Fine Dining vs. Cheap Eats

[Wilfrid]

There's also the issue of using modern borders to define mediaeval lands and passage thereover.

Of course, of course.

And there's also the fact that many of these countries were at war with one another, or in states of internal upheaval for extended periods. Few English people would have been found sauntering through France during the post-Revolutionary and Napeoleonic periods, for example. That's another reason Steve should tell us which era he meant: given that he spoke of the era when French food came to pre-eminence, I have been assuming ninteenth century, but perhaps I shouldn't assume anything.

[Steve Plotnicki]

"But do you think more people are clamoring for cassoulet - which indeed they are - only because it is more complex in construction and flavor? Surely also it has something to do with the fact that it is much better known than "Tuscan beans".

Wilfrid - Anyone who has made his living selling things will tell you that the reason French culture is/was dominant, was that it was better. Okay that's a gross generalization but as far as generalizations go, it's a pretty good one. It's condescending to think that French cuisine is prolific because they were good promoters. Good promoters are only as good as the product they have to offer.

As for my theory on European travel, I had no era in mind. But what I said is that I suspect that the formulation of their food culture was helped in large part by having greater exposure, based on geographical location, to other cultures. Just the fact that their own cooking culture revolves around three different types of fuel, olive oil, goose fat and butter, begins to make this point all by itself. But I mean look which way the Romans travelled. Why didn't they travel up over the alps into Switzerland and Germany? There has been a major overland route from Rome, thorugh France and stretching well into the west of England for 2000 years.

[g.johnson]

Just the fact that their own cooking culture revolves around three different types of fuel, olive oil, goose fat and butter, begins to make this point all by itself.

This is explained by the range of climate and consequent diveristy of agricultural practices within France itself.

[Robert Schonfeld]

Ok, so I'm not going to convince Steve that greatness can be inherent in simplicity (as opposed to cheapness), but I thank Wilfrid for cogently restating some of the ideas I expressed, including the important one about fashion. (Beware, out there, you fashion victims...) As for "nobody caring", well, we'd like to keep it that way.

Bux and Cabrales, maybe one day I'll make some risotto for you. It will suffice in terms of articulation simply to make low moaning sounds.

[Robert Schonfeld]

the reason French culture is/was dominant, was that it was better.

Again we'd prefer that more people believed this nonsense, so that property values in Tuscany would decline.

[macrosan]

Cheap, complex, good. - I can't think of it offhand, but it probably exists.

According to SteveP, White Castle mini perforated burger things

[jhlurie]

Cheap, complex, good. - I can't think of it offhand, but it probably exists.

According to SteveP, White Castle mini perforated burger things

Hah. Steven Shaw's got the edge on this one. Everyone within driving distance with any true appreciation of greasy hamburgers knows to go to White Manna in Hackensack instead.

[Wilfrid]

As Glyn notes, the types of fuel available within France are irrelevant to the European travel point.

I am still trying to get a handle on what the point is. Are you saying the French benefitted from exposure to travellers from England and Holland, for example? What did they learn from them? Are you suggesting Italy, Germany and Britain haven't been visited constantly by international travellers over the last two or three hundred years? Incidentally, leisure travellers often passed over the Alps going to and from Germany, Italy and Switzerland - it was considered a scenic route. As for how the Romans got to Wessex, the relevance eludes me: I think Italian influences on early French cooking are well documented (information travels in books better than it does on foot).

On the more substantive question, I didn't say that French food dominance was caused by promotion. That is not the only alternative to quality (and it doesn't necessarily exclude quality, as you pointed out). It would be interesting to puzzle out how and why French food conquered much of the world. But that may need a different thread.

[Toby]

"But that may need a different thread." Please, please start one.

How do we know that more people are interested in cassoulet than Tuscan beans? Which more people? The people reading this thread? People on egullet? New Yorkers? Americans? 1 billion Chinese? What do you mean by analyze? Are you talking about eating something and talking about it or cooking it?

Is it possible to be curious and then try to become knowledgeable about any of the non-Western cuisines without engaging in cultural appropriation? (I'm thinking of the fusion thread which got caught up in talking about a French dish in which curry powder had been added; I think the Asian and Middle Eastern touches in French food are atrocious -- the Vietnamese, for example, did a much better job of incorporating French techniques into their cuisine as in banh mi.) And once knowledgeable about a non-Western complex cuisine, come to see that all of the world's great cuisines are amazingly complete systems of beauty, grace and practicality?

