How to approach an unfamiliar cuisine

[Tonyfinch]

But the only thing I am judging is what is on the plate in front of me. What else am I supposed to be judging?

Well I've been talking about cuisine in the wider sense. If you go to an African restaurant what is on the plate may be some African food but it is not "African Cuisine" and you can only infer so much from it-like the skill of that particular cook. He may be a crap cook. You cannot infer from that that African cuisine is crap.

But if we're talking about African restaurants in the West then what have we been arguing about-they suck

[Fat Guy]

You're the food writer Steven. Tell us what you think.

I think it's problematic when you have a food writer who obviously doesn't love food and dining. I can think of a few like that, and it shows in their work.

At the other extreme, no, I don't think there's the slightest problem with talking about mackerel even though you haven't yet acquired the taste. It's not a complex concept. You don't have to put your heart and soul into the discussion of mackerel. It's one sentence in a review about the quality of mackerel. You can't just break down and say, "Dear readers, I feel ethically compelled to refuse to write this review because there's one item on the menu that I just don't like. I would like to call in a substitute reviewer who really loves mackerel to write this review, because I feel that's the only fair way to give this restaurant the best possible review." Or, "Before I tell you whether or not I think the mackerel was good, please first let me whine for several paragraphs about how I don't like mackerel." Or, "Gee whiz, I don't like mackerel, but this guy who was with me said it was really good." All those approaches would be ridiculous. What you should do is make a good faith effort to learn what makes mackerel good, taste the mackerel, judge the mackerel, write something about it, and move on.

[Fat Guy]

Andrew Sarris cites Sight and Sound magazine in the 60s which only sent a reviewer along to review a film if he/she liked the director's films. Since nobody liked David Lean's work, Lawrence of Arabia was left without a review. The editor defended the omission on the grounds that it was the critic who was most sympathetic to the director or the film who would write the "best" review, even if it meant saying it was a poor example of that director's work. A review from an unsympathetic critic was useless.

Does that sound heretical to anybody?

Not heretical. Just silly.

[Steve Plotnicki]

But if we're talking about African restaurants in the West then what have we been arguing about-they suck

I'm not buying this. I think if people cook well in their native land, they cook well in their adopted land. There might be examples of people cooking much better where the food originates, but there is no cuisine I ever heard that is really good where there isn't an acceptable version available in major cities.

[Tonyfinch]

but there is no cuisine I ever heard that is really good where there isn't an acceptable version available in major cities.

Well I didn't make claims for African food to be "really good". I was saying that it wasn't "crap". And that in Africa I've had delicious African food.

But yes it IS a comparatively limited cuisine because there are no "Royal" versions and because food in Afica does not often get beyound the primary purpose of food to sustain life and stave of hunger.

We do not eat in restaurants to sustain life and stave off hunger. Food for pleasure only is something that African food has not yet advanced to embrace so it follows that it hasn't yet adapted to the demands and needs of Western restaurant goers.

[Fat Guy]

there is no cuisine I ever heard that is really good where there isn't an acceptable version available in major cities.

Every cuisine has, at one time or another, fit this description.

[Steve Plotnicki]

You know this part of the thread is reminding me that many years ago, maybe 20, when Mimi Sheraton was the reviewer for the Times, she gave Vienna 79 I believe a four star review. Anyway, the high rating was very controversial. But in the review she wrote about a Filet Mignon in a cheese sauce and I am almost certain that the review said that she normally didn't like cheese with meat but this was an exception. I remember thinking at the time how odd it was because it was so unsual for a reviewer to disclose that type of prejudice. Looking back on it, it was actually a breath of fresh air and there isn't enough of that kind of thing in food writing these days.

[Fat Guy]

she normally didn't like cheese with meat but this was an exception

....

there isn't enough of that kind of thing in food writing these days.

