French & American menus

[Bux]

There's a familiar expression. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." That I've enjoyed classic French curries and that I particularly enjoyed Pacaud's masterful dish using curry powder as a flavoring ingredient makes me wonder why Hoffman picked, curry or Pacaud's use of it to illustrate any weakness in French cooking.

Here we have a brash American chef attacking French tradition by pointing the finger at a successful French chef and accusing him and his country men of being unable to adjust because they don't feel the need to adopt the sacred theory of another hidebound tradition. The curry fixation is Hoffman's. He needs to step back and take a less jaundiced view of cuisine, in my opinion. Preconceived absolutes of what is right and wrong across cultural lines are not going to offer a chef the flexibility to create. You are explaining what the pot meant when he called the kettle black.

Chow mein. Yes, I've had Cantonese chow mein and it's very good. You are referring to another chow mein and I really wish you'd drop the analogies, because the examples are not analogous. A French curry sauce is not fake Indian food, it's real French food. Chung King chicken chow mein in a can is fake Chinese food. Maybe you meant chop suey for which I've heard all sorts of stories regarding its derivation, but I don't find an analogy in French food.

[Steve Klc]

Katherine--I'm not sure what you mean by pompous?

Discussing the history and context of food--high and low--is certainly not pompous.  On this narrow issue I do think Steve is wrong--but certainly not pompous, nor is Steve the voice of all eGullet.

I'd sincerely like to know why you feel our bent is pompous? Compared to what--Bon Apetit?  the Zagat guide? a discussion of road food?

Is there no room for sane, literate, philosophical or reflective discussion?  Is there no room to be wrong or to disagree?

[Fat Guy]

Katherine, coming from most anyone else, I'd dismiss such comments out of hand. But you've consistently been one of our most enthusiastic and well-spoken participants, and I think I speak for most users when I say we value your participation on the site. Is there any way I can convince you that this thread is neither pompous in and of itself nor representative of any overarching theme on the site? Or, even if it is, can I convince you that the way to fight against it is not to decry those who want to participate but, rather, to continue to push the topics you find interesting and worthy?

I just clicked on New Posts and, in addition to this topic, there were new posts recently added to the Rocky Mountain Oysters topic and the Rotten Fish topic. There was a new post on Comfort Food Reinterpreted. There was a post on the topic of how to improve our software, and one on one of the member bios. In the past hour, of all those interesting topics, this is the only haute-cuisine-oriented topic that has been added to. Not that I would mind if the site became half about haute cuisine, or more -- I find it interesting -- but I think ultimately the site can never be about one thing or even have much of a bent given that it's an amalgam of what a whole bunch of diverse people have to say. The only bent I'd like the site to have is one of acceptance. Grudging acceptance is fine, too.

Now, Plotnicki, he's pompous for sure. But he's really quite harmless. We find him delightful, actually, for the most part, except when he talks about opera and I can't understand him.

[cabrales]

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?

Bux & Steve -- Apologies for my late entry into this thread, but I come out on Bux's side of the dialogue on this one. Many of the spices that are a component of certain curries (acknowledging the wonderful diversity in curry preparations and my lack of an understanding of Indian cuisine, although the Indian board is helpful) -- chilli, pepper, cumin, cardamon, coriander, saffran (sic), cinammon, cloves, anise, ginger, etc. -- or other spices in the same spice "families" either (1) have existed in French cuisine for lengthy periods of time, or (2) have since been well-integrated into French cuisine. It cannot have always been wrong, as Steve posits, for curry or the spices in curry to be used in French cuisine.  Consider Mao and vivin's visit to Paris recently (see the summary thread), when they praised the use of cumin.

Or, despite my not having appreciated Pacaud's langoustines with curry dish particularly, that dish. That is a French dish that utilizes curry appropriately, just like other cuisines have utilized curry in wonderful, but likely different, ways. At Pacaud, the curry has been embodied into a sauce, containing a bit of cream, that was undeniably French. The sauce was too powerful for me, but that did not detract from its French qualities. It had the smooth consistency of certain French sauces, and lacked the inclusion of other ingredients and the "graininess" textures in the mouth associated with certain (albeit not all) Indian curries I have had. Obviously, the Pacaud dish did not utilize coconut milk that is prevalent in certain curries (including Thai curries) outside of the French context. There was another clear reason the dish was French -- the langoustines accompanying the curry were supple and tender and appropriately prepared, just like they would be at Pacaud's if a non-curry sauce had been utilized.

