"My Friend the Portabello" by Robert Lalasz

[DonRocks]

But he doesn't deserve to be tarred and feathered

He's not being tarred and feathered; his article is being discussed.

With 5,000 views in 36 hours, this often-stressful discussion is exactly the "problem" any author of a controversial piece should want. Imagine if there had been only two follow-up postings, consisting of things like, "Great piece, Bob!"

No doubt he has popped a valium or two, but it sure beats languishing in obscurity.

Cheers,

Rocks.

[Jacques Gastreaux]

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.

I'll take the bait. I think two people reading that same article could come to opposite conclusions. He went out looking to see if he could find decent vegatarian food at white table cloth restaurants in the DC area. Lo and behold, he found some. It exists. Based on the facts laid out in the article, I'd say the chances of finding decent vegetarian dishes at such establishments is about the same as finding decent anything else at such restaurants, if you define the category narrowly enough.

[jparrott]

Do we get concept compensation for the two follow-up articles that one could write stemming from this discussion?

[Waitman]

I'll take the bait.  I think two people reading that same article could come to opposite conclusions.  He went out looking to see if he could find decent vegatarian food at white table cloth restaurants in the DC area. Lo and behold, he found some.  It exists.  Based on the facts laid out in the article, I'd say the chances of finding decent vegetarian dishes at such establishments is about the same as finding decent anything else at such restaurants, if you define the category narrowly enough.

Me, bait someone?

I am but a simple would-be gourmand, hardley the master baiter you seem to think I am.

I'd say that he that his bit of overstatement at the beginning of the article (dealing and caffeine-derived, perhaps) gave it a more negative feel than it really was. He did have a couple of kudos.

But, I'd say that, generally, the vegetarian offerings in this town are pretty limited, far more so than decent, creative omnivore cooking. I had both the veg and the meat tasting menu at the Oval Room and I thought the veg was pretty good. But I didn't think it was quite as good as the meat. And while the carnivore menu was very innovative, some of the veg stuff was pretty common: a squash soup and a muchroom raviolo. (Though you should give it a shot, Bob).

So, I beg to disagree. But, at least we're talking food, not personality types. (how do vegetarians skew on Meyers-Briggs?)

[jparrott]

But the article (and the author's comments on this thread) linked food and personality issues. So a criticism of the article can take that linkage into account. A discussion just "about the food," while related to Mr. Lalasz's article, is not a discussion about the article. It's a good discussion, though, and perhaps a thread branch is in order.

[Jacques Gastreaux]

But, I'd say that, generally, the vegetarian offerings in this town are pretty limited, far more so than decent, creative omnivore cooking.

One possible explanation for this obvious truism is that vegatarian is a farily narrow category while omnivore is a much broader category. There seems to be some evidence that even restaurants that offer exclusively vegatarian fare don't do it very well. If the vegatarian places can't do it very well, why would you expect the white tablecloth places to be any better?

[Waitman]

One possible explanation for this obvious truism is that vegatarian is a farily narrow category while omnivore is a much broader category.  There seems to be some evidence that even restaurants that offer exclusively vegatarian fare don't do it very well.  If the vegatarian places can't do it very well, why would you expect the white tablecloth places to be any better?

Because I think Cathal et al are better chefs.

[Jacques Gastreaux]

Because I think Cathal et al are better chefs.

Good answer, bonus points for you.

But what about the other point, that vegatarian is a narrow category and omnivore is a broader category?

[jparrott]

So here, let's split off the food discussion. I propose the following frame:

Can restaurants sustainably deliver stimulating ovo-lacto vegetarian options that meet the level of formality and complexity of those restaurants omnivorous proffer?

Within this frame, I think there are the following issues to discuss:

1. The palette available for ovo-lacto vegetarian dishes, its breadth of flavors and flavor types, and whether that palette is sufficent to provide varied, suitable dishes for restaurants of different proffers (styles and levels of formality and complexity).

2. What is meant by complexity or formality of a given ovo-lacto vegetarian dish and/or a progression (either app/main or tasting) of ovo-lacto vegetarian dishes? How do we measure this complexity or formality against that restaurants other offerings?

3. What are the business issues (sourcing, planning, pricing) associated with offering suitable (as defined in the question) ovo-lacto vegetarian dishes and/or tasting menus either a-regularly on the menu or b-when solicited by a customer a priori? In particular, how does a restaurant initiate and/or sustain the ability to make suitable offerings?

4. What are useful, appropriate, and constructive ways for ovo-lacto vegetarians and others interested in ovo-lacto vegetarian dishes to communicate their wishes to restaurants before and during a meal? What are useful, appropriate, and constructive ways for restaurants to respond and for any subsequent discussions to continue?

5. What are the useful ways to communicate the results of discussions 1 through 4 to ovo-lacto vegetarians, other diners who may be interested in ovo-lacto vegetarian dishes, restaurants at differing levels of complexity and formality, those restaurants' suppliers, both small and institutional, and the people who fund those restaurants?

6. How should issues 1 through 5 be considered for other dietary restrictions (vegan, wheat-allergy/celiac, nut-allergy, fishamatarian)?

[Waitman]

Good answer, bonus points for you.

