Jump to content
  • Welcome to the eG Forums, a service of the eGullet Society for Culinary Arts & Letters. The Society is a 501(c)3 not-for-profit organization dedicated to the advancement of the culinary arts. These advertising-free forums are provided free of charge through donations from Society members. Anyone may read the forums, but to post you must create a free account.

Jonathan Meades on British Food


Recommended Posts

In the process of reviewing Tough Cookies in the Sunday Times Jonathan Meades also analyses the current state of the British Dining scene from critics ('gastronomically ignorant wiseacres'), to the Michelin chefs ('Macho martinet cooks who produce a kind of tweely kitsch culinary macramé).

I only wish he still reviewed restaurants.

agreed. can we start a campaign? I can never bring myself to read his endless articles in praise of solihull. his talent is wasted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't agree with the jist of what he says about GR/MW/HB being " willingly insitutionalised by their craft". Maybe they are, but so what, that's their choice and it's their life. I can think of much worse ways to live. Comparing these craftsmen to, I presume, stereotypical footballers is just ridiculous. And Meade's high brow tone when discussing chef's in general just doesn't cut it with me. Is he bitter? I expect so. As for the book, well, the Shaun Hill section is by far the most entertaining. I particularly liked the recollections from his time at the Gay Hussar, great stories there. The rest of it is total sycophantic rubbish, mixed with really tragic and predictable one liners. All in all........... worth about 3 quid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure that Meades is attacking chefs, rather he seems to be questioning their motivations, which (I suppose inevitably for the famous ones) do often seem to be the pleasures of ostentatiousness.

I think what Meades is getting at is that the driving force for gastronomic change in this country is fame and attention rather a love for food.

I haven't read the book, and don't think I'll bother now either.

Edited by Dirk Wheelan (log)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do see your point Dirk. I think the problem with the whole 'celebrity' notion is that people seem to assume that a favourable connection between talent and profile exists. The truth is, in general, that there isn't any connection whatsoever. The more high profile you become does not mean you become more talented or are talented to begin with. On the contrary it simply means you have a good PR company or your face/personality is right for the mass media. I find the whole celebrity thing nauseous, I mean who makes a better role model for young kids Jordan and co or the many leading scientists/academics we have in this country? Or keeping on topic GR or SH ? I'm completely baffled by popular culture these days.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The pleasures of ostentatiousness have nothing to do with it - as I doubt there's little which is actually pleasurable. The effect of ostentatiousness however is like the effect of publicity - bums on seats. In this Ramsay is the master. Wareing has occasionally dabbled (under the master's eye). But Blumenthal?

As to the article, with the exception of the first sentence, I haven't read such invidious, tendentious bullshit in years. Half of the first page is indistinguishable babble, the likes of which I haven't heard since I visited my great-gran in a home. (""Football is democratised, so should we look forward to commentators who believe that roasting is a method of cooking?" I mean what is he talking about? Football is democratised? No it isn't. "Roasting is a method of cooking" - erm - what am I missing here? Or are we mixing our metaphors along with our lithium?)

He then descends into sort of post-colonial pre-modern blather, bemoaning the loss the educated Elizabeth David-reading amateur. Of course, this is someone who's used to the Rowley Leigh/Alistair Little paradigm - just popped down from punting along the fucking river Cam to open a restaurant where you can find real duck confit like what those illiterate non-punting froggy peasants make - none of your bourgeois Nouvelle mousse-pounding rubbish (although that too, if your Rowley)! This is authentic!* I mean who is this idiot writing for? The fact that he discriminates between the four chefs in the book based on who's had an education (no offence Shaun, but I wouldn't want Meades in your corner), is mind boggling.

"To become a chef in Britain demands a greater self-discipline, a steelier will, a more determined bloody-mindedness, the thickest of skins."

What? Does he honestly purport to know the first fucking thing about working in a French kitchen? Or succeeding in France as a chef? Go speak to Louisa. (From her blog) "my sister Annie tells me that Gordon Ramsay's Boiling Point just started running in the States. She's worried that I get yelled at like that in my kitchen. Not quite - French kitchens are even more extreme."

How does he think French Chefs are formed? Skimming stock with one hand whilst reading Baudelaire with the other? Or read 'The Perfectionist' - kids placed in kitchens as teenagers, and forced to shovel coal for the beginning of their apprenticeships. Educational drop-outs, misfits, homeless kids, or (just as likely) a tradesman's kid taking over daddy's little Auberge and, several years and much back-breaking work later (voila!), turning it into a success.

