Doug Psaltis

[Fat Guy]

Also, the eG Forums discussion is cited (incorrectly as egullet.com) is the piece:

Mr. Psaltis's assertions and job history became the subject of discussion a few weeks ago on the message boards at eGullet (egullet.com), a Web site devoted to epicurean life, which had been running excerpts from the young chef's book.

On Sept. 19, a member wrote in suggesting that Mr. Psaltis skipped over an important episode during his tenure at French Laundry, after he left Mix, one that might taint his account. After an innuendo-filled online conversation, Mr. Psaltis posted a response in which he said he had been frustrated with the restaurant and was certain "that others were frustrated with me." He wrote that one night, during a dispute, he slapped another employee's hand. "It was stupid of me to allow myself to be baited into crossing that line," Mr. Psaltis continued.

(When asked by phone about the circumstances under which Mr. Psaltis left the French Laundry, neither he or Mr. Keller would comment, Mr. Keller citing a confidentiality agreement he keeps with his employees.)

[Lesley C]

On the back cover, Jacques Pépin calls the book a "well-written tale of many kitchens by a committed, dedicated young chef." But in a phone conversation last week he said he had read only the first chapter when he wrote his endorsement.

"I regret having sent it," Mr. Pépin said from his home in Connecticut. "I'm irate. For a young chef to have the pretension to attack Mr. Keller - I've never seen such a thing."

Well as much as I adore Mr. Pepin, I'm not too thrilled to hear he recommends books based on one chapter. I've picked up many a book due to his endorsement.

Maybe this whole fiasco will make chefs and food personalities think twice before penning one blurb too many.

Back to Doug, though. I read the book as if I were listening to a chef who had come up the ranks with something to say. I never really thought he was slamming Ducasse or Keller. He was just giving his side of the story.

100% chef speak is how I saw it. Made a nice change from all that star-chef crap.

You know there are some people out there who will vomit if they hear one more glowing endorsement of Thomas Keller. I don't know the man and haven't eaten in his restaurants but I find all this fawning rather pukesome. I was actually happy to hear his walk-in was disorganized. Made him sound all the more human. I even found the bit about Ducasse breaking the chair rather titillating.

[Fat Guy]

Well as much as I adore Mr. Pepin, I'm not too thrilled to hear he recommends books based on one chapter. I've picked up many a book due to his endorsement.

My concern is with the retraction of the endorsement, with the only reason cited being "For a young chef to have the pretension to attack Mr. Keller - I've never seen such a thing." This reaction is described politely by the Times writer as "a supportive, fraternal side to the competitive world of chefs at the upper echelons of the restaurant industry." I don't know that I'd describe it in such a positive light.

[Lesley C]

Ahem, well I see that as Mr. Pepin showing his French side.

[ludja]

Batali also has some comments in the NY Times article:

The reaction to the book has been so heated that two chefs whose praises for the book appear on its back cover have distanced themselves from their own remarks, something almost unheard of in publishing.

...

Mario Batali called the book "honest and matter-of-fact" in his back-cover blurb. In an e-mail last week he said he had composed his comments without finishing the 294-page book, adding, "I know that Thomas Keller's kitchens are spotless and that Dan Barber does not rip off recipes."

[Behemoth]

Batali also has some comments in the NY Times article:

The reaction to the book has been so heated that two chefs whose praises for the book appear on its back cover have distanced themselves from their own remarks, something almost unheard of in publishing.

...

Mario Batali called the book "honest and matter-of-fact" in his back-cover blurb. In an e-mail last week he said he had composed his comments without finishing the 294-page book, adding, "I know that Thomas Keller's kitchens are spotless and that Dan Barber does not rip off recipes."

←

I didn't know Batali was french.

[robert brown]

Since when is it a revelation that chefs at the top end are protective of their kind. It's been going on for as long as I can remember, which takes it back to the 1970s. They're just as hypocritical now as always. If a young chef with first-hand experience sees something in the kitchen of a great chef that's a negative, he has every right to talk or write about it. To say otherwise raises suspicions that "great" chefs might have something to hide.

[sizzleteeth]

If people will blurb a book without reading it, how can stock be put in anything else they have to say?

Isn't it presumable that any other statement they make is potentially equally as insightful?

That the statements are made on blind presumption and partisanship rather than complete first hand experience?

