Doug Psaltis

[JPW]

This is one of the most ridiculous lines of argument I have ever seen.

I meant those  who lick Thomas Keller's boots, which has nothing to do with being a critic of Douglas. Although I have to count myself, along with just about everyone else, among those who have posted without reading the book, I still haven't put forth an opinion about the book itself. However, from reading the excerpts, the book qualifies as literature and should be judged as such.

Ummm...

You just put forth an opinion on the book by claiming it is "literature". Not to get into a debate on what qualifies as literature, but who died and made you the arbiter of what is "literature" and what isn't? How do you define literature?

Is literature by nature fictional? Is your argument that real world event-based writing merits evaluation of the facts of the matter only when it isn't "literature"?

For Douglas to have to defend himself and answer questions about his intentions or motives defeats the purpose of writing a book. It would have been a lot simpler for him to hire a hall somewhere in order to give a lecture and answer questions, or to write on this site a list of how he feels about this or that or whom. But that isn't literature.

This just boggles the mind. By allowing the book to be excerpted here, Psaltis opened himself up to such questions. Or are we just here to shill for favored authors? Any book is colored by the motives of its author(s). In order to judge the whole of the work it is absolutely necessary to know the motives of the author. If I want to look at a string of pretty words, I'll open the dictionary.

[julski]

I HAVE read the book, and it was pretty boring. Read Michael Ruhlman instead

Julie the Librarian

[robert brown]

People have been putting forth definitions, or parameters, of literature for centuries, so don't put the burden on my shoulders. It may be good literature or not-so-good literature, but "The Seasoning of a Chef" is an example of literature. I just returned from the Barnes & Noble with a copy of the book in the hopes that I and others can turn the discussion away from slashing and burning and into one about the overall merits and/or shortcomings of the work.

That the publisher of the book chose to make available excerpts on-line instead of in a magazine hardly obligates Douglas to answer questions here, let alone reveal his motives. We had a discussion about this sort of matter during the rough and tumble days of eGullet in which I presented a quote from Picasso when someone asked him the meaning of "Guernica". His answered was to the effect that the painting is about what you see in it. You're free to believe that Douglas's motive was to malign chefs irrationally and out of jealousy, or present evidence that certain ones aren't what they are cracked up to be or who their PR machinery wants you to believe (and anything in between).

[silverbrow]

For Douglas to have to defend himself and answer questions about his intentions or motives defeats the purpose of writing a book. It would have been a lot simpler for him to hire a hall somewhere in order to give a lecture and answer questions, or to write on this site a list of how he feels about this or that or whom. But that isn't literature.

This just boggles the mind. By allowing the book to be excerpted here, Psaltis opened himself up to such questions. Or are we just here to shill for favored authors? Any book is colored by the motives of its author(s). In order to judge the whole of the work it is absolutely necessary to know the motives of the author. If I want to look at a string of pretty words, I'll open the dictionary.

←

I couldn't agree with JPW more. Unless, of course Robert, you are saying that when it comes to literature - and if a non-fiction based book is literature, then anything written is literature - one can publish whatever one wants and not have to worry about the veracity to it. Out of interest, do these threads count as literature as well? Because if they do, and going by your argument, eGullet should never delete posts or lock threads it feels uncomfortable with. Afterall, it seems that according to your argument, anything written is simply literature and should be revelled in it for its own sake.

I am sure that Psaltis wrote this book - as does anyone who writes a book, article, thread - to inform/entertain others. Obviously there will be an element of self-interest but books are published for the audience, not just for the author. As such, the author absolutely should be open to criticism, and criticism whether negative or positive, always raises questions. I appreciate Doug might be busy opening his restaurant, but to argue that he doesn't need to justify himself is not only mind boggling but bizarre.

[SobaAddict70]

Certainly, questions can and should be asked.

That doesn't mean he (Mr. Psaltis) has to answer them, either at this time or ever.

That said, he probably will...whenever the current furor dies down. Whilst it would be nice for an author -- any author -- to offer answers or explanations for his or her work, it is in my opinion, unreasonable to make demands of such from those you happen to disagree with.

It is what it is.

[robert brown]

I'm not talking about any other piece of writing, individually or collectively, except "The Seasoning of a Chef". Muddying the waters about other kinds of writing isn't germane to what is meant to be a discussion of a specific book. I'm trying to have people look at the book as a literate work, not an alleged hatchet job on a favored chef. Douglas's opening himself up to questioning is no guarantee that he will, or even can, reveal all his motives. What he put down on paper in contemplation and solitude at the time of writing is the truest indication of whatever it is you would ever hope to learn from him.

