"My Friend the Portabello" by Robert Lalasz

[Mark Slater]

I'd like to share your optimism that all we need to do is ask. Placing the onus completely on vegetarians, though, does smack of blaming the victim. Again, we're avoiding the obvious: Why would chefs with estimable reputations risk putting a mediocre dish on their menus just because it's meatless? Isn't it a bit of chicken and egg--the vegetarian meals are poor, so vegheads go elsewhere, or only to these places under duress? (Again, sorry for the mixed-animal metaphor.) I guess to eat well at the places everybody's buzzing about, we have to start a movement. And to think somebody was mocking me earlier when I talked about a right to dine.

I was commenting on the recent boomlet in foie gras manifestations on area menus, not on foie gras as traditional fare. Sorry for the confusion. Perhaps I should stick to my team.

Where I work, we get vegetarian requests all the time. Most of the time it goes quite well. We have interesting things that are not available anywhere else. Occasionally the person wants to know exactly what they will get and vetoes several of the choices. OK. Still, they can handle it. What is tiresome, and I have heard people say this, is, "I'm vegetarian, but I'm tired of salad, tired of pasta, tired of blah blah blah". Our restaurant is not a vegetarian restaurant. What the hell do you do then? We serve combinations of vegetables that no one else in the city does. Is that not good enough? Last year a woman called the restaurant at 9 in the morning. She talked to the breakfast hostess for quite a long time, stressing that she was a an ovo-lacto vegetarian. When she arrived that evening for dinner she fully expected to be handed a special menu listing her choices (!!!). This didn't happen. She sent the waiter back to the kitchen 5 times to ask what she could have and to veto the last offering. Finally, they left. It was a relief.

It reminds me of a funny story Michel Richard told me about his restaurant in Los Angeles. Big film producer comes in. He orders duck. It comes, magret de canard, cooked medium rare in the French style. He calls the maitre d' over to complain, "can't he cook me a duck like the Chinese restaurants Peking style?"

'nuff said.

Edited March 3, 2006 by Mark Slater

[Heather]

I agree that vegetables, pastas, etc. do exist on most menus in one form or another.  What I keep reading, however, is that even when restaurants are making vegetarian offerings, they are either repetitive or uninspired.  Even Vegetate wasn't good enough in Mr. Lalasz' opinion. I don't see too many specific suggestions being made on what they should be cooking instead, only that they need to make changes.

But why should vegetarians have to tell the chef how to cook for them? Other diners don't do that. I read the article as a cry for more interesting options; for chefs to use even just a little of their creativity in making the vegetarians dishes.

I guess telling them that these options are not sufficient would help.   I'm now done beating the dead horse (or tofu) with regard to speaking up but do think that this would help further the vegetarian cause.

I am guessing that's what Mr Lalasz thought he was doing in the article, no? He what identified a story and wrote about it. That's what journalists do. I am baffled why anyone would think that it's somehow innappropriate. And as Charles said upthread:

Getting special treatment doesn't allow one to discern the day-in, day-out level of vegetarian cooking; complaining afterward doesn't make retroactively make the meal un-sucky.

[xdcx]

I have a disturbing mental image of ravening packs of vegetarians, descending in somewhat polite, deferential chaos upon unsuspecting produce carts and slaughtering the wild tofu by the dozens...

Now I'm going to go wash out my brain with my favorite vegetarian consuamble, one made from malted barley smoked over peat fires in Scotland, where vegetarians are hunted down and shot as a food source.  Of course, these are also the unrepentant carnivores and junk food eaters that gave us Scotch Eggs (hard-boiled eggs covered in sausage and deep-fried) and deep-fried Mars Bars.

Rob

considering it's infinitely easier to be a vegetarian in Scotland as well as the rest of the UK as it is here, I think you might want to head over for a visit again and then we can talk about how the vegetarians are actually treated. You can find vegetarian scotch eggs at holland and barret in even the tiniest villages. here's a list to make it easier. http://www.hollandandbarrett.com/pages/sto...otland#Scotland

Now if you wanted to talk about Japan, that'd be a different story.

[xdcx]

If you let a restaurant know that you dislike their vegetarian offerings, then perhaps they'll change.  If you remain as you said earlier -- supplicating and submissive -- then how are they supposed to know about your dissatisfaction?  Tell them, perhaps directly instead of through a public forum, and maybe you'll get the results you desire.

Just out of curiousity do you often walk into an establishment and ask them to make things that aren't on their menu for you? If so, how does that go down?

[Camille-Beau]

Just out of curiousity do you often walk into an establishment and ask them to make things that aren't on their menu for you? If so, how does that go down?

I typically frequent restaurants that prepare the type of food I like. I do however, ask for alteration to the prep at times such as sauces on the side, etc. Goes over very well actually.

[cjsadler]

And it's especially tiresome when you encounter restaurants such as Komi, where your food is great, and you wonder why it can't be that way more often elsewhere.

After almost 100 points on this topic, I'm still wondering.

