That Sweet Enemy

[Carrot Top]

Those kids were absolutely obssesed with blow pops and jolly ranchers. They would literally bring pounds and pounds of wonderful chocolate over with them, and went home with suitcases loaded with cheap hard candy. When asked what they wanted to eat, it was always hamburgers, and they scarfed hamburgers and hotdogs like they were scarce and precious, always oohing and ahing. I made sure they got real hamburgers while they were here. I had enough sense not to try to compete with the food they have at home - and made it a point to slow cook BBQ, make tacos and nachos and chili - that sort of thing. Hopefully they weren't just being polite, but based upon consumption they seemed to enjoy. The biggest mistake some of the host families made was trying to serve fondue to these kids. Big mistake.

←

All influential history aside for the moment, there might be something at work here we might dub the "grass is always greener" theory?

No matter where one comes from.

But then again, that sounds hick-ish to say that.

(P.S. Back to add "nothing against burgers, bbq, nachos, and candy". I like 'em all.)

Edited January 9, 2007 by Carrot Top (log)

[Busboy]

these great chefs are drawing not so much on an American culinary tradition but on other culinary traditions; that however good individual chefs may be, they still find it necessary or desirable to look beyond our borders for inspiration.

←

True everywhere at some point in time, don't you think?

Even with the French, or any other country's culinary culture, at some point in time.

Across the world, throughout history, food exchanges and all the ideas that go along with food preparation have had sparks of inspiration through looking beyond borders.

Sometimes through travel and trade, sometimes through aggression in the form of wars.

What "cuisine" can be said to be pure and of a single culture, really?

As far as "national" cuisines go, the idea of the nation-state and the concept of nationalism that occured during the Enlightenment might have a bearing on these concepts of static national cuisines. Boundaries drawn, the mind shaping the nation and what the idea of nation would include, with the "indigenous" food as part of this.

←

All true. But I would be very surprised if someone listing the six best restaurants in, say, Toulouse, would click off three Italian (assuming there is such a thing as a nation-state called Italy and it has a recognizable cusisine ) places, a Chinese restaurant and a Wursthaus.

[Carrot Top]

All true. But I would be very surprised if someone listing the six best restaurants in, say, Toulouse, would click off three Italian (assuming there is such a thing as a nation-state called Italy and it has a recognizable cusisine ) places, a Chinese restaurant and a Wursthaus.

←

No, but that scenario might happen in Manhattan.

Particularly the clicking part.

[annecros]

these great chefs are drawing not so much on an American culinary tradition but on other culinary traditions; that however good individual chefs may be, they still find it necessary or desirable to look beyond our borders for inspiration.

←

True everywhere at some point in time, don't you think?

Even with the French, or any other country's culinary culture, at some point in time.

Across the world, throughout history, food exchanges and all the ideas that go along with food preparation have had sparks of inspiration through looking beyond borders.

Sometimes through travel and trade, sometimes through aggression in the form of wars.

What "cuisine" can be said to be pure and of a single culture, really?

As far as "national" cuisines go, the idea of the nation-state and the concept of nationalism that occured during the Enlightenment might have a bearing on these concepts of static national cuisines. Boundaries drawn, the mind shaping the nation and what the idea of nation would include, with the "indigenous" food as part of this.

←

All true. But I would be very surprised if someone listing the six best restaurants in, say, Toulouse, would click off three Italian (assuming there is such a thing as a nation-state called Italy and it has a recognizable cusisine ) places, a Chinese restaurant and a Wursthaus.

←

hehe, true, but is that a good thing or a bad thing for the gourmand? The French gourmand, that is.

[hjshorter]

All true. But I would be very surprised if someone listing the six best restaurants in, say, Toulouse, would click off three Italian (assuming there is such a thing as a nation-state called Italy and it has a recognizable cusisine ) places, a Chinese restaurant and a Wursthaus.

←

No, but that scenario might happen in Manhattan.

Part and parcel of the glorious Melting Pot that is America, right? Or is it, as Charles said upthread, our "faux multiculturalism?"

I'm not even gonna go there on the Italian cuisine crack.

