Doug Psaltis

[Silly Disciple]

there are much more influential and interesting chef's i'd rather read about then those who go thru the test at CIA.  (bouley, barber, thomas keller, alain ducasse to start......oh......what a coincidence, they're all in psaltis's book, and none of them took the american master chef exam).

←

If i remember correctly the third chapter (out of three) in Ruhlman's book is about Keller and TFL. The second one is about an up and coming chef... can't remember where.

[M.X.Hassett]

Yes, the second chapter is about the rest' Lola and chef Michael Symon. I promise this is my last digression sorry.

Edit: Spelling and grammer(2)

Edited October 7, 2005 by M.X.Hassett (log)

[hjshorter]

If it was calculated to do anything other then tell a story, I'll eat the book, ok?

How about getting publicity and making a buck off the ensuing controversy?

[tan319]

If it was calculated to do anything other then tell a story, I'll eat the book, ok?

How about getting publicity and making a buck off the ensuing controversy?

←

I'm not sure if "the twins" love this kind of publicity.

If Kitchen Confidential came out today, in the kind of atmosphere that prevails on these various kinds of internet sites, I think it would be a whole different story.

Self deprecating or not, I'm not sure legions of Emeril fans, maybe even Bobby Flay fans( maybe not) wouldn't have their butts in an uproar.

Re: Making a buck: what about it?

Books, reality TV shows, all help people from the likes of Michael Ruhlman to Gordon Ramsey keep the lights on.

Just because this is "on fire" in here and the NYTimes wrote about the melee going on, I'm not sure if I would delude myself into thinking this is going to be a bestseller, replete with Letterman & Leno appearences.

It's way too specialized, not especially charming or well written, like a Bourdain book (sorry).

And if it doesn't sell like hotcakes and bring all of that other juice that goes with bestselling, no ones going to be retiring soon.

Now selling the screen rights to it...

[hjshorter]

Now selling the screen rights to it...

←

That's what I was talking about - where the real money is.

[slkinsey]

Do you suppose that your friend Tony Bourdain hasn't left some unflattering things about himself out of his books, or indeed any items that others familiar with the various situations described might consider significant omissions?

If tony left anything unflattering about himself out in his book, it was only because it was either boring or not applicable. I'd say he came pretty clean. i haven't heard anyone call him a liar, and surely they would have by now.

(First I should point out that I'm using AB as an example merely because he is a convenient and well-understood one, not because I have anything to say about him in particular. I like him and his work.)

So, here's the thing: Who decided what was boring or not applicable? Tony, of course. So it's possible that some things were left out that other people might find important. It also seems possible to me that one reason no one has come out to call Tony a liar (or one reason you haven't heard about it anyway) is that many of the people described in the book who might care to do so are not important enough for anyone to listen to them. I mean, it's hardly likely that a discussion like this would be happening if a few Puerto Rican line cooks had said "there was no drunken ass-grabber at the Rainbow Room named Luis." This is because people don't really care what a few Puerto Rican line cooks at the Rainbow Room have to say, and the line cooks certainly can't email their well known Rainbow Room line cook-partisan friends Michael Ruhlman and Ruth Reichl (or whoever) to stick up for them.

Now, if someone in the eG Forums posted that they had it on reliable information that no one was grabbing Bourdain's ass at the Rainbow Room, that might cause some people to doubt the veracity of everything else in the book. But it's not likely for a variety of reasons. One reason is that no one really cares about the line cooks at the Rainbow Room. Another is that the Rainbow Room line cooks are hardly likely to have the loyal figures like yourself arguing on their behalf. Yet another is that the Rainbow room line cooks are not famous, do not have "sacred cow" status, there is no "Rainbow Room line cook's cookbook," etc. And perhaps most importantly, one of the strengths of Tony's writing is that it makes readers want to like him (whereas this is one of Psaltis's weaknesses), and when you like someone you're more willing to cut them some slack.

As a general question, I'm curious: Do we have the sense that Psaltis is being called a "liar" or rather that he is being criticized for only telling his side of the story?

[russ parsons]

isn't there a difference between telling tales on yourself and telling tales on other people? i think if psaltis had shown a sense of humor about himself or even a sense of humility, the reaction to his having left out inconvenient facts wouldn't have been nearly so strong.

[slkinsey]

i think if psaltis had shown a sense of humor about himself or even a sense of humility, the reaction to his having left out inconvenient facts wouldn't have been nearly so strong.

Yes, I absolutely agree. This is part of what I was getting at when I said that AB's writing makes people like him and that it's one of DP's weaknesses in his book. But you say it better.

That said, isn't it generally par for the course for people at DP's stage in the game to be headstrong and arrogant? I wonder if the book would have had a much different tone if it were written 5 years from now, even if the content and opinions were mostly the same.

