Jump to content

Todd Kliman on Peter Chang


Pat

Recommended Posts

And it's quite, quite good.

Kliman's piece is beautifully written, the kind of writing that makes you keep thinking after you finish reading. I had posted the link after only reading the beginning, since I hadn't seen a link to it posted here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Strangely enough, Calvin Trillin just stopped doing his regular column in the Oxford American, where his writing was always more interesting than in the New Yorker. (The fact that Trillin has long-standing relationships with both probably explains the quote from the editor of the one in the other).

In my mind, Todd's piece definitely upstages, and it is great to see his writing in such an historic and storied journal.

Still out on the stands is the Southern Music issue, an annual must have.

ETA: Ooops, I almost forgot to annoy Don by including tangental links to artists in this year's issue: Crazy Wildman Sonny Burgess and Little Bob and the Lollipops.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Proof of the magical power of Peter Chang's cooking is the way Todd Kliman's mythopoetical pursuit of the mysterious Chang overshadows Trillan's charming bit on the obsessives who shared a Sichuan Boy fixation. Melville meets Wodehouse. Or, to build on (or abuse) an analogy both writers use, Trillin writes about the Deadheads, Kiliman is the Deahead, so he writes about the the music and not the cultists, detailing each meal with the fever of a 'head riffing through a Playing-Uncle John's-Playing-Dew second set whose every note he remembers with crystalline clarity despite the hallucinogenic substances coursing through his cerebellum at the time.

I never ate the Boy's food, but I'm assuming that Kliman's ascension from tweeted reviews to majestic essays can be credited to the cumulative effect of Sichuan peppercorns and cumin, blended with the salt tears of joyous diners....

;)

Give it a look.

Another night, I watched tears streak down a friend’s face as he popped expertly cleavered bites of chicken into his mouth with his chopsticks. He was red-eyed and breathing fast. “It hurts, it hurts, but it’s so good, but it hurts, and I can’t stop eating!” He slammed a fist down on the table. The beer in his glass sloshed over the sides. “Jesus Christ, I’ve got to stop!”

Even when I wasn’t eating Chef Chang’s food, I was thinking about it, and talking about it, recreating those singular tastes in words and images. I talked about it constantly; I couldn’t not talk about it. I wanted everyone I knew to try it, particularly since, as experience had taught me, he would not be here long and the moment was not likely to last. “I’ll definitely have to make it out there,” friends would say, and I knew from the complacency of their tone that they didn’t get what I was telling them, that a great restaurant, of all places, is not static, it is constantly changing and evolving, and often for the worse, and that greatness, when you can find it—if you can find it—is an evanescent thing, kept alive by luck and circumstance and numberless mysteries we can’t hope to understand, not unlike life itself, and we must heed the imperative to go, now, and give ourselves over to it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really enjoyed Kliman's article.

But I have to say, after reading "The Fortune Cookie Chronicles" that I have picked my own explanation, which I don't think anybody else has suggested yet, of why Chef Chang starts restaurants and leaves them not long after -- he starts them up, and then sells them. He's an entrepreneur.

The purchasers, like the ones Jennifer 8 Lee wrote about, read ads in Chinese language newspapers, looking for investments, and may not even have much experience. None of them can cook as well as he can, none of them are as fanatical about details and ingredients, so their food isn't as good, but most of them are able to stay in business because they're good locations.

The location in Fairfax City was terrible. That little area has been death for restaurants, other than Red Lobster and Hooters and Captain Pell's. But you'd have to know the area to know that. It wasn't even in a strip mall. Very hard not to make money running a Chinese restaurant but Szechuan Boy proved it can be done.

It all makes perfect sense to me after reading Lee's book.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We can't be sure, of course, but I never got the impression that Chang owned any of the restaurants. They were there before he showed up, and the management didn't seem to change before, during, or after his appearance.

There's at least one of them that, based on the Kliman piece, was clearly owned by someone else. And besides, given that Chang is the franchise, why would someone buy his restaurant without him?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We can't be sure, of course, but I never got the impression that Chang owned any of the restaurants. They were there before he showed up, and the management didn't seem to change before, during, or after his appearance.

I got some insight into how these things work when I represented a Taiwanese lady whose investment in a Chinese restaurant went bad due to interpersonal problems with the other investors. There was a shadowy character named Charlie Chang (no relation, I am sure) who, at least at that time, started restaurants all over the DC metro area and then sold them to investors.

The cast of characters included the three investors: one, a woman said to be Charlie Chang's mistress; another, a dentist, who wanted to be a silent partner; and my client, said to be a former dance girl with $60K to invest, but no experience whatsoever in a Chinese restaurant, who spoke almost no English. The plot details included the two others throwing my client out because she really didn't contribute much except money, and they kept the money, but she (allegedly) took the extra set of books where they wrote down the real income and expenses. I did have a ledger written in some kind of Chinese characters, a lot of receipts from local purveyors of Chinese restaurant supplies, and other items she grabbed from the safe when she left. The other two claimed she grabbed the cash when she left, she claimed that they took the cash before she got to it.

