Leslie Brenner's new book

[Bux]

The decision was made in mid September. The week they closed, there was very little restaurant business anywhere in the city and the kitchen was being used to prepare food for the rescue workers. Just before the attack it was almost always possible to get a lunch reservation at almost the last minute on a weekday. The economy was already a bit off and the restaurant is just out of the office district, but it got a lot of serious food oriented tourists. As most of the high end restaurants suffered after 9/11, and tourism was down for a while, I suspect that, everything considered, they decided to reopen only for dinner. Daniel has Cafe Boulud near by for "ladies who lunch" and others who want a fine afternoon meal and db bistro in midtown also offers lunch. I really don't have much inside information other than that it was a reasonable economic decision at the time. I really have no idea how Daniel determines whether or not there's enough of a call for lunch. The few dinners we've had this year have always been at a full restaurant.

[Lady T]

Wow.  Interesting!

I've put a reminder in my calendar for June 10th: I've got to get my mitts on this book.  Clearly I need to see the straight text from the volume, then I need to reread this review.

[Steve Klc]

My thinking exactly, Lady T!

[stefanyb]

If anyone missed it, Thomas McNamee reviewed Leslie's book in the NYTimes Book Review, Sunday, June 23rd. He was rather unkind about her abilities and writing style but ended by saying he couldn't put it down literally if not figuratively. I think it will sell a lot of books but may not be so helpful to Daniel.Review This link will only be available for a week or so.

[Steve Klc]

Not that Daniel needs any help.

My favorite passage of the review was:

"Questionable assumptions abound: ''At the end of the 20th century . . . traditional fine arts -- painting, photography, sculpture, music, theater, dance and literature -- had become lackluster and static''; ''The chef as a creative talent was a relatively new idea.'' Mixed metaphors fly in close formation: ''The slice of mankind that is lucky enough to dine at Daniel is certainly recharged by Boulud's exalted contribution.''

But you know what? I couldn't put this crummy book down. There's a certain affinity group that simply can't resist a book like this, and I must admit, though not without shame, that I'm part of it."

I'm in that affinity group as well.

[Bux]

NB: I'm speaking only to the Times review and what's been posted here and not to the quality of the writing.

I suspect Klc is correct about Daniel not needing any help, but I'm curious about what appeared in the Times review that would indicate the book wouldn't help him. I agree about the green dye. It was one of the things I always had to sweep under the rug of my mind. It remains the only intolerable thing about the cooking for me. Well, alomst intolerable--I'd still eat the soup. Maitre d'hotel Bruno Jamais (and of course you always thought "Never" was the name of the guy who wouldn't give you the reservation anyway) seems to be the only one who's criticised from a public viewpoint, but he's at ADNY now as far as I know.

I was interested in seeing the comparison to Bourdain's Kitchen Confidential in the review because I always felt the book was seen as a blanket picture of all restaurant kitchens and my impression was that what appears in Kitchen Confidential is in no way reflective of life in a top French haute cuisine restaurant whether in France or NYC. As Leslie Brenner seems to have set the record straight, I would find her book worthwhile on that score alone.

Although neither my daughter or son-in-law currently work in the Daniel Kitchen, as mentioned earlier, both did at some time when Ms. Brenner was writing her book. This, and the fact that I set up Daniel's web site, gave me some access to the kitchens at various times. Cooks may have found life politically incorrect and discipline somewhat to the right of military discipline, but it was patterned after the traditional French kitchens. If nothing else, the cleanliness was as obsessive as the quest for culinary perfection and the cooks were as professional in their work as anyone one else you'd likely be doing business with during the day.

[Steve Klc]

Bux--a bit about the dye. Step back a bit--why be concerned about a natural product added to improve the visual appearance, and hence the diner's ultimate satisfaction, as it is brought to the table and set in front of him?

Are you concerned about a pastry chef adding a microscopic percentage by weight of a natural stabilizer--like guar gum, carob, whatever--to a sorbet mixture so it doesn't form ice crystals so readily--and so when the diner bites into it he is not disappointed?

I confess I add a half drop of a food safe blue dye to my pistachio creme brulee to give it a visually-appealing green tint. The flavor is what is important. But if you have that covered and improve the color of something to meet diner's expectations and so you don't prompt an initial negative visual perception of the diner, what's really so bad?

