French & American menus

[Bux]

I just don't consider Patricia Wells in the Pantheon of gastronomy writers,

I woudn't disagree with you there, but that doesn't mean she wasn't important and influential in her time. I have the impression she was also respected by the French as well as a generation of Americans. My understanding is that she wrote restaurant reviews at one time for l'Express. Correct me if I'm wrong. For an American woman to review restaurants for a major French magazine is a feat, I would think.

Earlier you questioned her commercial ties to Robuchon. I'm more inclined to think of her in terms of her professionalism. From time to time I mention a small distillery of fabulous eaux-de-vie south of Agen. The proprietor asked how I, an American, found his place. I replied that I read about him in Wells' The Food Lover's Guide to France. He smiled and told me how she arrived, tasted and bought several bottles. Then she wrote about him and his products. He was flabbergasted. He told me that's not how it works in France. There you ask for free samples and the producer hopes he will be mentioned in exchange. He said he was very impressed and thought American journalists and reviewers must be much more professional than the French. So, credit where credit is due, even if I'm not so impressed by her opinions these days.

[Steve Plotnicki]

Bux - I just reread Hoffman's quote. What he says is that Pacaud's use of curry as a powder you shake on food was insular. He goes on to say that curry isn't just a spice, it's a complete style or technique of cooking, and that he suspected that Pacaud had never read Madhur Jaffrey etc and didn't really understand it. That is exactly in line with the point I was trying to make about the quote which is that Pacaud had applied French technique to a foreign spice mixture. And without seeing them, I would bet that every recipe you looked at from Julia Childs to Fernand Point used curry powder as nothing more than an additive. But he also says that the technique that Pacaud applied to his hare with blood sauce was exceptional. All he wanted it to be was what I believe he said.

So using whether it tasted good to you or not isn't the measure that Hoffman was using. He was pointing out the arrogance of French cooking in that they thought they could incorporate an ingredient an entire technique of cooking was based on by just sprinkling it on food. And not have to bother to really learn the technique neccessary to apply to it. Just imagine if the roles were reversed and an Indian chef at the last minute used the blood of a hare to thicken a dish. Can you imagine what Pacaud might have said when tasting it? "How ken he use zee blood zis vay? French cooking dezerves morh respecta."

But that's just the immediate point. The larger point being made was the same one Marc Cosnard made in the Guy Savoy thread last night. And that is that France is not a melting pot. And because they only do things the French way, the cuisine is becoming antiquated. Not antiquated in terms of people stopping to use it. Antiquated in terms of it being the culinary equivalent of classical music. And you have to look at Hoffman's quote in that light.

[Bux]

As I already said, Pacaud was just using one flavor of the many available on the flavor palette. It's patently absurd to imply one can't take that flavor and use it in French food without understanding the entire technique of how it is used in India. Europe has been importing spices from the middle east, the far east and the new world for centuries. Hoffman's statement is pretentious. It's not impoprtant for one artist, or craftsman, if you prefer, to understand how another uses a tool or material if he can use it well himself. Chocolate has been used all over Europe as a sweet and now as a flavoring for savory meat dishes and none of it seems to have needed an understanding of how the Mayans or Aztecs used it. It's a small and defensive view of cookery.

France has never pretended to be a melting pot. That doesn't mean it hasn't borrowed from other cultures, especially in its cuisine. It's just that there's no history of fusion cooking. When it borrows, what comes out of the kitchen is French. There is no hommage to Indian cuisine or culture in a French curry. I don't see it as a strengh or weakness and I suspect the French chef may have little or no interest in what an Indian chef does in respect to French techniques. No, I think Hoffman's little bit of Indian cooking knowledge went to his head. Pacaud's use of curry powder is hardly a reasonable target as he used curry as it's traditionally been used in France for generations and that particular dish could have been successful with any number of other seasonings as room may be comfortable whether it's painted blue or pink. The French don't use potatoes that way native Americans did and you could say the same for peppers and tomatoes, not to mention corn. They're still trying to figure out corn. I find some arrogance, but no insight in Hoffman's statement.