But what about the other point, that vegatarian is a narrow category and omnivore is a broader category?

To that I would answer that vegetarians as a consumer group, are a narrow category but that vegetarian cooking need not be. There is no reason that a mixed-use restaurant couldn't have relatively broad offering of vegetable dishes without sacrificing their commitment to flesh. I'm sure a gastreauxpod lover like yourself remembers when it was damn hard to get a decent selection of fish on restaurant menus. But demand crept up, and more chefs learned to cook fish well, and suppliers improved and the whole cycle bumped up until, at a lot of places, there are as many or more good fish options as beef or veal -- something unheard of 20 years ago. No one thinks of "fish" as a "narrow category."

Why shouldn't the same cycle begin with vegetable cooking? If chefs stop treating it as an afterthought or something they "have" to offer -- which many still do -- thier offerings will expand an improve. Demand will climb as vegetarians eat out more and omnivores order incrementally more such dishes. With practice and by stealing ideas from one another, the level of cooking will rise and so on. And vegatable cooking will no longer be a niche art, but just another skill that chefs master and make available to their grateful clientel.

Not saying it would happen overnight. But if you think of vegetable cooking as relatively unexplored territory rather than as a ghetto for a few pallid cranks, you can see some good opportunity.

[jparrott]

Why shouldn't the same cycle begin with vegetable cooking? 

Might it be that the palette for veg-only isn't broad enough to create the kind of more general groundswell you're getting at? For earthy or meaty, there's not much more than mushrooms. Saucing is more difficult, because you don't have stock to build sauce body and to add to deglazings. Many dishes can have sweetness elements (from veg-roasting), of which restaurants may have a sensitivity against providing. And this doesn't begin to get to surface contamination, prepping of separate starches when meat stocks are incorporated into starches (such as in beans or grains which could be cooked in chicken stock). Is it the case that the surrounding issues create a chilling effect on an already overstressed planning process?

[crackers]

Food like this, perhaps?

Yes, and like this.

[Jacques Gastreaux]

To that I would answer that vegetarians as a consumer group, are a narrow category but that vegetarian cooking need not be.  There is no reason that a mixed-use restaurant couldn't have relatively broad offering of vegetable dishes without sacrificing their commitment to flesh.  I'm sure a gastreauxpod lover like yourself remembers when it was damn hard to get a decent selection of fish on restaurant menus.  But demand crept up, and more chefs learned to cook fish well, and suppliers improved and the whole cycle bumped up until, at a lot of places, there are as many or more good fish options as beef or veal -- something unheard of 20 years ago.  No one thinks of "fish" as a "narrow category."

Why shouldn't the same cycle begin with vegetable cooking?  If chefs stop treating it as an afterthought or something they "have" to offer -- which many still do -- thier offerings will expand an improve.  Demand will climb as vegetarians eat out more and omnivores order incrementally more such dishes.  With practice and by stealing ideas from one another, the level of cooking will rise and so on.  And vegatable cooking will no longer be a niche art, but just another skill that chefs master and make available to their grateful clientel.

Not saying it would happen overnight.  But if you think of vegetable cooking as relatively unexplored territory rather than as a ghetto for a few pallid cranks, you can see some good opportunity.

A lot of people will eat fish, vegetarians will not. There are plenty of vegatables on restauurant menus, it's just that they are not prepared "vegetarian."

But the conclusion of the article is that the white tablecloth places do not put the same level of skill into vegetarian dishes that they put into their normal fare. I don't believe that. I don't see those chefs giving short shrift to anything that comes out of their kitchens with their names on it.

[JPW]

Yes, and like this.

How about this?

PS - They list Hermann Weimer Chardonnay by the glass. It's good, but not as good as the gewurtz or the riesling

[Camille-Beau]

If you think the vegetarian entrees of your favorite "white tablecloth" places around town are creative and delicious, please list them

Here are a couple of examples off the top of my head:

Cardoon Panna Cotta

Sorrel veloute

Ricotta gnocchi with trumpet mushrooms & mascarpone cream

Mushroom ragout with crispy polenta and sage

Leek custard tarts

Maybe they're not inventive to the level of a Greens in SF or Green Zebra in Chicago, but those are vegetarian-specific restaurants. That's what they do and I bet they probably wouldn't make a good braised pork cheek the way Chef Power does at Corduroy. Nor would I expect them to.

[jparrott]

But we are not talking about vegetarian restaurants here. Vegetarian restaurants can start from ground-zero construction to be geared for veg food--there are no surface issues, they can prepare twenty-five veg stocks if they want, etc. The issue is, how do you create and sustain a veg-friendly set of offerings in the context of a broader proffer?

[TedE]

Why shouldn't the same cycle begin with vegetable cooking?  If chefs stop treating it as an afterthought or something they "have" to offer -- which many still do -- thier offerings will expand an improve.  Demand will climb as vegetarians eat out more and omnivores order incrementally more such dishes.  With practice and by stealing ideas from one another, the level of cooking will rise and so on.  And vegatable cooking will no longer be a niche art, but just another skill that chefs master and make available to their grateful clientel.

A good point, but it still comes down to what has been re-iterated over and over in this thread: demand. Hasn't reached critical mass yet.