It's exhibiting total care for the diner.

I'd hope you'd still consider eating my pistachio creme brulee.

[stefanyb]

I suspect Klc is correct about Daniel not needing any help, but I'm curious about what appeared in the Times review that would indicate the book wouldn't help him.

Robert,

There is the green dye, of course. Heh, heh.

I suspect that many more people will read the review than will read the book. Based on the review alone, a person may come to a different and more negative conclusion than someone who has a broader and more varied experience with Daniel, and/or who reads the book in its entirety.

What I wrote was that the REVIEW would help sell books but may not help sell Daniel which is very different than saying the BOOK wouldn't help Daniel (whether he needs help or not).

With respect to the matter of Bruno Jamais, even if he is no longer working at Daniel, when a patron telephones for a reservation and is told, not in so many words, that he cannot get a table in prime time because someone is getiing paid off, I submit that he will be somewhat less enthusiastic about calling in the future (you can include me in that assumption). Eventually, that will take its toll.

Calling the regular folk who would like a reservation, schmucks, is not very good public relations, I would say.

I've said this before on these boards. Someone should research the correlation between palming and longevity. Anyone who reads the review but not the book would be unable to flesh out their impression of Daniel much beyond these criticisms.

[Bux]

The relationship between an inability to get an reservation and not eating at a restaurant is a direct one.

I've long come to the conclusion that prime time reservations are rarely given to non-regulars at the most exclusive restaurants in town, whether or not they grease palms. As the Times article makes clear, restaurants are dependent on a regular clientele to such a degree that they must bend over backwards to please anyone they recognize as a regular. Shaw in other threads has noted that the best way to improve your meals is to make yourself known to the staff, to make yourself appear to be a regular, or a potential regular. A first time caller will rarely get a table at eight o'clock at a top restaurant on a Saturday night, except in August. The problem is more complex than just the fact that regulars (or big tippers) are getting first crack at the tables. Most tables may not have an eight o'clock reservation as restaurants expect to reuse that table and may only offer 6:00 or 9:00 reservations at many tables. But I did mention the maitre d' problem as being critical from a public perspective. I just don't think that and the green dye are enough of a problem together to override the rest of the seemingly positive points. The Times review indicates that those looking for the dirt they expect to find will be disappointed. Those who now eat there are not likely to be put off. Those who never thought of eating there will probably not read the book. That leaves those who are thinking about Daniel or just getting the interest or money to dine at plush restaurants.

[Bux]

Bux--a bit about the dye.  Step back a bit--why be concerned about a natural product added to improve the visual appearance, and hence the diner's ultimate satisfaction, as it is brought to the table and set in front of him?

Define "natural."

Are you concerned about a pastry chef adding a microscopic percentage by weight of a natural stabilizer--like guar gum, carob, whatever

I don't know about whatever, but guar gum, for intstance, is a natual fiber. Normally in commercial products, I find gum stabilizers produce a less satisfactory mouth feel in ice creams and sorbets, but no, I'm not particularly concerned. I'm also more inclined to understand the addition of a substance that improves the flavor, or texture, than I am for one that improves the color.

I confess I add a half drop of a food safe blue dye to my pistachio creme brulee to give it a visually-appealing green tint.  The flavor is what is important.  But if you have that covered and improve the color of something to meet diner's expectations and so you don't prompt an initial negative visual perception of the diner, what's really so bad?

Bad? I didn't say bad, I just implied my expectations were different.

It's exhibiting total care for the diner.

Assuming their expectations.

I'd hope you'd still consider eating my pistachio creme brulee.

I'll happily consider eating your pistachio creme brulee. I assume you'll give me the chance to sample it both with, and without, food coloring.

May I suggest a blind tasting?

In truth, I often avoid foods I find surreal looking. Thus I will blindly order and enjoy a pistachio dessert no matter what color arrives, but I find that if I see it first, I will not order it if it's "green."

