Fine Dining vs. Cheap Eats, Continued

[John Whiting]

No, it has a question mark after it.

If that really is a serious question, the answer is that I've attempted to demonstrate that postulate no. 1:

The most interesting food to discuss is the most complex, made from the best ingredients by the greatest chefs, and is therefore the most expensive.

which has been ardently defended by some, is transparent nonsense.

[jaybee]

QUOTE

No, it has a question mark after it. If that really is a serious question, the answer is that I've attempted to demonstrate that postulate no. 1:

QUOTE

The most interesting food to discuss is the most complex, made from the best ingredients by the greatest chefs, and is therefore the most expensive.which has been ardently defended by some, is transparent nonsense.

And it is such because the greatest English language writers have chosen, perversely, not to write about such food? Is that the pillar upon which your case rests? You imply that they have chosen not to write about such food because it is not the most interesting to eat, and that this choice proves the opposite case?

[Wilfrid]

There's plenty of room for transparent nonsense on this thread, isn't there John? Surely, surely.

Seriously, I am kicking myself for not having the Blessed Liebling to hand. Last night, I read his chapter in "Between Meals" on the advantages, to apprentice eaters, of a limited budget. He gives example after example of superior cheaper dishes which those born rich may never come to sample. Maybe I'll quote the odd line tomorrow.

[hollywood]

2. The best food writers in English are generally considered to be Elizabeth David, MFK Fisher and Richard Olney.

What about Waverly Root? And, in another tongue, what about Escoffier?

[Steve Plotnicki]

Wilfrd - You are fixated on the final price and I am fixated on the butcher and the public noticing the difference in quality(ies) between cuts of meat. It is irrelevent for my point whether the difference in price between the lowest cut of meat and the highest is a matter of dollars or matter of cents. The issue isn't to assign meat a value, it's to assign it a purpose based on how its qualities best lend themselves to an occassion. I hope that makes sense because it's a hard concept to get out.

Rib lamb chops are a nicer cut of meat than leg of lamb. So as a result you see Cote d'Agneau on the menus of three star restaurants more often than you see a rack of lamb. But switch venues to a bistro and you are likely to see the leg more than a rack. Pricing should follow their application. It's only at that point that supply and demand issues exagerate the differences.

John Whiting's post is funny, and actually makes all the points needed to be made. Except it has this one gigantic flaw in it. He says,

"1. The most interesting food to discuss is the most complex, made from the best ingredients by the greatest chefs, and is therefore the most expensive."

To make it apply to what we are discussing one would have to insert the phrase "for people who are interested in that style of cooking"

Then John says,

"2. The best food writers in English are generally considered to be Elizabeth David, MFK Fisher and Richard Olney."

Well those people are the best food writers, but they aren't the best writers on the topic described in number 1 as amended by my insert. You can't compare a defined market with a different market that is defined a different way. That is one of the problems we keep having. In order to make a proper assessment, you somehow have to find a common denominator to compare them. Or as I say casually, all things being equal

[John Whiting]

You imply that they have chosen not to write about such food because it is not the most interesting to eat ...

Nope. I imply -- nay, insist -- that they have chosen to write about the food which is simply the most interesting to write about. This is food whose roots go deep into the soil of human culture, not food invented to appeal to the baroque sensibilities of those whose endless quest for a dubious perfection has brought them to the edge of boredom.

SteveP writes

To make it apply to what we are discussing one would have to insert the phrase "for people who are interested in that style of cooking"

I'm reminded of the book review written by Abraham Lincoln: "If this is the sort of book you like, this is just the book you're looking for."

What about Waverly Root?

An oversight. Certainly he belongs with the other three. And he fits the generalization.

[jaybee]

Good writers choose to write about subjects they feel offer them an opportunity to make a contribution, and about which they believe they are (or can be) sufficiently educated to write intelligently. Perhaps the writers you cite made those choices because they felt the subject had been covered sufficiently and/or the potential audience for their (perverse) choice was greater, ergo more royalties, more aclaim, more money to spend in 3 star restaurants.

The Marjorie Allingham school of thatched-cottage painters knew who would shell out big bucks for their mythical cliches, and it wasn't the simple peasants who lived in those cottages.

[John Whiting]

The Marjorie Allingham school of thatched-cottage painters knew who would shell out big bucks for their mythical cliches, and it wasn't the simple peasants who lived in those cottages.

If you are seriously comparing the "thatched cottage" painters to the writers I've mentioned ... I'm sorry, I can't finish that sentence politely.

[Bux]

Yes, I think those writers had no audience, or at least a particularly small audience in England, for haute cuisine. I think they also wrote about what they knew and the food to which they had been exposed. We are all the products of our experiences and limted by our knowledge.

[John Whiting]

Wilfrid writes:

Seriously, I am kicking myself for not having the Blessed Liebling to hand. Last night, I read his chapter in "Between Meals" on the advantages, to apprentice eaters, of a limited budget. He gives example after example of superior cheaper dishes which those born rich may never come to sample. Maybe I'll quote the odd line tomorrow.

