Food Snobbery

[Tonyfinch]

If I announced that the only scallops I eat are Peconic Bay, and that those frozen scallops aren't good enough for me, someone here might call me a snob.

No,that would not make you a snob. What would make you a snob would be if everyone else suddenly "discovered" those scallops and you,instead of being pleased about it, immediately felt your exclusivity compromised and felt driven to assert another scallop as the best in order to keep ahead of the game.

[Lord Michael Lewis]

A better test would be; what should one drink with steak frites?

Plotinki answered: "As to what wine goes best with steak frittes, well it depends on where the beef was from. If I was eating Bazas beef, I would want a claret. And I prefer Burgundy with my Charolais beef. And Rhone wines with my Sisteron Lamb. Do you do it differently my lord?"

To my mind, the important thing about a question like this is not what you answer but what you choose to exclude, which, by not being the answer, is by necessity wrong. Plotinki says wine and defends his choice vigorously, so we must assume that milk drinker is, by Plotinki's standards, wrong , which to me sounds snobby.

[tommy]

[Lord Michael Lewis]

In other words, while it may be fair to say that there is a pretty solid consensus among professional and knowledgeable amateur gastronomes (in the present day, our culture, etc) that red wine is about the best thing to drink with steak, I do not believe it follows as a consequence that red wine is the best thing for me, or Tony, or the little old lady next door to drink with steak.  Individuals are infinitely varied.  The consensus sets a very broad standard, that's all.

"A pretty solid consensus among professional and knowledgeable amateur gastronomes" is a consensus among a minority interest group, if consensus were to be definitive in questions of taste then we'd have to consider everybody, not just the groups that echo our own opinions. Besides, when your gastronomes say red wine is the 'best' thing to drink with steak, are you absolutely sure they don't mean that it's 'better than' other things, white wine for example, but not necessarily 'best'?

[John Whiting]

Your assessment, though, would be thrown out by some on the grounds that it was the result of reverse snobbery!

I wouldn't assess it; I would content myself with experiencing it.

[Wilfrid]

But, with respect y'Worship, why should gastronomy differ from literature, art, music - sport too, come to that, and a myriad other fields of human interest and enjoyment? Do we give weight to everybody's opinion when it comes to making critical judgments? If I want to know whether Roethke's later poetry represents a falling off or a consolidation of his earlier achievements, I am more interested in Harold Bloom's view than a modern language sophomore. If I need an opinion about a vintage wine from the Rhone, I will pay attention - for once - to Plotnicki rather than to my Aunty Dot. And if I want an informed conversation about the Yankees prospects in the World Series, I am more likely to address an American friend who follows baseball than an English friend who follows cricket.

Not that any of this makes the sophomore, Aunt Dot or my English friend worse people.

I wouldn't want to define the critical community too rigorously. I certainly don't mean to restrict it, in the case of gastronomy, to chefs, journalists and hangers-on of the culinary world, any more than I would mean to restrict it to professors and paid reviewers in the case of literature. But I don't think one can realistically arrive at reliable judgments of taste by polling everyone, regardless of their experience or interest in the subject matter.

Does that sound elitist?

[Ron Johnson]

I think Mr. Tyler could use a little periodontal work on that bottom row. Just because you kick heroin doesn't mean you can stop flossing.

[Lord Michael Lewis]

But, with respect y'Worship, why should gastronomy differ from literature, art, music - sport too, come to that, and a myriad other fields of human interest and enjoyment?  Do we give weight to everybody's opinion when it comes to making critical judgments?  If I want to know whether Roethke's later poetry represents a falling off or a consolidation of his earlier achievements, I am more interested in Harold Bloom's view than a modern language sophomore.  If I need an opinion about a vintage wine from the Rhone, I will pay attention - for once - to Plotnicki rather than to my Aunty Dot.  And if I want an informed conversation about the Yankees prospects in the World Series, I am more likely to address an American friend who follows baseball than an English friend who follows cricket.

Not that any of this makes the sophomore, Aunt Dot or my English friend worse people.

