Leslie Brenner's new book

[Bruce Cole]

Leslie Brenner’s new book The Fourth Star– Dispatches from Inside Daniel Boulud’s Celebrated New York Restaurant, chronicles her year spent behind the scenes at one of the most celebrated restaurants in the U.S. Imagine, the foie gras, the caviar, the gossip! Brenner was given unprecedented access to the entire restaurant operation, from the back of the house to the front, even to the codes used to mark VIP’s (secretly known as PX’s) on the reservation list.

On June 2, 1999, to the collective gasp of most every “gastronome” in New York City, William Grimes, the newly appointed restaurant critic for the NY Times, bestowed the six-month-old restaurant DANIEL with 3 stars – not 4. The pop heard round the dining establishment in the city that day was not that of chilled champagne being uncorked, but of the collective balloon being burst. From Grimes review: “Mr. Boulud has painted himself into a corner, of course…By now…diners expect nonstop fireworks when he gets within fifty feet of a stove…” Brenner’s timing couldn’t have been better. The chance to observe a chef and his restaurant running on all cylinders, gunning for a 4th star, makes for fascinating insider reading. Boulud, however, is portrayed as being somewhat ambiguous in his quest. “Boulud’s public nonchalance about receiving only three stars from the Times is quite convincing…(he) doesn’t concede frustration, even when pressed. He’s too savvy, and too much of a class act to indulge in bellyaching or complaining.”

The complete review, which is too long to post here, can be found on SauteWednesday.

[Liza]

Many thanks for the link to SauteWednesday and the excerpt of the review. I'll add that book to my birthday wish list!

[Bux]

I just read the review mentioned and have not read the book. From what I read on the sautewednesday.com page, it certainly sounds as if the book is sensationalism and meant to appeal most to those who don't eat at Daniel. I don't know if that's Ms. Brenner's fault or the reviewer's. I am close to Daniel Boulud, have designed his web site and have relationships with several people who have worked in his kitchens and office. Consequently that makes anything I have to say a bit suspect, but indulge me.

Boulud, however, is portrayed as being somewhat ambiguous in his quest. “Boulud’s public nonchalance about receiving only three stars from the Times is quite convincing…(

I wonder if it's amibiguity or the fact that most people in dining/restaurant world thought it was the review that needed improvement and not the food. Grimes panned quite a few things, but when he returned in rather short time to acknowledge four stars in a subsequent review, he managed to avoid mentioning the fact that the dish he panned the most, stayed on the menu unchanged. Fortunately there were more than enough New Yorkers with tastes far more discerning than Grimes to keep the tables filled. Daniel Boulud's first responsibility was to the tastes of his discriminating clientele and not to the pursuit of four stars from a novice food critic.

Readers are immediately thrown into the fray. Or “in the shit” as it is known in Boulud’s kitchen when things rapidly spiral out of control under the press of the evening service.

There's an implication here that the expression "in the shit" is somehow unique to Boulud’s kitchen, when, in fact, it's an industry term for whenever a kitchen or a cook is overworked. It's the normal working condition of all top haute cuisine kitchens. More over, although I've seen only a few other kitchens in the middle of service, most seemed less calm than the one at Daniel. I think it implies some naivety to describe the kitchen as out of control, but I suspect it plays well to the crowd.

We hear their culinary journeys, their dislike of the French contingent that works at Daniel (“they’re lazy”), and we get the dirt, on almost everyone.

Who hasn't worked in an office where there's not some bitching going on behind co-worker's backs. I wonder who "they" are and who the "French contingent" was as I knew a few of the French sous-chefs at that time. I mean the French contingency has always been a large part of the kitchen. My understanding is that the Americans curse the French in English, the French curse the American's in French and the Central Americans curse them both in Spanish. If you speak all three languages, "they" are less likely to talk about you behind your back.

Even Mr. Boulud whose singular pursuit of perfection at the expense of his family life is called into question.

Surprise. Has anyone ever talked to a chef's wife who hasn't had to understand the demanding nature of the job and the hours required? Here we have one of the top restaurants open for lunch and dinner in a market that espects to find the chef in the restaurant at all meals and a chef with  obligations that often call for him to do charity events in Asia, South America and the like and it's news that his family life suffers. What's worth reporting maybe is that he and his wife can joke about it--assuming they can. I'm not privy to their private life.

