Fine Dining vs. Cheap Eats

[jordyn]

It's as if the pendent pedantry around here wouldn't cut anyone some slack and say that the thrust of the statement is to say that France contained some major transportation routes that people used to get from Northern to Southern points, and that had a positive impact on how their cuisine developed.

I'm certainly willing to cut you some slack, because I haven't researched this subject directly either, but I think what Wilfrid and Toby and I are trying to argue is that your premise doesn't seem likely to be bourne out by additional research. The fundamental argument that you're trying to make is that France has a better cuisine than other countries partly because it was travelled through more than other countries. (It's possible the extent of your claim is that France has a good cuisine partly because ocassional visitors came to France and dropped off recipes. If this is the extent of your claim, you're almost certainly correct, but it's a pretty obvious and not particularly interesting idea.) Many other countries seem likely to have had just as much, if not more, traffic through them.

I know you'll say that other countries did not have the requisite natural resources to take advantage of this, but I think the natural resources have more to do with it than the travellers crossing the country. I could make the argument that France has good food because they had a huge navy and the quality of the terroir allowed them to make all of the food that their sailors learned about out at sea. The second half of my claim subsequently becomes convenient cover when people correctly point out that other countries had much bigger navies. "Of course England and the Netherlands and Portugal had better navies," I could acknowledge, "but they couldn't take advantage of all the recipes the sailors were learning." In reality, France wasn't so good at the whole boat thing, but they do have a lot of nice ingredients that grow there.

Again, if people were happy that France is gastronomically dominant, this type of argument wouldn't ensue. Instead of picking apart the words based on their lack of precision in order to whittle at the basic premise, they would help refine the concepts.

Actually, I don't take issue at all with the idea of French gastronomic dominance. I just think you're not onto the right reasons why it happened. Other hypotheses (some suggested by you, even) seem more likely:

1) The French terroir is just better than everyone else's.

2) The French penchant for classification made it easier to formalize and transmit quality cooking techniques.

3) Because the French didn't have a good navy, they were forced to develop local products as opposed to an import/export economy.

4) France has a greater variety of climates and growing patterns than most other countries.

[Steve Plotnicki]

JD - Yours was a good post. It added the analytical element to what's been said already which was access to outside ingredients and ideas, and an agricultural climate to take advantage of those ideas. Your addition just adds how the French penchance for mathematics was part of the mix. It's like another wine buddy of mine says (who happens to be a statistician,) the French developed the A.O.C. system in large part because they are mathematicians, and their reflex reaction is to codify things in precise quantities.

But in other ways I think your post stopped short of coming to the obvious conclusions. You say you don't buy the geography theory but then you say that "that French furniture, clothing, and ultimately cookery became standards of "civilisation". This social phenomenon may explain some of the diffusion of French cuisine." And that makes me wonder how all this French culture traveled to those places and why if information and culture radiated out of French hub, those who came from far away distances like Russia to carry French culture back with them could or would do so without bringing their own culture into France for those mathematicians to deconstruct, and then reconstruct them into French culture? Hubs are hubs for no other reason than geography. And the traffic has to flow in both directions for any hub to exist.

Also, your point about Lievre a Royale and Pappardelle al Lepre is telling. Because it is obvious on its face that the big difference between the two dishes is how much it costs to make them. And when I say that, I am adding in the time and effort it takes to make a more involved preparation to the cost.

The simple answer to why French cuisine is dominant is that their tradition of restaurant cooking for classes other than the super elite has been going on longer than anywhere else. Is this a result of the fact that outsiders wanted and had to travel there? How could it not be a factor? That they had a superior geographical location, or that they had fertile farmland, or that they are a bunch of mathematicians who codified everything etc., are just factors they took advantage of to make the end result even more complex and refined.

But none of that really gets at the reason their food is dominant. The simple answer to that question is that the tradition of eating in restaurants in France has been going on longer, and included a greater percentage of the population than in other European countries did for quite a long time. This access to culinary knowledge among the masses made restaurants and the chefs that owned them compete for the almighty franc. So if you were going to spend your hard earned money on a plate of sauteed lambchops and a potato gratin, who made the best version was important. Just like it is today. And it was within that process that *professionals refined the cuisine* in a way that wasn't necessary to do in other countries because the traditions of eating outside of the home were different. It's the same answer that the owner of Al Hamra in Shepherd's Market once gave me about why Middle Eastern food in London is so much better than the Middle Eastern food in NYC. "We have more Arabs here so there's more competition." Sometimes the answers to things are too simple.