These days too much food writing is overwhelmingly autobiographical, and contains far too much personal information at the expense of quality. But this isn't the same species of comment we're talking about anyway. Saying you don't normally like cheese with meat, or fish with cheese, or whatever, but that a given chef has nailed the combination, is just standard reviewing language. It means the chef has a good sense of balance and can work a counterintuitive combination into something great. I don't find it to be a noteworthy or remarkable comment. It obviously stuck in your mind for some reason, though.

[Wilfrid]

I love mackerel. But I think the difficulty for a reviewer surely kicks in when they really don't like sushi. At all. Or even Japanese food. There are some striking disanalogies here between food writing and other kinds of criticism. The 'Sight and Sound' policy makes some kind of sense to me, but it's unusual. Most magazine reviewing films, books or music will be staffed by critics with very strong preferences, which they don't hesitate to make clear in their reviews. And editors generally don't give every book by Salman Rushdie to a reviewer who loves Rushdie - or the opposite. A good editor tries to balance out the coverage between sympathetic or unsympathetic, but there are editors out there who decide that an author/director/whatever is overdue for a bashing, and assign someone they know hates their work.

Seems to be quite different for food/restaurant reviewers, right Steven. Maybe it's because - unlike literature or music - there aren't magazines out there with twenty or thirty different restaurant critics. It behoves them, therefore, to employ writers with catholic tastes in food who can be even-handed among cuisines despite their personal tastes. It's really not like that in other areas of criticism.

[Fat Guy]

It's really not like that in other areas of criticism.

Not every newspaper or magazine has multiple book or movie reviewers. How many film reviewers does New York Magazine have? I think just one, right? Or is it two? But the magazine has two restaurant reviewers, not to mention at least four other writers covering the food beat. The New York Times has two restaurant reviewers, but it divides their duties by price/luxuriousness level, not by ethnicity.

[Wilfrid]

Before I forget, I just wanted to cite this remark by Steve, because it goes to the heart of matters:

"As to why certain cuisines turned out the way they did, who cares? Yes it is interesting to discuss as a matter of anthropology, but what does that have to do with reviewing whether the food tastes good?"

Nothing at all. But consider this:

As to whether certain cuisines are represented at the French-style four (three) star dining level, who cares? Yes, it's interesting to discuss how they might be adapted for that market, but what does that have to do with reviewing whether the food tastes good?

That's my position. The anthropology and sociology which gets trotted out on these threads is usually a response either to (1) the implication that certain cuisines are crap because they are not being offered in an haute cuisine setting, or (2) silly theories about why cuisines are the way they are.

The four (three) star dining world is a rarified little world with a special market - consisting of both informed and uninformed diners. The truth is, very little French food is served at those restaurants - although the cuisine which is served, and the style of service, has a French derivation. Finding out whether fish and chips is on the menu at L'Arpege doesn't tell you whether fish and chips tastes good or not.

[Tonyfinch]

There is a problem though. If you really don't like something how can you tell if something's a good version or not?

At St. John this week three people ordered braised squirrel which came with its guts pureed on toast. I'd never tasted squirrel before and I didn't like it at all. Now I don't criticise the restaurant for serving it but how am I to tell whether they'd cooked it properly in the sense that they know how to bring out the best of squirrel?

Disliking it de-skills me when it comes to being able to assess their ability to cook squirrel well or poorly does it not?

[Wilfrid]

Not every newspaper or magazine has multiple book or movie reviewers.

Not every one, but there are many magazines and newspapers with a whole raft of book/music/art/etc critics (mainly freelance, of course). I can't think of any with a bunch of food critics, but I may be overlooking examples.

[Fat Guy]

Not every newspaper or magazine has multiple book or movie reviewers.

Not every one, but there are many magazines and newspapers with a whole raft of book/music/art/etc critics (mainly freelance, of course). I can't think of any with a bunch of food critics, but I may be overlooking examples.

If by critics you mean restaurant reviewers, no. The value emphasis is placed on consistency of voice, and I think that makes sense given the subject matter. But in the larger world of food writing, a magazine like Saveur almost always goes after a writer -- either freelance or on staff -- who is expert in a given cuisine to do a roundup of the food scene in a particular nation, region, or whatever.