But this is what rings least true to me.

most of the cooks on staff while she was writing this book are probably gone, having got the “DANIEL” notch on their culinary belts, and moved onto other cooking gigs.

In fact, it’s shockingly apparent when reading THE FOURTH STAR that the food coming out of the kitchen has been assembled by a less-than inspired cadre of kitchen corps, given the constant turnover of staff. “There’s been so much turnover in the kitchen lately that it’s hard for Boulud to keep track of who’s where…”

Is it not common knowledge that the very best restaurant kitchens serve as the training grounds for future chefs and that turnover is high in all of them almost by design? In France that's how chefs were taught and in this country it's at least the equivalent of graduate school. If Boulud has faults, one of them might be his reluctance to let good help go. Most chefs of his caliber expect a turnover at certain levels and tend to push cooks out the door for their own good. Daniel's executive chef has been with the restaurant since it first opened and the current executive sous chef with greatest seniority has been with Boulud in several categories from line cook, to executive chef of his catering divison to his present position since he was hired away from Georges Blanc in Vonnas when the first Daniel opened. I've also seen signs that Boulud knows exactly who's who in his kitchen and what they're doing after they leave, even when the party in question believed he never noticed.

I don't know about the intimidation factor. I'm easily imtimidated, but long before I got to make friends in the restaurant, I don't recall being intimidated. Of course the earlier and smaller restaurant was more intimate and perhaps less intimidating.

[Andy Lynes]

For those in the UK interested in this book, it will be available via amazon.co.uk (I just checked, £15.00).

[Jinmyo]

I believe Boulud encourages longevity by sponsoring stages in France for long-term employees (three years).

Bux, I agree the book seems mere sensationalism.

[Steve Klc]

I look forward to reading this book with a critical eye. Thank you Bux for sharing your initial reaction--realizing that you have not read the book yet and not been given such "unprecendented access" as the author.

Bruce--did you write the review on SauteWednesday? Are these your words and are you SauteWednesday? Are you a friend of Leslie's or her pr agent?

Did SauteWednesday "review" or "preview" any of her previous books--especially American Appetite?  If so, could you provide a link?

[Steve Plotnicki]

Who is SauteWednesday?

I don't think you can tell a thing from that review. Maybe it is accurate and maybe it's just sensationalizing. The writer's style is to promote a controversial reading of various observations that Brenner makes in the book. He/she cuts and pastes snippets from here and there to achieve the dynamic they want in the review.

In general, books on restaurants that aren't on cooking or eating are usually just gossip. Yes there are interesting vingnettes to tell about how they spilled the soup on some celeb or how when some VIP wanted a certain dish and the restaurant didn't have the ingredients on hand they leased a private helicopter to get them there on time blah, blah, blah.

But cooks cursing each other in their native tongue has nothing to do with food. They could be working on any assembly line anywhere. I'd much rather read how Daniel was inspired to create the three tier hors d'ouvres tray that is mentioned in the review. I've been the recipient of that tray on a few occassions and how and why each little dish got on that tray would be of interest. But too bad that isn't what sells books.

[Bux]

... But too bad that isn't what sells books.

Geez, Steve, did you just say what I said, but tersely?  

On the three tier silver tray, does it seem to appear on every table lately? Do you think that diners notice what's done not so discretely for some tables and ask about it so often that it becomes necessary to offer it to all diners? I believe the madelaines were once offered only to VIP tables, but after they were written up glowingly in an article, they were offered to all tables as people started to ask for them. It's part of an interesting process in which the meals in the best restaurants have become more and more special. Culinary journalism and travel can create a more sophisticated audience that in turn demands better food and service with a more critical eye. Which of course makes books and articles that pander to cynicism with gossip so infuriating. Note that I am not accusing the book in question in this thread of pandering. I have not read it, but am responding to the flow of thought in this thread provoked by the review mentioned.