[Dave the Cook]

Folks, we're veering quite a bit off topic. We're not here to debate the definition of literature. Let's talk about the book.

(For those of you catching up, Doug Psaltis posted on the subject of the hand-slapping incident: here).

[Doug Psaltis]

The incident with the runner at the French Laundry has been greatly exaggerated. It was a slap of the hand and nothing more. It had no impact on my perspective on the restaurant and little to do with why I left. In writing The Seasoning of a Chef, there were a good number of things that were omitted, but this was mostly due to the scope of the story and not to hide any particular incident.

Many of the comments that have been deemed damning of the French Laundry are just my opinions based on a comparison of that restaurant with one that I consider to be the best I've seen, or with the reputation of the restaurant that preceded my arriving in Yountville. I think the book makes my assessment of the French Laundry very clear. The chapter ends with this: "No matter what I thought about Thomas's techniques and style as opposed to Ducasse's, there was no doubt that he was running one of the best restaurants in the country."

The Seasoning of a Chef recounts my experiences, and includes the places I worked in and the people I worked with. It isn't a piece of criticism. Nothing was written with the intention of cutting someone down. It is just my story and the book is how I saw it. As I've stated before, I have great respect for Thomas Keller, as well as for many of the other chefs who are in The Seasoning of a Chef.

[Marlene]

This seems like a good time to remind ourselves of the eGS Member Policy on innuendo

If you make factual statements, you represent that you have confirmed their truth. Statements of opinion are, of course, unrestricted, provided they comply with the rest of this policy 

If anyone has facts or eyewitness accounts to offer in oppostion, it would be great to hear them.

Otherwise, we can have an interesting discussion about the book -- there's a lot more to it than Doug Psaltis's experience at the French Laundry. I'm sure Doug would be happy to continue to particpate in a discussion on other parts of his book, but please do remember, he's in the middle of opening a restaurant, which means he's probably working 22 hours a day, so he may not be able to respond as promptly as those of us who live at our computers do.

Thanks.

[sammy]

While it is great that Doug took some time out of his busy day to post, he still hasn't responded to two basic questions that would end this once and for all:

1. Why exactly did he leave "one of the best restaurants in the country?"

2. Did he quit or was he fired?

Then readers can decide on their own how to best evaluate Doug's comments about TFL.

Edited September 26, 2005 by sammy (log)

[robert brown]

If you want readers to decide on their own, why bother to ask the questions?

[sammy]

If you want readers to decide on their own, why bother to ask the questions?

←

So they can decide after knowing the facts instead of speculating as to whether he quit or was fired.

Edited September 26, 2005 by sammy (log)

[sammy]

This seems like a good time to remind ourselves of the eGS Member Policy on innuendo

QUOTE

If you make factual statements, you represent that you have confirmed their truth. Statements of opinion are, of course, unrestricted, provided they comply with the rest of this policy

If he chooses, Doug can put an end to all of the innuendo by just saying what happened.

[Jake]

If you want readers to decide on their own, why bother to ask the questions?

←

So they can decide after knowing the facts instead of speculating as to whether he quit or was fired.

←

Does it matter? Really? Perhaps M. Psaltis would rather talk about what is actually in his book rather than why he quit or was fired? If it's not in the book, and he hasn't brought it up, perhaps it is not meant to be for public consumption.

FWIW, I appreciate the moderators interest in the topic and to keeping things on topic. Why would ANY author/chef do a q & a if it is not a pleasant experience...

[sammy]

Why would ANY author/chef do a q & a if it is not a pleasant experience...

$$$$

[Marlene]

Doug has stated what he want to say on the matter. If you have facts to refute what he's said then post it. Otherwise, let move on. O

[AlexP]

I was thinking in buying the book. However, after reading this thread and others, I have decided not to. The main reason for my decision is that the credibility of the stories in this type of genre is important to me.

[Jake]

Why would ANY author/chef do a q & a if it is not a pleasant experience...

$$$$

←

I find that answer rather offensive. While I am not a host or moderator (Marlene et al. please jump in and correct me if I'm wrong) if you read upthread you would realize Doug was answering questions here of his own free will, NOT for money. I do not believe most of the people who are kind enough to participate in q & a's are paid for their time any more than the eG members who host the forums.