[Steve Plotnicki]

Robert S. - The point is that France's unusual access to culinary information, because it was a central point for travel must be one of the factors in their culinary dominance. It's like the stock market. He who has access to the best information wins. Someone who is lurking on this board just emailed me an article on the History of French Cuisine. And while I just glanced at it, the very first paragraph talks about how the Romans brought their own wheat, wine and spices with them when they marched through Gaul. That's the point get it? Other travelers from southern Europe who were emmigrated to France, or passed through it on their way to Northern or Eastern Europe passed through France. Already on this board there was a discussion about whether cholent was the inspiration for cassoulet, and whether the Spanish Inquisition, which sent Jews scurrying through all parts of France into every country in Northern Europe influenced other French foods like quenelles.

Robert S. - Let me ask you about another aspect of this that merits discussion. The French were modernists. Their art, their cooking, their architecure etc. The Germans too but that ended for obvious reasons. But the Italians weren't very modern. Nor were the Spanish. Why is that and how much do you think that effects what we are discussing? And I dare you to make a risotto that is anywhere as good as the best paella. It can't happen.

[LaNiña]

I'll take a perfectly executed risotto over a great paella any day, truly. Add a mache and radish salad with a simple vinaigrette and that's it for me. Perhaps my favorite meal.

[g.johnson]

But the Italians weren't very modern. Nor were the Spanish.

Off the top of my head: Picasso, Miro, Gaudi, Lorca, Marinetti, Pirandello, Svevo.

[Toby]

But the Italians weren't very modern. Nor were the Spanish.

Off the top of my head: Picasso, Miro, Gaudi, Lorca, Marinetti, Pirandello, Svevo.

Dali, Machado, Cervantes (first meta-novel), the foam guy, Chirroco (sp?), Fellini et al...

[jhlurie]

France was also a central point for being conquered. Does that affect this thesis?

[macrosan]

Yes but apart from Picasso, Miro, Gaudi, Lorca, Marinetti, Pirandello, Svevo, Dali, Machado, Cervantes, the foam guy, Chirroco, Fellini et al...  John Cleese, Life of Brian

[jhlurie]

macrosan, what are you trying to say?

[Wilfrid]

Good game! Calvino, Moravia, Giacometti, D'Annunzio, Dali.*

Steve, be serious: nothing said here has established that France is a "central point for travel." The Romans may well have swung back and forth through Gaul, but they went most other places too: Britain, Germany, the near east, Africa. Did they only pack their wine and spices for French trips? And, in any case, don't you take the point that much culinary knowledge would have circulated through (i) the written word, (ii) travel by food professionals between major European cities, (iii) leisure travel by the moneyed class, who had privileged access to culinary information, and which involved tours of Germany, Greece and Italy at least as much as trips to France (Italy was a far more important destination than France for the smart set in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries)?

Why are you clinging to such an unpromising explanation?

*I typed this before certain others got in on the lark, but I enjoyed it too much to delete it.

[Wilfrid]

France was also a central point for being conquered.  Does that affect this thesis?

Nothing affects the thesis.

And don't worry, Macrosan, I got it. LOL.

Maybe a new thread, called "What have the French ever done for cooking?"

Edit disclosure: three attempts to type "affects".

[cabrales]

An interesting book on the philosophy of Chinese cuisine is Chinese Gastronomy by Hsiang Ju Lin and Tsuifeng Lin.  It attempts to explain all the elements that make up a cuisine.  The chapter headings are:  Ancient Cuisine, Flavor, Texture, Regional Cooking, Curiosities, Plain Cooking, Classic Cuisine, A Gastronomic Calendar

An excerpt from Lin and Lin's writings is set forth in The Penguin Book of Food and Drink (ed. Paul Levy 1996). The below quote hints at the intricacies of Chinese cuisine and certain departures, beginning to fundamental descriptions of flavor and desirable qualities, from, say, French renditions:

"Chinese cuisine . . . actually differs from Western cuisine in a number of fundamental aspects. Its peculiar character comes from the realization that cooking is a form of artifice. . . . The pursuit of flavor has resulted more often from the blending of flavors . . . . Chinese cuisine is uniquely distinguished by textural variation, which has also led to the use of [animal/fish] parts. And it is one of the few cuisines in which some kinds of fat are treated as delicacies. . . . Cooking is a form of artifice, because the taste of food is both good and bad. Good taste cannot be achieved unless one knows precisely what is bad about each ingredient, and proceeds to correct it. . . . Raw fish is insipid, raw chicken metallic, raw beef is palatable but for the rank flavour of blood. . . ."

Lins then proceed to set forth the criteria of excellence in Chinese cuisine.

"Hsien. Sweet natural flavour. Usage: to describe the delicate taste of fat pork, or the taste of butter; the taste of fresh fish, bamboo and prawns (shrimps). . . .

Hsiang. Characteristic fragrance' aroma. Usage: applied to those dishes which can give pleasure by their smell as well as their taste; characteristic fragrance of chicken fat, of roasted meats, of mushrooms, of sauteed onions, etc. . . . .