[hollywood]

Like the story of Bill Blass getting the three tier VIP hors d'ouvres. Do you think the writer takes the time to ask Blass he appreciates it on a gastronomic level? I would bet not. If you write that he gets it, but do not ferret out the facts, the reader is left with the implication that he got it because he is important, not because he can appreciate it. For all we know, Blass is one of the greatest gourmands living.

With regard to the three tiered canape tray served to Bill Blass, rest assured he is no longer one of the greatest gourmands living. He has passed on to the great runway show in the sky. No insight as to whether the tray hastened his demise or made it more pleasurable. A little tough to ferret out the facts at this point.

[bourdain]

How many times have we heard these words from Bux?

" just read the review..and haven't read the book(sub name of restaurant here)...but it certainly sounds like " followed by graph after graph of turgid prose staking a position based on admittedly nothing. Bux, to his credit, is possessed of a unique gift: he doesn't have to read it, taste it or understand it..he can SMELL what he don't like from miles away, no reason to encounter the thing itself. Maybe--just maybe--before next giving in to the urge to pontificate (and at such length!) on the "probable" merits of a book, Bux should actually read the fucking thing.

[hollywood]

Maybe--just maybe--before next giving in to the urge to pontificate (and at such length!) on the "probable" merits of a book, Bux should actually read the fucking thing.

Damn. And I thought you were a fun guy.

[Junior]

Hello there. I noticed the thread today as I trolled around the site looking for interesting things to read. I recently bought the book in question and found it to be well written and informative. I work in a kitchen and would an oppurtunity to work in a kitchen like Daniel's and it's always nice to read about great chefs and their restaurants and how they run. I am wondering if any of the other members who particapated(sp?) in this thread have finally read the book ? and what would their comments be on it ?

[rdailey]

I'm no litarary critic, but I recently finished The Fourth Star and thoroughly enjoyed such an amazing account of what went goes on backstage at a restaurant of that caliber. At times, I felt that the description of the action was a bit repetitive. There is a lot of chef-lingo quoted("Fire three halibuts, two beef and a veal. Where's the pumpkin soup?"), but then I realized from what Bourdain wrote in KC and what Brenner writes here, that kitchen work is very repetitive and to do it with such high quality as Boulud does is incredible. I think that is well presented. I applaud both authors for such, seemingly, honest insight to a world I will never get to experience. The Fourth Star was a great vicarious rush!

[Jonathan Day]

I did read The Fourth Star, cover to cover, but found it disappointing.

Other posters and the New York Times reviewer have commented on the wandering, repetitive story, the characters who appear out of nowhere and then vanish again, only to reappear many pages later, the weak writing. I want to focus these notes on something else.

What bothered me was that I finished the book without gaining any strong sense of who Daniel Boulud was or what he stood for. Yes, he is a talented, energetic, entrepreneurial chef and businessman, with a strong regard for quality. But what has shaped his personality? What kind of person is he? How does he relate to his family? None of these came through.

In contrast, Anthony Bourdain's neatly drawn sketch of Scott Bryan in Kitchen Confidential conveys some idea of Bryan's motivation and personality. Michael Ruhlman's lyrical chapters on Thomas Keller in The Soul of a Chef left me feeling that I had learned something, not just about a great restaurant, but about the man who brought it into existence.

Most of the characterisations in The Fourth Star were rather thin, rather like those airport novels that drone on and on about the clothes the characters wear and the cars they drive but offer little about the people themselves.

Annoyingly, one of the few characters that did come to life -- a bit -- was Bruno Jamais, the grasping, nasty maitre d'hôtel. And I found myself wondering why Boulud didn't sack him on the spot. Of course there was no explanation. Is Boulud fiercely loyal to his staff no matter what they do? Did he think that this sort of behaviour was good for the restaurant? We aren't told. Did he see the loss of the fourth star as a matter of personal crisis or drama? We can only guess.

I would have liked to learn a bit more about Leslie Brenner herself. What motivates her? Why, other than the fact that he lost a New York Times star, did she decide to write about Daniel Boulud?

The book and Leslie Brenner's posting in this forum suggest that she was trying to stay in the background. "The reader, I felt, would be much more interested in seeing and hearing what was going on in the kitchen, the dining room, or the reservations office than he or she would be in hearing about my role in the story."