But getting back to the original question of why we find French food more interesting, I can't seem to walk away from the theory that this freedom from class restraints that we started practicing in French bistros at the turn of the century and up until today, is still the best culinary expression of social freedom. From the perspective of being a diner as well as a cook/chef. And I think we still like to take part in it for that reason. And I don't see the difference between having a Canard d'Olives at a place like Allard that a chef refined to a restaurant level and eating at Nobu. It's still about food for us as opposed to food for them if you know what I mean.

Toby - It sounds like I have to pick up that book. Make that 5001 on the pile.

[Wilfrid]

I don't think I can add much to what Jordyn (and Toby) have said. We all know Steve hasn't done his research yet. We are trying to save him some time by pointing out that, given the huge traffic back and forth throughout the whole of Western Europe - especially if we are talking about the last 150 years - the travel theory doesn't explain anything. Your own descriptions point out that people were often travelling through France on their way to somewhere else, which alone makes the theory that France's location was privileged absurd. English, German and Russian travellers, for example, had ample opportunity to pick up the cuisine of Italy and take it home with them. French cuisine was preferred.

Democracy has been an on-off affair in a number of European countries, of course. But if it is to help explain culinary supremacy, one would at least look for some consistency of association between democracy and exceptional gastronomy. As has been pointed out, this is not evident in Britain, the Scandinavian nations, or, I might add, Holland. You may say - well, that's because France also had the terroir, the ingredients, and so on - but that doesn't show that the "democracy theory" adds any explanatory value.

Thanks for giving up the argument about "modernism". *

To emphasize once again, I am not suggesting that the international success of French cuisine came about because of "promotion" or good marketing by the French. I am interested in considering why French food became fashionable, and I suspect it is a difficult question and will need some research. I will start a thread.

To clear up the messy stuff. Steve, I never said you modified your position. I just pointed out that you ignored me the first time I asked what "era" you were referring to. Your style and tone on eGullet add much color and interest to the site, but I don't think they give you much room for asking to be cut some slack! I don't see you giving much quarter in debate

* This, of course, is to provoke you to raise it again, so we can name some more artists.

[Jinmyo]

They then point out that fish balls are an example of a sweet, natural flavor, and a balance between crisp and tender. Later on in the book, 3 pages are devoted to the theory behind achieving this balance in fish balls and then the basic rule for achieving it.  "The monotonous, flaky texture of fish can be made at once crunchy, crisp, resilient and tender."  A description of how the texture alters is then given, including avoidance of fibers and membranes before chopping and crushing the flesh into a paste.  Next, salt is added to turn the mealy paste into a sticky, shiny gum (insipid to crunchy).  Then the fish balls are formed by squeezing the paste out between the circle of index finger and thumb and then dropping them into ice water.  The contact with water hardens the surface of the ball.  The ice water is slowly brought to a boil and then held just below heating point to poach the fish balls.

Very interesting, Toby. I must get a copy of this book.

[Gavin Jones]

I think this is maybe close to the appeal of the French. It's not individual French dishes it's the whole caboodle.

This is the argument of A-B Berurier of San-Antonio.

(possibly in Certains l'Aiment Chauve)

The argument for the uniqueness and totality of the French nation is made through the food, thus:

The wines of the Beaujolais go great with the saucisson seche of another region.

One drinks a sauternes from Bordeaux with the Perigordine foie gras etc etc

In Italy or Spain I do not believe that the individual foodstuffs are any the less fine or complex or whatever, but they are local to the area and one drinks the wines of the area and so on.

The key dining form for the argument is the Brasserie (I know, beer),

but there one can order a 1. Choucroute

2. Plateaux de fruits de mer

3. Pate de Foie gras

4. Gratin

etc etc

This is the irreducibly 19thC expression of the Republique.

Spain & Italy by contrast express the state of their dining through

difference:

The idea of the equivalent of a Brasserie in Spain or Italy offering the politically unified dishes of the nation strikes me as incongruous.

A possible deduction is of course the fragility of the state in Italy & Spain.

An interesting corollary might be the greater homogeneity of the local cuisines through the central european states and the evident political consequences.

The expression of the political unity of the USA is clearly through the international fast food franchises.