[sammy]

Why would ANY author/chef do a q & a if it is not a pleasant experience...

$$$$

←

I find that answer rather offensive. While I am not a host or moderator (Marlene et al. please jump in and correct me if I'm wrong) if you read upthread you would realize Doug was answering questions here of his own free will, NOT for money. I do not believe most of the people who are kind enough to participate in q & a's are paid for their time any more than the eG members who host the forums.

←

Sorry to imply that Q&A participants are paid directly. You can't deny that people participate to promote their books, shows or restaurants which ultimately leads to $$$$.

Do you think the publisher allowed excerpts of the book to be printed because they are charitable fellows or did they think it might be an effective and inexpensive way to promote their book?

Edited to add that I don't think there is anything wrong with using a Q&A to promote a restaurant, book or show.

Edited September 26, 2005 by sammy (log)

[robert40]

I once found one of my line cooks smoking crack behind a dumpster. I fired him immediately. When his next employer called me for a reference I was only allowed to verify the cooks employment with us.

This is the day of age we live in, and all parties involved here are aware of it.

In my opinion this discussion seems pretty much dead at this point.

[Dirk Wheelan]

What he put down on paper in contemplation and solitude at the time of writing is the truest indication of whatever it is you would ever hope to learn from him.

←

I'm not sure what the 'intentionist' fallacy is, but doesn't the the intentionalist fallacy posit that it is mistaken to use the writing of an author as evidence for the author's self? Of course, one can see how this is sensible in fiction or poetry, but you are the first person to prescribe its relevance to autobiography.

I would have thought autobiographical intentionalism to be the truest expression of what an author wishes to reveal about himself, and thus not be fallacious at all.

Consequently, I'd modify the above to say that: What he put down on paper in contemplation and solitude at the time of writing is the truest indication of whatever it is he would ever hope that you learn from him.

Edited September 26, 2005 by Dirk Wheelan (log)

[sammy]

I once found one of my line cooks smoking crack behind a dumpster. I fired him immediately. When his next employer called me for a reference I was only allowed to verify the cooks employment with us.

Robert, that may be true but that was the choice of the employer who took that position to avoid a possible lawsuit. Nothing prevented the cook from telling the truth.

[Jake]

Why would ANY author/chef do a q & a if it is not a pleasant experience...

$$$$

←

I find that answer rather offensive. While I am not a host or moderator (Marlene et al. please jump in and correct me if I'm wrong) if you read upthread you would realize Doug was answering questions here of his own free will, NOT for money. I do not believe most of the people who are kind enough to participate in q & a's are paid for their time any more than the eG members who host the forums.

←

Sorry to imply that Q&A participants are paid directly. You can't deny that people participate to promote their books, shows or restaurants which ultimately leads to $$$$.

Do you think the publisher allowed excerpts of the book to be printed because they are charitable fellows or did they think it might be an effective and inexpensive way to promote their book?

Edited to add that I don't think there is anything wrong with using a Q&A to promote a restaurant, book or show.

←

Having worked in both fields I am indeed well aware why a chef would promote a book and why a publishing house would do so. I appreciate your apology and if I spoke quickly I, too, am sorry. Your reply seemed crass/rude when I read it. Such is the hazzard of one character posts I guess.

[Marlene]

Let me be clearer. On the issue of Psaltis's time at the French Laundry we're only accepting factual challenges at this point.

If you aren't happy with Doug's response and you choose not to buy the book, so be it. For the record, Q&A participant's here do not get paid, nor do we pay them to publish any excerpts. We also don't try people by innuendo here.

Everyone has had a full and fair opportunity to post their thoughts and comments on the FL questions, and one last time. We are going to move on from the incident and whether Doug got fired or quit, up until such time as someone is able to present facts to contradict what he said.

I will start deleting posts that continue to bring this up in the absence of any facts.

[Bux]

I once found one of my line cooks smoking crack behind a dumpster. I fired him immediately. When his next employer called me for a reference I was only allowed to verify the cooks employment with us.

Robert, that may be true but that was the choice of the employer who took that position to avoid a possible lawsuit. Nothing prevented the cook from telling the truth.

←

It would explain why a chef might have a series of short term plum jobs on his resume. One might assume that when a chef leaves one prestigious restaurant for another, it's should be obvious that the second employer would have secured references from past employers. What's posted above is interesting in this context. Poor performance might get you a negative recommendation faster than outright criminal activity. Surely if that's the case and chef would be leary of saying anything to another chef in private, he'd be less likely to say anything on a public message board. This seems to support my earlier contention that the worse the truth might be, the less we'd be likely to see any of it here.