Do they get paid?

Was just to pocket the $$, (without actually doing the work)??

Hmmm.

Makes it even more interesting who is on trial here.

[Fat Guy]

One does not typically get paid to blurb a book, and a blurb is not exactly journalism. It's basically advertising, generally done as a favor for a colleague, editor, agent, friend, etc. Most book blurbs are based on uncorrected proofs or sample chapters and the standard is to skim and blurb. Blurbing a book based on one chapter is not unusual. Retracting a blurb when the entrenched interests close ranks is.

[Jason Perlow]

If people will blurb a book without reading it, how can stock be put in anything else they have to say?

This also really amazes me, and I am surprised that both Mario and Pepin would suddenly just retract their endorsement of the book in such a fashion. This sounds a hell of a lot like the Culinary Old Boy network at work to me. Restaurant Bilderbergers perhaps circling the wagons?

I've blurbed a number of books (and reviewed hundreds of products) in the computer industry, and I can tell you, I am always scared out of my wits that I said something stupid and innacurate or evidentiary that I hadn't read the material or looked closely enough at the product -- I sometimes blow entire weekends (weeks?) reading/analyzing these things just so I can make my statements with absolute certainty. I have a reputation as an authority on my subject to uphold, and what I say can carry a great deal of impact on my industry. In the computer media, if you make "random" statements or display that you don't know what the hell you are talking about, or didn't do your homework, it can be extremely damaging to your carreer.

Batali and Pepin can't take two hours out of their time to read a book by one of their industry peers so they can sound intelligent and with finality in their assessment of it? What the hell is the problem?

Edited October 5, 2005 by Jason Perlow (log)

[sizzleteeth]

One does not typically get paid to blurb a book, and a blurb is not exactly journalism. It's basically advertising, generally done as a favor for a colleague, editor, agent, friend, etc. Most book blurbs are based on uncorrected proofs or sample chapters and the standard is to skim and blurb. Blurbing a book based on one chapter is not unusual. Retracting a blurb when the entrenched interests close ranks is.

←

Thanks for that.

Book blurbing isn't something I ever really thought about.

Nice to know it's basically worthless*, but can't say I'm surprised.

*Unless, if what he says is true, Jason Perlow happens to be the person blurbing.

[Jason Perlow]

Also, the eG Forums discussion is cited (incorrectly as egullet.com) is the piece:

Mr. Psaltis's assertions and job history became the subject of discussion a few weeks ago on the message boards at eGullet (egullet.com), a Web site devoted to epicurean life, which had been running excerpts from the young chef's book.

I was just going to say, does all it take to get into the New York Times is to cook a few sacred cows on this site every so often?

[Lesley C]

Nice to know it's basically worthless

Well maybe not anymore. Looks like some of the old boys got caught with their pants down.

[dvs]

quote: "factually selective"

eot.

[sizzleteeth]

Nice to know it's basically worthless

Well maybe not anymore. Looks like some of the old boys got caught with their pants down.

←

I would advise though - if you happen to see on a menu anywhere, "Tossed salad, blindfolded, tableside."

You might want to consider ordering something else.

[robert brown]

Who comes out looking good here (other than eGullet, that is)? And what does that say?

[WHT]

Since when is it a revelation that chefs at the top end are protective of their kind. It's been going on for as long as I can remember, which takes it back to the 1970s. They're just as hypocritical now as always. If a young chef with first-hand experience sees something in the kitchen of a great chef that's a negative, he has every right to talk or write about it. To say otherwise raises suspicions that "great" chefs might have something to hide.

←

But can he suport any of it. Looks like the NYT did it's homework.

[chefboy24]

there's another error... or at least oversight or simplification in that NYT article.

ny state restaurant workers are not required to be paid hourly, if they are in supervisory positions (sous chefs, or even argueably line cooks) can definitely legally work on salary with no overtime pay.

doug probably thinks there should be no overtime (as he never got overtime.......but look who he worked for...... bouley, adny, etc).

what good has come from china grill management anyway? ducasse should have known better. china grill? asia de cuba? english is italian? ono? crap.

we saw what happened to mix and roccos.

[Fat Guy]

I would think if the Times had done its homework it would have followed up on a claim like Alex Urena's: that Psaltis wasn't even hired until two weeks after the restaurant opened. Homework would have been saying, "So we requested evidence and this is what we learned."

