Martin Berasategui - 2003

[Matthew Grant]

No, life is hellish because accommodations and food are precarious and work is strenuous.

All things created by the chef/owner (in this case anyway) giving the Stagiaire ample cause to think of the proprieter as a "git".

[vserna]

I don't know, Matthew. Have you ever been a stagiaire yourself?

Edited September 28, 2003 by vserna (log)

[Lord Michael Lewis]

No, life is hellish because accommodations and food are precarious and work is strenuous.

All things created by the chef/owner (in this case anyway) giving the Stagiaire ample cause to think of the proprieter a a "git".

You just don't get it, do you?

There's a significant difference between calling one's mentor a 'git' in public and in private.

Ginger-Chef is at present doing a stage at M.B. It's not beyond the realm of possibilty that someone pick up the telephone and inform M.B. that the British Roux Scholarship stagiare is slagging him off on a public discussion forum.

Or do you think this is okay for either party?

[tan319]

No, life is hellish because accommodations and food are precarious and work is strenuous.

All things created by the chef/owner (in this case anyway) giving the Stagiaire ample cause to think of the proprieter a a "git".

You just don't get it, do you?

There's a significant difference between calling one's mentor a 'git' in public and in private.

Ginger-Chef is at present doing a stage at M.B. It's not beyond the realm of possibilty that someone pick up the telephone and inform M.B. that the British Roux Scholarship stagiare is slagging him off on a public discussion forum.

Or do you think this is okay for either party?

That would kind of suck, wouldn't it?

Hopefully, the thought to do that would never cross anyone's mind here.

[Lord Michael Lewis]

Ginger-Chef is at present doing a stage at M.B. It's not beyond the realm of possibilty that someone pick up the telephone and inform M.B. that the British Roux Scholarship stagiare is slagging him off on a public discussion forum.

That would kind of suck, wouldn't it?

Hopefully, the thought to do that would never cross anyone's mind here.

I genuinely hope not, but if it did, Ginger-Chef would, frustratingly, have no one to blame but himself.

[ginger chef]

this is not back tracking but i have no beef at all with mb and i have never caused any problems here. git can be taken in many contexts, silly git ,lucky git ,stupid git ,you name it. yes i am a stagiare here and i am working my nuts off but i dont really see the problem, i have never said git in this forum and if you look through it you have no means of knowing what is being implied. i think martin is a good chef, good person, his kitchen is a nightmare and is hard work. i have staged in many michelin starred restaurants and some have been amazing and some have been hell. so i think at the end of this you have got totally the wrong end of the stick . slagging him off is a very strong way of putting this and if i was going to slag any one off i would probably not use a forum like this i have balls enough to tell some one i am not happy and i honestly dont care who it is.

sorry for upsetting anyone and good bye. i will finish my stage in silence.

john tseng i totally agree

[Matthew Grant]

I don't know, Matthew. Have you ever been a stagiaire yourself?

I think any reasonable person who was working at any type of establishment under the "hellish" conditions you describe would be entitled to think of the employer as a "git". Whether I have been a stagiaire or not does not come into the equation, just because all stagiaires may (or may not) be treated this way does not make it any more palatable.

AS for LML assertion that he shouldn't have made his thoughts public, I would tend to agree but if Ginger Chef feels strongly about this and has the courage of his convictions then fair play to him.

[vserna]

ginger chef is probably well aware by now that no one picked up the phone to call MB. I doubt eGullet participants are comfortable with the role of stool pigeons...

By the way, comparing Berasategui's in-kitchen demeanor with crazy MPW's or sullen Robuchon's is a total riot. But it does prove that a totally false picture of this guy has emerged from this thread, which is just what I voiced concern about.

[robert brown]

Victor, I suspect that you have the same protective feeling about MB as I had with Alain Chapel. It was inconceiveable to me that anyone could have a meal he or she did not like, and if they did, they didn't have the requisite taste, experience or sophistication. I followed his career closely and the only two times I had less than spectacular meals were on the first day of business after the restaurant's annual closing from January 2-31 (and a lousy time of the year for serious dining) and a few years later when I think he was going through a divorce and fell briefly under the sway of Gualtiero Marchesi, the famous Italian chef in Milan. But service never faltered (and it was amazing service) and it was always fun.

Now I don't know MB from a hole in the wall, and I am glad that's how it was for my visit. I couldn't give the benefit of the doubt to my visit occuring on an off-night as too many major aspects were sub-par. Add in Blind Lemon Higgin's experience and the notion that there are ingrained problems seems inescapable. MB as well could be having personal problems; perhaps almost one is eating at the Bilbao Guggenheim (which wouldn't surprise me since the museum was all but empty when I was there); maybe the lack of tourism and high-end spending has given him sleepless nights. Who knows. but it sounds like something is going on that, I imagine, will pass.