That's definitely the big question here, but I'm not sure I know the answer. You provided a couple of possible explanations, though:

chefs or owners are too cautious or indifferent or hidebound

I don't find this a very compelling explanation. It's a big assumption that runs contrary to all the trend jumping in the industry. With the speed that restaurants go out of business if they're not providing people something they want, there's little room for indifference. DC might be lagging a bit in the trend department, though, as we have never been at the vanguard of style (hey, I say this as someone born and raised here), but if people think a place like Green Zebra (much hyped, mostly vegetarian Chicago restaurant) is the next great thing, I'm sure that concept (or at least more creative vegetarian dishes on menus) will be here shortly. We're already seeing the start of this with places like Vegetate and Viridian. The whole expense account culture of DC doesn't help, though, as it skews the scene towards things like dull, expensive steakhouses.

the obstacles vegetarian food faces: a pervasive, creative indifference to and/or lack of training in creating meatless dishes, plus a fear of the unknown based in the industry's overall razor-thin profit margins.

Maybe the background and training of white tablecloth chefs is the better part of this answer? An Indian trained chef, for example, comes from a more veggie-centric background and can draw on many tried-and-true vegetable entrees. But even at a modern Indian restaurant like Rasika here or Devi in NYC, they are mainly tweaking and updating those old standards (usually in terms of presentation), not coming up with anything truly original. When they offer you Paneer Makhani at Rasika, it's basically the equivalent of a white tablecloth place offering you mushroom risotto again, isn't it? It takes alot of creativity and effort to create an original vegetarian entree that's delicious (in fact, I can't think of when I've ever had one). Thinking about the background and training of the chefs of most white tablecloth places, what do they have as a base to work from in terms of veggie entrees? All your favorites: risotto, pasta primavera, veggie ravioli, etc...

Edited March 3, 2006 by cjsadler

[xdcx]

I typically frequent restaurants that prepare the type of food I like.  I do however, ask for alteration to the prep at times such as sauces on the side, etc.  Goes over very well actually.

So you don't have a dietary restriction at all and it comes down to a matter of taste and taste only? It seems that you on one post are telling vegetarians to essentially shut up and stay away and then on the other make special requests that far exceed simply asking for "sauce on the side". It's this mentality that is annoying. People in the majority not caring or thinking about the minority and dismissing them with terms like self-select. That because of someone’s moral, religious or health views differs from the majority that they should just suck it up and be happy with what they're given. I wonder how many of you here with that attitude have a dietary restriction that limits what you can eat at the vast majority of restaurants to 1 choice and some to zero? It's easy to say the minority doesn't matter when you're in the majority and your choices aren't the ones being affected. I also don't really get why there's so much emotion on the majority side since what's being talked about wouldn't actually have any baring on you. Edited March 3, 2006 by xdcx

[jparrott]

My issue is with the author's stated assumption that people with "a dietary restriction that limits what you can eat at the vast majority of restaurants to 1 choice and some to zero" should be "supplicating and submissive." And then writing an article describing the use of that approach to dine at a few top restaurants (and a few less-top restaurants), and then using in-part-irrelevant observations of said restaurants to tar many restaurants without examining the effects of an alternate approach to dining at those restaurants, namely, being something other than "supplicating and submissive."

I think, perhaps, it's time for someone to again write the article about how nice it is to be a regular at a restaurant.

[Camille-Beau]

So you don't have a dietary restriction at all and it comes down to a matter of taste and taste only? It seems that you on one post are telling vegetarians to essentially shut up and stay away and then on the other make special requests that far exceed simply asking for "sauce on the side". It's this mentality that is annoying. People in the majority not caring or thinking about the minority and dismissing them with terms like self-select. That because of someone’s moral, religious or health views differs from the majority that they should just suck it up and be happy with what they're given. I wonder how many of you here with that attitude have a dietary restriction that limits what you can eat at the vast majority of restaurants to 1 choice and some to zero? It's easy to say the minority doesn't matter when you're in the majority and your choices aren't the ones being affected. I also don't really get why there's so much emotion on the majority side since what's being talked about wouldn't actually have any baring on you.

That's not what I'm saying at all. Sorry Rocks but I'll beat that dead horse one more time --- I am saying SPEAK UP, SPEAK UP, SPEAK UP!!! Tell the restaurants that all their 'vegetarian' offerings suck and that you will take your money elsewhere unless they start being more creative. The argument I hear through many of these posts is that no one wants to say anything and that the chefs should just automatically know that what they currently prepare is boring, tasteless, repetitious, etc. How do they know unless you say otherwise?

[xdcx]

That's not what I'm saying at all.  Sorry Rocks but I'll beat that dead horse one more time --- I am saying SPEAK UP, SPEAK UP, SPEAK UP!!!  Tell the restaurants that all their 'vegetarian' offerings suck and that you will take your money elsewhere unless they start being more creative.  The argument I hear through many of these posts is that no one wants to say anything and that the chefs should just automatically know that what they currently prepare is boring, tasteless, repetitious, etc.  How do they know unless you say otherwise?

Isn't that exactly what that article and this thread is doing though? Why would anyone go into a restaurant and THEN say, "hey grilled veg is great, but come on"? Like other people here have said it's putting the cart before the horse. If there isn't a good option to begin with, why would be at the place anyway and why would you want to give them your money?

[Keithstg]

So you don't have a dietary restriction at all and it comes down to a matter of taste and taste only? It seems that you on one post are telling vegetarians to essentially shut up and stay away and then on the other make special requests that far exceed simply asking for "sauce on the side". It's this mentality that is annoying. People in the majority not caring or thinking about the minority and dismissing them with terms like self-select. That because of someone’s moral, religious or health views differs from the majority that they should just suck it up and be happy with what they're given. I wonder how many of you here with that attitude have a dietary restriction that limits what you can eat at the vast majority of restaurants to 1 choice and some to zero? It's easy to say the minority doesn't matter when you're in the majority and your choices aren't the ones being affected. I also don't really get why there's so much emotion on the majority side since what's being talked about wouldn't actually have any baring on you.