"One is reminded (Oh, is one?) of sportspeople whose devotion to one pusuit (sic) at the expense of all others renders them inarticulate... insouciant - as though the price of success has been a sort of eletive autism." (For one's information, apart from poor spelling (which the sub-editor should have caught) he's making up words here - "eletive" is in no part of the Oxford English Dictionary (another autistic trait, Mr. Meade - making up new words?)

I don't doubt there are cultural differences betwen France and England - and as FaustianBargain points out below, the mentoring system in France is something we don't have here. And I don't doubt that the UK requires a diffferent psychological profile to succeed in this country than does France.

I just don't think Meades knows much about it beyond his anachronistic and somewhat bizarrely shallow prejudices.

*BTW - Alistair Little and Rowley Leigh's contributions have been tremendous, but I don't think it was because they had previously gotten themselves an education.

Edited by MobyP (log)

"Gimme a pig's foot, and a bottle of beer..." Bessie Smith

Flickr Food

"111,111,111 x 111,111,111 = 12,345,678,987,654,321" Bruce Frigard 'Winesonoma' - RIP

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"To become a chef in Britain demands a greater self-discipline, a steelier will, a more determined bloody-mindedness, the thickest of skins."

What? Does he honestly purport to know the first fucking thing about working in a French kitchen? Or succeeding in France as a chef? Go speak to Louisa. (From her blog) "my sister Annie tells me that Gordon Ramsay's Boiling Point just started running in the States. She's worried that I get yelled at like that in my kitchen. Not quite - French kitchens are even more extreme."

How does he think French Chefs are formed? Skimming stock with one hand whilst reading Baudelaire with the other?

France has a stronger tradition of mentorship.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"To become a chef in Britain demands a greater self-discipline, a steelier will, a more determined bloody-mindedness, the thickest of skins."

What? Does he honestly purport to know the first fucking thing about working in a French kitchen? Or succeeding in France as a chef? Go speak to Louisa. (From her blog) "my sister Annie tells me that Gordon Ramsay's Boiling Point just started running in the States. She's worried that I get yelled at like that in my kitchen. Not quite - French kitchens are even more extreme."

How does he think French Chefs are formed? Skimming stock with one hand whilst reading Baudelaire with the other?

France has a stronger tradition of mentorship.

France also has a stronger culture, of which gastronomy is but a part.

I realize that Moby's rabid response is the de rigeur liberal reaction, but despite his neologisms, and his apparent lack of research into French kitchen culture Meades does make an important point.

"here exists a parallel strain of (better) cooking practised by enlightened chefs, many of whom can read and write, many of whom are women."

I think Moby's attack is a good example of the problem that Meades identifies, because Moby's attitude implies that Michelin recognition places the chefs in question beyond criticism. However, if one doesn't accept that Michelin is the absolute arbiter of gastronomy then there is no reason why Michelin chefs should not be subjected to scrutiny. The fact that their work is not held up for critical examination, and that they are often embarrassingly lauded is precisely because they are not 'taken seriously', for most people the evaluation of Michelin or Restaurant Magazine is more than a sufficient confirmation of quality. Hardly serious attention.

Meades' 'parallel strain' is important, because it's borne of culinary reflection and not Michelin monomania. The fact that its exponents are educated does not make it good, but the fact that it is conceived with the food in mind rather than as a means of recognition does demand some level of respect. It may be coincidence that that these cooks are educated, although I doubt it. However, I have no doubt at all that Shaun Hill, Sally Clarke et al, have more than enough skills to operate multi-starred establishments, but they choose not to. On the other hand I doubt that 'Macrame Martinets' would fare as well in the parallel world for the simple reason that it does not offer enough opportunities for self-publicity. In other words the problem with the 'parallel strain' is, as Meades suggests, that it is excessively food-focussed.

Edited by Dirk Wheelan (log)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The pleasures of ostentatiousness have nothing to do with it - as I doubt there's little which is actually pleasurable. The effect of ostentatiousness however is like the effect of publicity - bums on seats. In this Ramsay is the master. Wareing has occasionally dabbled (under the master's eye). But Blumenthal?