[Bux]

As I already said, Pacaud was just using one flavor of the many available on the flavor palette. It's patently absurd to imply one can't take that flavor and use it in French food without understanding the entire technique of how it is used in India. Europe has been importing spices from the middle east, the far east and the new world for centuries. Hoffman's statement is pretentious. It's not impoprtant for one artist, or craftsman, if you prefer, to understand how another uses a tool or material if he can use it well himself. Chocolate has been used all over Europe as a sweet and now as a flavoring for savory meat dishes and none of it seems to have needed an understanding of how the Mayans or Aztecs used it. It's a small and defensive view of cookery.

France has never pretended to be a melting pot. That doesn't mean it hasn't borrowed from other cultures, especially in its cuisine. It's just that there's no history of fusion cooking. When it borrows, what comes out of the kitchen is French. There is no hommage to Indian cuisine or culture in a French curry. I don't see it as a strengh or weakness and I suspect the French chef may have little or no interest in what an Indian chef does in respect to French techniques. No, I think Hoffman's little bit of Indian cooking knowledge went to his head. Pacaud's use of curry powder is hardly a reasonable target as he used curry as it's traditionally been used in France for generations and that particular dish could have been successful with any number of other seasonings as room may be comfortable whether it's painted blue or pink. The French don't use potatoes that way native Americans did and you could say the same for peppers and tomatoes, not to mention corn. They're still trying to figure out corn. I find some arrogance, but no insight in Hoffman's statement.

[Steve Plotnicki]

Bux-You and Hoffman just aren't going to agree. You think it was a proper use of curry. And he thinks the use in that situation is symbolic of French chefs not being open to non-French cooking techniques. And although I can't give you a first hand recounting of whether it's a proper use or not, for me Hoffman made his point because I understand completely what it means for the wrong technique to be applied to something. Like an opera singer singing Beatle songs.

You know I'm one of the biggest Francophiles around, but it would be dishonest of me not to admit that French cooking has become rigid and antiquated in many ways. If you look around and see who the cutting edge chefs are, and where they are, many of them are not in France. I mean within 20 miles of the French/Spanish border, both in the North and the South, that's where the cutting edge seems to be residing. And it isn't an accident that it happens to be on the other side of the border. And it's not an accident that Pascal Arrignac from Club Gascon chose London as the place to test his formula and not Paris. And that's what Peter Hoffman's point is really about. Not that curry powder used that way is improper, curry powder used that way is old fashioned. Why? Because we understand curry now. Madhur Jaffrey explained it to all us Anglos. We had read the book and Pacaud didn't. It used to be the other way around.

[Bux]

That's a much better take on a broader issue although the analogy doesn't cut it. I still feel Hoffman's comment was uncalled for and Pacuad's traditional usuage was a poor example if that was Hoffman's point. You're probably correct that Hoffman and I will not agree on the curry. The broader issue has merit and I'd be more likely to join on that side had the point been better made. I was thrilled by Pacuad's perfection, but it left me cold at the same time. I appreciate his food, but am not a fan.

You and I share a love of France and French food, but we may also share the sense that there have been some real changes in France and in the world of cooking in the past few decades. It's not all downhill in France either. I think the coutnry hit a gastromomic low some time ago and is on the rise, but I agree that it no longer dominates the way it had. Although I loved my first visit to Barcelona, my later early excursion into Spain left me far from being a fan, especially in therms of it's food. I've matured and Spain has changed. My wife and I have become great fans of Spanish cooking, although we've only explored the north from Catalunya to Galicia.

I'm well aware that chefs such as the Adrias and Martin Berasategui have been greater destinations for traveling American cooks that almost anywhere in France. I had a conversation with the manager at El Bulli. When I told him I thought the north of Spain was more vital than most of France, he told me that Ferran Adria was more interested in what's happening in America than in France.

France is hardly dead, either figuratively or literally, but it's lost its strangle hold on western gastronomy. I just don't think Hoffman made that point well. American chefs have long been more creative, but in my opinion they've lacked the discipline to prepare great creative food. Of course this kind of broad statment does not hold up across the board, but it's true on the average. As you said, French chefs have not been open to non-French ways and it stiffles creativity. There are always a few on each side of the Atlantic that rise above the national stereotype, but we have no disagreement on at least one French problem. That said, today I have problems finding what I think of as real French food in Paris (outside of La Regalade). Chefs have adopted a world wide palette or flavors and ingredients and are slowly picking up techniques of inventing new ones. L'Astrance is a great example. I suspect it's not a French restaurant at all and could be in Australia, California or New York. Therein lies the future perhaps.