Your analogy with seafood is interesting though. I think the rise in consumption also had loads to do with advances in efficient harvesting methods, leaps and bounds in sustainable aquaculture, and most importantly advances in shipping and transportation. Without FedEx and the like you wouldn't be able to get a decent piece of mahi in Chicago. [sidebar: anybody read that article in the New Yorker a while back about UPS and the lobster industry? Totally fascinating!]

Now, produce shares the same challenges, most of which seem to have been overcome. Not to mention the abundance of good produce that can be obtained locally in season. Will the story turn out the same as it did for seafood? If enough chefs get behind it in this town it just may. Without economic incentive I don't see it happening. Ironically, places like Vegetate may actually hurt the cause if they are serving uninteresting or tasteless food and hoping to get by on the novelty or niche-filling characteristics of an all-veg, upscale menu. If they fail, the next person to take stab might look back and say, "Gee, this was tried before in this town, and it didn't work out. Not gonna take the chance".

I'm going to make a point of trying Green Zebra next time I'm out that way. Sounds intriguing.

[Jacques Gastreaux]

A good point, but it still comes down to what has been re-iterated over and over in this thread: demand.  Hasn't reached critical mass yet.

Your analogy with seafood is interesting though.  I think the rise in consumption also had loads to do with advances in efficient harvesting methods, leaps and bounds in sustainable aquaculture, and most importantly advances in shipping and transportation.  Without FedEx and the like you wouldn't be able to get a decent piece of mahi in Chicago. [sidebar: anybody read that article in the New Yorker a while back about UPS and the lobster industry?  Totally fascinating!]

Now, produce shares the same challenges, most of which seem to have been overcome.  Not to mention the abundance of good produce that can be obtained locally in season.  Will the story turn out the same as it did for seafood?  If enough chefs get behind it in this town it just may.  Without economic incentive I don't see it happening.  Ironically, places like Vegetate may actually hurt the cause if they are serving uninteresting or tasteless food and hoping to get by on the novelty or niche-filling characteristics of an all-veg, upscale menu.  If they fail, the next person to take stab might look back and say, "Gee, this was tried before in this town, and it didn't work out.  Not gonna take the chance".

I'm going to make a point of trying Green Zebra next time I'm out that way.  Sounds intriguing.

I don't agree that vegetables share the same transportation challenges that fresh fish does. Most of the chefs we are talking about here would not think of trying to serve out of season produce shipped in from a different climate. Let's face it, you can't get good tomatoes or corn unless they are in season. But that's beside the point. I think Jake makes a god point that it is more difficult to develop vegetarian dishes that come up to the quality that the chefs demand because they can't use certain ingredients in their preparation. That is possibliy a strong reason why they don't serve as many of them.

But niether Jake nor I are qualified to answer these questions. Only the chefs themselves have the necessary qualifications on a number of levels.

[jparrott]

But niether Jake nor I are qualified to answer these questions.  Only the chefs themselves have the necessary qualifications on a number of levels.

...including the business level, which has to be part of the discussion.

[cheezepowder]

People keep mentioning there's no demand -- there is SOME demand for vegetarian entrees, otherwise, why are high end (and other) restaurants even offering a vegetarian option on their menus (whether it be portobellos or otherwise)? Or why do some chefs, as someone mentioned above, feel they "have" to offer one? I would say that demand for vegetarian entrees (not just from vegetarians but from those who are trying to eat less meat due to health reasons) has risen over the last ten years and that's why so many more restaurants are now even offering a vegetarian option. This is particularly exhibited by the fact that several high end restaurants are offering vegetarian tasting menus, which I can't imagine was the case in DC 10 years ago. Hopefully this trend will continue to develop, and now that the vegetarian option is on the menu (and possibly fueled by Bob's article), the quality of it will improve.

[DonRocks]

...including the business level, which has to be part of the discussion.

Jake The Parrott

[TedE]

I don't agree that vegetables share the same transportation challenges that fresh fish does.  Most of the chefs we are talking about here would not think of trying to serve out of season produce shipped in from a different climate.  Let's face it, you can't get good tomatoes or corn unless they are in season.

I think they do share some of the transportation challenges, just to a different degree. Nobody is arguing that the chefs we are talking about won't take advantage of local produce when it's possible. The same thing is true with seafood; soft shells and shad roe are available in some frozen form year-round, but I wouldn't expect to see them on the menu. Chefs will wait for them to become available locally, same as tomatoes and corn. What I was trying to say is that there is a wide range of produce out there that is never available locally, but has been made available on an almost year-round basis due to advances in growing and shipping the product. That's pretty much analogous to the boom in seafood consumption and my corresponding guess about some of events that may have played a hand.

What's a D.C. veg-producing chef to do in the winter then? Root vegetables for everyone? No, they will supplement with whatever high quality product then can get in, from wherever it is shipped (not to say that this cannot be done to a great extent on the local level, as Eve seems to do, but the infrastructure to do it on a large scale to suppply a large number of restaurants just doesn't exist). Chefs and restaraunteurs, please correct my BS if I'm completely off-base here.

[jparrott]

Sorry. Just trying to lure the restaurateurs in.