[Bux]

Any theory of cultural absorbtion based on France's place as a cross roads of travel has to ignore France's reputation as a xenophobic culture when it comes to outside cultures. Chauvinism comes to mind as the single word to describe the French attitude towards foreign cultures in the past 150 years or more. I'd ditch this as a valid explanation for France's unique place in western cuisine.

The French revolution is as good a place to start as any. Steve comes closest when he says:

The simple answer to why French cuisine is dominant is that their tradition of restaurant cooking for classes other than the super elite has been going on longer than anywhere else.

Public places in which to eat, date back to antiquity and certainly travelers have always needed to be fed enroute, but the modern public restaurant as we know it in the west probably dates from just after the revolution when out of work chefs previously serving royalty started figuring out how to earn a living with their skills in a more democratic society. I don't believe the home cooking of France is so much more complex than that of it's neighbors Spain and Italy in spite of the attention given to cassoulet, and to the extent that it may be, there's a certain feed back to the home that has come from having such a focus on restaurant cooking over the years or centuries. Haute cuisine, which is really another name for complex cooking, got a jump start in France and until los hermanos Adria came along, no one had caught up.

[Wilfrid]

I'm sure that's partly right, Bux, but I'm conscious of it being a more complicated story. For example, in the post-revolutionary period, and for some years, British-style restaurants were the vogue in France, and London was considered a gastronomic destination. It didn't last - of course, of course. It doesn't seem to be a linear story of successful development.

I did cite an excellent book about this recently, but right now I can't track it down. I will do so.

Here it is, and an excellent piece of analysis it is too:

Click here

And here's Dr Spang.

[cabrales]

A recurring theme throughout the book is the interplay between "high and low cuisines" and the attitude of the gourmand to enjoyment of "low" cooking, as well as the attitudes toward cooking and eating of those who, if they are lucky to eat at all, ate only the plainest foods.

The Lin/Lin discussion extends to the role of complementary flavors in Chinese cuisine, following some discussion on "plain" flavors that contribute to "natural" taste:

"[T]he second type of blending depends on showing up the flavours of individual ingredients by contrasting them with similar or totally different ingredients. The delicate taste of bird's nest [this is literally formed from saliva of applicable birds] is matched with very finely chopped winter melon (blending of similar flavors) or with mined ham (matching of contrasting flavors). This is comparable to matching several shades of white to each other, or contrasting black with white. The combination of cheese with other ingredients in French cooking comes closest to this idea of mutual support. . . ."

In addition, just as texture is an important part of certain forms of French haute cuisine, Chinese cuisine accords significance to it, as described in Lin/Lin:

"The refinement of the [Chinese] cuisine is most obvious in its control of texture. . . . At the most sophisticated tables it became an end in itself. It led to the search for texture-foods, things that have interesting textures but no taste [or no strong taste, in my assessment]. Today, there is no banquet without bird's nest or shark's fins, both texture-foods. . . . In Chinese cooking at its most sophisticated, substances with texture but no flavor were wedded to stocks of great flavor but no substance. . . ."

Other texture-based ingredients utilized in Chinese cuisine nowadays (and less expensive than sharks' fin and birds' nest) include, just as a beginning, bamboo skin, vermicelli (not the Italian pasta, but one that becomes very supple and slinky when stewed), cloud ear mushrooms (aka wood ear, etc.) and tofu.

http://www.globalgourmet.com/food/special/...ian/fungus.html

(on cloud ear mushrooms)

The Chinese have used diverse animal/fish parts, just as French cuisine often makes use of such parts:

"People distinguished between the cheeks of the fish, its soft underbelly, the jelly-like tissue at the base of the dorsal fins. *Country-style cooking was by necessity a cooking of parts,* quite aside from the art of eating. . . .So the grainy quality of liver, the unctuous intestine, the fibrous gizzard, the spongy maw and crunchy tripe all stand apart from each other . . . ."

Finally for now, cusine occupies a role in Chinese society that could be viewed as having certain analogies to the centrality of cuisine in French society. This point is debatable, however. I would agree with Toby's points regarding the existence of "high" and "low" cuisines and the enjoyment of "low" cooking.

[cabrales]

On simplicity, from F Point's Ma Gastronomie (thoughts from Point's small cream-colored notebook):

"The most difficult dishes to make generally appear to be the simplest."

"That which is very simple is not necessarily the least delectable. Take, for instance, sauerkraut. Yet, you still have to know how to prepare it."

