Food Snobbery

[Tonyfinch]

The fact that the majority of people in Paris brasseries are drinking wine with their steak frites shows only that the people who go to Paris brasseries prefer wine with their steak frites.

In what way does it reflect some kind of universal truth that wine is the "correct" thing to drink with steak frites?

Who conferred upon the people who visit Paris brasseries a monopoly on deciding gastronomic standards?

Go into large swathes of the beer drinking world and you will see as many people drinking beer with steak and chips. Why is this less "correct"?

[yvonne johnson]

I like a Bloody Mary with steak frites.

[rich]

I like a Bloody Mary with steak frites.

But Yvonne, the type of Vodka could make you a snob or reverse snob and that's to say nothing about the tomato juice.

[Steve Plotnicki]

Tony - They have no monopoly. But they do make a consensus. And beer is certainly a fine thing to drink with steak and chips. But I'm afraid that the people you are talking about are more interested in beer then in the steak frites .

Yvonne - I'm a huge fan of bloody marys, and certainly spicy tomato juice is not a long stretch from sliced tomatoes with dressing. They even put steak sauce (worcestershire) on steaks and in bm's. But how can you drink hard alcohol with food? It clashes with the flavor of the food and it numbs your tastebuds.

This raises an interesting issue. It used to be the fashion for people to drink hard liquor with their food. Steak and Scotch in the old steakhouse days. But I don't know anyone who eats like that anymore. Coffee too. People used to drink coffee with dinner. I never got that. Even before I was into or knew anything about food.

[LaNiña]

Sort of like BF and AF (CF?) Before Food, After Food (Common Food?)

[Lord Michael Lewis]

Beer is certainly a fine thing to drink with steak and chips. But I'm afraid that the people you are talking about are more interested in beer then in the steak frites.

How the fuck do you know?

If they drink Coke are they more interested in that?

For every plate of steak & chips we can safely assume that someone is drinking something; Water, Coke, Beer, Wine, Whatever. In all probablity red wide is one of the least common companion to the dish. However, Wilfrid and Nina say that red wine is what should be drunk, thus giving the finger to anyone who doesn't share this belief. They base their argument on a consensus. Not a consensus of those who eat Steak & Chips, but a consensus only of those hand-picked to express a preference for red wine.

For some people it the winning that's important not the taking part.

[rich]

For some people it the winning that's important not the taking part.

Amen to that LML!

[Zeb A]

Most of the people will be drinking wine. That is because wine is the right thing to drink with steak frites. That is already what most everyone does.

Say everybody in the world, except Bob, thinks that the thing that tastes best with steak frites (whatever they are) is wine. Bob thinks prune juice is the thing that tastes best with steak frites.

You can prove that Bob is wierd, strange, idiosynchratic, whatever. You cannot prove that Bob is wrong is his own assesment of what tastes best to him (unless you can do some sort of wierd Being John Malkovich thing). Assuming someone has an informed opinion (ie they have eaten steak frites both with wine and prune juice), I do not believe that you can prove that their opinion is wrong on matters of taste.

If you try to persuade Bob that he is wrong, your are not a snob.

If you explain to Bob that he is the only person in the universe who thinks prune juice tastes good with steak frites, you are not a snob.

If you observe that his opinion runs contrary to that of all the most respected food critics in the world, you are not a snob.

If you think you are better than Bob, you are a snob.

If you act like you are better than Bob, you are a snob.

If you say to Bob, "I guess I am just the kind of person who cares about flavor," you are making a snobbish comment.

If you say to Bob, "I disagree with you, as does everyone else in the known world, and I don't understand how any one could have your opinion," you are not making a snobbish comment.

[Wilfrid]

giving the finger to anyone who doesn't share this belief

I went out of my way to do no such thing. And suggesting the red wine votes are coming from a hand-picked minority is like suggesting that the Edmund Spenser votes are coming from Eng Lit professors. A self-selected minority, possibly, but also an informed one, possibly.

Notice how both sides are using a rhetorical flourish to add plausibility to their cases: Tony and His Ludship say "steak and chips", I say "chateaubriand". Because it's harder to sound reasonable when you claim that beer beats claret hands down as an accompaniment to chateaubriand.