As a novice with respect to Indian cuisine, I would appreciate input on whether, in Indian cuisine, (1) the separate preparation of the main ingredient used inside curry is common, and (2) curry is commonly included in a smooth, non-grainy sauce of the type described. It is clear that curry has a place of special significance in Indian cuisine that it does not occupy in French cuisine, but this fact does not detract from the French's successful utilization of curry in certain circumstances.

I would like to point to another example of the use of cumin in French cuisine.  Troisgros has a dish currently on the menu called "L’aubergine en gelée fraîche au citron vert, une pincée de cumin" (aubergine in a gelee of green lemon, with a pinch of cumin), that I consider very good. Troisgros is a good example of the utilization of non-French ingredients (in the examples below, Japanese) to good effect. Below are potential dishes to consider, which I have not yet tasted, but soon may:

Bain-marie de crevettes grises au wakames (Grey shrimp, cooked in a container placed inside a pan of water, with wakame; below is a description of wakame, a seaweed-like item)

http://www.pacificrim-gourmet.com/Glossary/wakame.htm

Court-bouillon de bar au riz “Koshi-Hikari", un voile de moutarde (Broth-like item of sea bass with "Koshi-Hikari" rice and a veil of mustard)

http://www.williams-sonoma.com/cat/pip.cfm?sku=2126530

Noix de Saint-Jacques à la chiffonnade d’endives, wasabe

(Scallops with thin shreds of endives and with wasabe)

Because of the way Troisgros cooks, his cuisine is distinctively French. A chef in Japanese cuisine (leaving aside Hiramatsu -- a chef of Japanese origin who cooks French food) cooking with wasabe, Koshi Hikari rice and wakame does not utilize those ingredients like Troisgros does. That is part of why French cuisine is special.

[Bux]

When there are more menus with wasabe than curry in France, I will not longer recognize French food.  

Cabrales, I'm curious as to why you didn't particularly appreciate that dish. Was it the cream? The curry? Something else? I would be the first to agree that it's a rather old fashioned dish, especially if you leave off the sesame wafer. I found the curry an excellent enhancement to the langoustine and the spinach. I wonder if it wan't too old fashioned for you and a comfort food thing for me.

[cabrales]

Cabrales, I'm curious as to why you didn't particularly appreciate that dish. Was it the cream? The curry? Something else? I would be the first to agree that it's a rather old fashioned dish, especially if you leave off the sesame wafer.

I thought the curry flavor was too strong in the sauce for my tastes, but recognize that, as far as curries go, it was relatively light. I often have the problem of finding saucing (including traditional French sauces) too severe at many French restaurants. The sesame wafer bothered me a little(and that is not because of the countries with which sesame has traditionally been associated). The wafer had a lot of sesame grains on it, and I thought the dish was sufficiently developed without the wafer at all. This last point reflects one of my quirks, no doubt, re: preferring less convuluted food.  

[Bux]

I rather liked the wafer, but would also agree that it wasn't essential and if you backed me into a corner and said it was nothing by Pacaud's attempt to incorporate a foreignism into his curry dish in an attempt to be contemporary I'd have to think at least twice about it being an argument I might lose on merit.

[cabrales]

I rather liked the wafer, but would also agree that it wasn't essential and if you backed me into a corner and said it was nothing by Pacaud's attempt to incorporate a foreignism into his curry dish in an attempt to be contemporary I'd have to think at least twice about it being an argument I might lose on merit.

Bux -- I'm not saying that, just that I have a strong personal preference for elimination of unnecessary items in a dish that leads me to dislike certain things about dishes and about certain chefs. And, if another diner does not have that aversion, he should consider my assessments across the board taking that quirk into account.    Note a recent post under the India forum in which I note my agreement with your assessments there and provide an example of how careful Pacaud is in his utilization of spices in seeking combinations that work (contrary to alleged attempts just to be contemporary).  