And, later, in the introduction to F Point's recipes, the English version of Ma Gastronomie indicates:

"'Fernand Point was an artist.' The appraisal is from Francois Bise, another of Point's three-star disciples . . . . Much of Point's artistry had to do with simplicity. As Paul Bocuse says, 'He purified his cuisine. He worked to bring out and enhance the natural taste of a volaille de Bresse, not disguise it.' But obviously, this was a simplicity based on a vast knowledge of la grande cuisine -- all that had gone before -- combined with an unerring sense of what might be done to improve up on it."

[Steve Plotnicki]

"Your own descriptions point out that people were often travelling through France on their way to somewhere else, which alone makes the theory that France's location was privileged absurd."

Wilfrid - It's good you're a philosopher and not in the travel business. Has it occurred to you that if you were British and you wanted to make your way to Italy, the Iberian peninsula and even points in southern Europe east of Italy YOU HAD TO GO THROUGH FRANCE TWICE to get there and back. That is the entire point. Might someone who was on his way from Italy to Britain have had some ravioli in his pouch and when he stopped at an Inn in Provence, threw a batch into the pot of boiling water and that inspired somebody to copy it with a daube filling? How else could it have happened? Then Gavin points out that superior food products in Italy and Spain stayed local. As opposed to Saucison Seche and Beaujolais which are from different regions. Does anyone realize that THEY ARE TRANSPORTED from one region to another? Something the others didn't do.

Let me save you lots of time in your new thread. The reason French food became fashionable is because IT IS BETTER. Or another way of saying it for those of you who want to believe that things are subjective, not objective, more people who are knowledgable about food think it's better than any other cuisine. The reason they think so is based on their eating it. It begins and ends there.

In general I am finding the reluctance to give geographical location its due sort of funny. And I don't mean ha ha funny. When I was in Israel, we were at some tourist attraction I can't remember which one, and I asked the person giving the tour why Jerusalem, in fact Israel in general has always been such a hotly contested place for religious groups. They walked me over to a topagraphical map of the region. One of those three dimensional jobs that lies flat that you could walk around. They proceeded to show me how Israel lies at the crossroads of civilization. If you wanted to go to Africa from Europe by land, or from points in Asia, bingo. And when I look at a map of Europe, and try to figure out why Paris was the heart of European culture, culinary and otherwise between 1870-1970 if not longer, all you have to do is look at a map to see that Paris is the geographical hub of all the other cities that were cultural centers in Europe. It's those glorious rivers they have in France that do it. The Loire, the Marne, Seine etc. Those are the routes that people traveled, alongside those rivers. In fact the roads that they built, the route nationals usually ran alongside them. As did the railways they built, and then the highways.

Bux - Your point about xenophobia actually supports my theory. Because what is most typically French is for them to take something, deconstruct it and reconstruct it as a French creation. I need to go no further than the infamous DB Burger to make that point. Boulud could have served a plain, but well made burger with perfect ingredients. But he "Frenchified it" which is the entire point I'm making. Except in this instance, he was the one who changed locale. As opposed to his being stationary and the concept of the hamburger coming to him. The fact that Boulud made that burger in NYC, as opposed to somewhere in Paris makes my point as well because it shows that once people had access to better modes of transportation, and they weren't tied to being in France, concepts became portable and someone like Boulud could create something "French" while being in NYC. Something unheard of before airplane travel became the dominant mode of transportation.

[Wilfrid]

You have moved beyond comprehension, Steve. Let's disregard the fact that it's simply and obviously untrue - especially for the last 150 years - that people needed to travel through France to get to Italy or Spain. Accept your assertion for the sake of argument: can you not see that all these geezers travelling through France to get to other countries travelled in those other countries too. You can't hold that belief, but also argue that Italy and the Iberian penninsula were isolated from foreign travellers. Make your mind up.

The bit about products being transported around France just mystifies me. Are you saying that it was possible transport food around France, but not around Spain and Italy? Don't get you at all.

The other thread is not "my" thread. I am just trying to be tidy. And "IT IS BETTER" - even in capital letters - does not offer an explanation of how French cuisine achieved the pre-eminence it has which I find intellectually satisfying. I hope your famous book delves slightly deeper.

[Robert Schonfeld]

The reason French food became fashionable is because IT IS BETTER. Or another way of saying it for those of you who want to believe that things are subjective, not objective, more people who are knowledgable about food think it's better than any other cuisine. The reason they think so is based on their eating it. It begins and ends there.