[TedE]

People keep mentioning there's no demand -- there is SOME demand for vegetarian entrees, otherwise, why are high end (and other) restaurants even offering a vegetarian option on their menus (whether it be portobellos or otherwise)?  Or why do some chefs, as someone mentioned above, feel they "have" to offer one?  I would say that demand for vegetarian entrees (not just from vegetarians but from those who are trying to eat less meat due to health reasons) has risen over the last ten years and that's why so many more restaurants are now even offering a vegetarian option.  This is particularly exhibited by the fact that several high end restaurants are offering vegetarian tasting menus, which I can't imagine was the case in DC 10 years ago.  Hopefully this trend will continue to develop, and now that the vegetarian option is on the menu (and possibly fueled by Bob's article), the quality of it will improve.

Bingo, although I would add, as has been borne out by the article, many of the places that do offer veg options now seem to have done so because they "have" to. Some places take it a step further and produce something extraordinary, but across the board the care and attention devoted to the flora has not met that of the fauna. What can cause the shift towards equilibrium is the 64,000 carrot question.

[Jacques Gastreaux]

What can cause the shift towards equilibrium is the 64,000 carrot question.

Is that what this is all about, a quest/demand for a 50/50 split on the menu? I'll be long gone from this world before that happens.

[TedE]

Is that what this is all about, a quest/demand for a 50/50 split on the menu?  I'll be long gone from this world before that happens.

No, not 50/50 split, just equal care and attention paid to the quality of the veg and a slight increase in diversity of the offerings (say two instead of the "obligatory" one). At least that's what I got from the tone of the article. I'm only basing that on the complaints raised here and those I've heard from vegetarians in the past.

[DonRocks]

Bingo, although I would add, as has been borne out by the article, many of the places that do offer veg options now seem to have done so because they "have" to. 

A restaurant can handle disability requirements and vegetarian requirements at the same time if they offer ramps.

[Jacques Gastreaux]

just equal care and attention paid to the quality of the veg

Are we talking quality of the vegetables or the quality of their preparation? Regardless, I don't agree with the assertion that the restaurants in the catgory we are talking about here provide a different quality, either of the vegatables or their preparation, between their vegatarian offereings and their non-vegetarian offerings. If anyone wants to go down to Restaurant Eve and tell Cathal Armstrong that, please send me a PM before you go so that I can be down there to watch.

[TedE]

Are we talking quality of the vegetables or the quality of their preparation?  Regardless, I don't agree with the assertion that  the restaurants in the catgory we are talking about here provide a different quality, either of the vegatables or their preparation, between their vegatarian offereings and their non-vegetarian offerings.  If anyone wants to go down to Restaurant Eve and tell Cathal Armstrong that, please send me a PM before you go so that I can be down there to watch.

Good lord, a tad defensive today are we? Please re-read what I said. All I was saying was that according to the complaints listed in this thread and elsewhere, yes, many restaurants do not appear to take the time to prepare interesting veg offerings. Correct me if I'm wrong here, but wasn't that the WHOLE POINT of the article that started all of this? I don't doubt Cathal takes great care preparing all items regardless of genetic makeup. What I'm hearing is that is clearly NOT the case for all "white tablecloth" establishments in D.C.

Sheesh!

[Jacques Gastreaux]

Good lord, a tad defensive today are we?  Please re-read what I said.  All I was saying was that according to the complaints listed in this thread and elsewhere, yes, many restaurants do not appear to take the time to prepare interesting veg offerings.  Correct me if I'm wrong here, but wasn't that the WHOLE POINT of the article that started all of this?  I don't doubt Cathal takes great care preparing all items regardless of genetic makeup.  What I'm hearing is that is clearly NOT the case for all "white tablecloth" establishments in D.C.

Sheesh!

My point is that the article levels a pretty serious accusation at some very serious chefs who would vigorously dispute it; the accusation being that there is something on their menu that they did not give their "all" to.

[porcupine]

My point is that the article levels a pretty serious accusation at some very serious chefs who would vigorously dispute it; the accusation being that there is something on their menu that they did not give their "all" to.

Just a data point: recently had dinner in the Eve tasting room. Mr. P ordered all vegetable dishes (he isn't vegetarian, though - he just thought they all sounded good).

A few days later, I was eating alone at the bar when Chef Armstrong walked through. He stopped to chat. I don't know how he knew who I was, or how he knew that it was Mr. P (and not someone else in our party) who ate veg, but he asked "and how did your husband like the vegetarian dishes I prepared for him last Saturday?"

The man's good. (The answer, btw, was that everything was fantastic.)

Oh, and about veg not having backstory - check out the Lankford farm thread.

[rlalasz]

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

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!"

Sorry, I actually had to work a full day with concentration and couldn't respond to the discussion until now.

People are not reading carefully what I wrote about Eve. Eve represents that they have a meatless tasting menu--they assure you of that when you make a reservation. What they have is meatless options for every tasting menu course--not the same thing. My previous experiences of tasting menus is that they have a logic, a throughline. This menu didn't, perhaps because it wasn't really a menu, just a collection of options--I don't know, so I chose not to speculate on it in the piece. By contrast, 2941's light tasting menu courses commented on and led onto each other. So did Komi's veggie plate. They felt like journeys, or as I said in the piece, linked short stories. A far more pleasant experience.

