Michael Ruhlman

Thank you mimi! If i ever find myself looking around for the salt then ask for some and the waiter is snooty, I say, either bring me some salt or tell your chef to learn how to season his food properly. that kind of arrogance drives me crazy. who DID do it first?

i think we should all start calling tony a gourmet.

Gourmet as an adjective (or as a magazine) is useful, as in a gourmet food shop. Gourmet, the noun, I think of as someone who eats with their pinky aloft and only uses fleur de sel to season food. though i haven't looked any of these words up, I prefer gourmand when referring to some who always orders the liver or the brains or the tripe soup, or, simply out of respect and avocational obligation, the veal orloff. someone who will go anywhere try anything simply out of their love of the craft and pleasure of eating.

How can it be a bad thing if they create great restaurants? The thing is, great restaurants are incredibly hard to create. There are two issues that interest me. One: does the great chef, the one who has achieved some sort of truly original impact on diners, vitiate him or herself, dilute the gift, waste the talent by opening a series of four-star copies or lower end rollouts? Not if they've already left their mark. Indeed they stand to strengthen their work by expanding, if they can do it well. Chefs as we know have expanded with varying degrees of success. (Whatever happened to stephen pyles and star canyon?) The best, acting like CEOs, are able to spread their standards throughout their entire organization. Those whose standards don't trickle down have a spotty track record. I think the real danger is young chefs who get into the business not with a four star restaurant as the goal, but with the goal of being CEO of a spread of four restaurants, and product and books, before they've developed any meaningful standards of their own or created anything of unique value in the culinary world. Or perhaps worst of all, a generation of young chefs whose goal is to be globally influential. Can you imagine getting into this business with that as your goal? Very interested in Clark's view on this subject.

While you're right, pedro, about the bigger cities more likely supporting boundary pushing cuisine, it will inevitably filter through the united states. i think the market is limited, but there is a market and don't think the market for it will decrease. check out this menu and chef profile from nashville: http://www.nrn.com/onthemenu/index.cfm?ID=6852505266

I'm not nearly so pessimistic about the masses as Holly. I think people will learn and demand better food, not just the foodie fashionistas, but all those people watching emeril. There will be a continuous trickle down of information. And I'd like to note to Holly that on Achatz's opening menu at Alinea, one of the most forward thinking restaurants in the country, there was an artichoke dish, straight out of escoffier--the menu even listed the recipe number. That truly is a hopeful sign.

"wisely balanced dollops," with an eclectic pairing of wines, that too for me is my hope for fine dining. and i do think that the avant garde thrusts in the united states can be very easily damaged by young cooks who don't have a solid grasp of culinary fundamentals. Grant Achatz at Alinea in Chicago is pushing boundaries but he can only do so because of his fundamentals are perfect. and the foie situation in the united states is so sad so muddled by ignorance I can scarcely bring myself to comment. I dream that intelligence will prevail, but then I wake up and realize where I live.

The consumer definitely has the upper hand and always will. I hope what's happening gradually is that the consumer is smarter (partly bec of the media, as steven notes, and I agree with his prediction), and with a smarter consumer the chef will get smarter and deliver a better product. Chefs who think of themselves as artistes before they are hospitality professionals will select themselves out of the profession.

Andy, public thanks to you. You know what i like best about your work here is that i actually sound like myself. you'd be amazed how rarely that happens, even in recorded conversations. So thank you for that, for your fun questions, and good work. I can't respond to everyone individually, but thanks for all the comments. They make me feel like less of a schmo. And a kind word from Fat Guy, how about that! Title can be changed if you think of something better! Current title with subtitle is The Reach of a Chef: Beyond Perfection. But please, nobody get your hopes up. I think I said everything best in Soul, and have since descended into something of an indulgent blow hard.

Russ is absolutely right. It's pointless to go on at this point. Unless Doug Psaltis wants to comment or the strangely taciturn Fat Guy has a final remark, perhaps someone should start a new thread and leave this one lie. We can come back in a couple days and poke it with a stick to see if it moves.

i'm staying purposefully undercaffeinated because I think this is serious, I'm not doing it for entertainment. sheesh. everybody's a critic.