Edited January 9, 2007 by hjshorter (log)

[hathor]

What's amazing is that such a banal article has set off such a wide ranging and intelligent discussion. The author needs to get out more....what he encountered in France exists all through Europe. Any Italian school kid can debate the mertis of porcini or truffles or vino nouvello. (any central Italian kid...before Busboy busts me on Italian city states). I found the opening sentence of the article particularly horrific...is that truly what people in the States think about France?? Are we that provincial?

Tim, those were two interesting examples, but, what exactly are we debunking? That caviar really doesn't taste good...I disagree. I like salty, briny, bubbles of fishiness. I also like bottarga. That foie gras was celebrated for the extreme measures of cruelty needed to create it?

That only marketing is responsible for the popularity of these two products and the reason why cockscombs aren't popular? Cockscombs aren't popular because they are nasty little bits, that even chopped up or ground, are still nasty.

Certainly more food for thought, in any case, and I do think this is a topic that would benefit from further research and discussion. Food history is a perfect window for social anthropologists.

[menon1971]

I got the impression from some natives in Phoenix that they take great pride in their restaurants that serve "real" Mexican food. The place I really wanted to try was called Frank and Lupe's, but the cab ride was going to be $80 from my hotel. This is another difference between much of the U.S. and Europe: more centralized populations and more reliance on public transportation in the latter even in smaller communities, although I hear that this is changing - I am sure that the evolution of society and of food culture has a lot to due with terrior and its context within technological systems such as transportation, preservation, horticulture, etc. As Busboy alluded, there was no concept such as "flown in daily" when much of European food was evolving to its present albeit polymorphous state.

Additionally, the list given by molto e (not a personal criticism, by the way) reflects some of the bias alluded to by Tim, that Euro is fine dining, even in Phoenix.

[The Old Foodie]

What are ya drinkin' Old Foodie?

←

Phew! I couldn't have drunk enough of anything to keep up with that debate - Thank Goodness for our hemispheric time difference which ensured it was all resolved and back to food while I was blissfully sleeping.

Now, over my early morning cuppa I feel obliged to ponder my current favourite theory of the three degrees of separation that separate any particular person and a specific food item.

Adlai Stevenson and rhubarb, perhaps?

Janet

←

Easy he was Governor of Illinois, and there is a rhubarb festival that has been held at the Governor Small Park in Aledo, IL.

Well done!

George Bush and foie gras?

Paris Hilton and botarga?

(or should this be in a new "challenge" thread? )

Cockscombs aren't popular because they are nasty little bits, that even chopped up or ground, are still nasty.

Certainly more food for thought, in any case, and I do think this is a topic that would benefit from further research and discussion. Food history is a perfect window for social anthropologists.

←

There are probably a few people who think fish eggs are nasty little bits. Cocks combs were once included in the "beatilles" or "beautiful little things" that went into what, by change in pronunciation became "Batallia Pie" - an exceedingly popular high-class pie in the 16th and 17th centuries. And Catherine de Medici (1519-1590) - who could afford to eat anything - was said to have once made herself sick by eating too much Cibreo, which is a Tuscan (I think) style dish of chicken "nasty bits", and which she supposedly particularly enjoyed.

Scarcity has a lot to do with "fashion" - a cockerel only has a tiny bit of flesh in its combs, so perhaps these dainties were reserved for the rich or important - like the sheeps eyes or the parson's nose or any other selected little bits.

I'm just waiting for the day that some "beak to tail" enthusiast re-invents Battalia Pye. Trust me, it will happen.

[hjshorter]

There are probably a few people who think fish eggs are nasty little bits. Cocks combs were once included in the "beatilles" or "beautiful little things" that went into what, by change in pronunciation became "Batallia Pie" - an exceedingly popular high-class pie in the 16th and 17th centuries.

I'm just waiting for the day that some "beak to tail" enthusiast re-invents Battalia Pye. Trust me, it will happen.

←

Yes, but is it French? I'm no culinary anthropologist (my specialty is Neanderthals - not very refined cuisine ) but here is what a little Googling turned up...

From The Frugal Housewife, 1803:

A Battalia Pie.

Take four small chickens, squab pigeons and four sucking rabbits, cut them in

pieces, and season them with savory spice; lay them in the pie with four

sweetbreads sliced, as many sheeps tongues and shivered palates, two pair of

lamb-stones, twenty or thirty cocks-combs, with savory balls and oysters; lay on

butter, and close the pie with a lear.