[Bux]

I understood that you found the wafer unnecessary. It was an invented editorial "you" who might suggest it was a foreign element. I understood your position. I am just hammering home my original claim that curry was not the sign of the decline of French cuisine it was purported to be and that if one needed to pick on Pacaud, the wafer, as poor a target as could be, was a better target than the curry powder.

[Steve Plotnicki]

Bux-But it is broke. That's the point of the article and the point of the book. You obviously don't like Hoffman because that quote isn't enough to turn someone off that book. Whether you want to ascribe it to my opinion, or you want to admit what Gopnik's book is really about, the entire book is about the French way of life being or becoming obsolete, and France being stagnate and befuddled as to how to fix their problem. Of course all of this is written in the context of Gopnik's love of Paris. Yes that's there too. His love of the light, and the open air markets, and even silly rituals the rich invented like having hot chocolates by the pool in the Ritz. And you know what, I love all those things too and I love to partake in them. But moreover the book is replete with examples of how things don't work there because the people don't have a clue that their way of life has made them fall behind their neighbors. Things like the strikes they have which are constantly interupting everyday life. Like the girls at the health club handing out caramels to people in celebration of the workout equipment arriving. Or how Gopnik describes the ashen look that French schoolchildren have at the end of the day from an antiquated system of learning that is based on rote. Or how Alexandra (forgot her last name,) who is now the chef at Nick & Stef's Steakhouse describes that there is a single way to prepare a chicken and if you prepare it any differently a supervising chef comes over to tell you to throw it away and start over. Why? "Because it is no good that way. That is not how we do it." Or how that group of people tried to save the Balzar. The entire book is summed up in that chapter. What is it exactly that those people are trying to save? Is it anything but a way of life that doesn't exist anymore? All Hoffman's quote is but one more example in a book that has dozens of examples like it.

You know I am in France between 3-5 times a year. I eat many great meals there and I eat quite a lot of boring meals there. And the way I act out the emotions that a great meal causes me to experience is to sit down at my keyboard, write up my notes and post them on the various chat rooms I participate in. Well I was in France for 5 days the week before last and although I ate perfectly fine there, I pretty much had what are for me boring meals. Even my meal at Guy Savoy which I thought was very good was sort of baseline boring and as you see, Cabrales posted the notes on the meal. I haven't been moved to yet. But I was moved to post on my meal at Club Gascon in London. Now that was an interesting meal. And while Guy Savoy was a far better meal than my meal at CG, the CG meal was far more interesting that Savoy.

Cabrales-I appreciate your points but I don't think it speaks to Hoffman's point which is much simpler than the discussion we have been having about it. When you say that curry used in that context is appropriate because it has been used that way for eons, that isn't the standard Hoffman uses. What he says is that standard was okay when we didn't know any better. But now that we do, it isn't good enough. And he doesn't mean to say that Pacaud shouldn't use it that way. He means to say that he has no interest in eating a meal in a 3 star restaurant that uses it that way. But for some reason, Bux and Steve KlC refuse to believe that Hoffman knows enough about curry to make that statement. Not credible as an expert as some would say.

Katherine-I have no problem with you calling me pompous because, no doubt on occassion I act that way. But I am a little unclear in this instance as to why you said that. Maybe I am jaded because of the numerous Internet discussions I have seen where someone who is without means interjects the notion of wealth into a response. In fact the combination of the notion of wealth combined with the accusation of pomposity is almost making the alarms go off. Had you chosen the word "elitest" instead of pompous they would surely be ringing loudly.

But I might as well steer you straight on the merits here. You said that I said 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."

No that's not what I said (nor what Peter Hoffman said.) The point is that over the last 100 years French dining *did* mirror the changes. But now they haven't been keeping up to the extent that is needed. And I think the French would be much happier if 100 years ago they made a concerted effort to learn English. And they would have been far better off they had read Madhur Jaffrey back then too. Especially since she is only about 55 years old.

[Bux]

You 've misinterpreted or misunderstood my remarks about Gopnik's book, but that's not so important as I've not particularly argued about your interpretation or the book itself and was able to read around Hoffman's section.

Bux and Steve KlC refuse to believe that Hoffman knows enough about curry to make that statement. Not credible as an expert as some would say.