The presentation---its ceremoniousness, dare I say its officiousness--was a separate issue, although I certainly disliked that style and prefer service that doesn't take itself quite so solemnly. (CityZen and 2941 were far better on that score.) Details like that are fair game for such a piece which was, of course, not a brief devoted to one thesis as you seem to insist on wanting, but very personal in tone and therefore full of spiky detail. Hardly a hatchet job.

Why does the failed matsutake speak more to my ability to taste and describe than to the kitchen's ability to plan and execute an interesting dish--simply because it was matsutake, and simply because a top-line chef made it? And why do you assume it would've been any better had I sent it back? The absurd conclusion of this logic is that, because very few of us have the abilities or sensitivities of Eric Ziebold, very few of us has the option of not enjoying a dish he prepares, and anyone who doesn't immediately doesn't know what he's talking about.

Anonymity just doesn't count for the moment as a journalist, especially one who'd like to write about food in the future. Making a complaint post facto at some restaurants warrants scrutiny by a manager. Maybe they'd like to take a name, an address; maybe they look at a credit card receipt.

I was on the job, and my job, as Waitman keeps pointing out very nicely, was to replicate and describe an average diner's experience. It was not to get the best possible experience so as to put the restaurant in the best possible light.

[rlalasz]

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.

The scope of the article wasn't to make change. Its publication might make change--who knows? The point of the piece, as many of us are tired of making, was not to pull out every stop to get the best possible meal. It was to take the temperature of the typical vegetarian's dining experience in DC. Something about that seems to bother a few people--perhaps the idea that such a diner should actually be given voice...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you've found exactly two "holes" (the matusake and the description of Eve), both of which I've parried above, both of which a reader not disposed to defend these chefs at all costs would have accepted as an accurate description of my experience.

[rlalasz]

He's not being tarred and feathered; his article is being discussed.

With 5,000 views in 36 hours, this often-stressful discussion is exactly the "problem" any author of a controversial piece should want.  Imagine if there had been only two follow-up postings, consisting of things like, "Great piece, Bob!"

No doubt he has popped a valium or two, but it sure beats languishing in obscurity.

Cheers,

Rocks.

Nada on the valium. This has gone pretty much as I expected. But I expect you'll get another angry phone call from Mr. Kliman about your opinion that being published in Washingtonian is "languishing in obscurity."

[Camille-Beau]

Oh, and about veg not having backstory - check out the Lankford farm thread.

Care to join us at the farm on Sunday Mr. Lalasz? Might make a good story...

[rlalasz]

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?

I don't know, and not exactly. I've been clear that the dishes were excellent, although monotonally rich. The other people at my table (all omnivores) got the same service, and reacted to it similarly. One is a professional food critic.

There was no "thesis" to the piece. A few people are willfully misreading the article. It contained a personal history, mini-reviews of five restaurant experiences, more restaurants, and a coda. Obviously, during the trajectory of the piece, I find a couple of restaurants that do right by me; there's movement to my thinking. Did the majority disappoint me? Pretty much. Is Eve's tasting menu a sustainable option for a vegetarian over the course of several months? I didn't think so, but I'm willing to let others judge whether my description suits their tastes.

[rlalasz]

Care to join us at the farm on Sunday Mr. Lalasz?  Might make a good story...

It does sound like a good story, but I'm otherwise engaged.

And of course, when I was talking about backstory in the piece, I was talking about how the waitstaff describes it...

[jparrott]

People are not reading carefully what I wrote about Eve. Eve represents that they have a meatless tasting menu--they assure you of that when you make a reservation. What they have is meatless options for every tasting menu course--not the same thing. My previous experiences of tasting menus is that they have a logic, a throughline.

Care to expand on your previous experience? Because it's not in the article and it goes to your credibility?

The presentation---its ceremoniousness, dare I say its officiousness--was a separate issue, although I certainly disliked that style and prefer service that doesn't take itself quite so solemnly. (CityZen and 2941 were far better on that score.)

Knowing what I know about Eve's service (and I'm not nearly as much of an expert as some folks on this board), this sounds like a flaw in CityZen's service.

Details like that are fair game for such a piece which was, of course, not a brief devoted to one thesis as you seem to insist on wanting, but very personal in tone and therefore full of spiky detail. Hardly a hatchet job.

Which is it, then? A critical piece in which you can only tangentially aver to the flaws you perceived in some food but still use the episode to support your thesis, or a fluff piece. You can't have it both ways. (And "hatchet job," I've agreed, was slightly harsh).

Why does the failed matsutake speak more to my ability to taste and describe than to the kitchen's ability to plan and execute an interesting dish--simply because it was matsutake, and simply because a top-line chef made it?

You claimed it was more boring than a portobello. Knowing what good matsutakes taste like and what good portobellos taste like, the only what that could have been the case is if there was a clear execution flaw. If that was the case, it was mis-cooked or mis-sourced and should have been sent back.

And why do you assume it would've been any better had I sent it back?

Because the professional back-of-house staff would have concluded that either they screwed up or they got a bad batch of matsutakes.

The absurd conclusion of this logic is that, because very few of us have the abilities or sensitivities of Eric Ziebold, very few of us has the option of not enjoying a dish he prepares, and anyone who doesn't immediately doesn't know what he's talking about.