As to the article, with the exception of the first sentence, I haven't read such invidious, tendentious bullshit in years. Half of the first page is indistinguishable babble, the likes of which I haven't heard since I visited my great-gran in a home. (""Football is democratised, so should we look forward to commentators who believe that roasting is a method of cooking?" I mean what is he talking about? Football is democratised? No it isn't. "Roasting is a method of cooking" - erm - what am I missing here?  Or are we mixing our metaphors along with our lithium?)

He then descends into sort of post-colonial pre-modern blather, bemoaning the loss the educated Elizabeth David-reading amateur. Of course, this is someone who's used to the Rowley Leigh/Alistair Little paradigm - just popped down from punting along the fucking river Cam to open a restaurant where you can find real duck confit like what those illiterate non-punting froggy peasants make - none of your bourgeois Nouvelle mousse-pounding rubbish (although that too, if your Rowley)! This is authentic!* I mean who is this idiot writing for? The fact that he discriminates between the four chefs in the book based on who's had an education (no offence Shaun, but I wouldn't want Meades in your corner), is mind boggling.

"To become a chef in Britain demands a greater self-discipline, a steelier will, a more determined bloody-mindedness, the thickest of skins."

What? Does he honestly purport to know the first fucking thing about working in a French kitchen? Or succeeding in France as a chef? Go speak to Louisa. (From her blog) "my sister Annie tells me that Gordon Ramsay's Boiling Point just started running in the States. She's worried that I get yelled at like that in my kitchen. Not quite - French kitchens are even more extreme."

How does he think French Chefs are formed? Skimming stock with one hand whilst reading Baudelaire with the other? Or read 'The Perfectionist' - kids placed in kitchens as teenagers, and forced to shovel coal for the beginning of their apprenticeships. Educational drop-outs, misfits, homeless kids, or (just as likely) a tradesman's kid taking over daddy's little Auberge and, several years and much back-breaking work later (voila!), turning it into a success.

"One is reminded (Oh, is one?) of sportspeople whose devotion to one pusuit (sic) at the expense of all others renders them inarticulate... insouciant - as though the price of success has been a sort of eletive autism." (For one's information, apart from poor spelling (which the sub-editor should have caught) he's making up words here - "eletive" is in no part of the Oxford English Dictionary (another autistic trait, Mr. Meade - making up new words?)

I don't doubt there are cultural differences betwen France and England - and as FaustianBargain points out below, the mentoring system in France is something we don't have here. And I don't doubt that the UK requires a diffferent psychological profile to succeed in this country than does France.

I just don't think Meades knows much about it beyond his anachronistic and somewhat bizarrely shallow prejudices.

*BTW - Alistair Little and Rowley Leigh's contributions have been tremendous, but I don't think it was because they had previously gotten themselves an education.

I'm with you Moby. Jonathan Meades is, and can be, a great writer, but since stepping back from the gig he has made like some whore whose suddenly become shocked by all the shagging going on in the brothel. This, remember was the guy who, more than any other critic, secured Marco's reputation. To rant now about the filthy celebrity business and to point to France as some eden, when top chefs there aren't made men unless they've got the legion d'honour, is simply bizzare.

As to the book, yes the Sean Hill section is the best, probably because it is the least familliar but I defy anyone who bothers to waste as much time as we all do posting here not to be intrigued by it. Tough Cookies is a very good read.

Jay

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"To become a chef in Britain demands a greater self-discipline, a steelier will, a more determined bloody-mindedness, the thickest of skins."

What? Does he honestly purport to know the first fucking thing about working in a French kitchen? Or succeeding in France as a chef? Go speak to Louisa. (From her blog) "my sister Annie tells me that Gordon Ramsay's Boiling Point just started running in the States. She's worried that I get yelled at like that in my kitchen. Not quite - French kitchens are even more extreme."

How does he think French Chefs are formed? Skimming stock with one hand whilst reading Baudelaire with the other?

France has a stronger tradition of mentorship.

France also has a stronger culture, of which gastronomy is but a part.

I realize that Moby's rabid response is the de rigeur liberal reaction, but despite his neologisms, and his apparent lack of research into French kitchen culture Meades does make an important point.

C'mon Dirk. If I was implying what you inferred, the accusation would at least be of a "de rigeur reactionary" - erm - reaction. It would be Meades' 'dual strain' all cuisines are subjectively equal that would be de rigeur liberal.

But I wasn't. So it wasn't. So I'm not. But he still is.