Nung. Rich, heady, concentrated. Usage: in contrast to Hsien, which must always appear fresh and effortless, dishes which are nung are strongly flavoured with meat essences or spices. Applied to highly romatic food (Glazed Duck) . . . . .

Yu-er-pu-ni. To taste of fat without being oily. Usage: applicable to the *yolks of preserved eggs*, to roe, to properly cooked belly pork. . . ."

[g.johnson]

Good game!

It's a lot easier than the "name three famous Belgians" game.

[Wilfrid]

It is, although having played the Belgian game a lot, I have got quite good at it: Plastique Bertrand, Toots Thielemans, Jacques Brel, Herge ('s Adventures of Tin Tin), Paul De Man. For example.

[Toby]

Cabrales, thanks for adding more quotes from the Lins' book. I'm on my way out the door, but I just wanted to add that food writing and analysis goes way back in Chinese history. I studied Chinese and one of my very favorite readings that we translated in class was from Mencius, and it began, "As for me, I like bear paws." Su Tung Po, a famous poet, also wrote about food and had some dishes named after him, most famously fresh pork belly which got a very involved treatment. I'll look this up later.

[Steve Plotnicki]

Wilfrid - Well you continue to ignore the second part of my thesis which is,

"WERE IN A POSITION TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF"

Please let's not forget that again.

It was relevent to the French if the Romans came through with a particlularly good variety of wheat because they had the wherewithall to farm it and other places might not have. Same with wine. If the Romans or anybody else for that matter cultivated a varietal, it could be planted to good results in France. That isn't the case in Britain and Africa.

It's like my stock market example. Information alone doesn't get you anywhere. You need to know how to use the information, and you need to have money to take advantage of it. Somehow, the French took advantage of their resources, both inherited as well as ones brought in from external sources better than the other countries in Europe did. That is one of the main reasons why their food and cooking is *superior* to the other European countries. But if you want to be old school about it, you can say that the French just happened to be good cooks, just like the Dutch just happened to be good sailors. And that is why the Dutch, a tiny country, had one of the greatest shipping businesses in the history of the world.

The fact that it's on the sea had nothing to do with it.

"I'll take a perfectly executed risotto over a great paella any day, truly. Add a mache and radish salad with a simple vinaigrette and that's it for me. Perhaps my favorite meal."

Nina - That's lunch. I'm talking about dinner.

And to all of you who made those lists of Italians and Spaniards, I didn't say there weren't any did I? I'm not asking about people, I'm asking about the modernist spriit in those countries. Was there any? How many of the people on those lists went to France to practice their art? When Chagall left Russia, where did he go, Madrid? Van Gogh he's Dutch right, where did he go Istanbul? Where are all his famous paintings painted? Whatever anybody has to say about France, it's at the crossroads of Western Europe. In the days when people and information moved predominantly by foot, that has to have had some impact on it's cultural evolution. And by the same token, places like Spain and Italy had to suffer based on their geographic location.

How about a harder question. How does geography in Europe relate to when certain countries turned democratic and why others stayed monarchys or other types of authoritarian governments longer? Isn't one of the reasons we are so fascinated with French cuisine is that France was the country that offered the most personal freedom and it encouraged creativity of all types including cooking? And isn't that why artists flocked there? And when someone cooks French food today, isn't that just a statement that we still enjoy that expression and what it stands for?

[Robert Schonfeld]

Robert S. - Let me ask you about another aspect of this that merits discussion. The French were modernists. Their art, their cooking, their architecure etc. The Germans too  but that ended for obvious reasons. But the Italians weren't very modern. Nor were the Spanish. Why is that and how much do you think that effects what we are discussing? And I dare you to make a risotto that is anywhere as good as the best paella. It can't happen.

The point is that France's unusual access to culinary information, because it was a central point for travel must be one of the factors in their culinary dominance.

I don't question the culinary dominance of France in the modern era (in western culture), Steve. Whether or not your theory about geography is right is something else; I'm not a geographic historian. I did ask about the "why", and I do think this would make a very interesting discussion for knowledgeable parties, one from which I would be sure to learn. A longstanding fashion for things French has been suggested, and I agree with that idea, as one among others.

The Italians were most definitely modernists in art, Steve, although no one is going to argue that Paris was not the center of the modern art world until WWII. Names you might know include Amadeo Modigliani and Giorgio De Chirico, among many others.

I will gladly make you a good risotto. But suggesting that it will not be as good as a paella serves no purpose. You might as well ask if it will be as good as a chicken mole. Greatness can be found in complex cooking. Greatness can also be found in simple cooking. I think we've been here before. We don't have to agree on this.

[LaNiña]

Perhaps it's much more basic than that. I think the reason we're so drawn to things French, taking food as the example, is simply because of the "permission" France gives for the pursuit of pleasure. Sex, food, art, ideas...it's about pleasure for the sake of pleasure. Hedonism, if you will. Nothing attracts us more.