[Steve Plotnicki]

Bux-I wrote an entire response to you. Clicked the post button and then the system crashed and it was lost in the black hole. Let me try again.

The reason you and Hoffman don't agree is that you are evaluating Pacaud's use of curry powder from the point of view of whether it tastes good, Hoffman is saying it is symbolic of how out of touch Pacaud is from what the world is interested in. Hoffman asks why he (meaning Hoffman) has read Madhur Jaffrey and Pacaud hasn't? And the inference he is drawing says that if Pacaud had read her, he would never use curry that way. The fact that a spritz of curry powder in a sauce makes it taste good isn't the point. Hoffman doesn't say it tastes bad. He says using curry that way infuriates him because it is obvious (to him) that Pacaud doesn't understand curry theory. Now to me that's a valid point.

You know the world of food and art is replete with examples of people applying the wrong technique to things. How about opera singers singing Broadway show tunes. In my best baritone------To Drrrrrrrreammmmmm the Impahsssssssibul Dreeeeeeeeeeeeam To fiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiighhhhhhhhhhhhht...... (imagine me shaking the computer screen to replicate vibrato.) That is what Hoffman's point is. Not that opera singers can't sing show tunes. But that it's an inappropriate use of their technique. But at least opera singers have show tunes foisted on them by their record companies who want to sell more units. At L'Ambroisie, a place where the art of cooking is supposedly at it's highest level, how could someone like Pacaud not realize that understanding curry takes the same amount of effort as understanding the way you use blood in a sauce for hare. If it was a French ingredient, Pacaud would treat it with respect. But curry is Indian. It's just a spice powder to him. He doesn't show it the same level of respect. To me that point comes through loud and clear. Even if the dish at L'Ambroisie tastes good.

[Bux]

I though we might be coming to a common ground or at least a little closer together. Your latest response puts Hoffman back into a position where I see arrogance on his part. Let me point out that Simon has posted a side thread to all this called Fusion Food on the India board. It's just as well that it's not here, as he's far more respectful there. His references are not as directly related to our points as are Steve Klc's in that thread. Steve refers directly to Hoffman and Pacaud and to Hoffman's quote. He also refers to Hoffman as an "over-reaching American chef." While I've tried to avoid a similar remark, its the essence of my point that it was arrogant for him to speak of Pacaud in the terms he used and it undercut my sense that Gopnik knew whom to talk to about food when I read the book. Hoffman hasn't got my ear, or that of the gastronomic world the way Pacaud does for good reason and taking lessons from Madhur Jaffrey doesn't confer any status on him.

We should avoid musical analogies. You'll certainly beat me on the references, but analogies will only get us in trouble so I have little fear. If we must, I'd say Pacuad wasn't singing an Indian song with a French voice, but stealing a few notes in the way Coltrane could borrow a sappy show tune and make it memorable as well as his. Pacaud also made no pretense of cooking or interpreting Indian food, as your opera singer will no doubt claim to be doing one or the other.

Back to the regular program. Pacaud showed curry all the respect it deserves--he used it to make a dish taste good. This is not religion and curry has no inherent theory. That Hoffman thinks it does is why he is guilty of arrogant pretentious behavior. That he bought into this theory is, for me, evidence that he had no strong culinary tradition and talent of his own. More than ever, I feel my original dismissal of his take was correct. And I repeat my belief that Pacaud has enough faith in his abilities not to be threatened or care how any Indian chef uses blood in cooking. In fact, if Pacaud were half the chef I think he is, he'd see if he could learn from the unorthodox technique. Curry can legitimately be nothing more than a blend of spices used for flavoring a western dish. I'm sorry if this offends Indians. I suspect it really doesn't offend those who truly understand world food. Suvir speaks around this issue in the India board thread and generally addresses the more outright concept of "fusion" as expressed by places such as Tabla.

To the extent that "curry" is a tradition that requires rigorous training before it can be applied to one's cooking, it is more damning of Indian cuisine as a hidebound tradition unable to adapt and certainly not a reason to see trouble in French cuisine.