A plate of hand rolled tagliolini in Parma, or a dish of Langoustines in L'Ambroisie - I'm an equal opportunities food snob. I don't care about stars. It - the food - just has to be fantastic. The point is that Meades' sweeping discrediting of a whole movement of French cuisine based on their choice of accreditation is an act of bigotry. His cultural and educational dismissal of a generation of chefs (having dismissed said accreditation) is an act of chauvenism.

"Gimme a pig's foot, and a bottle of beer..." Bessie Smith

Flickr Food

"111,111,111 x 111,111,111 = 12,345,678,987,654,321" Bruce Frigard 'Winesonoma' - RIP

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm an equal opportunities food snob. I don't care about stars. It - the food - just has to be fantastic.  The point is that Meades' sweeping discrediting of a whole movement of French cuisine based on their choice of accreditation is an act of bigotry. His cultural and educational dismissal of a generation of chefs (having dismissed said accreditation) is an act of chauvenism.

You may claim to be unswayed by Michelin stars, but I doubt you'd claim that that was a common trait in the gastronomic milieu. Indeed, professionals who do opt out of Michelin criteria, also opt out of receiving anything but the most perfunctory recognition in other media.

Anyway, Meades disagrees with you and is saying that British Michelin food isn't fantastic. However, he is implying that it should be and is trying to identify a reason why it isn't.

I suspect that what your unnecessary name-calling comes down to in the end is that Meades is challenging your tastes and values, but instead of just trying to undermine Meades' person, why don't you try to argue the contrary. Then perhaps we could have an interesting discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm with you Moby. Jonathan Meades is, and can be, a great writer, but since stepping back from the gig he has made like some whore whose suddenly become shocked by all the shagging going on in the brothel. This, remember was the guy who, more than any other critic, secured Marco's reputation. To rant now about the filthy celebrity business and to point to France as some eden, when top chefs there aren't made men unless they've got the legion d'honour, is simply bizzare.

To be fair, back when Meades was writing his Times column he was clearly anti-Michelin, anti-celebrity chefs and pro-artisan/peasant and French cooking, as evidenced by his choice of La Tupina as his "desert island" restaurant. That's not to say he didn't rate Pierre-White, Ramsay or Gary Rhodes - they got good reviews, but with emphasis on their ability, not their celebrity status. Indeed, his review of one Rhodes establishment began with a good half page decrying the focus on celebrity above ability.

PS

Edinburgh

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I definitely got out of the wrong side of bed this morning. Must've stepped on a thumb tack before slipping on a banana peel, drinking a glass of sour milk, all before switching on my computer and reading Mr Meades.

I rarely engage in unnecessarry name calling. Is it that he's "challenging my tastes and values?" No, I can't think that he's engaged any of them. It's that he's using a very tall pedastal to discredit that which he so clearly knows little about ("all 1, 2, or 3 star michelin cooking is X while my preference is Y").

Let me clariffy what I said about stars. I am not entirely blind or deaf to their value, but I know from experience that it doesn't come close to guaranteeing me a quality of food. Equally, I've seen brilliant street theatre by a Polish troup on stilts, and stunning productions in the West End - but is all Street Theatre brilliant, and does that discredit West End productions? No - of course not. And anyone who says so deserves to get roundly slapped for saying it - especially if they're a former theatre critic. If you want to make the argument about politics (and you could with theatre or food), then make it about politics - instead of obscuring it behind a slipshod veil of aesthetic criticism negating one as devoid of value, and the other as somehow worthy.

Edited by MobyP (log)

"Gimme a pig's foot, and a bottle of beer..." Bessie Smith

Flickr Food

"111,111,111 x 111,111,111 = 12,345,678,987,654,321" Bruce Frigard 'Winesonoma' - RIP

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As to the book, yes the Sean Hill section is the best

It wouldn't usually point out spelling errors, but in this case I'm going to make an exception because it's one that I've spotted before on these boards and it just bugs the crap out of me : its Shaun. Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I definitely got out of the wrong side of bed this morning. Must've stepped on a thumb tack before slipping on a banana peel, drinking a glass of sour milk, all before switching on my computer and reading Mr Meades.

I rarely engage in unnecessarry name calling. Is it that he's "challenging my tastes and values?" No, I can't think that he's engaged any of them.  It's that he's using a very tall pedastal to discredit that which he so clearly knows little about ("all 1, 2, or 3 star michelin cooking is X while my preference is Y").