I wouldn't want to define the critical community too rigorously.  I certainly don't mean to restrict it, in the case of gastronomy, to chefs, journalists and hangers-on of the culinary world, any more than I would mean to restrict it to professors and paid reviewers in the case of literature.  But I don't think one can realistically arrive at reliable judgments of taste by polling everyone, regardless of their experience or interest in the subject matter.

Does that sound elitist?

For fuck's sakes Wilfrid we're talking about steak and fucking chips. Is it only for gastronomes to decide what is correctly drunk with this most egalitarian of dishes?

[Suzanne F]

I am a snob about using the microwave to "cook." Feh, except for corn-on-the-cob, and heating milk for cafe con leche. Just thought I 'd stick that in, since people have been talking about making "scrambled eggs" in the nuker. NO, NO, NO, NO.

[Ron Johnson]

I am a snob about using the microwave to "cook."  Feh, except for corn-on-the-cob, and heating milk for cafe con leche.

Suzanne, I am with you on this one. When I moved into my new place I retrieved my microwave from storage that I had last used in college. Now it sits in my kitchen. I have used it twice in the last 7 months, both times to defrost some meat I needed quickly.

I do not think less of those who do use it, just that I find it totally unsatisfactory for any cooking that I do. However, I am aware the others can and do work wonders with the machine.

[bigbear]

Yup.

High Noon?

(Thanks, Nick.)

[Suzanne F]

Ron: Oh, yes, Barbara Kafka's book does actually have some excellent recipes for real food made in the nuker. I've tried a few. But I just don't see the need for trading off, say, caramelization and flavor for speed, usually. I salute those who can make decent dishes with it. But for me ... no. (I don't REALLY look down on people who use it a lot; I just don't understand them )

(edited to include name reference because I forgot how fast people answer posts here )

[Wilfrid]

But, with respect y'Worship, why should gastronomy differ from literature, art, music - sport too, come to that, and a myriad other fields of human interest and enjoyment?  Do we give weight to everybody's opinion when it comes to making critical judgments?  If I want to know whether Roethke's later poetry represents a falling off or a consolidation of his earlier achievements, I am more interested in Harold Bloom's view than a modern language sophomore.  If I need an opinion about a vintage wine from the Rhone, I will pay attention - for once - to Plotnicki rather than to my Aunty Dot.  And if I want an informed conversation about the Yankees prospects in the World Series, I am more likely to address an American friend who follows baseball than an English friend who follows cricket.

Not that any of this makes the sophomore, Aunt Dot or my English friend worse people.

I wouldn't want to define the critical community too rigorously.  I certainly don't mean to restrict it, in the case of gastronomy, to chefs, journalists and hangers-on of the culinary world, any more than I would mean to restrict it to professors and paid reviewers in the case of literature.  But I don't think one can realistically arrive at reliable judgments of taste by polling everyone, regardless of their experience or interest in the subject matter.

Does that sound elitist?

For fuck's sakes Wilfrid we're talking about steak and fucking chips. Is it only for gastronomes to decide what is correctly drunk with this most egalitarian of dishes?

Nothing fucking egalitarian about steak and chips where I grew up, Lord Snooty. It was an expensive treat. And as you well know, I am talking in the fucking abstract. As fucking usual.

[Steve Plotnicki]

I think Lord Michael has lost the argument completely when he says that taste is democratic. It's not. Taste is democratic among the peer group involved in the area in question. Like Wilfrid says, cricket fans can't decide who the best baseball player is. You need to be expert in the field of baseball to have an opinion that has any meaning.

[Suzanne F]

Oh, for god's sake, Plotnicki -- NOTHING is 100% worldwide democratic except death.

[Steve Plotnicki]

Actually a free market is democratic to the people who decide to, or can afford to particpate in that market. If you take that theory and narrow it, you eventually get to the concept of experts driving that market. That's why the market for steak frites is large, but who is driving the commonly held standard that wine is the "right" thing to drink are really a small group of people in the food industry with expert opinions. Death doesn't sound democratic to me. It sounds exclusionary .

[Lady T]

A tiny footnote for you, Suzanne: the microwave is also good for melting butter (for use in other recipes where real cooking is involved! ).

[Steve Plotnicki]

I use the microwave to heat up my coffee every morning. Those drip babies never make hot enough coffee for me. Otherwise the thing is useless other then reheating takeout food deliveries and making popcorn.