[Steve Plotnicki]

Bux-But I think Hoffman's point is valid. He is pointing out that French chefs didn't take the time to learn the basis of cooking with curry.  And in the context of Gopnik's article, which is about how the new cooking techniques were being developed outside of France, I don't understand why it is inappropriate. Maybe it isn't clear to you because you liked the way the dish tasted. But to me when I read it I knew exactly what Gopnik meant. Floyd Cardoz and Raji Jallepalli did not go to Paris to work on fusing Indian and French cuisine. They came to the states. Hoffman's point, and I don't think there is anything arrogant about it because it happens to be true, is that they didn't do it in France. And the reason they didn't do it there was because the important chefs like Pacaud were only interested in cooking French food.

You know there is a reason that all the great fusion restaurants happened outside of France. And there is a reason that the Club Gascon people had to go to a place like London to offer Gascon cuisine in a tapas format. France is not a place that is conducive to change.

[Peter B Wolf]

You guys have mentioned all of the great books. But you have left out Blue Trout and Black Truffles by Joseph Wechsberg written in 1948.

Steve Plodnicki, What about Johannes Mario Simmel "Es muss nicht immer Kaviar sein" from the late Fifties, early Sixties. I think it was translated?! And as the top(for me) guidebook, although my edition is from 1985, "The Hachette Guide to France" ISBN 0-394-72689-8

[Bux]

I've never had great fusion food. Perhaps I had, but didn't notice it was fusion. It's always the case that those with the least tradition are those quickest to embrace the new. They don't always do it well.

[Steve Plotnicki]

[i've never had great fusion food]

Bux-I assume you are using the word "great" as in the type of great food you would get in a 3 star place. Well I don't think that's a fair comment. I don't think any of the fusion chefs are attempting to cook at that level. In fact, one of things about fusion cuisine is that the format is less formal than French cuisine. I mean that's one of the big attractions for people.

I started to post a response to the fusion thread on the India board and decided not to as I found Shaw summed it up in one byte. But I was going to mention how I find it truly unbelievable that French chefs, especially ones who traveled to Japan and saw sushi cuisine, didn't come back to France and create a strain of French cuisine based on raw/cured/dressed fish. I mean Alberto Ciarla was doing it in Rome when I went there on my honeymoon 19 years ago. And now the culture of tartars, seviches, sushi/sashimi type services etc. is everywhere around us. But the French chefs completely missed the boat on this one. And they were there. How could that be? In fact, the French, who serve their meat raw, still overcook tuna.

Peter-Never heard of that one. Did that guy write, "Ich bin ein Berliner?"

[robert brown]

Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe the genesis of what we now call "fusion" cuisine is a trip Gault-Millau organized for several French chefs to a few cities in Asia in the late '70s. I know that Louis Outhier and Pierre Troisgros were definitely among them. Michel Guerard, I believe, was also there and probably a few lesser-lights. As for where they went, Bagkok for sure and almost surely Hong Kong. It appears that only Outhier had his head turned, but that was enough to add Asian touches to his cuisine at his restaurant in La Napoule, L'Oasis (a Michelin ***) and to influence above everyone else one of his 'stagiers", Jean-Georges. This trip is the single-most (seminal) manifestation to influence, if not seriously launch, fusion cooking.

[Bux]

I find that those who attempt fusion food, usually don't have a deep abiding respect for any cuisine. We'll get lost in the semantics of "fusion." I don't regard Kunz as a fusion chef. He melds flavors rather than attempts to fuse them. Among the strengths of French cuisine are the theory and discipline that are strong enough to subjugate the foreign influences. I'm sure I could do a search here and find some wonderful quotes about it being on a higher order than other cuisines. The champions of fusion food are all too often those who don't understand the greatness of French cuisine. It's all well and good not to be intimidated by that greatness, but you have to get it first in order to move on. The attraction of fusion food is often just that it sidetracks the need to acquire an apreciation for classic French cuisine, or haute cuisine.

Every strength is a weakness of another kind. Of course the strength that keeps a thing from being corrupted can also inhibit access to good ideas. Curry is rather irrelevant to French cuisine in 1995 in this regard.

I share your mystery as to why rare tuna hasn't filtered though to French cuisine. Raw fish has made inroads in many forms. In a small and hardly cutting edge bistro in Brittany we had raw fish served as fillets for a main course and as some sort of hachis for an appetizer. On several occasions, we've had raw fish at Amat's place across the river from Bordeaux. It was Tartare de saumon et huîtres au caviar a few years ago and he had a less expensive salmon tartar with olives on the menu in his bistro. Outside of Lille, as two star restaurant had Le sainte-pierre en tartare on the menu last November. Looking back at some old menus, I see other tartars and carpaccios at restaurants of varying levels of sophistication. French chefs haven't missed the boat. They just have other fish to fry, so to speak. I wonder if any western chef has done raw fish as well as Gerard Le Coz at Le Bernardin. It's hard to fault the strength of French cuisine by noting that it hasn't jumped on any international bandwagon.