[Lesley C]

Yeah but there's no a lot of room for a sense of humor or sense of humility in the four-star restaurant world. With Bourdain it worked well because he kept reminding us he didn't take it all that seriously. With Psaltis, his serious approach to the profession appears to be his raison d'etre.

I mean, anyone who has met Ducasse knows he's no barrel of monkeys.

[russ parsons]

[isn't it generally par for the course for people at DP's stage in the game to be headstrong and arrogant?  I wonder if the book would have had a much different tone if it were written 5 years from now, even if the content and opinions were mostly the same.

←

i think part of developing a sense of humor about yourself is having teh shit kicked out of you in public a couple of times. i'd say dougie's well on his way.

Yeah but there's no a lot of room for a sense of humor or sense of humility in the four-star restaurant world. With Bourdain it worked well because he kept reminding us he didn't take it all that seriously. With Psaltis, his serious approach to the profession appears to be his raison d'etre. I mean, anyone who has met Ducasse knows he's no barrel of monkeys.

i think that's part of what rubs so many people the wrong way. to put it mildly, psaltis is no ducasse. someday he may turn into a ducasse, we don't know. but as for now, he's a guy trying to work his way up the ladder. and i don't think even ducasse today would have written quite so highly about himself as psaltis did in this book.

[jamiemaw]

I'm curious ...

Who's gone out and bought "Seasoning of a Chef" as a direct result of reading this thread?  Just a quick show of hands please?

The only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about. - Oscar Wilde

A.

←

Arnē,

Are you suggesting he got even more plugs than Frank Gifford?

This thread: Much adieu about nothing.

Yours until my Christmas Special,

Kathie Lee.

Edited October 8, 2005 by jamiemaw (log)

[Timh]

Did he leave anybody on good terms? Hmmmm... Talent is only a small part. You must have people skills(staff) and lead, not intimidate. (And Gordon Ramsey is no excuse. That behavior is his shtick now.) Ultimately, this is just the publicity machine in action, why not just the cooking?

Edited October 9, 2005 by Timh (log)

[Bux]

Sir, I've worked in a fair amount of kitchens , big and small, infamous, not so famous, and so on.

I've been lied to by famous chefs  and not so famous chefs about money/positions/etc.

So have my friends.

With all due respect, and I mean all due respect, I can't believe how naive YOU are about how the restaurant world works!

"The Twins" if they're hitting low, will be found to be full of shit.

If there's a bit of truth to what they say, that will be what everyone expects anyways.

That's what I believe Lesley C. has been trying to get thru certain peoples heads here.

Chefs talk shit, especially up and coming ones.

And it isn't particularly meanspirited shit, it's just " I would do this differently shit."

If it was calculated to do anything other then tell a story, I'll eat the book, ok?

No matter how low the "twins" could be, do you think they calculated that a thread with close to or over 75K views, over 200 posts, at least 50 % of them demanding Psaltis' blood,and that's just here on eG, would be a fantastic thing for them???

If Dan Barber & Blue Hill lose any business or great hires, I would be amazed.

Ditto Thomas Keller.

BTW, if this thread doesn't get past this junk soon, why not bin it?

←

With all due respect, my grapevine tells me that a respectable segment of the NY culinary world knows they are full of shit. How long that might take to filter down to culinary students is anyone's guess, but I believe it's okay to get a bit outraged over malicious statements that depart from the truth whether or not the truth is ultimately known in larger circles. I may more correctly be criticized not for my naiveté, but for my righteous streak when if comes to publishing bullshit. While I have a hard time believing any culinary student wouldn't jump at the chance to stage at Blue Hill or Stone Barns--which I consider among the most interesting handful of places to work in and around NYC--that doesn't mean I don't think the Psaltis brothers won't keep on pushing their luck lying about other chefs. It may just be a character fault of theirs. People get away with murder every day in this country, so I have no faith justice will prevail in any situation. In my opinion, as long as Psaltis lies only about those chefs who have already hired him, he may have little to lose, as he seems to have burnt most of his bridges behind him.

At any rate, your assurance that no restaurant will be harmed or lose hires as a result of this book is comforting. Would you also have a good explantion of why one would go to great pains to mention the co-chef's name and clearly describe the restaurant, but change the name of the chef/owner?

[Bux]

. . . .

As a general question, I'm curious:  Do we have the sense that Psaltis is being called a "liar" or rather that he is being criticized for only telling his side of the story?

←

I believe earlier I posted that the book is creatively harmful in a calculated manner. I think that qualifies.

[Dirk Wheelan]

. . . .

As a general question, I'm curious:  Do we have the sense that Psaltis is being called a "liar" or rather that he is being criticized for only telling his side of the story?

←

I believe earlier I posted that the book is creatively harmful in a calculated manner. I think that qualifies.

←

Before you proceed further with slkinsey's question, it would be prudent to establish what you both mean by 'liar'.