[tony h]

oh my god - what have I started? me culpa me culpa

[Andy Lynes]

By the way, comparing Berasategui's in-kitchen demeanor with crazy MPW's or sullen Robuchon's is a total riot. But it does prove that a totally false picture of this guy has emerged from this thread, which is just what I voiced concern about.

If you read Jon's post you will see that there was no attempt whatsoever to compare MB to MPW or Robuchon. In addition, to say that intermating that someone is a git, whatever that might mean, is "character assasination" is a gross mis-representation, at best mischevious, at worst mendacious.

If a false picture has emerged form this thread (and frankly I don't really have any sort of picture of MB at the moment, there is far too little information about the man to draw any sort of conclusion), then we can lay the blame for that at your almost willful misinterpretation of what others have said.

Ginger chef has been good enough to share his thoughts with us on his days off. We should remember that he is actually there, has been for a number of weeks, and is the only person on this thread that can speak with any authority on the current working conditions for a stagiere in MBs kitchens. I hope that he does not keep his promise of remaining silent.

[vserna]

We should remember that he is actually there, has been for a number of weeks, and is the only person on this thread that can speak with any authority on the current working conditions for a stagiere in MBs kitchens.

Mmmm.... Quite a statement, there. How do you know he's "the only person" who can speak "with any authority" on said conditions? I wonder how we could construe such an unwarranted conclusion - perhaps as a gross misrepresentation, at best mischievous, at worst mendacious?

I happen to have a very direct line into the world of stagiaires at MB, Andy. You're the one, I believe, who's jumping to conclusions here.

Edited September 29, 2003 by vserna (log)

[Andy Lynes]

I happen to have a very direct line into the world of stagiaires at MB, Andy.

So you can provide us with some secondhand information coloured by whatever your relationship with MB is, but I'm not sure that really constitutes authority on the subject. Ginger chef is actually there and I am therefore minded to give his contributions more weight regarding this matter, athough obvioulsy his comments are also coloured by his own relationship with MB, that of boss and unpaid "employee".

[Lord Michael Lewis]

I hope that he does not keep his promise of remaining silent.

I hope for his own sake, that he does.

Ginger-Chef, God bless him, has imprudently allowed himself to be drawn on certain topics that would have been better dealt with more discretely. As Fat Guy never tires of telling us, eGullet is teeming with important and influential industry figures and 'professionals'. Clearly, then, word could get back to M.B.; and, while fascinating it may be, Ginger-Chef's stage is for the benefit of Ginger-Chef alone, and was not specifically conceived for wider entertainment purposes.

[Andy Lynes]

But the stage has been arranged as part of a high profile scholarship. I have no doubt that Caterer & Hotelkeeper will be writing an article about GC's experiences in Spain.

Although I wouldn't doubt for a moment that the Roux brothers genuinely want to continue to improve the standard of cooking in this country by running the scheme, I am equally sure that they are keen to exploit the publicity potential of it as well, and therefore there is an element of "entertainment" to the venture.

[Lord Michael Lewis]

But the stage has been arranged as part of a high profile scholarship. I have no doubt that Caterer & Hotelkeeper will be writing an article about GC's experiences in Spain.

Although I wouldn't doubt for a moment that the Roux brothers genuinely want to continue to improve the standard of cooking in this country by running the scheme, I am equally sure that they are keen to exploit the publicity potential of it as well, and therefore there is an element of "entertainment" to the venture.

Forgive me, but I was foolishly labouring under the impression that he had won, or been awarded, it, and thus it was for him. I now see clearly that his participation on eGullet has been part of a wider publicity campaign, and thus, the potential risks of bad-mouthing his current host for our entertainment are far outweighed by the potential benefits to the Roux brothers.

Thanks for clearing this up.

[Andy Lynes]

Surely you are not suggesting that the Roux scholarship, or any other come to that, including Ramsay's, is a work to pure alturism? To re-iterate, I believe that the Roux brothers record on improving the level of skill within the professional British kitchen is second to none, and I don't doubt their continued commitment to the cause for a second.

But the scholarship ensures that their name is associated with young talent in the UK and prevents them from being seen as the dinosaurs of the industry. They are smart businessmen and I would guess that they would not have a problem in admitting that running the scholarship has longterm benefits for their reputation, brand and business.

There is no criticism intended or implied in these statements to anyone involved in the Scholarship, which I think is an excellent scheme.

[vserna]

So you can provide us with some secondhand information coloured by whatever your relationship with MB is, but I'm not sure that really constitutes authority on the subject.

I'm not sure myself if your opinion on what is authoritative and what isn't carries much weight authority-wise, Andy...

[Andy Lynes]

I'm working to a definition of authoratitive as being "accurate" and "highly reliable", and in my experience, hearsay is generally considered to be neither of those things.