[Steve Plotnicki]

Bux - Well yes but I am taking it further than you did. Most things are sold by appealing to the biases of the readers. And whenever the subject matter is about anything expensive that the well to do pamper themselves with, you are bound to find this type of writing/reporting. A book about a 3 star restaurant in Manhattan is only of limited interest to the book buying public if the topic is the food. But if the topic is what goes on there and who goes there maybe people will buy it. But where I find this type of writing/journalism breaks down is that they don't do a thorough enough job in getting the details. 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. But getting the tray for that reason won't sell books. As for the three tier silver tray, I haven't noticed its proliferance because I haven't been to Daniel in about a year and a half. Their no BYO policy makes it one of my last choices when reserving at a place on that level.

[Bux]

Steve P., succinctly,    I agree with you that both the wealthy and the cultured can always be counted on as targets to mock for a laugh or profit. It I truly had the ability to be terse, I wouldn't go on to add that I believe one can be cultured in the art of dining as one can be in the appreciation of music or other things.

[Bruce Cole]

I appreciate all the comments on my “review” of Leslie Brenner’s book. First let me clear up that I am SauteWednesday. I guess I should make that clearer on my site, not that I’m trying be anonymous or anything, but that would mean building a new html page and messing around with the CGI script again, not exactly my idea of fun…

As a point of reference, for the month of May, there were 2155 visitors to my site, of which 1021 were first time visitors (most people making there way there from Google). It is this audience that my review was written for.  Obviously, on the Egullet board, members are a little more kitchen savvy and sophisticated, and are likely to have strong opinions about Boulud (having probably dined there), and 4 star dining in general. Of course I’m interested in your opinions, which is why I posted the link. But I did not write the review with food critics in mind, rather for those readers who are interested in food and dining.

I am not Leslie Brenner’s PR agent. When you run a high-powered foodie web site like mine, publishers shower you with advance copies of books on food. Just kidding - I wish. I corresponded with a number of authors who received James Beard nominations – I compiled a link to the articles – which the James Beard site did not. Leslie offered to send me an advance copy of her new book.

In response to Robert Buxbaums comments, it seems that you are comparing your personal experiences with Mr. Boulud, with my review of the book. I have not eaten at DANIEL, I’ve just read the book. I am not naive. I described the “in the shit” for the general “foodie” reader, who I’m guessing, has always wanted to quit their day-job, go to culinary school, and become a famous chef. Chances are, they don’t know what that term means. “But this is what rings least true to me...Is it not common knowledge that the very best restaurant kitchens serve as the training grounds for future chefs…” Well, probably yes to the readers of this discussion board. Not to the readers at SauteWednesday. Obviously, you’ve worked with Mr. Boulud, but since Ms. Brenner spent over a year in the kitchen, I’m giving her benefit of the doubt. This book was written in 1999/2000, right about the time when cooks and waiters were leaving restaurants in droves to seek their fortune in the dot-com dream world. Perhaps this is why the turnover in the kitchen during the time the book was written was so great?

Personally, I don’t think the book is sensationalist. It is the opposite end of the spectrum from KITCHEN CONFIDENTIAL. In my review, I tried to convey what reading the book was like. I quoted various passages to give the potential reader an idea of what the reading the book entailed. I enjoyed the book, so you can say that mine was a positive review. I haven’t read any of Leslie Brenner’s other books, so I don’t have that to compare to. I’m certainly interested in your comments on the book after you all have read it. I'm curious to know what the NYC crowd will think of restaurant DANIEL after they read the book. Will it change their perception of the dining experience, the food?

[Bux]

Let me make it clear that I'm not a cook. I've worked with Boulud to help him get a web site up and running. I've not worked in the kitchen, but I've visited it and seen it in operation many times. I first met him as a diner, but family members have worked for him, with him or as a consultant and may be expected to do so in the future. Feel free to view my comments with that in mind if it makes any difference to anyone.

The problem I had, and I don't know if it's from the review or the book, is that the public gets a picture of Daniel out of context with the rest of the haute cuisine kitchens. Context is often everything to the understanding of a situation.

"in the shit” as it is known in Boulud’s kitchen

implies a vulgarity that is singular to the kitchen at Daniel. "in the shit" as it is known in professional kitchens would be an expression that was far more fair to those who work in Daniel's kitchen and more instructional for those who are clueless, but you now add:

I am not naive. I described the “in the shit” for the general “foodie” reader, who I’m guessing, has always wanted to quit their day-job, go to culinary school, and become a famous chef. Chances are, they don’t know what that term means.

and now they know no more about the industry, but have cause to believe one restaurant is an unpleasant place to work. Is that fair to them?