But why shy away from the harder case I set out? Lots of people did (and still do) prefer to drink milky, sugared tea with steak. Are there really no grounds for saying "Fine, that's their preference and I respect that, but broadly speaking red wine does go rather bet with a nice piece of steak?"

I am encouraging you to confront this absurdity.

P.S.: Let me try one other angle. Last week a number of eGulleters ate a meal at Sammy's Roumanian in New York, which I believe we unanimously loathed. I think it follows from the position that Tony and His Grace are arguing - if I understand it correctly - that the meal was fine, we were just the wrong set of people to eat it. In other words, if a group of people had savored the food with delight, the cooking at Sammy's would then be excellent. I just find this approach profoundly implausible.

[=Mark]

I've not visited this thread in quite some time.  Having taken another look I remember why, it's brain numbingly BORING!

I think posts like this are the height of arrogance. Mark, if this is boring to you, then don't read it. Clearly, there are those of us who do not find it so, and your voicing your opinion in this context merely serves to insult those of us who are interested.

The same goes for Jason and his "are you done yet" comment. If it's an issue of bandwidth, or some other legitimate moderator issue, then say so. If it's merely because you don't care about this topic, or find it "boring," then just say nothing.

People go on and on in threads about many (in my view) mundane and mindnumbing subjects, and sometimes I'll say something like well I just don't get it, or I just don't watch TV, or whatever the case may be, but I don't say oh this thread is ridiculous, or aren't you people tired of this subject, or any such thing. That would be true snobbery.

Yawwwnnn....

My take is once you've stated a point, what utility is there in restating the same point over and over. Seems like the main objective here is to see how many ways there are to say the same thing. I looked here again to see how the thread had evolved in the couple of weeks since I last looked at it, and was rather surprised to see that it had not, just the same axle-wrapping of the same opinions.

[John Whiting]

There's another dimension to the "steak and chips" debate. I think that almost all eGulleteers would agree in their heart of hearts that most of the so-called steaks and chips actually consumed at average restaurants are of such a mediocre or even loathesome quality that the best thing to drink with them would be whatever totally masked their flavor.

[Wilfrid]

For sure. That's another reason I have been going to the trouble of typing "chateaubriand".

[Lord Michael Lewis]

A: Tony and His Ludship say "steak and chips", I say "chateaubriand".  Because it's harder to sound reasonable when you claim that beer beats claret hands down as an accompaniment to chateaubriand.

B: But why shy away from the harder case I set out?  Lots of people did (and still do) prefer to drink milky, sugared tea with steak.  Are there really no grounds for saying "Fine, that's their preference and I respect that, but broadly speaking red wine does go rather bet with a nice piece of steak?"

C: Let me try one other angle.  Last week a number of eGulleters ate a meal at Sammy's Roumanian in New York, which I believe we unanimously loathed.  I think it follows from the position that Tony and His Grace are arguing - if I understand it correctly - that the meal was fine, we were just the wrong set of people to eat it.  In other words, if a group of people had savored the food with delight, the cooking at Sammy's would then be excellent.  I just find this approach profoundly implausible.

A: Well spotted. Chateaubriand, I might add, is a huge, fat and very expensive part of the fillet.

B: It's your rhetoric that causes the problem here. Who is it that is "broadly speaking"?

C: If you told me it was a shit meal I would believe you.

If I ate there and enjoyed it and you told me that you didn't like it, I would believe you, different strokes etc.

If I ate there and enjoyed it and you told me that you didn't like it, and that, as I liked it, my taste was somehow dubious, and that you knew gourmandes who could prove my taste was dubious, I would, rightly, knock your teeth out.

[tommy]

hehehehe.

[Wilfrid]

A: Yup.

B: I prefer to keep it vague, and that may be a difference between Steve and me. I am not talking about some rarified cabal of merchants and professionals, but broadly - indeed - about people who take some interest in food, eat with catholic enjoyment (c. J. Arlott), and have some experience and knowledge. There's no special qualification I have in mind.

C: You and whose army, tosh?