[Suzanne F]

A "free market" is about as exclusionary as it gets, because only those who have money or something considered valuable enough to barter may participate. That lets out a large proportion of the world's population, but Plotnicki's standards.

I repeat: because it is available to ALL, only death -- and, its converse, birth -- are totally democratic.

And anyone who heats coffee after it is brewed clearly has no taste and needs a more efficacious way to make coffee.

LadyT: sorry, but I find when I try to melt butter in the nuker, it (the butter, that is) explodes. On the stove or warming tray works fine for me.

[Lord Michael Lewis]

Sorry to be pedantic, but I object to the use of 'democratic' to mean 'egalitarian'. It's misleading.

[Steve Plotnicki]

" A "free market" is about as exclusionary as it gets, because only those who have money or something considered valuable enough to barter may participate."

Suzanne - You never get as far as that statement. You can't have a *free* market unless everyone is free to be participate in it. That's the democratic part. And indeed everyone particpates in the free market. They just do not particpate equally because depending on the currency used, which can be monetary, hard goods, services, or inteligence, not everyone has the same things or amount to offer. But the system is available to everyone and therefore democratic. In fact the system is so open to everyone that people who have no money, but can offer their services like singers or chefs, can trade those services for money. And the sky is the limit as to how much they can trade their services for. And someone who used to be a provider of services, like a chef who worked for a restauranteur, can be entrepreneurial and decide to become a service provider instead by opening up their own business. That sounds pretty democratic to me

[Tonyfinch]

but who is driving the commonly held standard that wine is the "right" thing to drink are really a small group of people in the food industry with expert opinions.

No.They are the very large group of people who have a massive vested interest in selling wine. As far as they are concerned wine is the "right" thing to drink with virtually everything. Their livelihoods depend on it.

WHICH wine to drink may require a degree of experience and expertise but even that will be influenced by self interest. eg. The Sauternais will always claim that Sauternes is the "right" thing to drink with foie gras.But there are lots of sweet wines that will do just as well and you won't find "experts" from Sauternes recommending those.

What Steve calls the "commonly held standard" is driven not by some sort of neutral expertise but by economic necessity and though this doesn't invalidate the judgement (foie gras DOES go well with Sauternes) it ican hardly be said to be the result of some small group of skilled and neutral "experts".

[Suzanne F]

Steve P: you seem to belong to the Chicago school. I do not.

[John Whiting]

And anyone who heats coffee after it is brewed clearly has no taste and needs a more efficacious way to make coffee.

Even more, anyone who keeps coffee warm by any method whatsoever. A mug of coffee which has become tepid can safely be given a quick burst in a microwave, but any method of keeping coffee warm enough to drink, including a Thermos, will burn it within the hour. Those who really care about coffee make it freshly, a cup or mug at a time, whether by espresso machine or French press.

I'm not really a coffee snob -- I haven't singled anyone out for condemnation.

[Steve Plotnicki]

Suzanne - That's not the Chicago school, that's how democracy works and what it is regardless of what school you come from. It isn't that everybody is equal (economically that is,) it's that everyone has equal access to the economic system. You can walk out of your house today and do mutlitple things to make yourself a millionaire (assuming you aren't already one .) No one and nobody is stopping you from doing it. People do it all the time without having much money to begin with. What about that isn't fair or is undemocratic? If you have a different definition of democracy other then it being the same chance to particpate in system with rules that are derived democraticly, please let me know what it is.

Tony - You are confusing two things. When the foie gras producers say that Sauternes goes best with foie gras, it subsumes the "right" answer that sweet wine is what goes best with foie gras. That they are trying to sell their own sweet wine is another thing. But if you went to a region where some of the producers make both dry wines and sweet wines like in the Northern Rhone, if you asked someone like Chave which wine to drink with foie, he would say Vin de Paille and not Hermitage. And that's because Vin de Paille is the right match, and Hermitage isn't. It has nothing to do with selling or marketing. It has to do with right and wrong.

John - I'm not talking about reheating the coffee. The coffee is already warm. I'm talking about it not being hot enough in the first place when it is freshly dripped. It's then and only then that I nuke the wine into an acceptable temparature. But I agree with you that old coffee is vile.