I've never said that, or anything like that. Hoffman may know all there is to know about preparing spices and sauces in India for all I know. What I've said is that he's not credible as an expert on French food and blinded in his judgement of it by his involvement in Indian curry theory. Undoubtedly, he should not have ordered the dish with the curry sauce as he could not judge it on it's merits for the audience it was designed to please and that's an audience that keeps l'Ambroisie full, while other diners march to different drummers. I don't share your views that some current fads will have the staying power to influence coming generations. We will have to wait for that proof anyway.

Again I am not a fan of Pacaud's and well aware of more creative food, but Hoffman's statement as quoted by Gopnik doesn't show the way to the faults in France today.

[cabrales]

Bux-But it is broke. . . . Well I was in France for 5 days the week before last and although I ate perfectly fine there, I pretty much had what are for me boring meals. Even my meal at Guy Savoy which I thought was very good was sort of baseline boring and as you see, Cabrales posted the notes on the meal. I haven't been moved to yet. But I was moved to post on my meal at Club Gascon in London. Now that was an interesting meal. And while Guy Savoy was a far better meal than my meal at CG, the CG meal was far more interesting that Savoy.

Steve -- On not being moved by meals, have you considered whether that effect might be in part due to your subjective abundance of experience with respect to French restaurants of Guy Savoy's type and other subjective characteristics? And, if the answer is yes, would it be fair to observe that you have characteristics that are different from those of the average diner at a French three-star?  

I was also unmoved by the Guy Savoy dinner, but that is the effect of most three-stars I visit. That is in part a function of my quirky preferences for a very particular type of cuisine and restaurant. But, even though I was unmoved by Guy Savoy, I would not say I was close to being bored by his cuisine. I observed and appreciated what Guy Savoy offered, which was good to very good cuisine, and had a satisfying, if uninspired and "unfulfilling" (in the "Chef of the Century" sense), meal. But that is no worse than what I have had outside of France (Bouley aside).

Club Gascon may have been more interesting -- in the sense of being different from most French restaurants in France or outside of it, for reasons you discuss -- but, as you noted, the meal at Guy Savoy was far better.  

[Katherine]

Steve P.-

I wouldn't dream of guessing why you are so jaded.

"Had you chosen the word "elitest" instead of pompous they would surely be ringing loudly."

Wealth is not synonymous with elitism in my dialect, which is why I did not use that term. You put the words into my mouth, then you criticize me for using them.

"...where someone who is without means ..."

I find it interesting that you are making that judgment about me, without having any idea who I am, or what my background is. Does it make you feel better to think that I have no means, and you can dismiss me summarily? Isn't that elitist?

We both know that Maddhur Jaffrey is alive and well. It just seemed bizarre to me that you think that French chefs 100 years ago are wrong not to have been influenced by your interpretation of the writings of someone who hadn't been born yet.

"And I think the French would be much happier if 100 years ago they made a concerted effort to learn English. "

No comment.

[Steve Plotnicki]

Cabrales-Well of course you can describe me as jaded. But I think that describes many people who have steadily eaten at the types of places we are describing over the last 20-30 years. Using Savoy as an example, technically it was all one could ask for. But creatively it was predictable. Sometimes something can be predictable yet delicious. The lentil and truffle concoction fit that category in my book. And the parmesan in the artichoke soup made that delicious, but unpredictable which I liked.

I have no doubt that Savoy if he wanted to could whip up a meal that is exciting on all levels. But if he attempted to do that and it ruffled the feathers of the Michelin inspectors, he wouldn't have his third star. That would be an economic catastrophy for him. So he is in a sort of box. And since the standards for the box have been set from within France (the insular approach Hoffman speaks of,) in certain ways he has fallen behind what is considered modern by a segment of the public that is interested in fine cuisine but who are far more discerning than they used to be.

As for Club Gascon, it is interesting because they have changed the format of dining. They aren't the first to do this mind you. About 3-4 years ago, Alain Lllorca the chef at the Negresco Hotel in Nice served a "tapas" meal of French dishes as his tasting menu. He stopped doing it after a year or so. I'm not sure why. You know Savoy could have done the same thing CG did. He could have served a Foie Gras tasting menu that served all small portions and were laid out in a fashion that would resemble courses in a meal. But that is an iffy approach if you want that third star.

