Michael Odom wrote:

> On Sun, 08 May 2005 20:07:34 -0400, "Bob (this one)" >
> wrote:
>
>>Different circumstances dictate different solutions to different
>>questions. For a Saturday afternoon football extravaganza with the guys
>>featuring a vast tray of nachos with melty cheese, salsa and great gobs
>>of sour cream, the setting demands Velveeta for all its properties. For
>>a setting where the food is the center of events, an aged, artisanal
>>cheddar might be appropriate. But neither is good or bad, absolutely,
>>and ascribing rightness or wrongness to either is snobbery. Choosing
>>what to eat or not eat is a matter of personal preference, and de
>>gustibus est non disputandum.
>>
>
> I don't think I'd go that far myself.

Ok. I posted this to see who would go how far. I just made a mark on the
door frame to show how far you'd go. <g>

> Though I confess that the whole
> "best way to make coffee cake" premise of America's Test Kitchen does
> chap my sensibilities.

I agree. I don't like that competitive cooking thing very much. I've had
to evolve answers for when people call me on the air and ask for the
best recipe for __________. I usually ask them for the name of their one
favorite song. Virtually nobody has a unique fave. And on the extremely
rare occasions when people were able to drop one in, I ask if it's
always been their fave. They've all stumbled on that one.

> Also your post brought to mind Anthony Bourdain's comments that great
> cooking comes from kitchens untroubled by an abundance of cash. His
> argument is that really good cooking comes from people who have to
> make tasty things out of very little. He cites rural France and
> Italy, Vietnam, and the American South as examples.

That's ok, a far as it goes. But you may be most certain that demi-glace
didn't come from a poor kitchen. Nor puff pastry. Nor most desserts. I
agree that simple cooking as the peasantry are inclined towards can be
richly satisfying and interesting. But please don't confuse
stick-to-the-ribs cooking with the more complex and subtle foods from
the wealthy kitchen.

I've had lots of great food from home kitchens. And I've had lots of not
great food from fancy restaurants. But I'm not willing to assert the
superiority of one over the other.

>>There's no disputing about taste. Agree or disagree, there's no inherent
>>quality to anything.
>>
> Don't know about that, Bob.
>
> I once had lunch here in Cow Hill with a guy who knew tons about New
> Orleans. He had some sort of trust fund and a real interest in
> hipness of thought, deed and desire. I told him how much I loved the
> fried oyster po boys at a joint near the French Market in the Quarter.
> Joint was called Fiorello's, I think. Amazing, sez I, such breading!
> Such bread! Beer was chilled! He said he thought he knew the place:
> "It's got a wood-fired oven." I haven't ventured into the kitchen at
> Fiorello's, but from the look of the place, they're surely proud
> they're able to afford gas.
>
> He was a snob.
>
> I once had dinner in a centuries-old mansion in the colonial district
> of Santo Domingo. We'd arranged to rent a house on the beach on the
> north side of the island, but had to cash out because of some
> political troubles that made driving there impossible according to our
> host. So we had a beach house in pesos to eat. We ate it. All
> appetizers, wine, and desserts. It was delightful. It was better
> than Fiorella's po boys, even.
>
> I once ate a pizza at a place called Aldo's in St. Remy de Provence.
> I think it was the best pizza I've ever had. I remember gorgonzola
> and a thin crust. Aldo's has a wood-fired oven.
>
> Hope that doesn't put me in league with that silly snob.

A good bit of the judgement we offer for meals and other culinary events
is the setting. Good company and good spirits make things taste 27%
better. And if there's a decent wine with it, it goes up to 41%.

But, seriously. I remember every detail of a meal I had in a sailplane
over the alps. The food was relatively ordinary, but we were flying
silently, often above the clouds and it was a new sensation and
literally thrilling.

> Only superficial people don't judge by appearances.
> -- Oscar Wilde

I agree with Oscar. Of course we form *part* of the judgement of people
based on appearance*S* - not only physical appearance. Appearances
include how people speak, what they smell like, how mannerly they are,
how sincere they seem to be and all the other reasonable criteria we
apply. And that's the first level test. From there we move on to more
subtle and sophisticated criteria to decide if they can become friends.
But if we make an immediate and final judgement to reject them based on
their shirt or haircut or the brand of their shoes, then it's snobbery.

Appearances are what we perceive with all our senses. Factoring them
together is what gives us a more developed standard for judging wisely.

Pastorio