This thread does have the feel of things getting blown out of useful proportions. I don’t know of anything truly horrible that Doug Psaltis did. On one level this is all a tempest in a teapot. I haven’t wanted to say what I’ve heard because it is only that, something I’ve heard and only one side of the story. And even what I’ve heard scarcely deserves to be remarked on at all. But given first that Psaltis published a factual book casting The French Laundry in a negative light, and second, that there seems to be of a rumor that he was in fact fired from the FL and did not leave on his own accord as he suggests in the book, I felt there was enough justification to ask Psaltis to comment. To say, True, false or I’ll let my book stand for itself. If the rumor is true, that he was fired by The French Laundry, that is neither here nor there in and of itself. People get fired all the time. Keller’s been fired. But to paint a distinctly negative picture of The French Laundry, and not reveal that he had been fired, well, if that were true, it would throw everything the guy wrote into question. His authority becomes spurious, the book becomes counterfeit. And it’s something that Psaltis and his co-author and the publisher clearly intend to profit from. So, in my original post, I was asking for a comment for Psaltis if he wanted to clarify his side of the story, because there are so many sides to a story. The truth in writing means a lot to me. If he’s going to be a writer as well as a chef, I’d kind of like to know where he stands.

I don't want to make accusations or explicit queries in this public forum. I'm disturbed by all of this. I strongly want to know what Psaltis has to say. After he responds--if he wants to, if he has anything more to say--then I'll say what I can.

I'm not going to reply here unless I think it's urgent or unless someone directly involved asks me to.

Steven, You're absolutely right. I apologize for that and apologize to Doug Psaltis. I didn't mean to be so accusatory. Objection sustained. I have info that questions his story in a serious way--if it's true, it would throw all that he said into question. It's all hearsay at this point. I would like to hear a response, though, so I'll rephrase: Doug, is there anything substantial about your time at the French Laundry that would shed a clearer light on your particular experience there? I honestly do apologize for the accusatory tone. Not justified. Part of the nature of this immediate format.

I read the FL chapter in a bookstore the other day and found it compulsively readable. I’m a huge fan of chefs and cooks who write and encourage it in any way I can. I was also interested to read the blurbs by some of the great culinary lights of today, pepin, batali, trotter, recommending the book. And I look forward to reading the whole thing. Subsequently I’ve listed to other accounts about Doug Psaltis’s time at The French Laundry--I've never met him--and I’m very curious now. One of the great strengths of egullet is the integrity with which it is run. The internet has become a form of citizen journalism. As with print journalism, it will live or die by its integrity, honesty and impartiality (or at least full disclosure, when impartiality may be in question). I hope every one who posts on this site remembers that. And I encourage anyone who posts comments on this situation in particular to offer their name and affiliation if it is significant. I am not part of the French Laundry company but have worked closely with Keller and many of his staff for the past eight years. As I’m sure is no surprise, I keep in touch. I’d like to ask Doug Psaltis if we’re getting the whole story. Is there anything you’d like to add or offer? Now would be the time.

I'm not sure I really know what Clark is saying but I do like the way he says it. I did especially appreciate his response to his friends who say "It's only food." It is only food but it's so much more than that, also. If it weren't, we wouldn't be having this discussion and his work would be a helluva a lot more simplistic. Clark, the reigning authority here, at least relative to me and Steven, is the expert on the restaurateur, and a general expert on all things front and back of the house. Steven can meaningfully be said to be an expert from the consumer's stand point and I of course am thoroughly back of the house. Dividing the subject up by front of the house, back and type of restaurant might be a fruitful way to approach the subject. If clark is right about the trickle down effect, and his examples suggest they do, then what will we be seeing in smaller market independent restaurants, and in the chains (and chains vs indies is a huge subject on its own)? How will front of the house change as more people become more comfortable and more knowledgable about dining out? And how will all the forces of contemporary culture and the explosion of food information and food interest shape emerging restaurants?