An answer, in part: My sister has a severe nut allergy, which she most assuredly did not self-select. As her allergy is out of the norm, we typically contact places in advance to inform them, and to determine if her menu choices will be limited. The last time she came to DC to visit, I contacted the restaurant GM in advance to ask if they had items on the menu that work for her, and that she could eat with (1) some choice, and (2) without the risk of anaphylactic shock. We were assured that entrees existed that could accomodate her, and had a wonderful meal. She was not able to eat dessert, because all of the deserts had nuts in them to some degree. Missing dessert was a dissapointment, sure, but not the restaurant fault, and something that is unfortunately a fact of life for her.

How difficult is it to raise a dietary issue beforehand, inquire about options, and then dine accordingly? Seems to me that this approach would solve two purposes -inform the restaurant management that a segment of their customers had particular restrictions (and thereby demonstrate a market for entrees, apps, etc. targeted to that market), and diminish the chance for diner dissapointment. It's not about "sucking it up", or "taking what you're given", as was so eloquently put, but more about working with the restaurant to affect a better outcome. In many cases a call or question ahead of time, or during the meal, can help resolve things better than complaining after the fact, or griping on the internet will.

(edit: to fix grammar)

Edited March 3, 2006 by Keithstg

[RaisaB]

So you don't have a dietary restriction at all and it comes down to a matter of taste and taste only?  I wonder how many of you here with that attitude have a dietary restriction that limits what you can eat at the vast majority of restaurants to 1 choice and some to zero? It's easy to say the minority doesn't matter when you're in the majority and your choices aren't the ones being affected. I also don't really get why there's so much emotion on the majority side since what's being talked about wouldn't actually have any baring on you.

I cannot believe the passion on this subject. On this last post, my husband is allergic to Beans, Peanuts, Avocados, Mangos, and even raw Bananas! I know many people allergic to peanuts. Does that limit his choices? Absolutely! Do we expect a restaurant to change their menus to cater to him? No. If they can omit an item from a dish, that is great, if not he does not order it. Business is business, restaurateurs must do what is profitable! He did not choose to be allergic as you would choose to be vegetarian. Someone who is strictly Kosher does not expect restaurants to be Kosher, but they do visit those that are. Same goes for Islamic and Hindu meals.

This all seems very much ado about nothing.

Edited March 3, 2006 by RaisaB

[jparrott]

And purpose number three--when you call in advance, are respectful and try to work with the restaurant, you get a better experience on the night and the very real possibility of forming a good relationship with the place for the future.

[deangold]

Just out of curiousity do you often walk into an establishment and ask them to make things that aren't on their menu for you? If so, how does that go down?

We have customers who do this all the time. When we can acommodate (in the sense that we have the ingredients prepped and ready) we do. Otherwise we say sorry we cannot.

Edited March 3, 2006 by deangold

[rlalasz]

Maybe the background and training of white tablecloth chefs is the better part of this answer?  An Indian trained chef, for example, comes from a more veggie-centric background and can draw on tried-and-true vegetable entrees.  But even at a modern Indian restaurant like Rasika here or Devi in NYC, they are mainly tweaking and updating those old standards (usually in terms of presentation), not coming up with anything truly originial.  When they offer you Paneer Makhani at Rasika, it's basically the equivalent of a white tablecloth place offering you mushroom risotto again, isn't it?  It takes alot of creativity and effort to create an original vegetarian entree that's delicious (in fact, I can't think of when I've ever had one).  Thinking about the background and training of the chefs of most white tablecloth places, what do they have as a base to work from in terms of veggie entrees?  All your favorites: risotto, pasta primavera, veggie ravioli, etc...

You make some thoughtful points. But when I travel, I generally find more variety for me in other cities (NYC and SF and LA, of course, but also Chicago, Philly, Portland, Milwaukee--Milwaukee, for crying out loud) than I do here. As someone suggested earlier, perhaps it's the extreme expense account culture here that's holding things back.

[Scott Johnston]

First, I think this thread is great and a future offshoot maybe which entree is at which restaurants are veggie friendly.

I was a full-fledged low fat vegan for about a year and a half. I dined out all the time at both highbrow and lowbrow restaurants. I can tell you a bean burrito without cheese is a great snack from taco bell and that Sunflower and many Asian and Indian restaurants have great offerings. I am sure I did not find any restaurant without something interesting to offer. If I were attending an event (example dinner at Old Ebbits) I would call ahead and ask if they had something or could prepare something for me. I asked many questions, got some great answers, and many times talked directly with the chef. I will say some places looked at me funny and others took it as a challenge.

That being said I would like to see more veggie offering at high scale restaurants. Often I can take several side items and make a dinner out of it (and am often charged for full price dinner). I really think that if there were a demand for this, chefs would step up to the plate. The reality is the demand is not there. It is like McD’s adding a veggie mac. There are a few places that it was popular, but the majority of the outlets did not sell enough to keep it on the menu. They then started to sell a great salad. More people liked that and it is on the menu.