I'm not saying there hasn't been a malaise in French cooking, just it's got nothing to do with curry and that Peter Hoffman appears not to be one to explain it to us.

[Steve Plotnicki]

Robert-You are correct about that trip which was organized by GM. In fact I ate at L'Oasis after Outhier returned and added the Asian flourishes to his menu. The meal was only fair. Outhier was already older and had come out of retirement to attempt his "fusion" cuisine. I am sure if he were a younger man, he would have kept at it. The telling thing about your post is how J-G might have picked up the germ at L'Oasis. But the more telling thing is how none of the others had their head turned.

Bux-You sound like someone who likes opera complaining that kids who play rock & roll do so because they don't understand opera. But the real truth about why kids play R&R instead of opera is that opera has no relevence to their lives. That is the ultimate point of Gopnik's article. While French cooks cook great, their cooking is losing relevence.

[Bux]

As I noted earlier, I have no problem with critics who feel France is no longer the center of western cuisine. This is an issue I could debate on either side. Gopnik lost me by relying on an irrelevant comment about Pacaud and curry, not because he criticized the relevance of French cuisine. I was not in complete agreement throughout From Paris to the Moon but I found his observations worth considering except for this lapse.

[Steve Plotnicki]

Bux-Well now the truth comes out. If you don't buy the premise for the book, you certainly can't find Hoffman's quote to add much weight to the argument that France is slowly crumbling like a stale cracker.

[Bux]

A bad use of the negative on my part. While I was not in complete agreement, I was in agreement far more often than not, or perhaps let's say I was generally a sympathetic ear for most everything and found Gopnik's observations and comments quite valid up to the point where I read Hoffman's words. More telling is the fact that I was really enjoying the book until that point.

[Steve Plotnicki]

Bux- How can that quote change the way you feel about the book? It is neither significant enough to the point of the book, nor is it radically different than any other example used in the book. In fact, that quote is pretty much in line with the tone of the entire book. It isn't computing to me. Do you have a thing with Hoffman? I can think of 1000 things in France that are dated where the French are staunchly refusing to change when they should. That quote is just Hoffman's take on it. In fact, even if he is wrong about Pacaud's dish I get the gist of the point. What's the big deal?

[Tonyfinch]

Just found this thread-mind if I chime in?(Well I'm going to anyway). I don't know the people you're talking about but everything Steve is saying about France is spot on.They are deeply entrenched in ultra conservative traditions and resent heavily everything that is going on around them.They especially despise the English and Americans for establishing English as the world's lingua franca,they despise the cultures of their former colonies in Africa and the Caribbean,despite the beauty of the areas they elect Fascist councils in the Vaucluse and other parts of the South and their obsession with hierarchies and classifications means that other cuisines can only be inferior in the natural scheme of things.

I am totally with Steve on the curry powder issue.It is a symbolic issue.It is the snooty dipping of a toe into waters they are too cowardly to swim in.Sprinkling curry powder onto the cream sauce for the scallops is about as far as they go.Why? Because to REALLY begin to explore the glories of Indian,Chinese,Thai etc. cuisine is too threatening for the French.Instead of embracing other culinary cultures and technique they cringe with the fear that their position at the top of their own self-created hierarchy may be threatened.This is a prospect they cannot face.

Actually if they allowed themselves to relax,they would realise that there is no threat.Culinary prowess is not a competition,and there are brilliant chefs and brilliant food in France and surely always will be.However they are in danger of fossilising as other countries "move on",(Steve's Club Gascon example is a good one) and soon might find themselves doing nothing but upholding a set of culinary (and vinous traditions) that nobody outside is much interested in anymore.

[Steve Plotnicki]

Tony-Gee you'e going to make me argue the other way!

No I agree with most of what you say. But since you don't understand the people we are talking about, or clearly haven't read the article the quote is from, let me put it into context for you (it's good reading by the way.)