This may be even less fair:

“But this is what rings least true to me...Is it not common knowledge that the very best restaurant kitchens serve as the training grounds for future chefs…” Well, probably yes to the readers of this discussion board. Not to the readers at SauteWednesday.

as justificastion for writing

In fact, it’s shockingly apparent when reading THE FOURTH STAR that the food coming out of the kitchen has been assembled by a less-than inspired cadre of kitchen corps, given the constant turnover of staff.

If a reader doesn't know that the staff at Daniel is no more, and probably less, transient than that of the other top restaurants, aren't you deceiving your readers by withholding that information. How do you come to the conclusion from Breener's book that the kitchen corps isn't inspired even if they are transient. Does Brenner say that or imply that? I'd be surprised if she did. We're talking about cooks who are underpaid, overworked and taxed well beyond what's called for in what passes for a great restaurant elsewhere in the US. Why do they work there in the first place if they're not inspired and eager to get a recommendation from one of the most highly respected chefs in America? I'd love to hear from professional cooks here as to how apparent it is that the cooks that work the line in the top kitchens are likely to be uninspired.

I think this is a situation that supports the contention that knowedge in the field is of more use than impartiality. I don't want to seem personal and looking at your site, I see some marvelous work. Most of it is in terms of design and organization. After reading your repsonse to my comments on your review, I'd suggest you reconsider what's apparent and what you are creatively interpolating from what's said by others. I'd also drop the links to foreign language sites interpreted by google. The resultant text makes no sense and it just looks like padding. Link to the original language site. Work on content and not on appearances. My apologies if I'm blunt. I'd rather be helpful than critical. In my defense, I can only say that I am pressed for time.

[Jinmyo]

Bruce, I'd like to say how much I enjoyed your site once I followed the link. I had it up for two days, going through most of the content. Good work. And nice to see you on eGullet.

[Leslie Brenner]

Hello, all—I’m Leslie Brenner, the author of the book in question, The Fourth Star. Thank you all for your interest. I’d like to try to address some of the points made in this discussion.

First, I think it’s rather silly to call a book "sensationalism" based on one review.  Bruce Cole focussed on the aspects of the book that he found interesting, but there’s a lot more to the book than that.  If you read the Kirkus Review (which I can’t quote much of because of copyright issues, but you can find it attached to The Fourth Star on the Barnes + Noble website, bn.com), you’ll probably have the impression it’s a different book being reviewed.  By the way, not only is Mr. Cole not my "P.R. agent," but I don’t even know him, other than having responded to a posting he did recently on another website asking for links to James Beard-nominated articles.  As he correctly reports, I offered to have my publicist send him a copy of my book, and he reviewed it.

To me the most important thing in writing "The Fourth Star" was to write a balanced book, and I’m quite proud of how balanced I feel the book is.  For the record, I consider Daniel to be probably the very best restaurant in the United States, and one of the best in the world, and I think that attitude comes through loud and clear in the book.  I have nothing short of reverence for what Mr. Boulud does, and the magnificence of his cuisine and the dining experience Daniel provides.  And now, point by point...

First, Bux writes that it seems the book is "meant to appeal most to those who don’t eat at Daniel."  Au contraire.  I wrote the book to appeal to anyone who is interested in food as art and dining as art, people who cook, and people who love to dine in great restaurants.  I think Daniel’s regulars will be most interested in seeing not only the relationships between some of the cooks who are preparing the food, but also how exactly that food is prepared, as well as the finances involved.  Kirkus discusses this aspect, concluding "The experience, suggests...Brenner...is worth every bit of the cost."

Cf Bux’s complaint about my use of "In the shit": nowhere do I imply that this phrase is only used at Daniel.  He goes on to write, "Moreover, although I’ve seen only a few other kitchens in the middle of service, most seemed less calm than the one at Daniel."  In my capacities as a food journalist over the past twelve years, I’ve seen more than my share of restaurants kitchens throughout the world during service, and Daniel’s is by no means "calm" in comparison.  However, nowhere do I call the kitchen "out of control," and I don’t feel that Daniel’s kitchen ever was out of control.  Clearly that’s the reviewer’s phrase, so I find it pretty silly to use the phrase in support of Bux's rather insulting notion that I’m writing something that "plays well to the crowd."  My book is reportage; in fact I believe it reads more like a cinéma vérité documentary than anything else.  I spent about a year and a half behind the scenes at the restaurant, recording faithfully what I saw and heard.  It’s really up to the reader to come to certain conclusions, and I feel that’s one of the great strengths of the book.