Bottom line, vote with your feet, and tell them what you want.

Scott (whom has given up all meat for Lent and now is craving pork cheeks very much)

[reverbbrad]

I enjoyed this article quite a bit. What I think is getting missed in this thread, with talk of percentages, is that that the variety is so sorely lacking. The only analogy that I can think of is if most restaurants served all-veggie food, but had an obligatory hamburger or baked chicken on the menu, often prepared with little attention. Some may be excellent, but there is a crushing weight of sameness to your dining experiences.

I’m not a vegetarian, but I tend to try and keep my diet light on the meats, which means looking for good vegetarian alternatives (I had no idea there was a term for this, and I’m not sure why it really exists. I don’t feel like a “-tarian,” just a diner with my own tastes).

It was easy to recognize the trends that Bob points out. It’s genuine, and it shouldn’t take personal phonecalls and pleadings (combined with either the confidence or arrogance, depending on your POV, to ask a restaurant to change “just for you”) to get something different.

However, Bob, I am surprised no one has mentioned this:

I know that you were focusing on “white tablecloth” restaurants, but why does this exclude the entirety of ethnic dining alternatives? To put it more bluntly, is there any reason that “white tablecloth” has to be, well, white? And why is Komi an exception if Zaytinya or Indique are not?

It seems to me that you are dismissing a huge number of opportunities from the outset, as if you waved your hands and said “these don’t count.” As I recall, Jose Andres’ restaurants offer a pretty nice variety of veggie tapas (well, Atlantico excepted), and the room at Oyamel is pretty grand. (I’d second the criticism that your complaint with Atlantico was not one of food quality, but of service. I’m inclined to wonder you felt your waiter served you differently, or just poorly).

For mid-scale, I know there are a number of places within a short car-ride from my house that do a very nice job with veggie dishes: Layalina, Bangkok 54, and Lalibela all come to mind. Punjab Dabha is only a little further down Rt. 50. I’m personally curious about both Indique and Rasika, but have not yet been.

So, while I agree that some trendy/upscale restaurants deserve a few dings for not making more of an effort, I also think you threw away the baby and are carping at the bathwater.

[Waitman]

And purpose number three--when you call in advance, are respectful and try to work with the restaurant, you get a better experience on the night and the very real possibility of forming a good relationship with the place for the future.

Apparently you missed the point of the article, which was not to prove that you can build a special relationship with one restaurant over a period of time, or that you can get better food if you take a binding-arbitration approch to making a reservation ("the chef offers the frisee and egg salad without the bacon but with the trumpet mushrooms and a duck egg, the risotto, and dessert of choice" "my client is pleased with the salad and excited about the duck egg, but feels the risotto is tired, and suggests in return a phyllo-based entree" "the chef will take that under advisement and his representative will contact you in the morning").

The point was to see what a plain old vegetarian gets when he walks in off the street. It is a report, an analysis, an overview, a look at "what is" right now, not a dream of "what might be."

Of all complaints about the article, I can't recall anyone saying "you're wrong, vegetarian options are plentiful and delicious." Any rejoinder other than that is a de facto acceptance of the author's central premise.

Edited March 3, 2006 by Waitman

[rlalasz]

My issue is with the author's stated assumption that people with "a dietary restriction that limits what you can eat at the vast majority of restaurants to 1 choice and some to zero" should be "supplicating and submissive."  And then writing an article describing the use of that approach to dine at a few top restaurants (and a few less-top restaurants), and then using in-part-irrelevant observations of said restaurants to tar many restaurants without examining the effects of an alternate approach to dining at those restaurants, namely, being something other than "supplicating and submissive." 

I think, perhaps, it's time for someone to again write the article about how nice it is to be a regular at a restaurant.

I'm sorry, but you're distorting what I wrote. I never wrote we should be "supplicating and submissive." I wrote that that's often the posture of people who don't have much on offer to them at these places--an understandable attitude.

As I also posted earlier, I didn't just dine at a few top restaurants. I dined at close to 25 for the piece, and have been dining for a decade here. If the issue is veracity, I suggest you try your own suggestions for three months and report back on your results and satisfaction. The idea of speaking up more is not a bad one--and in fact, that's what the article just did, to over 100,000 people. But I have no illusions that a restaurant-by-restaurant crusade of one (or 100) will solve the issue.

[Jacques Gastreaux]

So, was your problem with the service at Restaurant Eve somehow related to the fact that you ordered the vegetarian tasting menu? Would you include Eve in the category of white tablecloth restaurants that does not devote its full energies to vegetarian items on its menuy?

[rlalasz]

I know that you were focusing on “white tablecloth” restaurants, but why does this exclude the entirety of ethnic dining alternatives?  To put it more bluntly, is there any reason that “white tablecloth” has to be, well, white?  And why is Komi an exception if Zaytinya or Indique are not?

It seems to me that you are dismissing a huge number of opportunities from the outset, as if you waved your hands and said “these don’t count.” As I recall, Jose Andres’ restaurants offer a pretty nice variety of veggie tapas (well, Atlantico excepted), and the room at Oyamel is pretty grand. (I’d second the criticism that your complaint with Atlantico was not one of food quality, but of service.  I’m inclined to wonder you felt your waiter served you differently, or just poorly).