In a general sense, 'to lie' is to knowingly deceive for personal gain. Whatever the revelations about Psaltis, it is one thing to correctly identify lacunae or errata in his book, and quite another to demonstrate that their absence or presence, respectively, have been motivated by personal gain.

[reachej]

I like the first part of the thread where Bourdain "regretted" blurbing the book when in fact he didn't (original post mysteriouly deleted but still quoted in another). He had just gotten finished telling everyone to relax and how he enjoyed the book, a sentiment not mirrored in his NewYorkMetro quote. He never said what changed his mind. What did I miss?

"My grapevine tells me"... What was all that about not posting heresay? Not disagreeing mind you, just not sure about the logic.

[Dave the Cook]

I like the first part of the thread where Bourdain "regretted" blurbing the book when in fact he didn't (original post mysteriouly deleted but still quoted in another).  He had just gotten finished telling everyone to relax and how he enjoyed the book, a sentiment not mirrored in his NewYorkMetro quote.  He never said what changed his mind.  What did I miss?

"My grapevine tells me"... What was all that about not posting heresay?  Not disagreeing mind you, just not sure about the logic.

←

Bordain's post hasn't gone anywhere: click

[reachej]

I deeply regret blurbing a book whose veracity on some key points has been seriously (and to my satisfaction) called into question.

←

This one?

[Dave the Cook]

I deeply regret blurbing a book whose veracity on some key points has been seriously (and to my satisfaction) called into question.

←

This one?

←

Ah. Sorry.

That would have been this one. Note the "edit" tag at the bottom of the post.

[Pan]

[...]In a general sense, 'to lie' is to knowingly deceive for personal gain.[...]

←

I don't think personal gain or even a perception of gain is necessary for a statement to be a lie. There are people who habitually lie, though it harms them, aren't there?

[Bux]

[...]In a general sense, 'to lie' is to knowingly deceive for personal gain.[...]

←

I don't think personal gain or even a perception of gain is necessary for a statement to be a lie. There are people who habitually lie, though it harms them, aren't there?

←

An intentionally false statement is the definition that works for most people. I assume most people lie because they feel they will gain somehow. It could be personal financial gain, it could be the hope of a relative gain in reputation, or it could be the satisfaction of hurting someone else. My mother used to habitually lie to not hurt other people's feelings. It often backfired, but her intentions were honorable. Still she gained by feelilng better about herself at the moment. A mistruth told with the understanding that it's not the truth is the definition. We need not go into the reasons the liar lied to understand the lie.

[Bux]

. . . .

"My grapevine tells me"... What was all that about not posting heresay?  Not disagreeing mind you, just not sure about the logic.

←

I suppose that is hearsay. Whether I tell you what I've heard, or what I've seen, what you believe is bound to depend on a ombination of the credibility of what I say and my personal credibility. I mean that in the universal sense. Substitute "one" for "I," and "another" for "you."

[Bux]

Like with the Canseco steroid tell-all, if the man's lying, why hasn't anyone sued? It's important to remember that this is a memoir, a bit of autobiography (or biography -- who knows how much his brother wrote). He's entitled to present it all the way he wants, so long as it's not slanderous. And it wouldn't appear to be, since no one's going after him. Is his (rather effusive) praise of Keller dubious as well?

. . . .

←

I think it's already been pointed out that slander is very difficult to prove. My understanding is that the injured party would have to prove monetary damage stemming from the slanderous remarks to actually achieve a financial gain from the suit. In most cases, lawyers will advise clients not to sue. Publishers are not likely to publish a work they think will result in damages, although they may not shy away from publishing contentious material. I wonder how much harder it is to prove that you've been slandered if your name is changed in the account. As much as I suspect all parties appearing in the book under their name, or a fictitious name, would be pleased to see this thread end altogether, the argument that the book must be telling a tale that resembles the actually truth simply because no one has sued is simply false reasoning.

[tan319]

Why is it so hard for you to accept that "the tale" is close to true?

As close as these things get?

For sure, Psaltis makes it read like he's Dudley Do-right but what else seems false to you?

That Barber would never use someone elses shortribs recipe?

That he wouldn't have had cookbooks out in the kitchen?

That he wouldn't put "the squeeze" on a cook he didn't care for, that didn't care for him?

What I can't figure out is how come this is still vexing you.

Jeez, it's a damned book about cooks...

[MHarney]

Jeez, it's a damned book about cooks...

←

With great respect to the folks circling around this topic and darting in from time to time with often vehement opinions from every viewpoint, and in reference to possible fanciful and/or mediocre writing by one some deem an outsider/landlubber, perhaps a good title for any follow-up would be The Perfect Storm in a Teacup.

No denigration is intended -- just my take after reading the whole thread and now worrying a bit about fellow eGullet members' blood pressure.

(A small aside: If you thought The Perfect Storm was good, read The Serpent's Coil. You may forget you ever read the former.)