beaucher

I know this might appear slightly off-topic but since someone mentionned Meyer lemons, let me say that they are in season in winter and they were easily available for most of january and february and the first 2 weeks in march, like other "exotic" (although grown in California since 1909) citruses - my favorite is cara-cara oranges, hmmm. They go out of season as spring appears. Which is..now. So you'l have to wait until next year. I found them at Louis, and at a couple of other places but they are now gone. But at 2$ a piece, not everyone wanted to buy them. there are of course, those silly, serious foodies.....

I cannot comment on your adventures with sushi, but it seems to me that it will happen more and more. Especially since too few restaurants serving sushis take real (and I mean absolute) care with the manipulation of fresh fish. Since sushi can actually make you very very ill (particularly pregnant women who may miscarry) I cannot recommend enough that people take sushi eating more seriously. Unfortunately, it is not the case. There are too many sushis places in MTL that have sprung up, and too few that are really very good. Most are so-so places, and I am always nervous and very careful if I have to eat there. I never eat at sushi places that are not run by a japanase, if I can help it. An example: I wrote a story last summer and went to this sushi-chain (already an oxymoron of sorts, no?) in Outremont only to find that a plastic box was placed on top of a fridge, the box containing 6 freshly prepared sushi - or so I was told. When I commented on the fact that the fish was left out in the warmth, the young girl answered: "Oh! its no problem, they've been made this morning". It was 4 o'clock in the afternoon. As for Les Halles, well. What to say. (sigh!). I call it complacency, the owners are convinced that serving this type of food is still popular and praised. So they do, and charge for it. But in reality, no one eats that way anymore, the cuisine of LH is tedious.It hasn't changed in 25 years, like an old book left on a shelf, collecting dust. It hasn't adapted, and I fear it is already condemend. If the Concierge of the hotel suggested that you go to Les Halles, hmmmm, I suspect he was given some form of royalty. Having worked at a hotel myself, and for many years, I can assure you that the practice is very common. Concierge have a little black book remember. In it they put their adresses, the good ones for retribution. This is not an invention of mine. Without necessarily having gone to Rosalie (which I like) or Cavalli (which I don't know yet) there are many very good places to go and eat downtown that are far superior to Les Halles. There are little food books about eating out that tell you this anyway, and they're worth trusting.

I find the confit at La Maison du rôti, on Mont-Royal Est (at 1969 I think) very good. And more reasonnably priced than in Outremont. And the butchers are really very nice and helpful: one never waits.

Lesley, old news? Maybe because I travelled so much last year, I missed on that one. Usually I am quite quick on those. Anyway, I hope it works out.

To all concerned, interested, and maybe a little nervous. I have just heard from my sources that Montreal might be the next city for a Ducasse restaurant. In fact, it is more than a project I am told. They are looking at 2005. To anyone who has ever eaten at any of his restaurants (I have, twice. And I still remember it fondly) this could be quite an event.

Ahum! I am writing on this thread as I have just come back from a month long holliday in Costa Rica, and since I am a food writer, I suffered. It was the 4th time I went. But it was not for the food - the cuisine - if you want. I went for love (the person accompaniing me loves animals and forests and nature in general). So I spent the entire month worrying about and looking for places to eat that were not serving the staple "rice and bean" (gallo pinto in CR) with overcooked meat, fish or chicken variety. A tough job. Mind you, eating rice and beans can be good. But to a unused stomach and digestive track, it is a biological nightmare gone sour. So I found in isolated places, a few, very few extremely good places to eat. One in particular which is probably totally unknown but that should be noted down by everyone risking it in Costa Rica for more than a week. Unless eating is secondary of course, in which case, you probably don't read these threads anyway. The restaurant serves indonesian food, thats right. Its on a hill, 600 metres high in the air, above the could almost. It is 1 km away from the sea, so you get to see the ocean, 360 degres of it, all to yourself without the noisy tourist entrapments that are so common nowadays. It serves authentic cuisine, well-prepared, wonderfully aromatic, full of spices (in a country that knows nothing of spices) and ingredients that make you think of Asia instantly. After a month long in the desert of food cultures, it is a saintly experience. The place is right above the village of Uvita, you need a taxi to get up there. No buses, the road goes staight up, 600 m. in less than 600 metres of road. Its called Balcon de Uvita, and it is the saving grace of the entire country. Just for them, I would return to Costa Rica.