For mid-scale, I know there are a number of places within a short car-ride from my house that do a very nice job with veggie dishes:  Layalina, Bangkok 54, and Lalibela all come to mind.  Punjab Dabha is only a little further down Rt. 50.  I’m personally curious about both Indique and Rasika, but have not yet been. 

So, while I agree that some trendy/upscale restaurants deserve a few dings for not making more of an effort, I also think you threw away the baby and are carping at the bathwater.

The thing I didn't include on my website (which is in the print version) is a sidebar of my survival guide, my places to get what I want. Zaytinya made it. Indique didn't, but could have. I don't have a file of the sidebar handy, so you'll have to read the piece. I probably live near you, because I frequent Layalina, Bangkok 54, Thai Square, Thai Noy, Restaurant Abi, and Myanmar, among many others in Arlington and Fairfax.

So of course there are plenty of places that I enjoy. The pretext of the piece--the reason it got to run in a service-oriented magazine--was that there are two new veggie-friendly restaurants (Vegetate and Viridian) as well as some new vegetarian tasting menus around town (CityZen, Eve, 2941) that are used as selling points by these restaurants. These are not ethnic restaurants in the common sense of the word, although of course everything has its own ethnic markers.

And the frame of the piece was: I don't want to eat Thai or Salvadoran or Vietnamese all the time. I'd like to eat well at some of the places--not all of them, I know that's impossible--but some of the places people are talking about all the time and that pubs such as Washingtonian praise. I can already eat at many of these places--there are often things on the menu, or an established tradition of a veg offering off-menu--but do the dishes I'm served stand up to the buzz and the critical discourse about the rest of the menu? Too often not.

The issues at Atlantico were both service and the portabello, which was ordinary, which has always been ordinary in my experience there. My wife loves their scallops, so I'm happy to oblige: a situation quite common for vegetarians.

A lot of people are getting the tone of the piece, but some are not. I had hoped it would be whimsical and wistful, but also rigorous in its food descriptions. It certainly wasn't intended as a strident call to arms. More like the request that some are saying I should make in person.

[DonRocks]

I sympathize with Bob on many of his points. You see, I chose long ago not to eat vegetables and am restricted to a meat-only diet. Grains are okay, but basically anything with a root, a leaf, or a seed is off-limits. Trying to find any restaurant in the Washington area other than my go-to steakhouses or burger joints is an exercise in futility. Yeah, in a steakhouse it's easy enough to push aside the creamed spinach and mashed potatoes, but c'mon - do you have any idea how tiresome it gets eating a slab of meat? It seems like everything in town is basically a different meat in a similar presentation: a medallion of veal, a loin of rabbit, a breast of chicken - nothing but a damned hunk of meat. For whatever reason, it seems like all the chefs in this town spend all their energies on the vegetables that come along with the dish - I look lovingly at my dining companions' salads, purees, gratins. Oh, I'll find the occasional sauceless meatball that's of interest, but even that usually contains parsley or oregano. The sad truth is that there isn't much love in town for us carnivores, and I hope that area chefs reading this thread will sit up and take note.

Cheers,

Rocks.

[TedE]

This all has been touched on a bit in other posts, but I wanted to add my $0.02. What do vegetarians want to see on menus to make dining out a less repetitive and more engaging experience? How could places like Vegetate and Viridian, whose entire existence is predicated on pleasing this underserved segment of the dining public, improve their offerings? If these places can't succeed, dare I ask if there is something else we're missing here? Or are they just that crappy?

I second the opinion that limited choices in WTRs may be somewhat based on the cuisine that, like Vegetate and Viridian, they were designed around (classical French vs. Indian for example). I wouldn't expect a classically trained French chef who considers duck fat a basic ingredient to be my first choice for preparing a vegetarian meal. If you choose to exclude ingredients from your diet that many chefs use to express their creativity then it is true that you are limiting the resulting choices that are going to be offered to you. I agree that those choices could be a bit more varied, but maybe chefs just aren't interested. It's a shame, but dems the breaks as it currently stands. As has been repeated ad nauseam, the status quo will remain as such in this town until there is sufficient momentum to push it further towards another end of the spectrum.

Again, it comes down to demand, and, yes, to the general culture of D.C. high-end dining in general. I'm also somewhat confused as to why places like Zaytinya are not considered "white tablecloth" quality. Because they are not true top-end, destination dining, blow your budget establishments?

Last point and I'll stop rambling. I was in a long-term relationship with a vegetarian and did a lot of cooking in our household. What I learned from that experience is that I had to be jack-of-all-trades, master of none in the kitchen. One recipe that would work would be a Thai dish, the next an Indian curry, the next a soup, the next a stir fry, etc. etc. etc. This can't be expected of a restaurant; it will serve whatever type of cuisine it will serve. Absent a menu whose background incorporates a multitude of vegetarian dishes (Indian, etc.), you will get what the cuisine has to offer. That's not to say that chefs can't innovate, but my guess is that they started a particular restaurant to serve a particular cuisine.

[cjsadler]

Of all complaints about the article, I can't recall anyone saying "you're wrong, vegetarian options are plentiful and delicious."  Any rejoinder other than that is a de facto acceptance of the author's central premise.

This is what I was trying to get at, but (as usual) Waitman has stated things more clearly than me.

