Hangin' with the peeps

[Jaymes]

As for music, having been exposed to an unlimited amount of music over the years, I have settled listening to basically two recordings over and over again. I'm trying to hear them perfectly.

Okay, I'll bite...............

[Bux]

"someone like Fat Guy"

Hmm let's see. That would include,

Sietsema

Leff

Asimov (less so than the others but possibly)

The Stern's

Irene Sax

Sylvia Carter

and a few others.

Have you ever read anything I've written?

Shaw, if Plotnicki has half as good an eye as I do, he doens't need to read what you wrote, he can smell it.

[For those who don't find the immediate reference to my procrastination in picking up books to read from another thread, this is a bit of arcane humor and in no way disparaging to any character who's posted to this thread other than myself, perhaps. Excuse the humor [humor?] this has been a very interesting thread and difficult to enter at this point.]

[Bux]

My two cents in regard to comments already made is that I think the food pages in the NY Times seem to suffer from a dumbing down and there seems to have been less than knowledgeable direction from the top in recent years. Steve P. makes a good point when he says times have changed and a better one when he notes that he's changed. I see the Times offering less sophisticated reporting to a more sophisticated audience, but I have to realize my perspective has changed as I've become educated in the world of food.

My severest criticism of the Times would be that I see them reaching for younger writers who they feel would communicate with the younger reader. As others have said this is about selling newspapers. In my childhood, I would have looked for the Times to find journalists who could instruct as well as they reach. Today, they seem to be expected to entertain. Maybe it's a perennial complaint, but I was a child in an age where knowledge was a commodity and a curmudgeon in an age where perceived charm is the high priced commodity.

[Steve Plotnicki]

"My severest criticism of the Times would be that I see them reaching for younger writers who they feel would communicate with the younger reader. As others have said this is about selling newspapers"

Bux - You know I am never one to deny someone his business model. The truth is that I too made my lot in life by identifying a certain group of people. But that's wholly different from my wanting to be a part of that group, or feel that the media who speaks to and for them can do so for me. This point is embodied in my little side discussion with Lesley C about the purpose of restaurant reviewing. Lesley's definition, which is the basic newspaper definition is in reality a moving target. The level of criticism she gives is dependant on her readership. If her readership is a little older, more affluent and has a bunch of top level meals under their belt, she can spread her wings so to speak. But if they are mainly young with no experience, they need some handholding. In fact Robert Brown makes the point that the popularity of places like Gramercy Tavern is that they have "Amercanized" the experience so people who have never been to places like Arpege feel comfortable going there. But what about restaurant criticism that is interested in the zenith of the dining experience and not the average. Who speaks to and for those people?

Jaynes - Miles Davis both of them. Kind of Blue and Miles Ahead. When I hear them perfectly I will let you know. I'm getting closer.

[Bux]

I didn't mean to imply the Times didn't have the right to be whatever it wanted to be or that it owed anyone anything but the truth. I'm not even sure it owes it's readership the whole complex truth, but it owes its readership an educated journalist who either knows the truth or understands the need to research it. I've seen a few assumptions made in the editorial coverage in the food section that just provided misinformation and miseducated it's young readership.

As for reviews I actually don't care at whom they're aimed, but the reasonable target would be those who might eat there and not those who already do. There's really no reason to tell a regular diner anything about the restaurant in which he eats regularly. There must be reasons Daniel didn't remove the dish that drew the worst criticism from Grimes when he gave his three star review. I suspect those reasons were the regulars who ordered that dish.

I wonder if it would be possible to "educate" a group of young and inexperienced potential diners to develop a common bad taste that would allow terrible restaurants to proliferate profitably. I learned a lot about eating by reading about restaurants I couldn't afford at the time.

[Steve Plotnicki]

"I learned a lot about eating by reading about restaurants I couldn't afford at the time."

Bux - You have put your finger on something that is as Fat Guy would say, worthy of its own thread.

I can't tell you how true your statement is for me as well. When I started to read about the top restaurants in France, not only 3 star palaces but where you could find the best salade frisee, all I wanted to learn was where you could get the best things. Money, of which I did not have very much of at the time was only an obstacle to doing it. It never was an obstacle to learning about it. I recall the days when I would sit around with a few friends of mine and we would dream about eating at Lutece. "Maybe if we go to lunch we could afford it" I distinctly remember someone saying. But that Lutece was a pipedream didn't stop us from wanting to know all about it.