Thank you for that! I quote that chapter so often that I hesitated to bring it up again. Here's my favorite bit of it:

“A man who is rich in adolescence is almost doomed to be a dilettante at table. This is not because all millionaires are stupid but because they are not impelled to experiment. In learning to eat, as in psychoanalysis, the customer, in order to profit, must be sensible of the cost” A.J. Liebling, Between Meals, Chapter IV, “Just Enough Money”, pp67-8.

[jaybee]

Good writers choose to write about subjects they feel offer them an opportunity to make a contribution, and about which they believe they are (or can be) sufficiently educated to write intelligently. Perhaps the writers you cite made those choices because they felt the subject had been covered sufficiently and/or the potential audience for their (perverse) choice was greater, ergo more royalties, more aclaim, more money to spend in 3 star restaurants.

Did you make a choice, perverse or otherwise, not to focus on the first part of my reply and dive right for the red herring I planted at the end?

[John Whiting]

Yes, I think those writers had no audience, or at least a particularly small audience in England, for haute cuisine. I think they also wrote about what they knew and the food to which they had been exposed. We are all the products of our experiences and limted by our knowledge.

Perverse. They had only a passing interest in haute cuisine, principally as a symptom of decadence. They were not limited by their knowledge, they were liberated by it.

jaybee, I didn't respond to your first paragraph because it seemed to embody a cynicism so profound as to be, by its own dim light, unanswerable.

[jaybee]

And, John, are you saying that

1) no English language writers of worth chose to write about "haute-cuisine?" I just want to be clear about your premise.

2) "Good" writers in languages other than English who have written about "haute cuisine" are not worthy of consideration by English language readers?

[jaybee]

jaybee, I didn't respond to your first paragraph because it seemed to embody a cynicism so profound as to be, by its own dim light, unanswerable.

A glib and wholly unsuitable response. Am I to accept that you are privvy to the motivations and desires of all English language writers of worth, so you can speak with authority about the underlying influences of their choices? And that you deny any relationship between income and choices made by artists?

[Bux]

Liberated by their puritan spirit is what I'd say if I read that they were liberated by seeing excellence as a form of decadence. It's a good point--an ascetic liberty. Those you cite don't seem to espouse that all the way however. They seem to take such a middle class moral virtue to the enjoyment of food. I don't buy into the religion it's too limiting. I am pleased they find contentment, but it's a path with an artificial dead end. I should reread Liebling. I seem to recall that he found excess money a hindrance in learning about eating, but not necessarily when enjoying what one has learned.

[Wilfrid]

Rib lamb chops are a nicer cut of meat than leg of lamb. So as a result you see Cote d'Agneau on the menus of three star restaurants more often than you see a rack of lamb. But switch venues to a bistro and you are likely to see the leg more than a rack.

Do you think there's just a possible, remote, outside chance that the reason bistros serve leg rather than rack is because it's cheaper, and therefore what their customers can afford? And is there not just a smidgen of a possibility that leg is cheaper than rack because you get however many more servings off a lamb?

Is there the ghost of a chance that goose foie gras is pricy not because it's delicious, but because it's quite hard to get hold of?

And is there an earthly possibility that pork belly is cheap because it is plentifully available, and not because it's nastier than a slice of loin?

Just askin'.

[Steve Plotnicki]

"I'm reminded of the book review written by Abraham Lincoln: "If this is the sort of book you like, this is just the book you're looking for."

John W. - Well you couldn't possibly be more wrong. Come to Books for Cooks in London or Kitchen Arts & Letters in New York and you will see that the types of books you are writing about are nowhere near the best sellers. Do you know what the best selling book is in places where people who are serious about cooking shop? Harold McGee's On Science and Cooking. It has been the number one best selling book in the history of KAL being in business.

The writers you have mentioned, while all great writers and inspirational, are not the books that hard core foodies are running out to buy every week. Yes everyone has an Olnay because he codified an entire phase of French cooking, and everyone has all the Fishers because they inspire the gastronome in us all. But if you want to know what books sell like hotcakes, it's books like The French Laundry cookbook. I understand it is going to sell something like 15,000 copies. And I understand that the better Patricia Well's books sell 30,000 copies. Those are the standards for serious professional cooks, and serious amatuer cooks. The ones who write books that that people who are serious about haute cuisine, and bourgeois cuisine are buying. John Thorne is a great writer but that he writes well and in tremendous depth is not responsive to the issues rasised in this thread. He is writing books about why the best radish grows in Oshkosh. A worthy topic but not one that has anything to do with what technique one uses to blend pureed cauliflower and gelatin sheets correctly to make Thomas Keller's Panna Cotta of Cauliflower with Ossetra Caviar which is what I have been talking about.

[John Whiting]

We're back to best seller lists again. You don't want a writer, you want a banker! I'm going to bed with Root's _Food of France_ to get the taste of money out of my mouth.