If you think the vegetarian entrees of your favorite "white tablecloth" places around town are creative and delicious, please list them (I actually want to know, as I like veggies-- thanks, Grandma ). Otherwise, I think you have to concede Bob's main argument. It's not about whether these places can or should offer vegetarian entrees, it's that they already are doing so, but they mostly are not very good or interesting (everytime I've ordered a vegetarian entree at "wt" places, I've regretted it). Why is this?

This all has been touched on a bit in other posts, but I wanted to add my $0.02.  What do vegetarians want to see on menus to make dining out a less repetitive and more engaging experience? 

Food like this, perhaps?

[Faboo]

 

Food like this, perhaps?

YES! YES! YES!!

[jparrott]

Apparently you missed the point of the article, which was not to prove that you can build a special relationship with one restaurant over a period of time, or  that you can get better food if you take a binding-arbitration approch to making a reservation ("the chef offers the frisee and egg salad without the bacon but with the trumpet mushrooms and a duck egg, the risotto, and dessert of choice" "my client is pleased with the salad and excited about the duck egg, but feels the risotto is tired, and suggests in return a phyllo-based entree" "the chef will take that under advisement and his representative will contact you in the morning").

That's a caricature. Someone who is asking for that type of conversation lacks the palate curiosity and sense of adventure necessary (but not sufficient) to enjoy top-end dining.

The point was to see what a plain old vegetarian gets when he walks in off the street.  It is a report, an analysis, an overview, a look at "what is" right now, not a dream of "what might be." 

But if that was his premise, isn't the real conclusion of the article that "that's not a very smart way to approach dining out as a vegetarian." Wouldn't he then seek to prove out that point by trying a few other approaches? Of course, there are space restrictions, but he could've fit it in.

Of all complaints about the article, I can't recall anyone saying "you're wrong, vegetarian options are plentiful and delicious."  Any rejoinder other than that is a de facto acceptance of the author's central premise.

But that's not all that interesting, nor I think is it much more than sidebar material. And when he uses what sounds to me like a very positive description of a meal at Eve to make that point, and says that a matsutake mushroom in the hands of a very talented staff is "a step down from even the workman portobello," I have to question his ability to evaluate much of the food he was served.

[Principia]

YES! YES! YES!! 

Me three. I'm actually hoping that Agraria will have some substantial vegetarian offerings, given that the entire concept is meant to highlight the products of family farms.

[Heather]

And when he uses what sounds to me like a very positive description of a meal at Eve to make that point, and says that a matsutake mushroom in the hands of a very talented staff is "a step down from even the workman portobello," I have to question his ability to evaluate much of the food he was served.

Gosh, is that a sacred cow I hear mooing in the distance?

[Faboo]

Me three. I'm actually hoping that Agraria will have some substantial vegetarian offerings, given that the entire concept is meant to highlight the products of family farms.

You're right. Agraria looks like it could be a light on the horizon. I'd best not to get my hopes up.

Gotta go smoke a cigarette after studying over that Green Zebra menu. I wonder if Chef Christine Kim would let me come touch the hem of her garment and then slip quietly away....

[Waitman]

That's a caricature.

No, really?

But if that was his premise, isn't the real conclusion of the article that "that's not a very smart way to approach dining out as a vegetarian." 

Nope. The conclusion is that the state of vegetarian cuisine is lousy.

Wouldn't he then seek to prove out that point by trying a few other approaches?  Of course, there are space restrictions, but he could've fit it in.

But that's not all that interesting, nor I think is it much more than sidebar material.

That's the article you want to write, or wanted him to write. Again, the premise wasn't "how to get the best food," it was "the current state of vegetarian cooking."

And when he uses what sounds to me like a very positive description of a meal at Eve to make that point, and says that a matsutake mushroom in the hands of a very talented staff is "a step down from even the workman portobello," I have to question his ability to evaluate much of the food he was served.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Poisoning the well. Points off.

[jparrott]

I'm sorry, but you're distorting what I wrote. I never wrote we should be "supplicating and submissive." I wrote that that's often the posture of people who don't have much on offer to them at these places--an understandable attitude.

Is that their posture? Is that posture understandable? Neither is clear to me.

As I also posted earlier, I didn't just dine at a few top restaurants. I dined at close to 25 for the piece, and have been dining for a decade here. If the issue is veracity, I suggest you try your own suggestions for three months and report back on your results and satisfaction. The idea of speaking up more is not a bad one--and in fact, that's what the article just did, to over 100,000 people. But I have no illusions that a restaurant-by-restaurant crusade of one (or 100) will solve the issue.

But the article was also just about a hatchet job on Eve and includes other remarks that speak to either disinterest ("$14 flatbreads, a faux pizza I refuse to eat unless Costco is offering samples") or lack of knowledge (the above-mentioned matsutake remark--if it was mis-executed in such a way as to render the mushroom more boring than a portobello, you should have sent it back).

And I don't buy for one second that you would have to compromise your anonymity to make a complaint, either. I mean, you've already shown ten times more civility under fire on this thread than someone who'd yell, "I'm a blogger, I'll write about this!"

[jparrott]

Nope.  The conclusion is that the state of vegetarian cuisine is lousy.

That's the article you want to write, or wanted him to write.  Again, the premise wasn't "how to get the best food," it was "the current state of vegetarian cooking."

....for one specific personality-type of vegetarian diner, one who doesn't like long tasting menus and doesn't want to take an active role in his dining experience.

Poisoning the well.  Points off.