The writer (Gopnik) moved his family to France in the mid 90's to be a foreign correspondent for The New Yorker Magazine. Most of the articles (if not all of them,) are about exactly the subjects you just wrote about. But the articles begin from the point of view that once upon a time France was indeed culturally dominant. Art, cooking, culturally accepting (American jazz musicians emmigrating to France in the 50's-70's,) even their language was arguably the most beautiful. And the French had spent the last century calculating ways to keep their culutral dominance. That's where the codifications of various things come into play.

Now despite the fact that the writer loves Paris, and throroughly enjoys all the quirks and idiosyncracies of the French way of life that are calculated to improve the quality of one's life, he pretty much finds France to be a system of life that is ill-equiped to deal with many issues that arise in the modern day world. The curry is just one of them. Another one (and you raised this in your response,) is that much to the horror of the French, the Internet is mainly for english speakers. In fact, and this is the big one, globalization is mainly for english speakers. You know I can't think of a French person who participates in this chatroom aside from Marc Cosnard and he is hardly a good example of someone French. Are there any? And in the wine chatrooms I participate in, there are currently no French people I know of who participate. And in the past, I can only think of one. Yet there are members who come from almost every country in Europe.

Going a little past the point but maybe somewhat helpful, the book(which is a compendium of the articles) in its underpinnings really isn't about Paris, it is about New York. And though the writer claims he wants to understand what made/makes Paris tick and is tired of the NYC way of life, he has really gone to Paris so he can better understand why we New Yorkers have chosen to live the style of life we do. And in my opinion his conclusion is that Paris or France if you will, created a system of life based on the realities of the world in the early 20th century. And through the century they kept tweaking their system, revinventing it and it allowed them to keep ahead of the Jonses so to speak. In fact, in the same article as the curry, they discuss how Nouvelle Cuisine, which the French claimed to be a new methodology of cooking was in reality nothing more than classical French technique modernized. And while they tried to promote the lightening of sauces as "new technique," in reality it was the same old thing but simply modified. And the curry powder is symbolic of the fact that this time, the ways they needed to change were more complex than what they had to do in the past and they were trying to take the easy way out. Which I believe is another point you made.

As for their relaxing have any positive concequences. I highly doubt it. Once you find a perfect system for doing things, life becomes about maintaining the system. Isn't that the basis for all religion? Just look at England, once they were able to convince you punters as to the ways wealth should be distributed, the Brits have spent centuries maintaining that system and to the defiance of logic, got the public to go along with maintaining it that way.

Now don't take any of this criticism about France, by either myself or any of the writers we mention to think we don't like the place. We love the place and I think to a man we would all say that we love being there and we love that silly French way of life, But. and it is why I keep using opera as the metaphor because it is an artform which exhausted the harmonic possibilities for repetoire, it is a way of life that is complete. What I mean by complete is that they will not improve on it in a way that has serious cultural impact on the rest of the world. And just look around you and see where the chefs everyone talks about come from and/or practice their craft.

[Tonyfinch]

Its hard to talk about Paris and France as though they were one and the same entities.Culturally,artistically,politically Paris has always been divided from the rest of France to a greater degree than any other European capital and its surrounding country.

The black jazz musicians may well have been welcomed in Paris,but they sure as hell wouldn't have been in most of the rest of France.

Rural France is deeply agricultural and deeply conservative in all senses of the word.With the post war rise in American (English speaking)culture and post colonial rise in immigration,rural France has curled up into the foetal position and tried to pretend that none of it is happening and that one day it will all go away.It is no accident that the French are the only Europeans who pretend they can't speak English when they can-hence their absence from boards like this-to admit it would give credence to it all.

There are lots of good restaurants in rural France,but they are pretty mired in a particular style,as you say.As food and wine tourists we love them and we don't want them to change,but I must admit the first thing I want when I return from France is to see some black people that aren't selling cheap watches and to eat an authentic Lahori style curry,and that's when I'm glad I live here (i.e the UK) and not there.

[Bux]

it. In fact, even if he is wrong about Pacaud's dish I get the gist of the point. What's the big deal?

I suppose it's that upon finding Gophik's points interesting and relevant, all of a sudden I was faced with a view that made no sense at all, as it was based on a comment that was so far off the mark and just wrong in it's understanding of French food.