Katherine-Thanks for staying on script. The way this conversation goes is that someone comes aboard and makes a comment about wealth, the person responding points out that 1) wealth per se doesn't have anything to do with what we are talking about and 2) people who usually raise that issue in that manner are of modest means. Then all too predictably, the original poster accuses the responder of saying something that they didn't say in the first place. So let's take it from that point on.

Nowhere have I even implied that *you* are of modest means. All I have said is that in my experience people who raise wealth in the manner you did usually are. Considering that the cuisine we are describing is laden with luxury ingredients like truffles and foie gras, lobsters and fancy meat and fowl, not to mention Grand Cru wines, the ability to afford the dinners is a precondition of participating in the discussion. Does that bother you for some reason? I mean if it does you are within your rights to raise that and I am sure you will be met with numerous responses. But in no way am I dismissing you summarily. But I have summarily dismissed your accusation

of pomposity until you raise the issue in earnest, and not in a manner that attempts to use people who post here (that would include me) as a vessel for communicating the point.

Point number two. It is typical in this type of back and forth that a person who has been called on the carpet takes a post and cuts and pastes it so a single sentence appears out of context. You have done that here by cutting my quote about the French being better off if they decided to learn English 100 years ago. It is a slightly dishonest approach in my opinion. You then try and wrap the quote in an untouchable inference by saying "No comment." That tact is to be able to deflect no matter which way I respond by your being able to say that isn't what you meant. Sigh. But I will give you the benefit of the doubt and once again I will try and engage you in a discussion on the merits. Here goes.

In the last 20 years, the French, certain people contend, have fallen behind both culturally and economically compared to both their neighbors in Europe as well as countries outside of Europe that are both economically and culturally strong. Do you agree or disagree with that? And secondly, if you think that is at all true, do you think that part of the reason for this decline is because unlike other European countries who made it mandatory for schools to teach English,

the French have never had a coherent policy about it? And would it also be true to say that another reason would be that the French have been slow to read authors like Madhur Jaffrey, while other cultures have more readily accepted writings from outside of their own country? And to bring this issue full circle, is the reason they haven't read Madhur Jaffrey because they insisted on reading her in French and because of the size of their market, it didn't make economic sense to do the translation and new printing?

[cabrales]

many people who have steadily eaten at the types of places we are describing over the last 20-30 years

Steve -- Perhaps for somebody who does not have the subjective experience with three stars and other restaurants that you have, a restaurant like Guy Savoy (or similar restaurants in France) would offer a more moving experience.  I wonder if there are really as many people who have dined relatively steadily the way you have, and who have been able to discern differences among restaurants the way you do?  Could that potentially affect your assessment of the relevance of French cuisine?    

[Steve Plotnicki]

Cabrales-Let's not confuse enjoyable with relevent, although there is bound to be some overlap. Of course the 3 star experience will always be thrilling to people who are experiencing it for the first time(s). But they are hardly qualified as experts in a conversation that is about the comparative importance of the French school of cooking vs the other schools. To me the proof is in the pudding so to speak, how things taste. Not tastes as in good or bad, taste as in interesting vs non-interesting. Relevence is merely a term that describes how much interest something attracts  for the time it exists in. Nobody is saying that haute cuisine will in the future not attract a sizeable or meaningful audience. Of course it will. And you can include me in the sizeab;e audience that will still eat meals in that style and in that environment. But that doesn't neccessarily mean that what they will do will be interesting. That is an entirely different question.

Fat Guy-The reason I use opera as an example is that it is one of the only high art forms I know of (and maybe the only) that was commercially successful with the mass public in its heyday. I don't think it is difficult to say that the audience that attended or followed opera is similar to the audience that frequents culinary palaces. And unlike other forms of art where you need special skills to understand what the artists mean, you do not need any special skills to understand an opera. The stories are easily understood. A  3 star meal is similar in that concluding whether something is delcious or not is a skill that any common person has.  But standing in front of say Guernica, that is something more difficult to appreciate. So to me, the fossilization of opera and what is happening to haute cuisine have many similarities. Macrosan touched on this point in the "Dimming" thread on the General board.