Let me clariffy what I said about stars. I am not entirely blind or deaf to their value, but I know from experience that it doesn't come close to guaranteeing me a quality of food. Equally, I've seen brilliant street theatre by a Polish troup on stilts, and stunning productions in the West End - but is all Street Theatre brilliant, and does that discredit West End productions? No - of course not. And anyone who says so deserves to get roundly slapped for saying it - especially if they're a former theatre critic. If you want to make the argument about politics (and you could with theatre or food), then make it about politics - instead of obscuring it behind a slipshod veil of aesthetic criticism negating one as devoid of value, and the other as somehow worthy.

Meades seems to perceive a problem in that he sees the spotlight of culinary fame pointed on the noisiest members of the troupe rather than the most talented, and he doesn't believe that noise will ever equate with talent.

However, I agree with you that Meades' analysis is potentially political, but why shouldn't it be? And anyway, (if you and I can recognize it such) I don't think his intention is to obscure this trait.

Meades notes that between (university) educated chefs and their less academic colleagues, there is a difference in approach characterized by restraint in the former, and showboating in the latter.

Now, if we were talking about literary criticism it would hardly be controversial to suggest that level of education results in a difference of approach or style.

So what's the problem here?

The problem is that Meades prefers the approach of the educated chefs.

I don't agree though, as you seem to be suggesting, that he prefers their approach because they are university educated, but that he is struck that in the UK the approach he likes seems to be exclusively deployed by a handful of modest graduates.

Seems like quite an interesting observation to me, and one that I'm increasingly sympathetic to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now, if we were talking about literary criticism it would hardly be controversial to suggest that level of education results in a difference of approach or style.

It would certainly be controversial in the case of playwrights who had been trained in writing for theatre - the only successful one of whom I could mention (who also roundly and publicly rejected the education) was Sarah Cane. But her writing could hardly be called Literary (capital L). Playwrights who were trained in something else entirely and decided to become playwrights - well, that's the norm. But until recently, there was even less mentoring in this country for writing than there has been for cooking.

I don't suggest that Meades prefers their approach because they were at university (was he actually at school with Rowley Leigh? I'm told they are friends). I'll take him at his word - a plate of good food is just that.

Though it seems hardly a coincidence that they were the ones doing the cooking and creating the dining scene when Meades was making a name for himself, and so played a part in creating what he would come to think of as a successful restaurant. A successful cuisine. But the terms by which he discriminates between those he approves of and those he doesn't seems to have something of a social and cultural tinge to it which I find a little distasteful. He just happens to like the cuisine which just happens to come from university graduates. He just happens to disapprove of those successful chefs who just happen to be working or lower-middle class. You know, it just doesn't add up to much past the obvious. If there are finer subtleties to his argument, he buried them beneath this parade of disapproval.

There may be a serious argument to be had over the food on the plate, but you'd never know it by reading him.

"Gimme a pig's foot, and a bottle of beer..." Bessie Smith

Flickr Food

"111,111,111 x 111,111,111 = 12,345,678,987,654,321" Bruce Frigard 'Winesonoma' - RIP

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm too fucking tired, having been in the kitchen for sixteen hours today, to make much of a journey into the land of elucidative language and cultural sensitivities.

The article, to me, is the inane ranting of a self-satisfied humbug.

I have two degrees, was an army officer, and could have made my way to one extent or another in a few walks of life.

None of this makes the slightest fucking difference to whether I can cook.

Moby, you know I'm no sycophant, so you'll take me at face value when I say you're pretty much spot-on with what you've said.

In Britain, for the greater part, most chefs in the industry, and I'm talking about rank-and-file infantry here, have no greater enthusiasm for their craft than an electrician or a plumber. That will not change until catering gains a wider acceptance in the general community as a worthwhile career.

To borrow another martial phrase, there is certainly no field marshal's baton at the bottom of every private soldier's pack - those who attain the heights do so pretty much regardless of nationality or upbringing. There are idle kitchens and disciplined kitchens in France as well as in Britain.

Allan Brown

"If you're a chef on a salary, there's usually a very good reason. Never, ever, work out your hourly rate."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well, having not read the article but missing meades reviews in general I just thought I'd add my pennyworth. Meades is a romanticist, and has always fallen for the notion of cooking as a craft that is acquired and honed. Thus he always likes the idea of the French family restaurant, where nobody is formally educated and recipes are handed down from generation to generation. He is a classicist, rather than a modernist, and all you really need to know is that among his favourite cuisines is the traditional Roman cuisine. The problem that he faces with English food is that there is very little evidence of the traditional English family restaurant. The distinction between educated and non-educated chefs is, I suspect (having not read the book) simply an attempt to bring the concept of "tradition" into an analysis of British food, with educated chefs being contrasted with the star-hunters.