Apparently it went from a luxury item to "frugal" in the 19th century. I'm willing to take a stab at it, as soon as I figure out what a "shivered palate" is. Edited January 9, 2007 by hjshorter (log)

[Pan]

I think cock's combs are quite nice, by the way, not nasty at all. And I, too, don't like briny caviar. But it's all a matter of taste, isn't it? (That is, for those who aren't eating food purely for snob appeal, and I daresay, few of that type of food snobs are eGullet subscribers, because they really don't care how things taste as long as they're expensive and served in surroundings that are either old-fashioned luxe or trendy, depending on their particular type of snobbery. I encounter such snobs on forums that have nothing to do with food, and boy does their lack of taste become evident quickly!)

[Busboy]

I got the impression from some natives in Phoenix that they take great pride in their restaurants that serve "real" Mexican food. The place I really wanted to try was called Frank and Lupe's, but the cab ride was going to be $80 from my hotel. This is another difference between much of the U.S. and Europe: more centralized populations and more reliance on public transportation in the latter even in smaller communities, although I hear that this is changing - I am sure that the evolution of society and of food culture has a lot to due with terrior and its context within technological systems such as transportation, preservation, horticulture, etc. As Busboy alluded, there was no concept such as "flown in daily" when much of European food was evolving to its present albeit polymorphous state.

Additionally, the list given by molto e (not a personal criticism, by the way) reflects some of the bias alluded to by Tim, that Euro is fine dining, even in Phoenix.

←

I was a little surprised myself that molto e's post didn't include any references to Southwestern or Mexican cooking, which would have been my vehicle for touting the power of the indigenous local tradition.

Reminded me a bit of this thread , based on an Alan Richman GQ piece that trashed Las Vegas for basically going out and buying a bunch of chefs and pretending that Ducasse's reputation and Emeril's logo somehow gave it a culinary culture (as opposed to just haveing some good restaurants). Kind of like the stereotypical "new money" who pays someone to fill their house with antiques and art, and thinks that it's the trappings that culture make. Or maybe it's like all those rich English hunting down French chefs, while ignoring their own cooking.

At any rate, not to pick on Phoenix any more, but I think a more persuasive defense would include more than a passing nod to regional or ethnic cooking as well as high end dining.

In fact, the more humble side of French cooking is one of the reasons I hold it in such high esteem.

[hjshorter]

Additionally, the list given by molto e (not a personal criticism, by the way) reflects some of the bias alluded to by Tim, that Euro is fine dining, even in Phoenix.

←

I was a little surprised myself that molto e's post didn't include any references to Southwestern or Mexican cooking, which would have been my vehicle for touting the power of the indigenous local tradition.

Does the large population of retirement transplants in Phoenix hamper attempts to change the dining scene?

Comparing the original article to the GQ piece...they picked slightly different targets, with Seftel lamenting the proletarian tastes of the masses and Richman sneering at the Nouveau Riche, although there's probably some overlap in the two populations.

Edited January 9, 2007 by hjshorter (log)

[molto e]

I was a little surprised myself that molto e's post didn't include any references to Southwestern or Mexican cooking, which would have been my vehicle for touting the power of the indigenous local tradition. 

Reminded me a bit of this thread , based on an Alan Richman GQ piece that trashed Las Vegas for basically going out and buying a bunch of chefs and pretending that Ducasse's reputation and Emeril's logo somehow gave it a culinary culture (as opposed to just haveing some good restaurants).  Kind of like the stereotypical "new money" who pays someone to fill their house with antiques and art, and thinks that it's the trappings that culture make.  Or maybe it's like all those rich English hunting down French chefs, while ignoring their own cooking.

At any rate, not to pick on Phoenix any more, but I think a more persuasive defense would include more than a passing nod to regional or ethnic cooking as well as high end dining. 

In fact, the more humble side of French cooking is one of the reasons I hold it in such high esteem.

←

I have not read the whole thread so perhaps I am missing something, but why should Mexican food be considered ok to claim for Arizona. Yes, we share a border, but so does Spain and France? I did not list any Southwestern or Mexican food spots, because I do not hold any of those choices with the same regard as the choices that I gave. The point of my post was to attempt to explain what Howard was writing about in regards to chef driven concepts in Phoenix. I listed some chefs that I consider in the top eschelon in Phoenix without regard to the cuisine they cook.

