A blogger/chef strikes back
While we've been discussing the Chicago Tribune's 10 worst dining trends, others have, too. Serious Eats had harsher things to say than anyone here did in an entry called "The 10 Worst Food Trends? Really?"
As the note at the end of the post says, the writer, Michael Natkin, really got his knickers in a twist over some of them.
"This list is basically just a bunch of populist rabble-rousing, bashing of supposed elites who have become too effete to enjoy the pleasure of simple, rustic food. The only problem is, these creatures barely exist," Natkin says. ...
There is one terrible trend even he agrees with, though, and that's No. 3, "The Menu as Book."
"There is nothing wrong with 'artisanal' or 'local,' or 'Vermont-raised,'" the Tribune article says in explanation, "and nothing wrong with identifying the source of the goat milk you are being served, but when menu items grow to entire paragraphs, it's a bit much."
The Serious Eats writer says, "I'm in violent agreement here. Personally, within reason I prefer a simpler menu description. Or better yet, none at all. My favorite way to eat out at a good restaurant is to simply let the chef make me whatever they think I will love. "
We've talked about overblown menu descriptions and how annoying they are before, but interestingly I see this as a trend that's dead in the water. Sure, new restaurants around here are proud of being farm-to-table (I'm beginning to really hate that phrase, as you know, but it's useful); but their menus are surprisingly restrained.
R.I.P. to the overblown menu trend, I say.
(Tribune photo by Nuccio DiNuzzo)
Comments
Shill spam at 6:26 AM (from the German branch of the European family of electronics websites).
Did I get them all? The blogware gives it to me in hours and minutes ago posted, not the actual time, unless I go into the comment. EL
Posted by: hmpstd | October 29, 2009 7:11 AM
When you violently agree with someone, do you hug them to death?
Posted by: Bob | October 29, 2009 7:43 AM
Somehow, I don't see myself asking the server to have the chef make whatever he or she thinks I'll love. On a busy night in a jam-packed eatery, I can't envision the waiter running back to the kitchen, catching the chef in mid-fricasee and saying "Maestro, there is a guy out there who wants you to concoct what you think he will love." And the chef, smiling pleasantly at the interruption as he watches a tureen of lobster bisque boil over, responding, "Jean-Claude, ask the gentleman to be more specific about his culinary preferences. Is he in the mood for fish, fowl or perhaps my legendary Bouef D'Avignon? With or without shallots, depending of course, on his personal taste." And the server, telling the chef, "Thank you for honoring this simple request, mon ami, rather than whacking me with the cleaver in your hand." No, the Serious Eats writer's advice notwithstanding, I think I'll continue to work from the menu.
Posted by: Michael A. Gray | October 29, 2009 7:44 AM
@MichaelGray - (I'm the author of the Serous Eats post; my main blog is Herbivoracious) your comment is funny, but actually you should try ordering "omakase" (as it is called in Japanese) sometime. I've had great experiences with this at all types of restaurants, and having worked in kitchens as well, I can tell you there is nothing the chef would rather hear.
It doesn't mean you'll necessarily get something that isn't on the menu. The reality is that any restaurant some of the ingredients are better on a given day, and some of the menu items are the chef's best work while others are there to please the rabble :).
By putting yourself in the chef's hands, they are usually very motivated to give you the best. Don't expect, but don't be surprised if you also get extra courses or a visit from the chef.
Posted by: Michael Natkin | October 29, 2009 2:47 PM
Thanks for letting me have some fun, Mr. Natkin, without taking offense. You make a good point. I'll give it a try.
Posted by: Michael A. Gray | October 29, 2009 4:07 PM