This is the passage in question, from the Times piece:

Mr. Psaltis writes that he was hired to work as a co-chef at Blue Hill with Mr. Barber and Alex Ureña as the restaurant was about to make its debut. But Mr. Ureña, whom Mr. Psaltis thanks in the book's acknowledgments, said in a phone conversation last week that Mr. Psaltis was hired two weeks after the restaurant opened five years ago.

In terms of the first part, that isn’t actually what Psaltis writes on pages 126 - 141. He writes that he and Alex Urena were to run the kitchen, and that Barber (ridiculously called Peter in the book) stepped in as co-chef after the fact.

With respect to the second part, the claim that Psaltis “was hired two weeks after the restaurant opened five years ago” would certainly be damning to Psaltis. It seems a bit hard to swallow, though. Psaltis is quite specific about, for example:

-Recounting (pages 126 - 127) a dinner meeting with Urena and Barber at Peacock Alley during which the restaurant was discussed pre-opening.

-Specifying the month he came to the restaurant (January, page 129) and the month the restaurant opened for friends-and-family pre/soft-opening meals (February, page 130).

-Naming the people who were at the friends-and-family meals: his friends Laura, Jason and “Greenie” from Huntington, and his brother and co-author Michael (page 130).

-Giving detailed accounts of post mortem meetings held after the friends-and-family meals (page 132 onward).

Urena seems to be claiming that Psaltis wasn’t there for any of the above -- that it was a complete fabrication. Of course, specificity does not equal truth. But the detail provided in Psaltis’s book is compelling to me.

[robert brown]

WHT, perhaps true enough in this instance. However, it should have come as no surprise that the Times' writer should have implied that big-name chefs protecting other big-names chefs was something brand new. Furthermore, it goes on in many other professions, particularly those that involve creativity, research, and scholarship. One of the problems here is that you shouldn't come out and say you shouldn't do it, like Pepin did. It's one of those phenomena that's best left unstated.

Woops, maybe not true in this instance as Steven appears to have found an instance of sloppy journalism.

[tan319]

Nice to see Zakarian (so far) hasn't packed up his wagons just because his chef has a temper.

Love the quotes from Chodorows managers, I'm sure they're really fair & balanced.

"" Gee, that guy SURE was MEAN!!!""

In my experience, chefs just love managers who overbook a room, x2 or 3.

All in all, I'm disgusted with all of these jerks, Pepin, Batali, the whole bunch.

Read the book you're blurbing next time.

Or grow some cojones.

[Fat Guy]

This part of Alex Urena's account is particularly hard to swallow given the journalistic record. Urena says:

"He was helping us as a line cook," Mr. Ureña said. "We didn't want him to get the idea that he was going to be a sous-chef."

But in a Time Out New York article published in 2000, Doug Psaltis is specifically referred to as the sous-chef:

On the day I visit, sous chef Doug Psaltis arrives shortly after Urena.

Also:

Because Blue Hill is a relatively small restaurant—it has about 54 seats, bar not included—Urena, Psaltis and Barber do all of the preliminary prepping or "breaking down" of the vegetables, fish and meats.

The story is available online here: http://www.timeoutny.com/eatout/240/240.eat.ramps.html -- this, at least, would seem to be a bit of homework the New York Times didn't do.

[rich]

Having read this from the beginning and not offered an opinion because the facts or lack thereof kept getting in the way of an interesting story, I can say with certainty only one thing. The book has achieved a status that most authors could only hope. People are talking about it, reviews of reviews have appeared in the NY Times and it has been the preferred subject of discussion in a number of the higher halls of "restaurantdom." What more could the author have hoped to achieve?

The only real opinion I have is on the blurbs. While I agree with Steve, that most blurbs are written without having read the "complete" or final version, it is dangerous to one's credibility to retract after the fact. It makes the retractor look like a fool. If you choose to blurb without reading and you get caught with your pants down, bend over and take the punishment. The pain will be sharp but brief, not lasting and damaging.

[cigalechanta]

The controversy today:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/05/dining/0...nuIFRMhMbEQQaIA

[VeryApe77]

Who comes out looking good here (other than eGullet, that is)? And what does that say?

←

I think everyone involved ends up looking a bit silly, to be honest.

I will say that this whole thing is much more entertaining then the actual book though...