I'll accept only a minor deduction. My intention was only to use what I've gleaned about Mr. Lalasz's food-evaluation ability to assess the validity of the conclusions he has drawn directly from the food he was served. I have no evidence to believe that Mr. Lalasz is anything but a qualified observer of behavior, decor, or other aspects he touched on in his article.

[jparrott]

Gosh, is that a sacred cow I hear mooing in the distance?

If you're referring to the Eve comments, I'll clarify. Mr. Lalasz reports on a meal that, given the information provided in the article, shows that Eve met or even exceeded ("all exclamation points") the Tasting Room's proffer. But then he presents it in a negative light and as a counterpoint to his more positive (2941) and most positive (Komi) experiences. By doing so, he only makes the point that he doesn't like formal service, being full, or meals that are all exclamation points. None of these is particularly germane to his thesis; where it is, it contradicts as much as supports it.

But now I sound like Plotnicki. I need a drink.

[Faboo]

So are you saying that there really is great vegetarian cuisine to be had in the DC area, vegetarians just dont know how to get it?

[Principia]

...And when he uses what sounds to me like a very positive description of a meal at Eve to make that point, and says that a matsutake mushroom in the hands of a very talented staff is "a step down from even the workman portobello," I have to question his ability to evaluate much of the food he was served.

Gee, someone didn't like something Restaurant Eve served? Quick, get the pitchforks! Does the mere fact that it came out of the kitchen at Eve grant it some miracle aura of goodness that's supposed to outweigh the fact that he ate this particular dish and didn't like it?

In my experience, there are a fair share of restaurants I go to with my +1 where I enjoy my veggie (usually side) dishes far more than he enjoys his meat-based main courses. Because we're essentially tasting from two different sides of the kitchen, we can come away with very different impressions of the same restaurant.

And while I'd prefer to leave this dead horse alone, you seem to be missing the main point of the article, which is that restaurants that otherwise have a strong reputation for serving excellent fare are (in his opinion) falling down on the job when it comes to vegetable preparations. I will agree with him that I shouldn't have to engage in negotiations with a restaurant to have them custom-craft me something off-menu just to eat there. For my part, the reason I don't attempt it is not because I'm submissive, but rather because I know restaurants usually have a rough go of it on a daily basis and I'm not interested in compounding their stress by being a PITA.

eta: I apparently had trouble following jparrott's train of antecedents. The mushroom in question was served at CityZen, and the point stands.

[jparrott]

So are you saying that there really is great vegetarian cuisine to be had in the DC area, vegetarians just dont know how to get it?

I don't know. But this article didn't advance the ball on that question.

[jparrott]

Gee, someone didn't like something Restaurant Eve served? Quick, get the pitchforks! Does the mere fact that it came out of the kitchen at Eve grant it some miracle aura of goodness that's supposed to outweigh the fact that he ate this particular dish and didn't like it?

The matsutake was served at CityZen.

As for what I meant when I talked about Eve, see my post just above.

[Faboo]

I don't know.  But this article didn't advance the ball on that question.

Yes, it really did. The article spoke for a lot of people, myself included.

[jparrott]

That sacred cow is mooing even louder.

"Hatchet job" is probably harsh, you're right.

And while I'd prefer to leave this dead horse alone, you seem to be missing the main point of the article, which is that restaurants that otherwise have a strong reputation for serving excellent fare are (in his opinion) falling down on the job when it comes to vegetable preparations.

Except that one of the meals he uses to make this point is a meal that a lot of people probably would have enjoyed, with "artistry," "exclamation points," and "ceremoniousness."

[Jacques Gastreaux]

Gee, someone didn't like something Restaurant Eve served? Quick, get the pitchforks! Does the mere fact that it came out of the kitchen at Eve grant it some miracle aura of goodness that's supposed to outweigh the fact that he ate this particular dish and didn't like it?

You might want to consider reading the article again. The article never says anything bad about the vegatarian offering at Eve, in fact, other than saying that they looked "artistic" and were "exlcamation points" he really doesn't comment on the quality of the food. He does say that they fed him too much and that he didn't like the pacing, neither of which have anythinig to do with the thesis and does cast the restaurant in a negative light.

[jparrott]

Yes, it really did. The article spoke for a lot of people, myself included.

Except that it didn't, because the protagonist chose not to employ any techniques other than "supplicating and submissive."

I have no doubt that the article spoke for a lot of people. But from the standpoint of making change, there are too many holes in it.

[Principia]

Except that one of the meals he uses to make this point is a meal that a lot of people probably would have enjoyed, with "artistry," "exclamation points," and "ceremoniousness."

I will grant you that if he meant to be critiquing the food itself in that instance, he needed to be more clear on that point, rather than kvetching about them having given him too much food or having (in his mind) pretentious service. I don't know that he would have found the service any different had he been eating a foie-gras and pork-cheek themed tasting menu.

But the fact that he could have done a better job illustrating part of his point doesn't change what the point was.

[jm chen]

If you think the vegetarian entrees of your favorite "white tablecloth" places around town are creative and delicious, please list them (I actually want to know, as I like veggies-- thanks, Grandma  ).

Corduroy has offered delicious options for vegetarians in the past, and as far as I know, still does.

[DonRocks]

Again, the premise wasn't "how to get the best food," it was "the current state of vegetarian cooking."