[Fat Guy]

Plotnicki, start a new thread on the worthiness of fine dining versus cheap eats as subjects of food journalism already. I'll explain everything to you there.

Then go start one on the proper target audience for restaurant reviews.

[John Whiting]

What did the fourth guy in the quartet play ?

I couldn't tell; he was playing with himself.

"I learned a lot about eating by reading about restaurants I couldn't afford at the time."

I learned about sex the same way.

[John Whiting]

Steve P wrote:

As for music, having been exposed to an unlimited amount of music over the years, I have settled listening to basically two recordings over and over again. I'm trying to hear them perfectly.

You would appear to have something in common with the viola player who sat in his music room all day playing the same note. Finally his wife ventured to say, "Dear - I notice that other viola players go up and down the scale, playing different pitches of different durations. Sometimes the pattern is very pretty." The viola player continued to draw steadily on his bow and replied with a superior air, "They're looking for the right note. I've found it."

Actually, my note about valuing scarce information was not an attempt to argue a case, but rather to convey a mood, a nuance. I still have very vivid memories of a sort of sensory deprivation, of being unable to hear as much as I wanted of particular pieces of music. It was not unlike living in a small town in the middle of nowhere with no restaurants, no decent food stores, and not even the ability to order foods by mail. Only an occasional travelling chef who would serve a splendid banquet and then move on.

[Sandra Levine]

Sandra - I think that Saveur is above the heads of people who are making hamburgers for the first time. If you are at the Saveur level, you have already eaten, and probably made your fair share of burgers.

Maybe, maybe not. There are plenty of people who might enjoy the magazine purely on the gastro-porn level and who have never stood in front of the stove. That being said, I agree that Saveur seems to have lost its way. (n.b. again, I have not read the hamburger article, and probably should have stayed out of the discussion)

I, for one, am grateful for eGullet, where I have learned more than I ever learned from any food magazine, well, in recent years anyway. The food world has changed; and those of us who have lived long enough have also changed. Not everyone or every pubication has kept pace.

BTW, Steve, I thought you had said somewhere that the secret of your hamburgers was in the shaping. Here, you say something abour garlic powder. Do you shape the burger around a chip of ice to keep the interior rare while the outside chars? (Forgive my descent to such a low level.)

[Steve Plotnicki]

Sandra - No I shape them by hand into a quasi ballish shape. I do my kosher salt and garlic thing (pretty much coating them) and the trick is to put them on a very hot fire where the coals haven't completely cooked down to grey ash, but not so hot that the fire will constantly be flaming up. Then when the burgers are ready on that side, flip them and then flatten with a spatula. Since they were in a ball, you have lots of nice rare center that hasn't even come close to cooking, but the outside is completey charred. Then when you flatten it, all you have to do is to cook it to a slight char on that side and they are done. They are perfect, medium rare but warm in the middle and have a great garlic/salty flavor to them. The trick is to get the fire when it is hot, but not too hot or the outside of the burger burns and dries out. Char is good. Burnt is not.

Okay I have to sign off. I have a fire going and we are making the Patricia Wells Lemon Thyme Lambchops and my wife made the infamous gratin and it looks pro. More later.

[foodie52]

SPAM is next.

[Jaymes]

Then when the burgers are ready on that side, flip them and then flatten with a spatula.

"flatten"? You flatten them?

Boy if I'd tried that, I'd a gotten whupped upside the head with a spatula.

Doesn't that force the juices out?

[Fat Guy]

I think Plotnicki is talking more about shaping than true flattening.

[Steve Plotnicki]

Jaymes - I'm not saying to make them flat, I'm talking about flattening it into a patty shape. What do you think that in NYC we eat flat hamburgers? Only at White Castle. It doesn't force much of the juices out. You might get a little rise in the flame when you flatten it out. If you pack the burgers with enough meat, you get the perfect burger shape when flattening.

[Jaymes]

Tanks guys. My faith is restored.

[tommy]

i am getting (with any luck) a meat grinder for that big white mixer thing i have in my kitchen (you know, the "kitcheaide", which no one uses unless they bake). i've been told i can make really good hamburger meat from this device. as i type this, i realize that i should probably start a new thread on what kind of meat to grind for the perfect burger. ok then. but, i'll take any comments here.