[Busboy]

Well, not Mexican necessarily, but any food that more or less grew up on its own. As others said earlier, I think that claim for culinary culture can't rest on the shoulders of a few expensive restaurants. It has to reflect quality at every level, at home and in restaurants. Well-made, inexpensive local food (surely the people there before Phoenix's population exploded were eating something) is and important component of any area's dining environment.

[molto e]

Well, not Mexican necessarily, but any food that more or less grew up on its own. As others said earlier, I think that claim for culinary culture can't rest on the shoulders of a few expensive restaurants.  It has to reflect quality at every level, at home and in restaurants.  Well-made, inexpensive local food (surely the people there before Phoenix's population exploded were eating something) is and important component of any area's dining environment.

←

We are talking about two different things. I was not speaking to the culinary culture of Phoenix. I was refering back to the last line in his blog, where he asks if anyone in Phoenix (chef-wise) wanted to be like Olivier Roellinger.

[menon1971]

Well, not Mexican necessarily, but any food that more or less grew up on its own. As others said earlier, I think that claim for culinary culture can't rest on the shoulders of a few expensive restaurants.  It has to reflect quality at every level, at home and in restaurants.  Well-made, inexpensive local food (surely the people there before Phoenix's population exploded were eating something) is and important component of any area's dining environment.

←

We are talking about two different things. I was not speaking to the culinary culture of Phoenix. I was refering back to the last line in his blog, where he asks if anyone in Phoenix (chef-wise) wanted to be like Olivier Roellinger.

←

Culinary culture of Phoenix, i.e., tradition and terrior, or in Phoenix, i.e., what food fashions have been imported?

[The Old Foodie]

I'm willing to take a stab at it, as soon as I figure out what a "shivered palate" is.

←

It is the palate of a beef, finely broken up into slivers.

Let us know (and do post pictures) when you actually do it!

(there is a Tourte of Beatilles in La Varenne, 1653 - so I guess it is "French" as well)

J

[kiwichef]

Interesting debate this.

I'm sorry I haven't read all the feedback, so forgive me if I'm repeating someone elses thoughts.

I went to chefs School for 2 years in New Zealand, and was taught largely, French cuisine, under the banner of the City and Guilds of London qualifications system. I think most serious culinary schools teach first and foremost French cuisine, including those in the United States, where, correct me if I'm wrong, the food and hospitality school is named after the celebrated French chef, and author, Escoffier.

So why are serious culinary schools teaching French cuisine. Well for one reason the entire heirachial system, and culinary terminology within a restaurant kitchen is in French. The English speaking world has universally adopted French as the language of food, because the French invented the restaurant, and everything that goes along with it, including the word.

I have read, and been told that it takes about 15 years to become an executive chef in France. Thats a long time. Most other parts of the world, you probably need five years if you're good, and some time longer if you're like me.

The history of food in France is incredibly rich. Chefs in France are highly repected in society. I doubt you will find a foul mouthed individual like Gordon Ramsey enjoying the same success in Paris as he now enjoys in London, and the rest of the english speaking world. He wouldn't get a look in edgeways.

So for me food is about history, inextricably linked to culture. And without exception France proudly accepts the role, which we all bestow upon it, as ambassadors of Haute cuisine throughout the world.

There are of course many other great cuisines of the world, which you might argue also have a long history. Chinese cuisine leaps to mind. Of course this is true, it does have an enormous culinary history, but then China was along way from Europe in the 17th century, and wasn't discovered until some years later.

I'm not sure where American cuisine fits into this debate. What is American cuisine, if it isn't a copy of French, English, Italian, or South American cuisines. Burgers, fries, and pizza?

Quite frankly, you aren't left with much, unless of course your'e talking commercially where they have been without question the most successful exporters of fast food to the globe, invading every other cuisine of the world, to our collective detriment.

So, I'm not sure American cuisine has alot ot be proud of. Obesity, diabetes, and cultural mastification perhaps. Well, that might be a little harsh. But in my mind the American culture requires fast food and the cultural makeup of France requires slow food, and until that changes the food in France will always taste better.

Cheers,

Rob

[Carrot Top]

One interesting facet of "fast food" or convenience food, which the US might arguably be said to lead the way in, to our collective (?) detriment, is that it freed a huge female population from the daily assigned chores that had taken them hours a day for centuries, in their roles as homemakers.