I agree about the premise and the main point of the article, but Bob also chose to be a restaurant critic. This is what he wrote about CityZen:

"A carpaccio of butternut squash with red onion and dates looked cute enough - the squash cut into thin loops and arranged as if drawn by Spirograph - but it dissolved on the tongue into a uniform, slightly cloying sweetness. A chard-and-Fuji-apple charlotte was overwhelmed with salt, and the centerpiece tasting - a matsutake mushroom capping a small ragout of chewy shelling beans - was a step down from even the workman portobello."

That's pretty harsh stuff. And though he might not have liked the dishes, the descriptions of them hardly make them seem like afterthoughts. This is overt criticism on the quality of the cooking itself. Nothing wrong with that, but it should be fair game for challenge and discussion.

Cheers,

Rocks.

[jparrott]

But the fact that he could have done a better job illustrating part of his point doesn't change what the point was.

But if he does a bad enough job of illustrating enough parts of his point, then his point becomes, er, pointless? And if he's trying to be a change agent for restaurants, it diminishes his credibility.

[Principia]

...neither of which have anythinig to do with the thesis and does cast the restaurant in a negative light.

As I just said to jparrott, yes, complaining about the service and sheer volume of food at Eve does not serve well to illustrate his specific point.

But he doesn't deserve to be tarred and feathered because his experiences at these restaurants don't mesh with yours, particularly when his entire point is that the experiences are very different for two different groups of diners. Does the fact that he didn't enjoy himself at these places diminish your enjoyment of the times you've spent there? I would certainly hope not.

[jparrott]

But he doesn't deserve to be tarred and feathered because his experiences at these restaurants don't mesh with yours, particularly when his entire point is that the experiences are very different for two different groups of diners. Does the fact that he didn't enjoy himself at these places diminish your enjoyment of the times you've spent there? I would certainly hope not.

Not tarring and feathering him, but rather the article. And I don't necessarily quibble with the idea that "experiences are very different for two different groups of diners." But the way he presented his experiences and arguments was a restriction of the "group" about which he was talking to certain personality types within the space of all ovo-lacto vegetarians, a restriction that the author did not acknowledge or attempt to mitigate.

[pedant]

What we're trying to do here is to perform criticism of the article. The separate, broader issue of vegetarianism in a fine dining context, including the associated business, aesthetic, logistical, and personality issues, is a fascinating one, and I'd welcome someone proposing a frame to begin such a discussion. But that's not what I'm trying to do here..

[/pedant]

(And the first guy who uses the word "Symposium" gets to take over Waitman's job.)

[Jacques Gastreaux]

As I just said to jparrott, yes, complaining about the service and sheer volume of food at Eve does not serve well to illustrate his specific point.

But he doesn't deserve to be tarred and feathered because his experiences at these restaurants don't mesh with yours, particularly when his entire point is that the experiences are very different for two different groups of diners. Does the fact that he didn't enjoy himself at these places diminish your enjoyment of the times you've spent there? I would certainly hope not.

I don't think we necessarily disagree here. My point is that his experience would have been the same at Eve regardless whether he ordered the vegatarian menu or had the venison, etc. If you will grant me that, then what is the point of including the negative comments in the article. People who read the article will come away with the impression that Eve is not a place they should go where they have vegetarian options commensurate with the quality of the non-vegatrian options. That would be a false impression, I think.

[Waitman]

I agree about the premise and the main point of the article, but Bob also chose to be a restaurant critic.  This is what he wrote about CityZen:

"A carpaccio of butternut squash with red onion and dates looked cute enough - the squash cut into thin loops and arranged as if drawn by Spirograph - but it dissolved on the tongue into a uniform, slightly cloying sweetness.  A chard-and-Fuji-apple charlotte was overwhelmed with salt, and the centerpiece tasting - a matsutake mushroom capping a small ragout of chewy shelling beans - was a step down from even the workman portobello."

That's pretty harsh stuff.  And though he might not have liked the dishes, the descriptions of them hardly make them seem like afterthoughts.  This is overt criticism on the quality of the cooking itself.  Nothing wrong with that, but it should be fair game for challenge and discussion.

Cheers,

Rocks.

True enough --as I said earlier.

But far more ink has been spilled (how archaic a phrase!), however, over his "attitude" than his actual main points. He has an "entitlement mentality," "he made his own bed," he's "submissive," he didn't "say anything at the time," he has the wrong "personality type," his grasp of Constitutional Law is weak etc.

Surprisingly little talk about the food.

Far be it from me to defend anyone who thinks tofu is an edible product, and whose only contact with beef is --as Heather suggests -- goring the occasional sacred cow, but methinks many more arrows have been aimed at the messenger than the message. Maybe because it's an easier target. Maybe because he's right.

It's all very DC.

[jparrott]

methinks many more arrows have been aimed at the messenger than the message.  Maybe because it's an easier target.  Maybe because he's right.

He might be right, but you couldn't necessarily tell it from the article.

I think this is slightly harsh. I think we've been trying to criticize (criticism=the activity of judgment or interpretation) Mr. Lalasz's methods of making his point, and whether, if the article's purpose was to be a change agent as well as a picture of what a "supplicating and submissive" [author's own words] vegetarian gets when he goes to a cross-section of DC's restaurants, the article serves that purpose for either vegetarians or restaurants.

If I've been ad hominem except in evaluating Mr. Lalasz's methods and ability to analyze, then it was an unintended shorthand.