Monday, March 24, 2008

It's only food, for heaven's sake

I’m a fairly dab-hand in the kitchen, if I do say so myself. I like food and I really like cooking.

My culinary acumen, I always suggest, grew out of adversity. An advantage (about the only advantage I can think of) in having an alcoholic mother and being the eldest child was that I learned to cook at an early age so that my younger brothers could be fed decent meals when dear mama was hors de combat.

I gained further skill by not having had a sterling domestic track record in the past. If I wanted to eat well, and healthfully during my sporadic bachelor forays I had to prepare good dishes for myself. I also found, if I had a new female ‘friend’ and I could offer her my own Coquilles St. Jacques, it could be a pleasing prelude to intimacy – or not. But, at least the grub was good.

In my current, and I hope ‘forever’ home situation, I have the best of all possible worlds in that Wendy, aside from all her other attainments is a professional chef and has worked in the culinary realm in the past. Consequently, we tend to divide the food preparation chores, or at least alternate evening meals.

One thing Wendy learned above all else is that professional kitchens are ‘not’ nice places in which to earn a buck. She's worked in the past in places that ranged from short-order diners to very high-end hotels. The ‘culture’ in all of them sucked, she said. The underlings, all the way from sous-chefs to the pan scourers are treated like crap by the egocentric chefs. Many of the lower order employees are substance dysfunctionals, via booze or drugs, many have prison records, and virtually all are treated like the scum of the earth, and in that she could hardly blame them for their misbehaviors.

Meanwhile, the chefs (with only a few exceptions in her experience) were abusive, sometimes violent, profane and arrogant, and treated workers in a manner that would never be acceptable in any other workplace. And, at the end of the day, despite their love of themselves as ‘artistes’, they are really only cooks whose role is to ‘serve’ the paying public.

The only ones she found to have a realistic take on the business were the Asians – predominantly the Chinese, who regarded cookery as something they must toil at in order to make money in order to send their kids through college, so that their kids could turn their hands to something ‘respectable’ like doctoring or lawyering.

So, where does our love affair with and exaltation of cookery come from? Why on earth would we find some sort of perverse pleasure in watching the immature and abusive antics of off-the-wall ‘celebrity chefs?’ People who, in my opinion, should be arrested for their abuse of employees. If I want to watch chefs at their most repulsive, I’ll watch that wonderful old British series Chef, with the superlative Lenny Henry. But, the point of that series was that Chef himself was utterly screwed up and ended up virtually losing everything from his beautiful and long-suffering wife to the posh restaurant for which he forsook aforementioned wife. In other words, he was an emotional and mental basket case and not to be admired.

So, at the end of the day, I can only blame the French for this. It is the nonsensical concept of haute cuisine as a sort of art that ruined old-fashioned cookery. All that Escoffier pretension took whipping up some decent grub to new heights of snobbery and the dining world never really recovered. At least it never recovered from the attitude. That was why I loved Julia Child. Dear old Julia cut through all the bullshit, mainly exhorted us to use lots of real butter and to be careful with sauces and those who like cooking found out that most Gallic cookery is pretty easy-peasy.

So is most other cookery if you have a bit of a passion for preparing good food. And you can do the whole thing without attitude.

Labels:

16 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's primarily about how it tastes. I nevr understood snobbery in food.

7:32 PM  
Blogger Leslie Hawes said...

Have you seen the animated movie, Ratatouille?
I thought it was darling, and the stereotypical cookery-snob characters were precisely rendered.

Food, glorious food...

7:47 PM  
Blogger heiresschild said...

i agree that a lot of chefs have big egos. there's this t.v. reality cooking/chef program called "Hell's Kitchen." the title says it all.

10:38 PM  
Blogger meggie said...

Did you have the series of Two Fat Ladies? I loved that, & they used the full cream, the butter etc.
I agree about the chefs, having had dealings with them on a personal level. Most of them, dare I say it, are completely mad!
As are the 'cooks' who do Bistro food. Very disturbed folk, most of them.

11:22 PM  
Blogger geewits said...

And on the complete other side of the coin, many folks' favorite memories are of the loving and wonderful times they spent in the kitchen with a grandmother or some other beloved long gone family member. Which proves that cooking doesn't make you mean. Is it the fame?

12:25 AM  
Blogger Casdok said...

Attitude counts for so much.