Sprinkling curry powder onto the cream sauce for the scallops

Tony, have you had the langoustines in question? My recollection is that the "powder" was thoroughly incorporated in the sauce as a flavor and in an old fashioned way as had been done for maybe a hundred years in western cooking. At one time that conservative arrogance might well have been the strength of French cooking. If it's now a legitimate target, attack it as a French (and American--British too?)  target and don't aim at a fine chef who's created an excellent dish with the implication that anyone could do better. Understand that I had been exceptionally pleased to eat this dish and that an attack designed to remove it from the repertoire of French cooks was not so much a challenge to my taste as an attack on my chance to repeat the pleasure.

From what Suvir says, or what I understand from what he posts, India is far less interested in experimenting with western cuisine that the French are with other cuisines. It's all irrelevant. Of course French food is in danger of fossilizing, but I'd say that cutting edge food is always in danger and that the greatest cuisine is always in danger of being bumped. This is a given. Empires rise and fall. The trick is to spot the danger and Hoffman's point was misleading.

I'm a francophile, but a realist. I will place the center of western cuisine in the Pyrenees right now. The weight of influence in Catalunya and the Spanish Basque provinces exerts more force than all of France. Ferran Adria is the biggest voice and his manager tells me that Adria is more interested in what's happening in American than in France. I take that with a grain of salt, but pass it on with no small chauvinism of my own.

I ate in a small restaurant in St. Jean de Luz. The chef interned in New York after schooling in France. He tells me he is influenced by the superior quality of the raw materials he worked with in Daniel's kitchen and by the creativity of Francois Payard, his pastry chef at Daniel. You can eat well and very inexpensively in St. Jean, but the food is all cooked by rote and the desserts are purchased from an outside source. The restaurants are, as you say, "mired in a particular style." I see the difference in this chef's food for a few francs more. The kitchen is not on auto-pilot and every thing is fresh including the ideas. And who comes up to tell him that the food is more interesting than anything he's found in town while we're talking--an American. The locals appreciate the food, but ask where he gets his tartes. They've forgotten that restaurants used to make their own desserts.

For all that, or because of that, I think French cooking is actually on a rise at the moment. Of course it still fights the rise of McDonald's. Let the French say it's just for the children. It's not, but the problem is that that's the food that's educating the palate of the average French child. When my wife digs into pig's feet at a wedding banquet, a guest may turn in amazement and say that's the kind of food his mother, or grandmother liked. In twenty years you may have a hard time finding a caterer who offers that kind of food. Time to check on the progress of my favorite web site.   http://www.andouillette.com/

Is Steve Plotnicki's review of Paris to the Moon accurate? Does any review not speak more about the reviewer than the subject? I think Gopnik is equally critical of NY life and it's more a personal observation than an objective critique, but yes those things that Steve finds are all there and if you approach from his perspective, you will not be disappointed. You should have a hard time recognizing Pacaud's use of curry as symbolic of any contemporary trend or weakness. A sauce Nantua could have as well supported the langoustine, but not as well the spinach. The very soigné curry cream sauce was a classic and showed no cultural weakness unless you felt predisposed to defend Indian cuisine where it needed no defense. It was an amateur criticism. This was a very traditional dish and one could have as well used the lobe of sweetbread studded with truffle, if that was the point one wanted to make.

[Steve Plotnicki]

Bux-The evidence that curry has been used by French chefs for 100 years is of no signifigance to Hoffman's point. Hoffman isn't just saying that Pacaud was wrong, he is saying that it was always wrong. And now that we have Madhur Jaffrey etc. we know better. And he doesn't mean wrong as in tastes bad, wrong as used improperly. There are many things we did, both culturally and socially that we look back on and realize we were wrong about. How about eating chow mein? Doesn't it taste good?

[Katherine]

This thread clearly illustrates the current pompous bent of egullet.

As near as I can get from this thread, Steve P. is trying to make the point that

French food is irrelevant because it has failed to mirror all the changes in a certain narrow style of dining now popular with wealthy patrons. We can also say that French food was irrelevant 100 years ago, because what was served to discerning and demanding diners back then is not what is now stylish. And it was wrong then, because they chose not to learn English and read Maddhur Jaffrey.

Gee, Steve, it's a good thing you weren't living back then. You would have been miserable, with nothing good enough for you to eat in the entire world.

Too bad that in 20 years, all the things you like now will be completely irrelevant.