Bux writes, cf squabbles between the chefs, "I wonder who ‘they’ are and who the ‘French contingent’ was..."  If you wonder this, Mr. Buxbaum, I suggest you read the book and find out.  And by the way, I do speak and understand English, French (as your daughter Rica, who worked for Boulud’s company for several years, and your son-in-law, still a sous-chef at Daniel as far as I know, can probably attest), and Spanish, and I never heard the French complaining about the Americans or the Spanish-speakers complaining about either the French or Americans.  Certainly I heard them complaining about particular people, but I never heard them reduce it to a matter of nationality.  Of course that doesn’t mean it never happened, but in my thousands of hours there, I never heard it.  

Cf "Even Mr. Boulud whose singular pursuit of perfect at the expense of his family life is called into question":  A good journalist calls everything into question.

Cf Bux’s disquisition on great restaurants as training grounds for future chefs:  I devote a good many pages in my book to this question; obviously it cannot be reduced to the quote he has pulled from the review.  As for "There’s been so much turnover in the kitchen lately that it’s hard for Boulud to keep track of who’s where..." that refers to one point during the course of the year.  I also devote a great many pages discussing Mr. Boulud’s loyalty to present and even past employees.

As for Steve Plotnicki’s remarks, thank you for pointing out that it’s difficult to judge the book based on that one review.  In fact, while I appreciated Bruce Cole’s descriptions of the certain aspects of the book, it does, as I say, leave out my extreme reverence for the artistry of the food.  This book, as I say, is not gossip; it’s reportage.  If some of what happened was colorful or dishy, that’s the way it was.  But Steve, you’d rather read about how Daniel was inspired to create the three-tiered canapé tray?  Well, you’re in luck, because that’s largely what the book is about.  Amid all the crazy stuff that happens during service (as well as before and after), everyone’s very much focussed on the food.  One of the main reasons I wanted to write this book was so I could spend a year-plus learning how such amazing food is created, and I believe that comes across on page after page.

Later, Steve Plotnicki comments "where I find this type of writing/journalism breaks down is that they don’t do a thorough enough job in getting the details."  Please don’t make such a judgement on "The Fourth Star" until you've read the book.  I’m sure you’ll be very pleasantly surprised.

Finally, Bux writes "context is everything to the understanding of a situation."  Right.  Kirkus Reviews writes, "Brenner is also superb at context; her disquisition on the general decline in American fine arts and the concomitant rise in the 'living arts' is worth the price of admission."

[Jinmyo]

Leslie, thanks for renewing my interest in your book. I'm glad to hear your expolanation of how you approached writing it.

[stefanyb]

Leslie,

I was hoping you'd drop by.  I was interested in the book from the first and now with the teaser about the so-called decline in the fine arts, my interest is piqued even more.

I'd also love to hear about your point of view on other topics.

[Steve Klc]

Bruce--one comment of yours which flew in under my radar was "right about the time when cooks and waiters were leaving restaurants in droves to seek their fortune in the dot-com dream world."  Did you ever address this on your site or do you recall articles which addressed this?  I'd appreciate the links. And thank you for clearing up that you are SauteWednesday--did I miss an "about the site" or "about the author" button?  It seemed deliberately oblique and I am sorry if I missed your full disclosure.

And Leslie--don't forget that even before Steve Plotnicki said it is difficult to judge a book based on one review, Bux said "I just read the review mentioned and have not read the book. From what I read on the sautewednesday.com page, it certainly sounds as if the book is sensationalism and meant to appeal most to those who don't eat at Daniel. I don't know if that's Ms. Brenner's fault or the reviewer's."

My opinion is Bux correctly assessed that review.

His next sentence was to disclose--for the umpteenth time online--that he has had a business and several close personal relationships involving Daniel. Your mentioning his daughter by name surely cleared that up for us all and gained what exactly? is that the context and balance a restaurant reviewer, food historian and novelist provides?