That means a lot, to a lot of people. It means that they can do things besides be in the home, cooking. It means that they can become professional at any other thing they may want to consider, thereby finding ways that their souls can soar. It means that single mothers can work outside the home and put a hot meal on the table (oh no, not gourmet, but edible and perhaps even good) for their children when they get home, quickly.

The very fact that fast food or convenience foods exist allows many women to consider the idea of cooking as a pleasure, not something they *have to do* three times a day seven days a week. Naturally I am not speaking of the wealthy here, but of the working class or poor. It means that more women can love cooking as an expression of themselves, as an enjoyable task.

In one sense fast food may be a collective detriment. It sure ain't "gourmet". But to tell the women of any country that have the opportunity to utilize fast food *or* convenience foods *when they please* that these foods are detrimental to their lives, that really it is so much better to cook slow food, for that "tastes better". . . to my mind, that is a disservice.

The "taste" of a thing is not only on the tongue. It is also in the heart and mind and histories.

[Busboy]

Interesting debate this.

I'm not sure where American cuisine fits into this debate. What is American cuisine, if it isn't a copy of French, English, Italian, or South American cuisines. Burgers, fries, and pizza?

Quite frankly, you aren't left with much, unless of course your'e talking commercially where they have been without question the most successful exporters of fast food to the globe, invading every other cuisine of the world, to our collective detriment.

So, I'm not sure American cuisine has alot ot be proud of. Obesity, diabetes, and cultural mastification perhaps. Well, that might be a little harsh. But in my mind the American culture requires fast food and the cultural makeup of France requires slow food, and until that changes the food in France will always taste better.

Cheers,

Rob

←

Some thoughts.

Cheers.

[Doc-G]

Hi people. I have been following this thread with great interest and had a few thoughts to add which might add to why so much emphasis has been placed on ‘french cuisine’ as it has been of particular interest to me as part of my study over the last year. Part of the following discourse is a result of previous writing on the subject. I hope I have been able to put it forward in a lucid way. The main point that I wish to stress is the ability of the French to market their ‘cuisine’ through the use of gastronomic discourse originating in the early nineteenth century. The purpose of this post is not to further push the superiority of French cuisine (especially haute cuisine). Anyone who knows me properly will tell you I prefer a smoked beef brisket and a bottle of beer any day to Lobster Thermidor or Tournedos Rossini. But, as Tim stated, much of the elitist bias towards French food is based solely on some people’s ignorant need to show superiority over others rather than due to any sort of appreciation of the history behind the emergence of this cuisine as being ‘superior’. I feel that whilst the myth may today be propagated by ignorant mis-informed snobs flying first class on the company credit card, the French too have had just an important role in bringing it to the fore.

Whilst one could argue that perhaps Archestratus of ancient Greece may have been the original food and travel writer, I believe it was the emergence of the French food writing beginning with a poem by Berchoux in 1801, which set the scene for the preeminence of French cuisine that some argue exists to this day.

The factors affecting the emergence of this discipline are wide and varied and although gastronomy’s most immediate predecessor was the French revolution of 1789, this factor alone is not detailed enough to encompass all the factors influencing its birth.

Firstly, the abolition of guilds in 1791 meant that various food producers could make more than one type of item and the abolition of the French monarchy as a result of the revolution put a large number of chefs at the disposal of an increasingly wealthy French middle class. This effectively paved the way for the further development of the restaurant, which until then had been supplying those of ‘sensitive disposition’ or with a ‘weak chest’ with medicinal boullions known as restaurants. The restaurant however, in keeping with the hangover of post revolutionary France, allowed for the equality of all diners who patronized them and opened fine dining to ‘all those who could afford the fare’. One demonstration of this was the introduction of service á la russe.

Secondly, until the nineteenth century, cuisine was considered on the basis of the humoral medicine system. However, as improvements in scientific knowledge brought about an increased awareness of the actual constituents of our food this medicinal system gave way to a system more reminiscent of what we know today. As a result, the constraints on cuisine that were specifically due to medicinal beliefs were lifted and chefs and diners alike were able to develop a cuisine more in tune with their own tastes.