I think it's hard to generalize here. In major metropolitan markets, a publication can easily have as many people devoted to food coverage as film coverage. Books are a bit different, because their subject matter is so varied and specific. There are books about food. Those should be reviewed by food experts. There is no food about books that needs to be reviewed by a book expert. There really isn't such a thing as a book expert, except for people who are involved in publishing and printing -- which is a different kind of expertise.

[macrosan]

There is a problem though. If you really don't like something how can you tell if something's a good version or not?

That's an interesting question, displaying an interesting position

For some of us, the important issue to discuss is simply "Did I like it?", "Did you like it?", "Are other people likely to like it?" and "Why?". Those of us who enjoy exploring answers to these questions are interested in the emotional before the intellectual consideration of cuisine.

Others prefer to address issues like yours, Tony. And that's a purist and intellectual approach to the subject of cuisine.

You see if I enjoy a dish at Le Gavroche, it doesn't matter to me much how it compares to the same dish cooked at RHR. I want to discuss the dish I actually ate with others, and explore what it was that made it enjoyable or not. From that discussion I can start to assemble the elements of what goes to make up my own preferences, and I can start to learn how to deduce what other dishes or chefs might also please me. The same is true of a total style of cuisine.

Of course, if someone tells me that Ramsay cooks Bresse pigeon better than Roux, then I will indeed try Ramsay's version at the earliest opportunity, and I'll be very grateful for the lead. But for the time being, I'm entirely happy with Roux, thank you

I'm just not a big fan of this intense need to discover "best" or "better" all the time. Maybe that's why I don't participate in so many "Top Ten" and similar threads at eGullet

[Steve Plotnicki]

But there are really to levels of restaurant criticism. One for people who have experience and have acquired a taste or proficiency for what you are writing about, and one for novices. So it depends on who Fat Guy is reviewing Senegalse and Tibetan for. If it was for the Village Voice, then you have to impose a standard of authehticity. And if it is for New York Magazine, well their readers expect something different. When one is confronted with squirrel guts on toast, it is good to have a reviewer who can explain it to both sophisticates and novices. If they can't, I would prefer they say they didn't know how to evaluate it. Then I know how to calibrate my palate with theirs.

[cdh]

So it depends on who Fat Guy is reviewing Senegalse and Tibetan for. If it was for the Village Voice, then you have to impose a standard of authehticity. And if it is for New York Magazine, well their readers expect something different. When one is confronted with squirrel guts on toast, it is good to have a reviewer who can explain it to both sophisticates and novices. If they can't, I would prefer they say they didn't know how to evaluate it. Then I know how to calibrate my palate with theirs.

Here, we're in total agreement. There is no way to become totally proficient in all cuisines, and admitting a lack of knowledge is a better path than hastily acquiring a veneer of knowledge, and then proceeding to make pronouncements from a learned point of view.

[Steve Plotnicki]

Here, we're in total agreement. There is no way to become totally proficient in all cuisines, and admitting a lack of knowledge is a better path than hastily acquiring a veneer of knowledge, and then proceeding to make pronouncements from a learned point of view.

But now you see you have taken this too far in the other direction. When Fat Guy says cuisine X is lousy, or when I say the Dutch have poor cuisine, it is a genralized statement that is made to someone whose palate has pretty much been honed in similar ways. Your basic western diner who eats some combination of French/Italian/Chinese/Japanese/Indian/Spanish and Latino/Thai/Middle Eastern etc. (do you like the way I snuck in an order here .) If you eat those cuisines day in and day out (which is what most of us do,) then it is very easy to establish a framework and a standard as to whehther Dutch or Senegalese or Phillipino cuisine is any good or not. Very few of the cuisines I mentioned were offputting on first blush. I mean if you like Pueblan food the first time you ate it, why not Tibetan? It might be the place you ate it at, but it also might be a big clue of a more serious problem.