Steve, I'd like to believe that you are saying these things stylistically, as a means of provoking argument, not that you actually believe them to be true, which they aren't. A number of us have replied on this subject. Repeating a declarative statement that is so unsupportable as to be simply silly doesn't help us to learn or to understand each other better. Neither does the proposition of an absolute, international standard. Everyone has already conceded that French food - sorry, cuisine - dominates the international fine dining establishment. To insist that it is universally better only detracts from the other accomplishments of your argument.

I'm willing to believe that you win most of your arguments, but I'm also willing to believe you win them on style rather than substance.

What do you say we drop this unproductive line and go out to lunch? Where do you go for paella in NYC?

[Wilfrid]

Robert, we had a thread on New York paella once, and I think the conclusion was you go to JFK and get on a flight to Spain.

[LaNiña]

How about The Great Paella Cookoff for the next potluck?

[Robert Schonfeld]

We all need paella now. Can anyone attest to the quality of their own, and then volunteer to make it for all of us?

[Bux]

The db burger is a product of the 21st century and I will claim that xenophobia is dying at a rapid pace in France at the turn of the century. Most remarkable is the change in attitude the French have made towards people like Boulud in the past ten years as well as the change in attitude of French chefs working here and in France today. It's the times that inspire Boulud and not his Frenchness which he had to overcome. He's very American in subtle ways. The remarkable thing is that this very American-ness make him more interesting to a Frenchman today. I don't think Soltner or those of his generation would have made such a burger, even if it was claimed he regularly stopped for a hot dog on his way out to the Hamptons. The db burger is not very French, it's very Daniel Boulud and another sign that this is a turning point in French cuisine. It's not as French as it's been for 200 years.

Has it occurred to you that if you were British and you wanted to make your way to Italy, the Iberian peninsula and even points in southern Europe east of Italy YOU HAD TO GO THROUGH FRANCE TWICE to get there and back.

That's never occurred to me and I don't see why you believe it. Britain is insular by geography--you can't leave it by a land route. Once you're on a boat why dock in France when you can continue on to Spain or Portugal. Indeed the British preference for Port was aided by the fact that it could be shipped directly as could Sherry. As for Italy, ferries have and do operate between the UK and Belgium and the Netherlands. The Alps are a significant, but not overwhelming barrier to a land route from the north to Italy and even today people cruise the Mediterranean leaving the UK by boat. The best you could offer is an argument supporting France as part of a preferable route. To say "YOU HAD TO GO THROUGH FRANCE" flies in the face of geography.

I'd also suggest that for raviloi to get from Rome to any part of France, it didn't have to be carried by a single traveler. It would be enough for the next door neighbor to learn the art and for this to be repeated often enough. I wish I could remember exactly how canalons (cannelloni) got to Catalunya, but as I recall it was a direct route from Italy or Sicily based on political alliances and travel via the land connection did not play a significant role.

[cabrales]

The reason French food became fashionable is because IT IS BETTER. Or another way of saying it for those of you who want to believe that things are subjective, not objective, more people who are knowledgable about food think it's better than any other cuisine. The reason they think so is based on their eating it. It begins and ends there.

Steve, I'd like to believe that you are saying these things stylistically, as a means of provoking argument, not that you actually believe them to be true, which they aren't. A number of us have replied on this subject. Repeating a declarative statement that is so unsupportable as to be simply silly doesn't help us to learn or to understand each other better. Neither does the proposition of an absolute, international standard. Everyone has already conceded that French food - sorry, cuisine - dominates the international fine dining establishment. To insist that it is universally better only detracts from the other accomplishments of your argument.

Robert -- I agree with Steve P that French cuisine is better (because it tastes better) than any other cuisine and that is why it dominates when it does. Note the above is my subjective assessment. However, as Steve noted, among the knowledgeable dining public, there are many who harbor such subjective assessment. I don't think Steve P provided the quoted statement for stylistic reasons. Without purporting to speak for him and based on review of his prior posts, I think he means what he stated.

It's not only a question of technique with respect to French cuisine, it is also, among other things: the depth of the culinary talent nurturing French cuisine or cuisines grounded in French cuisine, in the past and today; the groundings of a people who appreciate the cuisine; the wealth of recipes grounding the cuisine and from which present French cuisiniers can draw and find their own dishes; the bounty of saucing in many French dishes; visual, emotive and intellectual appeal in some dishes; the enchanting utilization of products from France ....