Other than that, you're reacting to speculation as if you have something to prove. You don't, the book will stand on its own. You've urged for balance and context and promised the book delivers on the details, which many of us will hope to find when we read the book.  For the few people reading this thread and NOT considering reading your book, you have done a very good job rekindling interest as Jinmyo noted.

For me, I was planning to read it all along and now, with your thoughtful (but at times unthinking) contribution, this thread provides an even better template from which to judge.  For that, thanks.

[Bux]

Leslie Brenner, there's no reason not to post a link directly to the Kirkus Review so it's as easily accessible to members as the SauteWednesday review. I'd be the first to agree that it should be read.

I'd also agree that it's silly to call a book "sensationalism" based on one review. I'd go further and use stronger language, but please note that I felt I was clear that I was replying to the review, not the book when I said I had not read the book and "From what I read on the sautewednesday.com page, it certainly sounds as if the book is sensationalism and meant to appeal most to those who don't eat at Daniel. I don't know if that's Ms. Brenner's fault or the reviewer's." From your remarks, you don't take this at face value, and feel I was quoting you, rather than the review. It will do little good for me to apologize for my lack of clarity now. I am curious why you take such offense, and it's clear I have deeply offended you, at my comments about the web page. While it's silly to call the book sensationalism based on the one review, I don't think it's silly, mean or insulting to say that review makes it sound as if it's sensationalism. Nevertheless, I'm sorry you found my remarks in any way insulting. They were about the review and not about the book. I don't know how I could have been clearer.

I'm distracted by the mention of my daughter who has nevertheless grown accustomed to being embarrassed by a parent having spent her teenage years with her parents. I have tried to be as clear about my relationship with Daniel Boulud as I can and still afford her the professional privacy I feel she deserves. Cyrille, as you must know, is a quiet person not inclined to see his name in public. May I ask the point?

May I also ask you to reread my two previous posts, slowly and calmly. For instance:

Cf "Even Mr. Boulud whose singular pursuit of perfect at the expense of his family life is called into question":  A good journalist calls everything into question.

Did I call you on that or did I wonder why the reviewer did, but I get called on the carpet. I think you were unfair, but I welcome you to this forum. I'm glad you got to present your side of the issues even if I have to bear the brunt of your displeasure. There are parts of your post, not directed at attacking me, that I enjoyed reading very much.

[Leslie Brenner]

Bux, Steve klc and others, thank you for your thoughtful responses.  

Bux, I'm not sure why you read my defense of my own book as an attack.  I certainly did not mean to attack you.  I did use the word "silly," which you say you agree with.   "Disclaimer" or no, I was insulted by the implication that I would put things in a book because they would play well to the crowd.  I think any self-respecting writer (not to mention award winning journalist and author, and one who bends over backwards to present a balanced view) would take offense at such an implication.

And Steve klc, I think you're right: I should just let the book speak for itself. (Please forgive me if it was another poster who said it--I'm not adept at using this site!) I look forward to reading reactions here after people have had a chance to read it (on-sale date is June 10).

Bux, as for why I mentioned Rica and Cyrille by name, please forgive me, but I found your comment "the current executive sous chef with greatest seniority has been with Boulud in several categories from line cook, to executive chef of his catering divison to his present position since he was hired away from Georges Blanc in Vonnas when the first Daniel opened" to be disingenuous--I think reasonable disclosure would dictate that you mention he's your son-in-law.  Perhaps I take these things too seriously, though.  I hope they don't feel their privacy has been violated by mentioning them in a post--after all, they're characters in the book, which hopefully will be read by thousands of people.

[Bruce Cole]

In response to R. Buxbaums comments - I'm not sure the line in my review

"in the shit” as it is known in Boulud’s kitchen

would cause a reader of the book/review to somehow think that Boulud's kitchen is an unpleasant place to work? At the risk of this degenerating into a tit-for-tat of "in the shit", let's leave it at that.

Steve, no there is not an "about this site" or "author" button on my site, although it's apparent I should have one. I don't have any links in regards to my comment about waiters and cooks leaving for dot-coms. It was a comment that I read often in the local San Francisco press and the national media, both as restaurant employees were jumping ship to dot-coms, and as they subsequently returned to seek work again.