But ultra-violence aside, that's precisely the point of difference. The food at Sammy's was so negligently badly prepared, that if you told me that same meal was a good meal, it would indeed give me considerable pause as to your ability to judge a restaurant's skills. Just like if you told me Archer was an important novelist, I would surmise that the novel was not your field of expertise. None of which would make me think you an inferior person.

[Steve Plotnicki]

Zeb - Your post goes into the category of believing there is no common standard people adhere to. That is simply wrong. There is a common standard. Go interview 500 top level chefs about what is the best thing to drink with steak frites and I assure you the answers will generally fall in a very small range. That range will be the commonly held standard.

So when I say that Bob is "wrong" for drinking prune juice with steak, you have to read the inference of "as compared to the commonly held standard" when reading the statement. The inference that he is a bad person should not be drawn. But the inference that he knows fuckwit about food should .

Mark Stevens - I understand your point. But I don't see how that responds to Nina's proffer that it is arrogant to express it that way. Not that your post bothered me. But she does have a point you know.

LML - My kishkes tell me that you couldn't knock someone's teeth out if they were laying on the night table.

[tommy]

LML -  My kishkes tell me that you couldn't knock someone's teeth out if they were laying on the night table.

double hehehehe. and i don't even know what a "kishke" is.

[Wilfrid]

Clue: stuff one with meat and it becomes a sausage.

[S. Dedalus]

There is a common standard. Go interview 500 top level chefs about what is the best thing to drink with steak frites and I assure you the answers will generally fall in a very small range. That range will be the commonly held standard.

I would think that the standards of 500 top level chefs would be decidely "un-common."

LML -  My kishkes tell me that you couldn't knock someone's teeth out if they were laying on the night table.

Do we know what he was arrested for? He looks like quite the hooligan to me.

[macrosan]

double hehehehe.  and i don't even know what a "kishke" is.

My kishkes tell me you have a pretty good idea what kishkes are

[tommy]

Clue:  stuff one with meat and it becomes a sausage.

ah, the ole wine cask. right-o.

[Wilfrid]

Sorry, I missed Zeb's post first time round.

It makes me a little sad, because as far as Zeb is concerned, poor Bob is ineducable. I speak from personal experience, which I don't plan to describe in detail here, when I say that it is possible to take someone with limited knowledge and understanding of food - who might very well claim to enjoy prune juice with steak - and teach them to try new things and broaden their horizons. It's rewarding and it makes them happy too. And they soon forget about the prune juice, It's called teaching, there's nothing elitist or superior about it, and I suspect no-one here would demur in the least at the idea of it taking place with respect to literature, art or music.

[Lord Michael Lewis]

poor Bob is ineducable.

Okay, a Pygamlion scenario:

Brian's favourite meal is steak and chips with a can of lager.

Fate shows Brian her petticoats in the form of a wealthy Anglophobe New York record producer.

The record producer wines and dines Brian, but is alarmed at his common taste.

The record producer undertakes to educate Brian's palate (in his own image).

Some time later Brian is regularly posting on internet wine boards.

When Brian is asked what one should drink with steak & chips, he replies "why red wine of course".

His education is complete, but he still prefers a can of lager with his steak & chips.

[Steve Plotnicki]

His education is complete, but he still prefers a can of lager with his steak & chips

Well your little story works because lager happens to be a good drink with steak and chips. But if it was milky tea or prune juice, no way Brian could go back to them after his education and have the story be realistic.

[Zeb A]

it is possible to take someone with limited knowledge and understanding of food - who might very well claim to enjoy prune juice with steak - and teach them to try new things and broaden their horizons.

Fair enough. And then Bob goes to 500 dinners with you--top restaurants only. He reads every book in the world on steak, prune juice, and wine. He appreciates that other people prefer wine, understands that his tastes are unusual, and intellectually can understand the agrument in support of wine as the preferred accompaniment. But, when alone and away from his new foodie posse, he secretly indulges in prune juice with steak, which, to his palate, tastes best. You can't convince me that he is "wrong," and I can't convince you that he isn't wrong. No problem.

You may never want to take a food recommendation from Bob. Sounds like a good idea.

You may not want him to pick the restaurant when you go out to dinner. Might be a wise move.

But, if you think that he just doesn't care about food the way you care about it, that's your right, but I would personally consider that to be snobbish.