Folks, I should add this. Concerning Nigella, and I know I might be off-topic, so I'l take the opportunity to go back in and bring Nigella with me. Which I am sure, you'l agree with. she is one of those examples, where a person who is not a professionnal, behaves like one, teaches like one, (and better me-thinks) cooks like someone who has a real training, and yet talks and writes about food the way few professionnal can (I have her book "How to eat" in mind). There lies the difference between a chef (who earns his living with cooking, commercially speaking) and a communicator. And Nigella is no chef, but she's a damn good communicator. She does make one, want to close the tv on the hockey game, and put on an apron. She might also create some fantasies in a few. I do not think we've come up with anyone llike her in North America.

To feedthe gut: oups! sorry. You misinterpreted my answer. Reassure yourself, I am neither small nor was attacking anything in you or your potential behaviour. Nor am I aggressive in any way. I should have said : "can help ONE solve....". And what I meant by solving of course had to do with simple, cooking techniques that Nigella is so good at revealing. Sometimes, they come from other cultures - the techniques - and she is a wonderful technical translator. I am passionately pro-Nigella. And not because of her cleavage. So once again, sorry for the way I wrote that, I take the blame. B.

Oh! And Nigella Lawson is also a good "cook". She is a wonderful pedagogue. Can talk about food, the way a sex therapist can actually help you solve some unsolved issues.

Unreserved: You are absolutely right about chef-directed, and the distinction one has to make between an entrepreneur (whose goal btw is certainly not the well-being of the profession and artistry or that of humanity fro that matter) and an investor. The difference may be (MAY BE only) that an investor rarely knows about the buziness, knows more about "investment and profit returns". The entrepreneur is marginally more (perhaps) involved. Then again, of the thousands of restaurants I have reviewed and visited here, in the ROC, in the US and in Europe, it was rarely the case (that investors and entrepreneurs took things seriously enough to balance between making money, to allow the place to work effectively and to provide quality and some profitability, and that often means putting some form of "the breaks" on the élan of the chefs, who are, we probably all know this well, a little eccentric and spendthrift) and most of the entrepreneurs were just investors disguised as philisophically enclined investors. A small difference. That may explain why chefs here in America move so much, their work is rarely recognized to its real value, their pay is pathetic (with few exceptions, until such time they become "stars") and the work is often brutal. The collaborations that work - and I insist, are to my knowledge marginal - are indeed the ones that are the best: Rosalie, Toque, Area, Lemeac, Chevres, Christophe, etc... I think this makes a restaurant. Not our written records, or us for that matter, which people will soon forget. They won't forget the gastronomic emotions though (good OR bad). I still have in mind a meal I had at Pic, in Valence, in 1986. I can still taste the sauce over the baby eels, somewhere in the back of my mind, can still remember the fish dish very well. Or another amazing meal I had in Hong Kong, a melted pork belly fat (yes!) that was like eating Dulce de leche, only salted. And the "vessie natatoires" of one catalan chef, in last year's fstival (which Leslie disliked intensely) over mashed potatoes, in my mind, a phenomenal discovery. I am not anti-investors, or anti-entrepreneurs, I don't trust them, thats all. but I do trust sincere chefs. There are many in this town.