No. This logic says that when you get a dish that doesn't seem right at a place with the proffer of CityZen, you do something about it. Mushrooms are tricky--it's not always obvious when one is perfect or not perfect, and in an elemental dish like a grilled matsutake, there may be a thin line. But when you say that a matsutake is more boring than a portobello, you're saying that you either don't know what a matsutake is or that it was a bad matsutake. If it's a bad matsutake, the kitchen needs to know.

Anonymity just doesn't count for the moment as a journalist, especially one who'd like to write about food in the future.

If you're so concerned about anonymity, then I'm assuming you didn't consider this a fluff piece. If that's the case, then you are open to criticism of writing that is tangential to your thesis and has other, unintended consequences that affect your credibility as a writer. Oh, and Tom Sietsema wrote un-anonymously for many years, for many publications, before he became the Post's food critic.

Making a complaint post facto at some restaurants warrants scrutiny by a manager.  Maybe they'd like to take a name, an address; maybe they look at a credit card receipt.

So? You don't have anything to hide? And when you're writing about the vegetarian experience, sad as it may be to say, the interaction with restaurant management is an important part of the discussion. The fact that that is the case is a separate issue and one that is worthy of discussion in the broader context.

I was on the job, and my job, as Waitman keeps pointing out very nicely, was to replicate and describe an average diner's experience.

An average "supplicating and submissive" diner.

It was not to get the best possible experience so as to put the restaurant in the best possible light.

But if you detail how you get to a resolution, you provide a blueprint for fellow vegetarians to get a restaurant to shine. And that's what we all want as diners--for restaurants to shine for us. If you go into a restaurant with the intention to actively get the restaurant not to shine, you are ambushing it.

Edit: adverb issue.

[jparrott]

There was no "thesis" to the piece.

So it was a fluff piece.

A few people are willfully misreading the article.

What? I just want to know if it's a fluff piece or not. If it is, you've included material with unintended consequences. If it isn't, you've restricted the domain over which your thesis applies.

Is Eve's tasting menu a sustainable option for a vegetarian over the course of several months? I didn't think so, but I'm willing to let others judge whether my description suits their tastes.

Whoa! Where have you presented any evidence to support a sustainability argument? And your description (in the article--I understand you have expanded upon it here, but Washingtonian readers, in the main, will not have this benefit) leaves little for readers to judge your description, let alone the underlying meal.

[Camille-Beau]

It does sound like a good story, but I'm otherwise engaged.

And of course, when I was talking about backstory in the piece, I was talking about how the waitstaff describes it...

That's ok. We go out there fairly often so there will be other opportunities. What better way to support the vegetarian movement than to help out a small local farmer who produces about 100 varieties of vegetables year-round. I'll keep you posted on the other trips.

[crackers]

That’s another thing about vegetarian food: There’s never any backstory. There’s never a thrilling vignette about how your tofu was slow-cooked for hours until it fell off the bone or how your chickpeas were raised wild on a Texas preserve and then hunted with a blowgun.

It's not as though a back story doesn't exist, but I agree that there's plenty of opportunity for improvement in the way the waitstaff sell the backstory about the vegetables and other non-meat items. With all the wonderful organic farms, artisinal cheeses, free-range eggs, specialty olive oils and butters, etc., there's no reason why they can't be more rhapsodic when they've got these special items on the menu. A good start would be to include the name of the source farm the same way that "Niman Ranch" is listed for meats. The difficulty, of course, is when the sources change frequently, but the printed menu does not. Then it's up to the waitstaff to do their best "sell" if the opportunity arises.

[edited to eliminate the dreaded triple spacing.]

[Waitman]

A good point, but it still comes down to what has been re-iterated over and over in this thread: demand.  Hasn't reached critical mass yet.

Your analogy with seafood is interesting though.  I think the rise in consumption also had loads to do with advances in efficient harvesting methods, leaps and bounds in sustainable aquaculture, and most importantly advances in shipping and transportation.  Without FedEx and the like you wouldn't be able to get a decent piece of mahi in Chicago. [sidebar: anybody read that article in the New Yorker a while back about UPS and the lobster industry?  Totally fascinating!]

Now, produce shares the same challenges, most of which seem to have been overcome.  Not to mention the abundance of good produce that can be obtained locally in season.  Will the story turn out the same as it did for seafood?  If enough chefs get behind it in this town it just may.  Without economic incentive I don't see it happening.  Ironically, places like Vegetate may actually hurt the cause if they are serving uninteresting or tasteless food and hoping to get by on the novelty or niche-filling characteristics of an all-veg, upscale menu.  If they fail, the next person to take stab might look back and say, "Gee, this was tried before in this town, and it didn't work out.  Not gonna take the chance".

I'm going to make a point of trying Green Zebra next time I'm out that way.  Sounds intriguing.

[Picking your post out of several, not to pick on you but as emblematic.]

Demand and supply have an interactive relationship. The fact that there is currently no demand is significant, but not the end of the story.

There was no demand for Ipods, say, until the Ipod was invented. And once the Ipod was invented, demand appeared. Perhaps more to the point, once people had bought an Ipod, they invented a better one, and people discovered that they wanted that one. If Apple hadn't built a better Ipod, they's be a half-billion dollars poorer.