[cabrales]

Cabrales-Relevence is merely a term that describes how much interest something attracts  for the time it exists in. Nobody is saying that haute cuisine will in the future not attract a sizeable or meaningful audience. . . . But that doesn't neccessarily mean that what they will do will be interesting. That is an entirely different question.

Steve -- On the interest offered by a cuisine, what I was trying to say is that many people might find French haute cuisine interesting because they have not sampled it as much as you (or other members) have. What you find less interesting when done by a French chef might still be very interesting to much of the relevant dining population, who have not yet visited relevant restaurants or sampled the same range of dishes.    Is it possible that French cuisine might be becoming less relevant to you and others similarly situated, but still be of high relevance to many others differently situated?

Also, note that a diner might find a restaurant or cuisine interesting, and yet not become a customer (in view of scheduling or cost issues, geographic distance, etc.)

[Fat Guy]

to me, the fossilization of opera and what is happening to haute cuisine have many similarities.

You mean French haute cuisine, don't you? Because in places like the United States, Australia, and Great Britain, the appreciation of haute cuisine among the middle class is no doubt on the rise -- it's just that this haute cuisine isn't looking so much to contemporary French haute cuisine for inspiration. Is this a new thread?

[Bux]

Cabrales, I would say my disappointment level at three star restaurants has been much higher than at two star. This could, and probably should be a separate thread. There are many reasons for this including my own riased expectations.

Plotnicki, I would agree that French food is not what it once was and it's place in western haute cuisine is diminished in at least certain aspects. The mere fact that it's not what it once was is an indication that it's changing. One of the aspects of the picture you paint of the French is that the past twenty years have brought nothing but decline. I think there's been an upswing in that time and certainly an upswing in the area of food in France.

Part of my problem with your train of thought in all this is "relevance." What you declare relevant is a strange brew of popular, trendy, elitist, etc. A purist attitude towards the use of spices commonly used in India, but a view of the French as hidebound is but one of what I see as contradictory standards. Much of it all seems to rest on a personal perspective of whether you find it interesting in spite of the way you try to state the standard. I suspect that's why you reach out for analogies. You won't make the point unless you can avoid the use of analogies and particuarly of operatic analogies.

[Steve Plotnicki]

"The mere fact that it's not what it once was is an indication that it's changing. One of the aspects of the picture you paint of the French is that the past twenty years have brought nothing but decline"

Bux-No, no, no. That is the opposite of what I have been saying (and what Hoffman said too.) I said it hasn't been changing. It is mired in its traditions. And it hasn't declined relative to its past, it's still at the same level it was 20 years ago. But it has declined relative to how other cuisines and cultures have improved. That is why I keep using opera as the metaphor. High art where the standard repetoire is frozen in time. And Pacaud's use of curry hasn't really  reinvented the cuisine into something new, it is just an accessory to a discipline that is already complete. A slight variation of a theme that is passed off as a revinventing of itself when all it really did was put the equivelent of a colored handkerchief in the breast pocket of a suit. The addition of color doesn't really change the substance of it. As to relvence being a compendium of the things you mentioned, yes I agree. All those things and more. What is relevent when the population has a history of eating canned food is different than when the population is fed on fresh food. Don't you think so?

Steve-Yes I do mean French haute cuisine. But I think we are in slight disagreement when you say that in that list of countries the appreciation of haute cuisine amongst the middle classes is on the rise. While I agree with you that it is, I think that what they are looking for is a watered down version of it. A version that is somewhat homogenized and that represents their way of life better than the way the French 3 star experience does.

[Fat Guy]

Then I think we should be having a new thread on that, so I can learn you some more.

[robert brown]

Unless my taste buds have lost their acuity to a degree more than I think they have, and in the past ten years I have turned into a moldy fig, I have to say with a certain sense of regret and nostalgia that French "haute cuisine" has declined noticeably. Not that you cannot still eat very well in France; you still can, but on fewer occasions and in fewer establishments. You can look at the reasons for it in a number of ways, but,as always,the reasons are economic.