[macrosan]

Isn't it interesting that everyone on this thread has something to say about burgers, but not a comment about hot dogs. And I'm not surprized. I'm gonna hang around here till someone answers my question about what's the big deal with hot dogs, beyond sarcastic comments about my beloved country's own culinary nonentities.

[Lesley C]

What do these White Castle burgers taste like?

[Steve Plotnicki]

Lesley C - You never had a White Castle burger? They are a testament to fast food creativity.

They are square in shape, possibly 2 1/2 square and very thin like 1/4 of an inch and a frozen patty has diced onion spread on top. There are small holes punched throughout the burger. Since they are square, they are able to be placed side by side on a griddle, with one burger smack up against the other. They are mostly cooked by being steamed, and since the burger has holes in it, the steam comes through the holes and cooks both sides of the burger at the same time. The person manning the cook station will lay out enough burgers to fill a small griddle. Maybe they will be 12 across and 12 deep. I guess that's a good question. How many burgers fit on one of those griddles? After the griddle is full, they place a bun on top of each burger. The bottom of the bun goes face down, and then the top of the burger is face down as well. After the cook finishes laying the buns on top of the burgers, they are done. The cook spatulas the top bun into their free hand while flipping the bun top over so the soft portion of the bun is face up. They then take the burger with the bottom of the bun off the grill, lay it right on the top of the top of the bun, and then stuff it into a small box with an open top. They then take a slice of a dill pickle and insert it, and then squirt ketchup onto the top of the burger. Voila. Junk food greatness. If you want cheese, after they take it off the griddle they place a slice of cheese that is the same exact size as the burger (I mean exact) and they have a steamer that they use to melt the cheese. It's sort of a press type of thing that is reminiscent of what they would use to make a Cuban sandwich.

The taste of all of this is sort of oniony, and meaty. The bun is sort of mushy, but not to the point where it disintegrates. But it is soft the way something would be from steaming. Same with the meat. I think they must be particular in the way they grind the meat for the burgers and it is somewhat coarse but I think that is isn't too chewey because the steaming softens it and the holes in the burger cut down on density. Whoever invented the thing, tweaked every aspect of the invention to make it perfect for a fast food franchise. I'm certain that every aspect of the preparation was measured so a person working the griddle would be able to produce X number of bugers in Y minutes. And unlike McDonald's which is a more recent invention, WC is from the 30's I believe so the engineering here is a cornerstone of fast food. From memory (and remember this is all written from my youth and they might have changed some of this process)it would take someone about 2 minutes to cover a griddle with burgers and another 2-3 to cover the burgers with buns. Then they would have to wait for a minute or so and then they were ready.

The big allure about the White Castle burger is they were almost bite size. I don't think that the meekest of eaters would take more than 3-4 bites to finish one. And it's possible to stuff a whole one in your mouth if you had the kind of neck a defensive tackle would have. But 2-3 bites for normal eaters. Considering their size, you could eat tons of them. It's not unusual for someone to order 6+. Also, WC is open 24 hours. So when you're a teenager and you're finished doing whatever teeneagers do at 3:00 or 4:00 in the morning, you could head over there and get yourself a bag full.

[Sandra Levine]

I've never had one and want to keep it that way.

[Rail Paul]

I've never had one and want to keep it that way.

Never? Not even one?

[Blondie]

Steve, the breadth of your knowledge continues to astound me . We occassionally stopped at the White Castle across from my dad's office on Northern and Bell in Bayside. (I wonder if it's still there). After a certain age, though, the chance of ending up there was directly proportional to alcohol consumption .

[Sandra Levine]

Never? Not even one?

I'm telling the truth

[Steve Plotnicki]

Hey Blondie. That was my proprietary White Castle, just about a 2 mile walk from where I grew up. What office did your dad have and did you grow up in that neighborhood? There used to be a place on Bell Blvd. right across the street from WC that was a luncheonette with a sign in the window that said "Creamy Egg Creams" and we used to go there all the time as well. But I paid many a visit to that WC in the wee hours of the morning. I remember going there at around 4:00am once in a state that, well you could imagine. So I decide I'm going to ask them for my burgers medium rare and when I go up to the lady with the hairnet on who wants to take my order, I start laughing so hard that I can't speak. My friend online behind me had to bail me out and he pushed me aside and gave her the order. Ah, the fun things you get to do when you're young.