[Bux]

I'd not make a claim for the superiority of either risotto or paella, but if you're in New York, I'd advise going for the risotto. It's likely to be better as well as closer to the original. Just to prove that I'm not guilty of rice-ophilia, I'd throw bouillabaise into the equation as well.

[cabrales]

Bux -- On bouillabasse, I'd appreciate hearing members' thoughts on where a good bouillabasse can be had in NYC. Have members sampled the bouillabaisse at db bistro moderne, for example (not available today, presumably)?

[Steve Plotnicki]

Robert S. - Cabrales stated my position well. You keep asking me to support my statement with empirical evidence. Something I say from the beginning that I can't possibly do. But I can point to how many people with sufficient knowledge of cooking and dining would agree with me and say that the numbers are so proficient that the need for empirical evidence has been replaced by my offer of circumstantial evidence that is of such weight in favor of the conclusion, that it makes everyone's constant request for empirical evidence seem drone-like.

As for paella, don't know where they have a good one. How about a nice risotto though? I'm free for lunch as my meetings today have been cancelled.

Bux - Obviously people who traveled the entire distance by boat skipped France. But people who traveled by land didn't. How about people who made pilgrimages to Rome or to Santiago di Campostello. Or to Lourdes? Or to Chartres? Or how about when they built the train system and routes for distribution of products by land instead of sea because they wanted them there more quickly?

The point about Boulud is limited to geography and how advancements in French cooking now take place all over the word, not just in France. If you don't think improvements in methods of transportations and how information gets distributed are what has impacted that the most, I don't know what to tell you. Do you think that it's just a coincidence that France's golden age coincides with a period of time when access to information and travel in general was more limited than it is today? Putting it another way, is it airplanes, television sets and fax machines that have put French cooking behind the eight ball? What a coincidence it is that once information was able to "skip over France," that's when they started to lose their cultural dominance.

[Wilfrid]

Do you think that it's just a coincidence that France's golden age coincides with a period of time when access to information and travel in general was more limited than it is today?

As was Germany's, as - largely - was Britain's.

[SobaAddict70]

How can that be when corn is such a great item?

Steve P -- when I first read the corn thread, my immediate response was to try to recall a recipe for pan-seared steak with buttered scallions and three-pepper corn relish that used to be a feature item at An American Place, but since I couldn't immediately recall the details, opted instead for the corn bread stuffing recipe. (Yes its tangential, so sue me. =P)

Most of the interesting things I find about fresh corn have nothing to do with the basic recipe for cooking corn; they have a lot to do with corn kernels sliced off of freshly picked cobs.

Corn tossed into a pot of boiling water, and subsequently slathered with melted butter is interesting....to a point. Corn pudding, corn bread, etc. -- now THOSE are what holds interest for me.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that both fine dining and cheap eats hold an interest for me -- different proportions of interest in those regards. Of greater interest however, is that simple ingredients normally used for cheap eats, have the potential to reach something greater when elevated one or two levels. Take for example the hamburger at db moderne. Yes, it is a hamburger, but one made with foie gras. Steak tartare is essentially raw hamburger with a variety of toppings. Cassoulet is at its most basic, baked beans cooked with a variety of meats (yeah, yeah, the meats in question aren't your typical sausages being that some require advance prep and special techniques, but for the sake of my argument, humor me...)No one denigrates those as "cheap eats". Ironic isn't it?

But, I can't think of many other cultures who have a grain as their staple who have fashioned an important course around the grain and don't serve anything with it. Mamaliga?

Um....Chinese and Japanese cooking comes to mind?

Chinese -- congee? rice and noodle dishes? Congee is usually served at breakfast. Rice and noodle dishes are by tradition served as one course during a Chinese banquet. By your definition, these two examples fit, since risotto is rice that's been cooked with stock, butter, cream and other ingredients.

Japanese -- the rice/pickles/miso course at the end of most evening meals?

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

1. Bouilliabaise/ciopinno. One is a Provencal preparation, the other is native to the Bay Area/San Francisco. One involves the use of various shellfish and fish, notably racasse; the other varies according to availability. One uses rouille as an addition to the soup, not sure about the other. But both are cheap (relatively speaking to caviar), potentially complex, and quite good (if prepared well).

2. Most Provencal dishes, for that matter. Ratatouille (sp), salade Nicoise are two other examples that come to mind.

3. Pasta fresca (and sauces made for it). Pasta secca (and sauces made for dishes that use it). Most authentic Italian pasta dishes. Timbales.