In my view, gastronomy in France still has not recovered from the nasty recession that began in mid-1990. To anyone who spent an appreciable time eating in France and paying attention, the dimunition in quality and quantity of food, generosity, and service declined. There was much less new restaurant formation, although a notable exception was the opening of "bistro" or second and third lesser restaurants by two-and-three-star chefs; talented young chefs who otherwise would have stayed in France migrated to Great Britain, the USA, and other countries; and seemingly any ambitious new restaurants for the most part were built by, and as part of, hotels. It is hard to imagine that anyone who systematically toured gastronomic France in the decade or two before 1990 could not help notice how small everything has become: the wine lists, the kitchen and dining room brigades, the a la carte menus to name the few most obvious. Ironically, however, there has been a perverse affect of the increase in the possibilities of increased enrichment for famous French chefs,(apparently the flirting with bankruptcy by chefs such as Gagnaire, Veyrat and Loiseau are all in the past) all of which the restaurant client pays for from chefs spreading themselves too thin. It is no wonder, given how gastronomy has become so media-driven, that all the excitement and action with only a few exceptions are in Paris. Gone are the days when one had to see the rest of France to eat well or to realize fully the depth of astounding restaurants: Bocuse, Chapel, Troisgros, Guerard, Verge, Haeberlin, and others. Now any chef of talent, (unless his deep feeling of roots and family dictate otherwise) is either opening in Paris or leaving the country. (Someone ought to discuss what the American popular culture and life and its depiction in the media have done to attract culinary talent to our shores).

Perhaps it would be interesting if one were to ask some of the interesting younger chefs the question, "What are you doing and why are you doing it". I think you would get, if they were honest, replies having more to do with living the good life and achieving fame, notoriety, and creating dishes that aided in attaining those ends than you would have 20 years ago, where the answers would have more to do with satisfying the clients, respecting the traditions and "terroir", and then, maybe, a few words about having your other needs provided for.

[magnolia]

On a related note...the Altantic Monthly's 'word court' discusses translation of menu items & other linguistic minefields in:

http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2002/03/wallraff.htm

[magnolia]

"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.."

OK it has been awhile since I read the book, and maybe it's worth another read if only because I respect the opinions of other posters herewith.  But I don't remember it being much about this at all. I thought it was a bog-standard foreigner's extremely superficial take on the French, à la American/Englishman on a grand European tour (reminiscent of the 1800s I guess) where the only appreciation of French culture or psyche that the author expressed was an appreciation of his position as a smug correspondent on an all expenses paid boondoggle, taking the very easy way out and treading the same territory as many before him. Granted, perhaps that was his assignment and if so, he cannot be faulted. But whether or not you agree with his sentiments, the book itself was not particularly enlightening, and by exerting a little effort, he could have really done a much better job given such a plum opportunity.

Am I envious of Gopnik? Definitely. Great work if you can get it.

[Bux]

As I noted before, one can often tell more about the reviewer than the subject. Although I didn't agree with Plotnicki's analysis I found enough evidence to support his right to his view. I might say the same for your opinion of the book. I found it well written. I have friends who hold a higher opinion of Gopnik's work and those who hold a lower opinion than I do. I believe that somewhere along the way in another thread, Steve Klc suggested that it might be a good book for an "eGullet bookclub" thread.

The book is a series of magazine articles and the author's observations of life and things worth writing about while he lived in Paris. It's full of personal stuff that hardly make for a great and universal critique of France and its place in the world at the end of the twentieth century, but I didn't think it was fluff or smug even when it wasn't deep. Even when superficial, I still found it intellectually entertaining, which may say more about the level of my intellectual capacity or attention span than the book. In general I enjoyed his style, but when he discussed food, I found his approach lacking. That may be telling of more than I care to admit.

One of the more charming chapters, for me, was when he spent scandalous sums buying hot chocolate for two five year old girls, so his son who was smitten by one could socialize with them. That he was with his son and the two American classmates of his son were with nannies and that therefore the burden of paying for the chocolate fell to the parent who couldn't afford a nanny is one of the economic ironies of life. That they were all Americans swimming in the pool of a luxury hotel in Paris, told me little about society in France contrary to what Plotnicki was able to deduce. These rounds of chocolate were similar in price to a meal at a local bistro. I believe it was noted that it made a dent in the family budget and that his wife indicated a preference for a night out, but the book is not in front of me and I may have read the latter into it.