And for the star-hunters, the tradition that has been adopted (which is an interesting concept in itself, as usually chefs arise out of traditions, rather than adopting them) is the stereotypical Michelin tradition. We all recognise it: a resolutely refined yet anti-regional and anti-seasonal menu. The whole menu often framed months in advance and unaltered for the season. The Ramsay boxing day dish of a cherry tomato soup that was mentioned on this thread summed it up perfectly.

And I do think there is an issue here. I would far sooner eat at St John or the Anchor & Hope than GR. But they are no less mannered or stylised or un-traditional than GR. I suspect that, as soon as you cease to be a rural, regional culture, food inevitably becomes parenthesised, as the dish you cook becomes the manifestation of a choice made from a global marketplace rather than an expression of your terroir.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have two degrees, was an army officer, and could have made my way to one extent or another in a few walks of life. 

None of this makes the slightest fucking difference to whether I can cook.

Yes, but having learned to cook, it might make a difference to what you would cook if had your own kitchen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, but having learned to cook, it might make a difference to what you would cook if had your own kitchen.

Compo ration stew, anyone?

Let me understand you here - the leaders are, or should be educated, the led are uneducated?

Allan Brown

"If you're a chef on a salary, there's usually a very good reason. Never, ever, work out your hourly rate."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Meades always was a pompous wanker. His restaurant reviews were opaque. I'd read them, re-read them, ponder one or two of the jokes, sigh, and wonder what the restaurant was like. His replacement, Giles Coren, is loads better, IMO.

*BTW - Alistair Little and Rowley Leigh's contributions have been tremendous, but I don't think it was because they had previously gotten themselves an education.

FYI, Moby: although they're old mates, there's a clear difference between Alastair Little's and Rowley Leigh's culinary education. Alastair, who has a degree in Anthropology from Cambridge, taught himself to cook, taking Michel Guerard's 'Cuisine Gourmand' as his key text. Rowley, who didn't complete his English degree, was thoroughly trained by the Roux Bros via a trad. apprenticeship.

What this means is that Mr Leigh's mastery of basic techniques is impeccable while Mr Little has made a virtue of the imperative, 'Faites simple'! Perhaps more pertinent, even, is the respective chefs' ability to run a big kitchen. Alastair's basically a one-man band, who failed at L'Escargot and subsequently made his name at 192, working alone. Whereas Rowley = Kensington Place. And the FT, too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So on what basis do you maintain that having two degrees and having been an army officer would affect the food I would cook in my own kitchen?

Do you believe an 'outside' education is an unalloyed blessing in a kitchen?

Allan Brown

"If you're a chef on a salary, there's usually a very good reason. Never, ever, work out your hourly rate."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So on what basis do you maintain that having two degrees and having been an army officer would affect the food I would cook in my own kitchen?

Do you believe an 'outside' education is an unalloyed blessing in a kitchen?

Well, at the simplest level, on the one hand you have demonstrated and developed a certain cognitive ability, and on the other hand, as you point out in your bio, you have chosen cooking rather than cooking having chosen you.

A trained mind and impressive commitment must signify an unusually high probability that you are genuinely food orientated and would eventually cook better than someone without this profile.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, at the simplest level, on the one hand you have demonstrated and developed a certain cognitive ability, and on the other hand, as you point out in your bio, you have chosen cooking rather than cooking having chosen you.

The cognitive ability is there regardless of the 'education'; whether it's much of an advantage to have an outside education, at least in the early to middle stages of a culinary career, is a debatable point. You need a lot of character, or a bloody thick skin, to be the only cook in a kitchen with tertiary education.

A trained mind and impressive commitment must signify an unusually high probability that you are genuinely food orientated and would eventually cook better than someone without this profile.

Either that or I eventually murder the people I have worked with in the past.

I see your point, I genuinely do; I just don't agree that there's an automatic connection between education and culinary ability (certainly to the degree that Meades maintains).

Allan Brown

"If you're a chef on a salary, there's usually a very good reason. Never, ever, work out your hourly rate."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...