Vegetarian cooking exists, it has a limited market. There is more supply and more demand than ther was a decade ago. But if they build better vegetarian dishes, it's arguable that people will beat a more frequented path to their door. Better quality supply builds greater demand which, in turn, creates better supply. I don't have a functioning crystal ball (I thought the 'Skins would make it to the NFC Championship) but I'd bet that if there were more creative and better executed vegetarian dishes out there, more people would eat them. I would.

If every calculation is based on existing parameters, there will be no significant progress, we'll get a better Walkman, or Discman, but we won't get the Ipod.

Capitalist economics rewards those who take risks.

Who do we like here on this board? Chefs that do new and different things. To be frank, I could care less about Ruta's burger and dog. But I've had wild stuff at his joint that I would never have thought of -- that you could poll a thousand people on Connecticut Avenue and barely a handful would say "damn, bacon and foan sounds like what I want for dinner tonight." Bring that creativity and talent to non-meat cooking, I think people will show up to eat it.

If youcook it, they will come.

[David M.]

[Picking your post out of several, not to pick on you but as emblematic.]

Demand and supply have an interactive relationship.  The fact that there is currently no demand is significant, but not the end of the story.

There was no demand for Ipods, say, until the Ipod was invented.  And once the Ipod was invented, demand appeared.  Perhaps more to the point, once people had bought an Ipod, they invented a better one, and people discovered that they wanted that one.  If Apple hadn't built a better Ipod, they's be a half-billion dollars poorer.

Vegetarian cooking exists, it has a limited market.  There is more supply and more demand than ther was a decade ago.  But if they build better vegetarian dishes, it's arguable that people will beat a more frequented path to their door. Better quality supply builds greater demand which, in turn, creates better supply.  I don't have a functioning crystal ball (I thought the 'Skins would make it to the NFC Championship) but I'd bet that if there were more creative and better executed vegetarian dishes out there, more people would eat them.  I would. 

If every calculation is based on existing parameters, there will be no significant progress, we'll get a better Walkman, or Discman, but we won't get the Ipod.

Capitalist economics rewards those who take risks. 

Who do we like here on this board?  Chefs that do new and different things.  To be frank, I could care less about Ruta's burger and dog.  But I've had wild stuff at his joint that I would never have thought of -- that you could poll a thousand people on Connecticut Avenue and barely a handful would say "damn, bacon and foan sounds like what I want for dinner tonight."  Bring that creativity and talent to non-meat cooking, I think people will show up to eat it.

If youcook it, they will come.

OK. But pointing to a wildly successful product does little, in my opinion, to advance your apparent belief that if restaurateurs adopted Apple's strategy they would find an untapped well of vegetarians demanding what Mr. Lalasz seeks. Perhaps if it were 5 or 6 years ago and you were speaking of the sound risk posture of Apple before the iPod took off, then your example would have some merit. But finding a product after it has become successful as evidence that a wholly different risk will be rewarded (see "If you cook it, they will come") seems a bit of a stretch.

If taking risks is all that it took to be successful, whether it be in computers or cuisine, then our world would look quite different. Risk is tempered by expected reward. Perhaps adherents to the beliefs offered in the article will ultimately be proven true. And to those potential success stories, they deserve what ever rewards come their way. But beyond anecdotal evidence, there seems to me ample support for the belief that efforts to offer what Mr. Lalasz's article advocates for will not be rewarded.

Yes, our economy rewards those that take risk. And I'm all for chefs who are inventive and innovative. And I would posit that many in Mr. Lalasz's article are risk takers -- Cathal opening a restaurant in an area (Old Town) that was unlike any other. That was a risk. Eric, leaving the plush confines of Yountville for SW Washington. That was a risk. The cooking at neither Restaurant Eve nor CityZen can honestly be described as risk averse.

Back to the iPod example. Yes, Apple made a prudent decision to invest in the technology behind the iPod and market it well. Yes, that was a risk. But this action was not taken without substantial evidence that the risk would be rewarded. With the current status of restaurants in Washington, I would offer that there is insufficient evidence that the effort to produce what the article seeks will be rewarded.

You stated earlier that you found it odd to read a DonRockwell post defending chefs who don't take risks. That is not at all what I'm doing. I embrace chefs who take risks. I have enjoyed the adventurous food journeys offered by many of those mentioned in the article. But taking risk for risk's sake is counter-productive to what many of us seek; it would drive some of the best restaurants out of business. Each of the chefs that folks on this board have embraced as innovative have been, by the success of their business, proven correct that their risk will be rewarded. Until such time that there is some evidence that your belief that all it takes is for restaurants in this area to cook what Mr. Lalasz advocated for, I find it hard to fault (as the article so does) the efforts of many of the finest restaurants in our area as allegedly failing to fill an untapped void in the market. If that puts me in the camp of defending chefs who don't take risk, I'm happy to be there.

[Heather]

Which is it, then?  A critical piece in which you can only tangentially aver to the flaws you perceived in some food but still use the episode to support your thesis, or a fluff piece.  You can't have it both ways.  (And "hatchet job," I've agreed, was slightly harsh).

