence is sufficient to prove one's case and other circumstantial evidence isn't. And the reason it is sufficient for the electron is because scientific formulas based on electrons actually work. That is totally distinguishable from saying pork is "unclean" without any scientific data to back it up, including people getting sick from eating it. That relies on people having faith based on no evidence directly related to the item. The evidence arises with a higher power that has no connection to the item other then through his words and who ordains behavior without any evidence at all. The electron is circumstantial of the actual item. Not circumstantially related to the item as a third party. Fat Guy, what do you call that in terms of evidence? And I assume that the reason that nobody has seen an electron isn't that it doesn't exist, I'm just guessing but, doesn't it have to do with finding an instrument that allows us to see it physically? I take exception with Macrosan's characterization of my rendition of what Judaism is and what it promotes. I speak the truth and it has been ratified by numerous people here. That he didn't have the experience that I, and many other Jews had, doesn't mean we do not speak the truth. We do and it is a shame that I have to say that.

Macrosan - You are full of it. If you read the bible, those "words of god" you are describing are about as horrible as any words you will ever read. By picking and choosing the words you like from the words you don't like, you are a hypocrite. At least be honest and condemn all of the words and what they originally stood for. You can find another way for Judaism to offer spirituality outside the context of hypocritical and false divinity. That is the modern approach but I'm not surprised you aren't following it since you are a MAEB.