Having just re-read my review for the umpteenth time, I still think it is more enthusiastic than sensationalist. Easy for me to say, since I've read the book...

[Pan]

Well, if nothing else, this thread has provoked controversy and increased interest in this book. I look forward to reading some reviews by eGulleteers after they have read the book. I may well be interested in reading it, myself, but I think I'll read M. Boulud's book first.

[Bux]

Leslie, forgive my literary ignorance. I don't know you or your work. I knew a book was being written by someone who had access to the restaurant and knew it was about to come out. I knew copies were in the restaurant and that people had read them. My children can actually be tight lipped when they don't think things are my business. When I first heard about the book, I assumed the author was someone who already had a good track record. I couldn't imagine Daniel cooperating with someone who was unqualified.

I was surprised by the review, wrote my post, and held it for a day on my hard drive. I really wanted to hear more about the book but as the thread sunk into oblivion, I posted my response. I'll admit to being a bit confused about whose emphasis I was responding to and did my best to restrict my comments to what I read and not assume any more. I suppose I found your reply an attack in part because you defended your book against things said about someone else's comments for the most part. That's why I asked that you reread my post rather than go over it point by point. And as I reread your reply, I still feel I'm innocent, but I understand your reply better. I think Steve Klc offered a good explanation of what I said. He posted while I was composing my reply so I didn't see it until my message was already posted.

I used the word "distracted" because I didn't think it was a relevant aspect, and I had to wonder if and how I should respond. None of this has ever been a secret and I've tried at times to overplay my connection to Daniel, but without mentioning names, so that when they came up there would be no cries of foul. It's disingenuous, if you see it as such. I didn't and I don't, but you're entitled to see it that way. As long as I stay way from opinion and stick with the facts, my conscience is clear. Should I say that the food is best when Daniel and Alex are both out, I think it would be disingenuous not to note my relationship with the sous chef. At anyrate I was distracted, not dismayed. I'd ask you what you said about them, but you'll tell me to buy the book.

That this conversation is being held is a bit of a shame as it appears we have views that are far more similar than the review led me to suspect. These kind of misunderstandings seem almost inherent in the nature of the medium. They rarely inhibit understanding for long. Earlier you said "If you read the Kirkus Review ... you’ll probably have the impression it’s a different book being reviewed." Absolutely. Just for sport I looked for a sentence or phrase I could criticize as implying sensationalism. There's nothing there that doesn't imply an understanding and respect bordering on reverence.

[Steve Plotnicki]

Gee I'm glad that Bux got scolded instead of me!  

Lesley - I can't tell you how happy I am that you came onto eGullet to straighten us out. To be honest, I wasn't intending on buying and reading the book but you have converted me. But as long as you're here, maybe I can get you to defend and explain a statement you made earlier in the thread. You say,

"I consider Daniel to be probably the very best restaurant in the United States, and one of the best in the world, and I think that attitude comes through loud and clear in the book. "

Now before I go on I have to say that I am a big fan of Daniel and have been for years. But if I have any complaint, and one that has been echoed on this site by others, it's that they serve 300 meals a night instead of having a single seating like three the star restaurants in Europe have. I was wondering if your book touches on this issue and if so in what way?

[Bux]

Going second is the key. I noted that I waited for someone to go first to no avail.

I have to agree with you about the number of covers and the toll that has to take on a staff, although I believe Ducasse is the only restaurant that has one seating and it seems to affect the price more than the food. I think any market will get the restaurants and food it deserves, or more exactly the kind it will support. It's not just that few New Yorkers are willing to spend more to have the table all night and to eat longer and more luxurious meals, but my guess is that few want that. Too many New Yorkers are happy enough not to spend too long at the dinner table.

Nevertheless, I miss lunch at Daniel. When it was served, it was always less rushed and the atmosphere was always more luxurious and perhaps even more gastronomic. Maybe it was also that treating oneself to a meal like that in the middle of the day made the meal seem even more special.

[Pan]

Nevertheless, I miss lunch at Daniel. When it was served, it was always less rushed and the atmosphere was always more luxurious and perhaps even more gastronomic. Maybe it was also that treating oneself to a meal like that in the middle of the day made the meal seem even more special.

So I gather Daniel serves only dinner nowadays. Do you know why that decision was made?