4. Indian cuisine in general. For example -- no two garam masalas will ever be made (or taste alike). Garam masala is an excellent example of a cheap, complex and good preparation that is on many levels, as complex as a properly made demi-glace or beurre noisette. (I am not that knowledgeable in this regard as other members...Suvir/anil/indiagirl, help?) Each area of India has its own basic preparation, unique to that geographical location. Add to that, chutneys and raitas. Many students of Indian vegetarian cuisine, to demonstrate the level of potential complexity, spend as much as three to four weeks contemplating various ways and techniques on cooking and preparing potatoes -- before applying those techniques to other vegetables.

I could think of others, but I'm a little frazzled at the moment.

We all need paella now. Can anyone attest to the quality of their own, and then volunteer to make it for all of us?

I can volunteer....if y'all promise not to roast me afterwards. I mean, I don't have a paella pan. But I promise not to use any stuffed olives in mine.

[Steve Plotnicki]

"Let me try again. You need to show, Steve, not that France was accessible to travellers, but that other countries were comparatively inaccessible."

Wilfrid- You keep making that the task, but the task is not responsive to my thesis. Watch my lips.

France was accessable to travelers, and the French were in a position from an agricultural, socio-ecomonic and scholarly perspective to take advantage of it. That travellers had access to Germany etc. doesn't disprove anything I said because the Germans weren't in the same position, or maybe weren't inclined to to take advantage of the diversity that takes place when foreigners travel within your country. Just the mere fact that the French were open to that diversity and the Germans weren't makes for a large difference in how their cultures developed, not to say it didn't extend into their respective positions in the two great wars.

Soba - I think we all agreed long ago that things do not have to be expensive to be complex. The best example of that on your list is ratatouille. Real ratatouille is literally a vegetable jam. It is vegetables, olive oil, garlic, herbs and spices that are slow cooked to the point that most of the moisture is virtually cooked out of it and it becomes a quasi paste of overcooked vegetables. And while it costs pennies to make, the skill level one has top have to get it just right is not at the Cooking 101 level. Think of all the variables. The ripeness of the vegetables. What their water content might be. What proportion of them go in. Do they all get cooked for the same length of time etc. Tweaking your ratatouille to perfection is sort of a lifelong affair. Just like tweaking your cassoulet might be. The description of ratatouille and how it's made in Patricia Wells's Food Lover's Guide to France is pretty good. She writes about a place in the port of Cassiss where they make it in the fashion I described.

But tell me, what do you think people prefer to talk about, ratatouille or succotash?

[Wilfrid]

France was accessable to travelers, and the French were in a position from an agricultural, socio-ecomonic and scholarly perspective to take advantage of it. That travellers had access to Germany etc. doesn't disprove anything I said because the Germans weren't in the same position, or maybe weren't inclined to to take advantage of the diversity that takes place when foreigners travel within your country. Just the mere fact that the French were open to that diversity and the Germans weren't makes for a large difference in how their cultures developed, not to say it didn't extend into their respective positions in the two great wars.

Actually, I deleted my last post, Steve, because I felt I was repeating the same points already made by myself and others. But you have made it all very simple. If Germany, Britain, Italy, Spain and the rest were, like France accessible to travellers, which of course they were, it directly demonstrates that France's geographical location - in comparison to the claimed remoteness of other European countries - is irrelevant. The other factors you mention very likely are relevant.

I thank you.

[SobaAddict70]

Plotnicki-san: On this board? I dunno. I'd say flip a coin or something. Some of us like to talk about ratatouille (altho I have yet to see a thread on Provencal specialties -- most of the threads seem to lean towards the Escoffier school of cooking, not the peasant school. I mean, no one seems to want to talk about stuff like coq au vin, beef burgundy (unsure about the French spelling of "burgundy"), and soupe au pistou for example. Some of us might talk about succotash -- not me, I find lima beans kind of boring.

As for me, I prefer to talk about succotash with truffle butter. Now THAT's interesting (to me, anyway). But I suspect that's not within the scope of this thread, as most of y'all seem to lean one way or another.

Also, the topic begs the question of "What is the general definition of 'interesting' as applied to food in general"? I'd say that's what everyone is really discussing. What is interesting tends to be subjective, but Plato might say that there's a Form of Interest, and that's what you're really talking about.

Hm. Not sure if I'm babbling. Wilfrid, help?

SA