Well! Some good point in unreserved response. But I insist, the definition of a journalist is one who writes in a newspaper,collaborates to the writing of a newspaper - we have a convention called language on which we all agree, I don't make those rules you know- one who reports and inform but also interprets the information sometimes (we call him a columnist, a chroniqueur etc... but he still is a journalist). This reminds me of a debate I once had on what constitute an intellectual. One side said that these were the great thinkers of our time and the great writers of our times, period. Oh! the other suggested that anyone earning his living by writing, reading, studying, teaching based on books, or anything to do with the world of ideas (asbract) was one. Can there not be less important intellectuals. Do they all have to be printed, or seen on TV to be real intellectuals? I beleive not. Likewise, there are musicians who are musicians because they play music, not because they made a CD, or play with the OSM. I feel the same about this business of what constitute a journalist. Think for an instant: is the guy writing about sport's result not one, but the guy reporting on Celine Dion's life is? Or are only writers that are concerned with politics or economics part of the lot? As a member of the press, the media in general, I feel and act like a journalist. I have a creed - truth, sincerity, whatever it may mean across cultures - and I practice it with ethical consideration (i.e. I am very careful when I am writing a review about a place I certainly did not like for instance. I suppose, it is the same for all food critics). Then again, I am asked why readers would not follow my recommendations, if I put myself in the position of the expert, and I most certainly do? I'll say I am not behind the stove, not with the chef when he buys stuff from suppliers, not in control of quality. Then, He is responsible for the failure or success of his restaurant. He can only blame himself (or the owners if the case may be). Take Toque, they are successfull because they are carefull, sincere, honest and frankly bloody good at pretty much everything they do. Because of this dedication to this "métier", they have had only (with very few exceptions) good reviews. We must be doing something right. Other examples in MTL? Le pied de cochon, almost no bad reviews, Lemeac (at least a couple of month after their opening) and the list goes on. And despite that some of us -Leslie, JP, - don'T always agree on some, we almost universally agree on the tops. I am pro-chef because I beleive the best restaurants in the world are those owned and operated by chefs. My bias I know, but thats the way I feel about it. And I've seen many good talented men and women, demoralised by unscrupulous owners who had no idea how to run a restaurant. And what it meant to own one. They were only interested in the profit they were to make. Some did. Many failed. These are the impostors. There are many in this city. Of course, there are also exceptions to this. But generally, it is also the case in France and in Italy. I do not know the situation in the USA, but I suspect they may have similar arrangments with chef-owners. I am also pro-chef because I highly respect the job, those who do it, their dedication as I said before, their dedication to pleasure - could there not be a more remarquable endeavor? To give pleasure? That does not mean all "investors" are crooks, but a few are. And those few are ... spectacular.