One of the things that miffed my client and started the bad blood was that she wanted to stay in the apartment the restaurant kept for the illegal aliens who cooked in the restaurant, rent free, and the other two partners thought that was either unseemly, greedy, or both.

My client kept coming by the office with various cousins and nephews to translate for her while she explained things, but I was always stymied about litigating over allegations of shenanigans over two sets of books. That's just a non-starter in court.

Anyway, we settled the case. Someone else bought the restaurant and my client got 1/3, nowhere near $60K, but she did get a cut of the proceeds while she worked there, which was part of the deal.

So I surmise there is a great deal of fluidity in these situations, which is what one would expect from entrepreneurs. Hand-shake deals rather than franchises ironed out by lawyers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's at least one of them that, based on the Kliman piece, was clearly owned by someone else. And besides, given that Chang is the franchise, why would someone buy his restaurant without him?

"Owned" is a fluid concept, sweat equity and intellectual property are also investments in startups. Chang may not contribute any money, just expertise and training to the line cooks and kitchen staff, and recipes and techniques.

Chang is the franchise to us because we are his fans, but he uses complex recipes with multiple ingredients and refined techniques. That can't be as profitable as churning out plate after plate of pork fried rice and General Tso's chicken.

I wouldn't be a bit surprised if Chef Chang actually lost money on people like us, or barely broke even. Seriously. Restaurants have thin margins, you have to keep turning over the inventory, turning over the tables. Ordering special food for a special Don Rocks dinner is probably a money-maker, but having us show up and take two tables and sit there for hours while we savor everything -- maybe not? They may love having their egos stroked but make money on moving the merchandise faster and cheaper. At least, that's my theory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Owned" is a fluid concept, sweat equity and intellectual property are also investments in startups. Chang may not contribute any money, just expertise and training to the line cooks and kitchen staff, and recipes and techniques.

Chang is the franchise to us because we are his fans, but he uses complex recipes with multiple ingredients and refined techniques. That can't be as profitable as churning out plate after plate of pork fried rice and General Tso's chicken.

I wouldn't be a bit surprised if Chef Chang actually lost money on people like us, or barely broke even. Seriously. Restaurants have thin margins, you have to keep turning over the inventory, turning over the tables. Ordering special food for a special Don Rocks dinner is probably a money-maker, but having us show up and take two tables and sit there for hours while we savor everything -- maybe not? They may love having their egos stroked but make money on moving the merchandise faster and cheaper. At least, that's my theory.

Right. And when Chang left, all the sweat equity and intellectual property went with him. Why buy that? If there were a string of Chinese restaurants serving Changian food around the Southeast,w ith his name on the front door, it would make sense to start a place and move on. He would be the Puck or Vongrichen of Chinese food. But there isn't. When he goes, there's nothing to suggest that he was ever there at all. And, of course, these are all restaurants that appear to have existed before his arrival on the scene.

And, jeez, if all he wants to do is make money, by your own theory, why would he bother with the cool stuff in the first place? He'd just teach a couple of kids how to make a superior Mu Shi, and move on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Proof of the magical power of Peter Chang's cooking is the way Todd Kliman's mythopoetical pursuit of the mysterious Chang overshadows Trillan's charming bit on the obsessives who shared a Sichuan Boy fixation.

Agreed. I love the obsessive tone of Kliman's essay--a great piece of writing, not just food writing. It makes me regret the fact that I've never had Chang's food. A visit to Charlottesville is in order.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't get the competition people pose between the articles by Kliman and Trillin. I see them as complementary. They're written from different perspectives (Kliman, first person; Trillin, third person) and for sharply different audiences. There's merit in both. Neither one is better.

I think Kliman comes across as insecure and callow when he writes "...I’d intimated as much in the three-and-a-half-star piece I’d written. (Four stars is an exalted designation, rarely granted; restaurants with nine-buck entrées and garish green carpet are generally lucky to be considered for two.) " This is a dining experience over which he was obsessed, where he travelled great distances to repeat it, the likes of which he will probably never have again in his life. On a four-star scale, this was five stars. Instead, Kliman gives it 3-1/2 because he didn't like the green carpets and the entrees are only $9.00 -- usually only a two-star experience. So, Todd, how much should he have charged for his entrees to get that extra half-star? Come on, dining is a sensuous experience about taste and texture. It's not about price nor floor coverings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When he goes, there's nothing to suggest that he was ever there at all.

Not the case with China Star, which is the only one we still go to. We still get the scallion fried fish, the five spice sliced beef, the spicy peppercorn beef with cilantro, the ma la rabbit, the crystal shrimp.

They still serve many dishes that are not served at most Chinese restaurants, that are made with pig blood, pig fat, organ meats and offal, and the menu is in English as well as Chinese.