[Fat Guy]

Wilfrid, as you know you're describing the supply side of the equation, while Plotnicki focuses exclusively on the demand side. Both are elements of what makes up the price in a free market (and this is not to ignore Whiting's point that markets are not often free, which is a good one but not something we need to take account of at this basic level of the conversation). Basically, as Plotnicki must understand but won't seem to admit, if there were all of a sudden twice as many filet mignons in the universe -- say somebody genetically engineered a steer with twice the tenderloin -- their price would drop much lower than the price of strip steaks per pound.

[jaybee]

Are answers to my questions beneath you, John? I wouldn't want the dim light of my cynicism to cast shadows on your brightness.

[John Whiting]

I think that the wrong questions are being asked here. The authors I’ve cited are great precisely because they could all subscribe to the closing sentiments of Paul Richardson’s _Cornucopia: A Gastronomic Tour of Britain_. His words could apply equally to the self-important gastronomic epicenters of the US:

Could it be … that the difference between the food culture of Britain and that of France, Italy, Spain or Greece is that food in those countries is less obsessively interesting to their inhabitants, who have no need of the palate-tickling novelties that so occupy us here? Could it be that the moment when good food ceases to be news, when it stops needing to impress with its wild cosmopolitan flair, is also the moment of maximum achievement, when the page can be turned at last on the peculiar history of our national cuisine?

For it is a hard thing so say, but fine food is far from the most important thing in the world. It is not really a question of reaching perfection – that would be too much to ask – or of lotus-eating, but of finding and maintaining a level of confidence in the food we eat day by day that lets us get on with the rest of our lives. I forget who said it [Paul remembered later that it was Jane Grigson], but the phrase could apply perfectly well to the food of Britain: ‘We have more than enough masterpieces. What we need is a better standard of ordinariness.’

[jaybee]

‘We have more than enough masterpieces. What we need is a better standard of ordinariness.’

So it's a zero sum game? I hadn't read anyone suggesting that quality food for vox populi was of no importance. Any society that caters only to its rich is corrupt. That fact that the indulgences of the wealthy fascinate the less wealthy seems to bother some. Why this fascination should be taken as an excuse to denigrate those indulgences is a matter of political and social philosphy more than gustatotory preferences.

[lxt]

Is there the ghost of a chance that goose foie gras is pricy not because it's delicious, but because it's quite hard to get hold of?

And is there an earthly possibility that pork belly is cheap because it is plentifully available, and not because it's nastier than a slice of loin?

The only system that is currently available for evaluating different commodities is to differentiate them with a price tag. It is incorporated into our economic system and represents centuries of development since the barter economy. The purpose of the monetary system is not only to provide people with buying power, but also to appraise products based on their quality first and only then on other external measurements (like scarcity or “plentiful availability” etc.) that would comprise the final worth of the product. If the external measurement is more of an essence than the quality of a product, then the product price may deviate from its base, i.e., the quality. If anyone tries to suggest otherwise, then our monetary system is in trouble. An attempt to find fallacies in the existing approach seem to divert the attention toward either 1) class warfare and the subject of “merit” again; or 2) inability to distinguish excellent from good and bad.

One’s reasoning to prove that in general less expensive products are superior to more expensive ones sadly enough very much sounds like an attempt to justify his own financial impotence (no personal attack is meant, just a hypothetical assumption ). It is so common in our society to state that “it is enough just to be happy with what we have” or that “money is a ticket to hell” or that “material success can only make you happy if you are already happy.” This viewpoint sets a comfortable cushion for those who fall (though I am not sure whether it is a bad thing necessarily; otherwise, the suicide rate might be increased dramatically ) .

The ability to distinguish “excellent” from “good” and “bad,” aside from the necessary experience, must have a premise of natural talent. As in music, if one is not gifted from birth, he will never be able to grasp the nuances of the piano touch required for a pianissimo in Mozart compared to Chopin. Analogously, if one is not born with a good nose and an acute sense of smell, he may not even have the potential to appreciate the nuances of excellent vs. just very good cuisine. Like anything else, it requires talent. However, assuming that the person is “equipped”, he may never become a “performer” (i.e., never advance his palate to the point of an acute sensory instrument with the ability to dissect a dish into separate ingredients instead of just enjoying its totality.) Interestingly, we have acknowledged that making food is art, but didn’t get to the point of saying that appreciating food is art too.

[jaybee]

Bravo, lxt. Scriabin couldn't have written it better.

[lxt]

I always thought a "free" market was one that offered the freedom of manipulation to anyone with enough leverage.

That's not what Adam Smith had in mind. He assumed a market based on free competition which was not manipulated by monopoly.

To my dismay, in NYC, Verizon recently increased the pay telephone rate for local calls from 25 cents for a few minutes to 50 cents for unlimited time. In several weeks, however, the increase was rescinded. As it appeared, people stopped using local city phones for short phone calls and apparently decided that it wasn’t worth 50 cents. This is a perfect example of how the market drove a regulated monopoly that is as close to socialism as one can get, to reduce its rates without regulatory intervention. And what would we make of this?