To all the chefs here who are so worried about restaurant critics. And to the others. I have read this long thread with interest. And I am about to respond. As a critic. But first I must say, and this thought has fed my writing carreer since it began 12 years ago, and my restaurant career when I had one (I was a waiter and a Maitre d'hotel for more than 15 years, here, in France and in Sydney, Australia, at the same time as I was a student), that there is such a thing as objectivity. It's never total of course, and there a many elements which are subjective - as semiology teaches us, you can never completely erase yourself - but there are such things as measurable, objectified qualities and faults in a restaurant. The fact that many of you think that a critic can destroy a reputation or at least seriously injure one, ignores the fact that ultimately, the restaurant is responsible for its success or its failure. Even in a city like New York, famous for its dependance on critics, one of the most famous of all once told me she never made or broke a place. She witnesses. Albeit in an informed manner. And that is often where chefs and restaurateurs, are at a fault when discussing the "power" of a critic, they do not always recognize that a "good" critic does his homework. Has to. That is, he reads, he researches, he tests, often more than once, he makes sure he can substantiate his findings, his comments (but he may make mistakes as well, on that we agree, the difference being that a mistake cannot be tolerated for long in this very specific buziness). However, many of you also forget that a critic is before all a communicator. A journalist. Someone who reports - albeit critically - but repports nevertheless. I hear some of you saying "the restaurateurs are trying to make an honest living, ta,ta,ta. Invest a lot of money, ta,ta,ta.". I'l speak for myself but frankly, this is irrelevant to me. What counts is the customer, what they should get, how much they should pay, what they should expect for that, and if the experience as a whole is worthy. The restaurateurs investment might as well be dust on my lapels. Others pointed out that accidents may happen, waiters leaving in the middle of the evening, ok. We know. I know at least, it has happened to me, ask Claude Pelletier, we worked together for many years. But in the final analysis, we can usually tell when an accident happens and it is not in our or the readers interest to focus on that. We focus on technicalities, cooking for cooking's sake, freshness of ingredients (my obsession at any rate) season (as in products in season) and originality. That does not exclude "home style foods" but it somewhat excludes grilled steak. And we write about the experience as a whole. To conclude this long reply (and I know I haven't adressed everything there is to adress) let me say that restaurant critics are essential in a world where competition is fierce, where quality is often overriden by "form" i.e. flashy places, flashy bras and tits, flashy customers who are only interested in themselves through the eyes of the other customers, and our job is essentially to unmask the fakes, reveal the mediocres, try to understand the vision of the chef and whether or not he is able to incarnate it in his cooking (thats where most fail) and ultimately guide the readers because they cannot go to restaurants as often as we do, and they certainly don't have the budget we have. Our job is also - beleive it or not - to support the "métier". I, and I think all of us in Montreal, are very pro-chef. We respect the peole who take this job seriously, we encourage as much as we can, and we'll be behind them insofar as we work for the same goal. Unfortunately, not all chefs are created equal so my really really final comments would be, keep at it boys. And instead of focusing on your insecurities, do some yoga on your free time. It really helps concentration.

Remember Joel, Pad thai is first and foremost thai, as in southern Thai - not lao - since it always contain shrimps and all kinds of seafood apart from pig. Also, it's beach food, the kind all the shacks on every beach in the country offers. I remember in the 80's, I survived on pad thai in every conceivable form, while on Koh Chang (which was at the time, completely unknown, and had no electricity!). And pad thai is pretty much street food. Of which there is an incredible variety. It seems to have hit it off with the "falangs" for some reason. Incidentally, last time I went (3 years ago) I bought this book on street food in Thailand and there were literaly hundreds of specialities explained in detail. When I review a thai restaurant, I always look at technique (including the art of mixing spices, fresh of course), limpidity (can one say that in english?) in execution, and the quality of products used. That's what determines the quality of thai food, for me.

There is a very authentic little family place on Decarie (close to Sauve) called Ban Lao Thai. The food is laotian, but it is very similar to the cuisine of northeastern thailand - with which Laotians share a language, ethnic origins and history. You might as well say they're "lower thais" (at least thats what they say out there). Not expensive, hot,hot,hot, and quite fun.

Folks, folks, folks. Relax, grab a good bottle of wine, and breathe through the nostrils, one by one. Thats a secret that I learned from my travels in India (bottle of wine excluded, replaced by other goodies). Thank you Michael and Identifier and Leslie, I think everyone understood my point. And if it is true that I often get "propositions" from restaurateurs, I only "huf" at them. As for the fees Identifier talks about, frankly, I am not aware of it. I am convinced there never was such a thing at VOIR. One thing we did get though(and still do) is a lot of "demands", restaurateurs wanting me or anyone for that matter, to go and "do" a restaurant. Another "huf". I took the time however, to phone them and tell them thats not how things were done. Look, restaurant critics have existed as long as restaurants did, roughly 2oo years. Our "ancerstor" Grimaud de la Reyniere, was a tough bastard, a fine mind, an acute tongue and palate and a very good writer. We claim descent from this guy. With pride. As for what Leslie mentionned, the "guides" are not really Guides, they're publicity vehicle. That being said I must say that it was a very good exercise to write about all this, and a healthy one at that. I hope everyone profited. And WE ALL need a good lay. As often as possible, like good food. It goes together. R