[Lord Michael Lewis]

Surely you are not suggesting that the Roux scholarship, or any other come to that, including Ramsay's, is a work to pure alturism? To re-iterate, I believe that the Roux brothers record on improving the level of skill within the professional British kitchen is second to none, and I don't doubt their continued commitment to the cause for a second.

But the scholarship ensures that their name is associated with young talent in the UK and prevents them from being seen as the dinosaurs of the industry. They are smart businessmen and I would guess that they would not have a problem in admitting that running the scholarship has longterm benefits for their reputation, brand and business.

There is no criticism intended or implied in these statements to anyone involved in the Scholarship, which I think is an excellent scheme.

Well said!

Now all that remains is to create a logical connection between this fascinating view of culinary scholarships, and the acceptability of Ginger-Chef's public bad-mouthing of his host, and you'll have an argument.

[Andy Lynes]

I'd hardly describe stating the bleeding obvious as fascinating LML, but I'm glad it kept you interested for a moment or two.

An arguement about what exactly?

[vserna]

I'm working to a definition of authoratitive as being "accurate" and "highly reliable", and in my experience, hearsay is generally considered to be neither of those things.

I've been a professional journalist for 35 years. I don't go by hearsay, but by reliable sources - by reporting, in a word. Your innuendo and your prejudice are pretty amazing to me, Andy. Whoever gave you the divine right to dismiss what someone else, whom you've never met, writes about a subject that (of your own confession) is totally extraneous to you?

[Jon Tseng]

Now all that remains is to create a logical connection between this fascinating view of culinary scholarships, and the acceptability of Ginger-Chef's public bad-mouthing of his host, and you'll have an argument.

Chaps

I think we're getting a bit carried away here.

1) What Ginger Chef actually said was "the latter".

2) This was when he was offered a choice of "bossy, push over, git?".

3) This was a throwaway comment.

4) We have had no indication of the tone of the comment whether it was humourous, dismissive, angry, harsh or just chilled out.

5) This was from an arbitrary selection (see above). He could equally have been offered the choice "inspirational, harsh but fair, teaching me a lot" and replied "all three"

6) GC has not said that git = "jerk". Someone else said that.

7) GC has not said git = "foolish or worthless person". Someone else said that.

8) GC has not talked about MB not haveing "presence". Someone else said that.

9) GC has not said git = "sad jerk". Someone else said that

10) Saying "the latter" in response to a throwaway comment without any indication of the tone does not, unless I am slightly thick (still a possibility) constitute being "thoroughly disparaging to the point of cariacature"

11) Saying "the latter" in response to a throwaway comment without any indication of the tone does not, unless I am slightly thick (still a possibility) show evidence of having an axe to grind.

12) Saying "the latter" in response to a throwaway comment without any indication of the tone does not, unless I am slightly thick (still a possibility) say that MB is being "completely foul".

13) Saying "the latter" in response to a throwaway comment without any indication of the tone does not, unless I am slightly thick (still a possibility) constitute a "character assassination"

14) GC has not said git = "c-nt". Someone else said that.

15) Saying "the latter" in response to a throwaway comment without any indication of the tone does not, unless I am slightly thick (still a possibility) constitute a "imprudent" behaviour".

16) Saying "the latter" in response to a throwaway comment without any indication of the tone does not, unless I am slightly thick (still a possibility) constitute a "public bad-mouthing".

To sum up I don't think saying "the latter" in response to a throwaway comment without any indication of tone or context is means you are calling someone a "jerk", "foolish or worthless person", saying they do not have "presence", calling them a "sad jerk", being "thoroughly disparaging to the point of cariacature", conducting a "character assassination", calling someone a "c-nt", conducting "imprudent" behaviour" or giving a "public bad-mouthing".

errr, chinese whispers anyone?

hugs

Jx

Edited September 29, 2003 by Jon Tseng (log)

[vserna]

I wasn't exactly born yesterday, as is now copiously apparent, Jon. When the 'git' word is accepted by gc and interpreted in a highly dismissive manner by several participants, and gc doesn't come back (until much later) to correct all those interpretations, it may honestly be interpreted that he's acquiescing. I was not responding to gc alone, anyhow, but to the general direction this thread had taken.

Edited September 29, 2003 by vserna (log)

[Andy Lynes]

Victor, I am not dismissing what you have said, but simply stating that Ginger Chef can provide a first hand account whilst you have a second hand account. I have chosen to give information from Ginger Chef more weight because of that, which is my right and is reasonable.

It is entirely irrelevant if I have met you or not. As a journalist, do you think it is necessary for you to have met every single one of your readers for your words to carry weight with them? Your sources may well be reliable and give you no reason to doubt the information they have provided to you. Equally I have no reason to doubt the little that ginger chef has reported of his direct experience of working in MB's kitchen, and neither should you.

There is no innuendo intended in what I have said, I think I have been very clear. I have no prejudice in relation to this matter and I would be interested to understand what you mean by that.