If you live in Maryland or DC then this may be all old hat to you but it's not run of the mill for Fairfax.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't get the competition people pose between the articles by Kliman and Trillin. I see them as complementary. They're written from different perspectives (Kliman, first person; Trillin, third person) and for sharply different audiences. There's merit in both. Neither one is better.

I think Kliman comes across as insecure and callow when he writes "...I’d intimated as much in the three-and-a-half-star piece I’d written. (Four stars is an exalted designation, rarely granted; restaurants with nine-buck entrées and garish green carpet are generally lucky to be considered for two.) " This is a dining experience over which he was obsessed, where he travelled great distances to repeat it, the likes of which he will probably never have again in his life. On a four-star scale, this was five stars. Instead, Kliman gives it 3-1/2 because he didn't like the green carpets and the entrees are only $9.00 -- usually only a two-star experience. So, Todd, how much should he have charged for his entrees to get that extra half-star? Come on, dining is a sensuous experience about taste and texture. It's not about price nor floor coverings.

This is actually a larger, or perhaps different, discussion, but I think 4 stars suggests near-perfection in every aspect of the dining experience, from the food to the service to the table linens and the carpet. And I interpreted the section you quoted differently, as a bit of irony or maybe self-parody.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is actually a larger, or perhaps different, discussion, but I think 4 stars suggests near-perfection in every aspect of the dining experience, from the food to the service to the table linens and the carpet. And I interpreted the section you quoted differently, as a bit of irony or maybe self-parody.

I think it was written with chagrin on Kliman's part. I also think he weighs decor in favor of "mom n pop" places, such that the food, service and atmosphere (as in "does this place bring you joy?") take precedence over deep-pocketed swank digs. Substance over flash.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is actually a larger, or perhaps different, discussion, but I think 4 stars suggests near-perfection in every aspect of the dining experience, from the food to the service to the table linens and the carpet. And I interpreted the section you quoted differently, as a bit of irony or maybe self-parody.

I suppose that when writing for The Washingtonian Kliman is expected to adhere at least somewhat to an objective standard -- let me rephrase, an "objective" "standard" -- which may include such nuances as tastes of the editorial staff, tastes of the subscribers, feelings of the advertisers.

Not that The Washingtonian is Le Michelin, after all, they do have Cheap Eats and even Dirt Cheap Eats.

I would prefer it if he were able to assign higher ratings to places with crummy carpets by stating that the food was better than suggested by the carpet and furniture.

Does that not sell magazines? No idea.

I would point out that Calvin Trillin has made his mark selling stories about food that transcends the ambience, e.g., barbecue, and boudin. As do many others, which is what Road Food, Chowhound, and yes, Don Rockwell, are all about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suppose that when writing for The Washingtonian Kliman is expected to adhere at least somewhat to an objective standard -- let me rephrase, an "objective" "standard" -- which may include such nuances as tastes of the editorial staff, tastes of the subscribers, feelings of the advertisers.

Not that The Washingtonian is Le Michelin, after all, they do have Cheap Eats and even Dirt Cheap Eats.

I would prefer it if he were able to assign higher ratings to places with crummy carpets by stating that the food was better than suggested by the carpet and furniture.

Does that not sell magazines? No idea.

I would point out that Calvin Trillin has made his mark selling stories about food that transcends the ambience, e.g., barbecue, and boudin. As do many others, which is what Road Food, Chowhound, and yes, Don Rockwell, are all about.

And Kliman's article isn't about food that transcends ambience? And, how much higher a rating is a place with crummy carpets going to get than 3-1/2 stars?

I think taking on the editor who brought "Dirt Cheap Eats" ot Washingtonian and swept 20 creaking old grand palaces off the Top 100 list (and wrote the article that started this discussion) for his alleged snobbery is a bit of a fool's errand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If not already necessary for the superlative writing, the current Oxford American would be a must-have only for it's blue-tongued cover (popsicle? Sno-Cone? Fla-Vor-Ice? dare I say, Blo-Pop?) which hauntingly echoes and rivals Kubrik's evocation of the unsettling power of toenail painting.

I should hasten to add that the issue is chock-a-block with great writing and that Todd's piece isn't even the best. That would be Jack Pendarvis' chicken-on-a-stick story. Those of you familiar with my work, and my past lines of work, would know why this story is so appealing to me. Close second is Marianne Gingher's but more for the picture, which together with the cover, has me twinking happy thoughts in my tiddle cup. And of course, any one with even a feigned interest in food and culture should never miss anything that John Edge, with the mysteriously insisted upon "T.", writes.

I've been reading the Oxford American since it actually was published in Oxford, before the embezzlement scandal, before the two bankruptcies, before the hiatus and I always buy extra copies for the college kids who work for us in the summer to take with them to school, so they can be cooler than anyone else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...