[Tonyfinch]

I think it's problematic when you have a food writer who obviously doesn't love food and dining. I can think of a few like that, and it shows in their work.

I do think it's incumbent on a food writer to love food. Sounds obvious but if there are some around who do not then it begs the questions why are they food writers and why does anyone pay them to write about food? (Pumkino,if you're out there, I promised Andy I would not get into another AA Gill thread)

Obviously a food writer can't like every food but I would be worried if a food writer dismissed a whole restaurant cuisine. If Mrs.P hates Thai food it doesn't really matter much unless it matters to her. But if a food writer announces that s/he hates Thai ciusine then I think that is a problem for that writer's status and credibility and also does a disservice for those who are trying their best to serve up the best examples of Thai cuisine.

I think its fair to say that you are not familiar with a cuisine enough to understand its nuances and dimensions and that you're working on it, but there's no reason not to slate an individual dish if it tastes bad to you. You don't have to take a definitive stand do you.

[Wilfrid]

Pueblan?

Mmm, you're half right, Steve, which is better than completely wrong. Yes, we evaluate cuisines within a framework created by our own experience, perspective and understanding. If a cuisine doesn't fit that framework, however, that doesn't necessarily indicate that the cuisine is at fault. It may be that we need to re-calibrate - if I may - our critical parameters. I can conceive of a cuisine so poor that we can't find any parameters by which it can be judged positively - but I think such cuisines are pretty rare. Evaluating all cuisines by a single, narrow set of standards - as my signature now indicates - tells you very little.

[yvonne johnson]

I said Indian food overspices for the western palate. And if you read what I said about it in the various threads, you would see that everytime I raise the issue it is in the context of the cuisine being more successful in restaurants in the west. I have also said that in the struggle between cultures of cooking, and the Indian way of spice being the centerpiece of the meal as opposed to the proteins, that Indian cuisine will conform to western standards. But nowhere do I say that Indian food is crap.

Must we use the Western palate (or is it Plotnicki's palate), and success in restaurants in the West as criteria to judge the goodness of food?

[Wilfrid]

One of the many deficiencies with that approach is that it leaves you unable to explain change. Ten years ago, that position would have dismissed rabbit and oxtail, for example, as inferior ingredients, on the basis that they people won't pay for them at fine Western dining establishments. Of course, rabbit preparations turn up these days on the most expensive menus, and oxtail noses in everywhere - in ravioli, with foie gras, with monkfish. Equally, foods which were once prized at that level have, rightly or wrongly vanished from such menus.

It's the familiar case of a partial, ever-changing perspective being held up as an absolute standard.

[cdh]

As a brief postscript, a bit of googling has yeilded confirmation:

1) there is an olfactory equivalent to color blindness: anosmia

http://scifun.chem.wisc.edu/CHEMWEEK/Odors...s/chemorec.html

2) there is a genetic component to anosmia

http://personal.ecu.edu/wuenschk/Genetics.htm

So, I'm somewhat vindicated and not nearly the crackpot I might have been if my suspicion had turned out to be without any basis. That is to say that discrete populations may well have a genetic predisposition not to smell certain odors. I think that is a pretty wide open door for gastronomic relativism to walk right through. Sorry, Steve.

[Wilfrid]

Damn. Hard evidence. We're not used to that kind of stuff round here.

[ChocoKitty]

As a brief postscript, a bit of googling has yeilded confirmation:

1) there is an olfactory equivalent to color blindness: anosmia

http://scifun.chem.wisc.edu/CHEMWEEK/Odors...s/chemorec.html

2) there is a genetic component to anosmia

http://personal.ecu.edu/wuenschk/Genetics.htm

So, I'm somewhat vindicated and not nearly the crackpot I might have been if my suspicion had turned out to be without any basis.  That is to say that discrete populations may well have a genetic predisposition not to smell certain odors.  I think that is a pretty wide open door for gastronomic relativism to walk right through.  Sorry, Steve.

I just love guys with hard evidence.