Late in the book, she prepares to interview William Grimes, the Times critic: "I must step out of the role I have embraced ...the role of the proverbial fly on the wall...I must now emerge as a character in my own tale." Is the real Leslie Brenner about to stand up? Unfortunately not. We hear a lot from Grimes, with a few thin interpretations from Brenner. The fly on the wall is still a fly.

Ruhlman (The Soul of a Chef) offered just enough of his own thinking and motivation to bring his narrative to life. It's not that I wanted to learn more about Michael Ruhlman than about Thomas Keller or the other chefs, but the personal disclosure helped clarify his point of view, his interpretation of what was going on. Likewise Bourdain's description of Veritas and Scott Byran was richer because the author shared so much of his own world with the reader.

To be sure, Leslie Brenner didn't offer much interpretation, and some of what she presented struck me as truly vapid (e.g. the Kirkus-lauded "disquisition" about the decline of American culture) so you could argue that it was just as well that she didn't reveal herself in the book. But I found it less satisfying as a result.

[mamster]

I'm about 2/3 of the way through, and I agree with you, JD, about Bruno Jamais: he's the only interesting character, and not just because the villain is always interesting.

Has everyone here read Ruhlman's Soul of a Chef? Ruhlman understood going in (because he's experienced) that just because restaurant work is repetitive and done by a succession of hard-luck characters, there is no excuse for a book to be repetitive or without character. Two-thirds of the way through The Fourth Star, I know (by job title, at least) who Daniel Boulud is, who Alex Lee is, and who Bruno Jamais is, and I don't remember anyone else who works in the restaurant.

Oh, hey, one other thing. I haven't hung out in a lot of kitchens, but wherever I have, the staff is constantly joking with each other, making rude remarks that would be shocking in other contexts but help keep the work interesting. Does this never happen in Daniel's kitchen, or did the author just not want to show it? (I remember one bit where staff are accused of hanging around holding each other's penises, and I don't suspect it was the only time Brenner heard this kind of joke. If that's the case, it shouldn't be the only time we hear it, either.)

Don't get me wrong--I'll finish the book, and I enjoy even second-rate descriptions of restaurant kitchens as much as I enjoy second-rate kickboxing.

[Fat Guy]

Bourdain, did you see the film Metropolitan, by Whit Stillman? It's about preppies, like you (just kidding). Anyway, one of the more uproarious exchanges:

Tom: You don't have to have read a book to have an opinion on it. I haven't read the Bible either.

Audrey: What Jane Austen novels have you read?

Tom: None. I don't read novels. I prefer good literary criticism. That way you get both the novelist's ideas as well as the critic's thinking. With fiction, I can never forget that none of it really happened, that it's all just made up by the author.

[hollywood]

With fiction, I can never forget that none of it really happened, that it's all just made up by the author.

It's a good movie and that's an entertaining exchange. But Leslie Brenner's book is presumably nonfiction.

[helenas]

ok, i'm in the middle of the book, but i can't read it anymore. i won't bother you with my review, since whatever i was planning to say, has already beed said by mamster.

Maybe, Ruhlman spoiled us? His is a great book.

[porkpa]

One of the interesting anecdotes in the book caught my attention. It seems that a customer came into Daniel requesting steak house fare including a baked potato.

The chef on duty instructed that the potato be wrapped in foil and placed in the oven. I thought that one should NEVER bake a potato wrapped in foil. The main reason being that resulting product is not a baked potato but rather a steamed one.

I realize that there are many restaurants(most of them of the diner variety)that do prepare so called baked potatoes in this manner. Not only are they not really baked potatoes, but also they usually taste terrible - far worse than a potato baked only in its own skin.

Porkpa.

[Ron Johnson]

Bourdain, did you see the film Metropolitan, by Whit Stillman? It's about preppies, like you (just kidding). Anyway, one of the more uproarious exchanges:

Tom: You don't have to have read a book to have an opinion on it. I haven't read the Bible either.

Audrey: What Jane Austen novels have you read?

Tom: None. I don't read novels. I prefer good literary criticism. That way you get both the novelist's ideas as well as the critic's thinking. With fiction, I can never forget that none of it really happened, that it's all just made up by the author.

I liked Barcelona a helluva lot also.