I'm interested by all of Steven's points. The ones that are most meaningful to me personally have to do what we eat and how we eat it. The first issue is what we eat, that is what chefs offer, given that they can offer pretty much anything they want today. What are the chef's obligations? The second issue that interests me is how restaurants are perceived, independent, chain, celebrity chef outpost. What does that mean to diners and what should it mean. A third issue, related to the second and a subject I know Steven has written about, is to discuss is the celeb chefs outposts, is it a good or a bad thing. I've addressed these last two points in my next chef book which is scheduled for May and thought a lot about these issues. Six or seven years ago Keller had said to me the notion of cooking regionally and seasonally had become a fallacy for restaurant chefs. That is increasingly true at most restaurants (exceptions are Primo in Maine, Zuni Cafe, and Chez Panisse). Is there anything wrong with this? Not judging from the quality of food or pleasure of eating at the French Laundry. But I don't know. I do believe that Fed Ex has more than any person or company changed what we eat in restaurants. Cooking and eating regionally seasonally is most applicable now to the home cook, who stands to benefit most. I think one of the biggest developments is a greater specialization of restaurants or restaurant types. As diners become more knowledgable about food, chefs and restaurants (in exactly the ways Steven mentioned), chefs and restaurateurs will have to become more focused in how they present their restaurant--is it a chain, is it independently owned, is it fast food done well, is it fresh ingredients prepared simply, is it avant garde, is it fine dining european, if it's a mixture what kind of mixture. Any time there as a influx of information and technology, it's a time marked by increasing specialization. Regardless of what the future is , the present is a very exciting time for someone who loves to eat in restaurants. I'm interested in all the issues Steven brings up. I'll look forward to comments and questions to egulleters near and far--I'd love to hear from other countries especially.]

will you describe your sous vide confit technique? do you add fat to the bag, aromats? what temp and how long?

fyi, this from one of the chefs, Mary Radigan, who has done her fair share of peeling: "I do feel it is more difficult to peel it on the stem just because it is another thing you have to keep intact. It is easier to do from the bottom to the top because there is less taring towards the stem." And I do know that family meal salad includes a helluva lot of grapes.

an arizona based chain. very successful. but i urge clevelanders to eat at restaurants independently owned. they've even organized themselves into a group, spearheaded by chef segrio. it's better for the diner, better for the chef and better for the local economy. my favorite asian is lemongrass, still. i had a good meal at mekong. but i too am eager to know what the best asian is or are...

that's a good question. but also remember that dessert was not required in that final competition. as for lavendar, I've always liked a comment Eric Ripert made. "lavendar you put in the drawer to make the socks smell nice. don't put it in your food."

One of the producers of the show, John Reiber, whom I respect and admire, the guy who did most of the work in creating, organizing, filming and editing the show, has occasionally checked in here to read comments. He really cares about this show and it's driving him crazy that people think the show was rigged or that Katie was the predetemined winner. "I really don't like the suggestion she was favored at all," he wrote to me, "because she wasn't. Nobody ever was. They were admired for what they achieved during the course of the competition. "Katie was on the firing line in both episodes 7 and 9. She changed her style by becoming more communicative, by adding local flavors, by focusing on great taste and beautiful presentation. It was a very close contest, but to disparage her because she perservered is unfair to her and to the show. "And to suggest any unfairness on the part of the show toward any finalist is also completely unfair and totally against what we tried to do: celebrate the art of cooking great food in a tough environment: a professional kitchen. Celebrate the accomplishments of all 12 finalists, and wish the ultimate winner the best: that's what her fellow finalists did."

if she couldn't cook for shit, she would have been among the first to go. her food was always really tasty, even the liquidy terrine was really flavorful. but when we got down to equally talented cooks, personality became a major factor. the show was not rigged, and I wouldn't have participated in it had it been. I am, after all, a pillar.

she's gonna get her ass kicked for the first two months, but she's tough and smart and she'll figure it all out eventually. the chef de cuisine there is really solid, so I have no doubt she'll ultimately thrive.