2:26 AM  
Blogger Janice Thomson said...

Years ago I dated a chef - but not for long - he had an attitude which could be seen in his after-work hours too. It would be interesting to do a psychological study on these people to find out why this attitude exists.

6:52 AM  
Blogger laughingwolf said...

having seen 'kitchen confidential', who, in their right mind, can trust the food they 'eat out' as even sanitary?

i make my own, far from 'perfect', but no one has died, or even gotten ill....

8:25 AM  
Blogger Tai said...

I love Julia Child, too. She made food and cooking interesting, fun and just a little risque.
What a fabulous woman.

And Meggie mentioned the Two Fat Ladies, they were GREAT!

8:55 AM  
Blogger dinahmow said...

I think Ho Chih Minh worked in Escoffier's kitchen as a young man. Poor sod!(Come to think of it, maybe it was the chef's attitude that made him turn to politics!)

3:41 PM  
Blogger heartinsanfrancisco said...

I taught myself to cook from Julia Child's first cookbook and later branched out into Chinese, Japanese, Indian and Italian cuisine.

I have also worked more than I care to remember in restaurants where your depiction of most chefs as abusive is an understatement at best.

Food fascinates me, the growing or finding of it, and all the preparation down to the final hopefully appealing presentation.

I really enjoyed this post.

5:10 PM  
Blogger Echomouse said...

This was timely but scared me to death. You're right of course about it all. I hate how abusive they all are. My nephew, unfortunately, wants to be a chef. He's due to start college next fall for this very thing. How I wish he would pick something else. I'm still trying to find a way to talk him out of it. We'll have to wait and see I guess.

5:37 PM  
Blogger Hermes said...

As an aside, do you ever feel anxious about preparing food for a professional? I agree with you 100%. But if I had to cook for a chef, I would be nervous nonetheless. I'm not sure why but there it is.

8:38 PM  
Blogger Dita said...

Oh how I'd enjoy having another cook in the casa. My friend always says "we need a wife."

Oysters were the key to love in college weren't they?

10:37 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

10:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Despite my disdain for the topic, I do watch Top Chef -- but only so that I can yell at these annoying jackasses. Yes, I actually yell at the TV. (Don't laugh; it's very therapeutic.)

I’ve been stewing [pun intended] in this one since an episode last season when they brought in this celebrity hippie-wannabe egg cook (yeah, that’s right, you’re a god damn cook) and touted his expertise in the field of [making HUGE quote fingers] “molecular gastronomy.”

According to Wikipedia, as expected, it’s a meaningless term invented by cooks for the purpose of self-validation and to make it seem like what they do actually matters in the grand scheme of things.

Molecular Gastronomy is defined as “a scientific discipline involving the study of physical and chemical processes that occur in cooking. It pertains to the mechanisms behind the transformation of ingredients in cooking and the social, artistic and technical components of culinary and gastronomic phenomena in general (from a scientific point of view).”

Okay, the big fat giveaway here is that they use the phrase “scientific discipline” in the same sentence as “social” and “artistic.” WTF? Sorry, NOT scientific. It’s just a bullshit term further proved by the following:

“A classic example of molecular gastronomy is the investigation of the effect of specific temperatures on the yolk and white when cooking an egg. Many cookbooks provide the instructions of boiling eggs 3-6 minutes for soft yolks, 6-8 minutes for a medium yolk and so on. Molecular gastronomy reveals that the amount of time is less important to cooking the eggs than specific temperatures - which always yields the desired result.”

Ah. So basically, molecular gastronomy reveals that if you don’t cook eggs long enough they’ll be runny, and if you cook them for too long they’ll burn. Thank you for the clarification. Again, NOT a science. It’s just a fancy term to justify another cookbook book deal that other cooks can crow about and feel self-important.

Even the word gastronomy is filled with such arrogance and self-importance. In its essence it’s just another way of saying cooking style. Are the lives of these food snobs so vacant that they have to manufacture scientific terminology for the making of a soft-boiled egg?

I’ll close with a quote from one of my all-time favorite movies, “Glengarry Glenn Ross.” Ricky Roma (portrayed by Al Pacino) said, “Great meals fade in reflection. Everything else gains. You know why? Because it's only food. Just shit we put in us, it keeps us going. It's only food.”

I feel much better now.

10:22 AM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home