In addition, the ‘liberation from religious prohibitions’ for a predominantly Catholic France began to make allowances for gustatory pleasure. Now, the idea of enjoying food was no longer frowned upon as the word gourmandise was no longer associated with one of the seven deadly sins.

Finally, for France, the end of the food shortages of the revolutionary period and the increase in the importation of exotic foodstuffs from all over the world despite the British naval blockades provided a period of ‘alimentary abundance for the urban elites’. This was also made possible by improvements in transportation technology coinciding with a time when Napoleonic France was in the midst of building a formidable empire.

One could see that these factors that occurred during the ‘age of enlightenment’ sowed a rich seed that bore fruit ripe for the discourse in gastronomy that followed. This allowed the most famous names associated with the subject such as Grimod de la Reyniére, Brillat-Savarin, Berchoux, Carême and later Escoffier to publish the books, poems and manuals which have served to codify and unify the subject of gastronomy.

In a way, the massive amounts of discourse on food during this time brought light onto French cuisine of the time. This was simply an occurrence that was not happening anywhere else and hence the emergence of French cuisine as ‘superior’ began here via the vehicle of gastronomic discourse. One only has to read the more recent writings of people of the like of Pascal Ory to see that even with the French, this belief of superiority is still evident. It could be argued though that it is partly justified if one has the background knowledge to back it up and of course with regards to the discussion at hand it is the ‘first class flying - ignorant snobs’ who of course don’t have the background knowledge to whom Tim is referring.

My point is that the influence by the French on the way the whole of ‘Western society’ eats today cannot be discounted and I feel that this is an issue that Tim is well aware. It is of course as important as others have stated to also recognize the importance that other cultures have had on contemporary dining. Finally and again as others have already stated elsewhere in this thread, is not only the need to recognize the French for their cuisine but also the British for their cuisine, the Chinese for theirs etc… All have their merits and their downfalls, it’s just that the French have been writing about the merits of theirs for years!

Anyway, an interesting discussion worth continuing. I hope it continues.

Cheers,

G

Edited January 10, 2007 by Doc-G (log)

[Ptipois]

Interesting debate this.

I feel a bit lazy at the idea of replying to this post, though I appreciate its enthusiasm which would be so emotionally gratifying for the French in me if it weren't so misinformed. Suffice it to say that I'm getting tired of seeing "high-end cuisine" amalgamated with the term "cuisine". So much confusion springs from that. (Kiwichef, maybe you should read the feedback.)

However:

I doubt you will find a foul mouthed individual like Gordon Ramsey enjoying the same success in Paris as he now enjoys in London, and the rest of the english speaking world. He wouldn't get a look in edgeways.

←

Oooooooooo I wouldn't be so sure of that!

You certainly haven't been in many professional French kitchens, have you.

(Edit: DocG, great post!)

Edited January 10, 2007 by Ptipois (log)

[insomniac]

When my 16 y.o. son professed a keen interest in becoming a chef I asked a dear friend who has been a food photographer in Paris for many years for her advice and she point blank refused to use her many contacts with some of the best chefs there to get him a stage because she thought it would be too cruel!

Needless to say he has been an apprentice in a 2 star mich. in england for 14 months and it's just as rough here.

[hjshorter]

Suffice it to say that I'm getting tired of seeing "high-end cuisine" amalgamated with the term "cuisine". So much confusion springs from that. (Kiwichef, maybe you should read the feedback.)

We are still talking about haute cuisine, not regional idigenous cooking.

I'm not going to address Kiwichef's post, as Busboy has alread done so far more eloquently than I could, except to ask - have you traveled extensively in the US?

Excellent post, DocG, although it's amusing that Archestratus was considered a corrupting infuence among Greek philosophers, thereby demonstrating that the moralistic, puritanical approach to food, brought up often as a reason for the lack of food knowledge/appreciation in the USA, existed 2000 years before there were Puritans to promulgate it. It took the Romans to really get the Hedonistic ball rolling, and of course we would probably not be discussing the superiority of French cuisine in any form without the Roman conquest/settlement of Gaul, would we?

[Doc-G]

Hi Heather,

I did not know that about Archestratus. All I remember is that he said that when you visit [cant remember the name of the place], the slice of swordfish from the tail-end is best!

RE: Romans, puritans etc...

Couldn't agree more!

Cheers,

G