It's an opinion piece. And similarly, your criticism of the article is your opinion. And you know what they say about opinions, don't you?

Edited to add a little winky thing.

[Waitman]

OK. But pointing to a wildly successful product does little, in my opinion, to advance your apparent belief that if restaurateurs adopted Apple's strategy they would find an untapped well of vegetarians demanding what Mr. Lalasz seeks.  Perhaps if it were 5 or 6 years ago and you were speaking of the sound risk posture of Apple before the iPod took off, then your example would have some merit.  But finding a product after it has become successful as evidence that a wholly different risk will be rewarded (see "If you cook it, they will come") seems a bit of a stretch.

Screw the Ipod. Look at every consumer product on the market: floor mops, belour seat covers, toothepaste, SUV's, whatever. Improvements in the product creates demand for that product. You've noticed that, right?

If taking risks is all that it took to be successful, whether it be in computers or cuisine, then our world would look quite different. Risk is tempered by expected reward.  Perhaps adherents to the beliefs offered in the article will ultimately be proven true.  And to those potential success stories, they deserve what ever rewards come their way.  But beyond anecdotal evidence, there seems to me ample support for the belief that efforts to offer what Mr. Lalasz's article advocates for will not be rewarded.

I always advocate that chefs have their marketing people crunch the numbers before offering a new menu item. There's no place for risk or daring in the world of cuisine!

Yes, our economy rewards those that take risk.  And I'm all for chefs who are inventive and innovative.  And I would posit that many in Mr. Lalasz's article are risk takers -- Cathal opening a restaurant in an area (Old Town) that was unlike any other. That was a risk.  Eric, leaving the plush confines of Yountville for SW Washington. That was a risk.  The cooking at neither Restaurant Eve nor CityZen can honestly be described as risk averse.

And, though our aithor wasn't impressed, I will point out that these daring and innovative chefs do offer significat vegetarian fare. I wonder if there's a correlation?

Back to the iPod example.  Yes, Apple made a prudent decision to invest in the technology behind the iPod and market it well.  Yes, that was a risk.  But this action was not taken without substantial evidence that the risk would be rewarded.  With the current status of restaurants in Washington, I would offer that there is insufficient evidence that the effort to produce what the article seeks will be rewarded.

How would you know? Outside of a few elite corners -- Komi, Eve et al, there doesn't seem to be much out there. Have you done a survey?

You stated earlier that you found it odd to read a DonRockwell post defending chefs who don't take risks.  That is not at all what I'm doing.  I embrace chefs who take risks. 

"but I can empathize with restaurateurs who may not want to take the risk of pioneering a new attitude toward vegetarian offerings."

I have enjoyed the adventurous food journeys offered by many of those mentioned in the article.  But taking risk for risk's sake is counter-productive to what many of us seek; it would drive some of the best restaurants out of business. 

Like El Bulli, Minibar and other dead restaurants of the ancient past.

Each of the chefs that folks on this board have embraced as innovative have been, by the success of their business, proven correct that their risk will be rewarded.  Until such time that there is some evidence that your belief that all it takes is for restaurants in this area to cook what Mr. Lalasz advocated for, I find it hard to fault (as the article so does) the efforts of many of the finest restaurants in our area as allegedly failing to fill an untapped void in the market.  If that puts me in the camp of defending chefs who don't take risk, I'm happy to be there.

So, your argument is that a) No matter how good vegetarian cooking is there is no more demand; Vegetarian cooking is alread very good and widely available anyway and c) "I'm not going to try it, you try it." "I'm not going to try it, you try it" "I know, let's get Chef Mikey to try it! He'll cook anything."

BTW -- I think that this is less about the top tier of places than the mass of otherwise "good" restaurants. A few people are working hard on this, but it has yet to trickle down, IMHO.

[Camille-Beau]

The "white-tablecloth" restaurants discussed in the article all have very creative, inventive, interesting and ever-changing menus. Their dishes include vegetables in various formats, both as sides and as a main course or two. The fact that they don't expand the number of vegetarian-specific dishes shouldn't be criticized. That would likely require them to remove some of the meat/fish/game items from their menus to make room for more of the type of dishes you seem to be looking for. Why should they be forced do that? It's pretty hard to get reservations at most of these places already since they seem to be quite successful. I eat more vegetables at these restaurants than I do when cooking at home, and a much broader range at that. Cabbage, dinosaur kale, squash, beets, spinach, arugula, cardoons, sorrel, cauliflower, carrots, fennel, parsnips, parsley, asparagus, mushrooms of all types, potatoes, tomatoes, fava beans, microgreens, etc. Granted, I happen to have them paired with items such as venison, tripe, pork, lobster, tuna, scallops, beef, chicken, duck, but that is what these chefs choose to prepare and their patrons choose to order.

Perhaps the answer would be to write articles promoting more vegetarian-specific restaurants such as Vegetate instead of asking existing restaurants to fill the void. The restaurants that have been pointed to throughout the thread as offering what you are looking for (Green, Green Zebra, etc.) are just that -- vegetarian restaurants. Get a few more in town that focus mostly on veg dishes while tossing in a couple of meat or fish items for the carnivores who might dine there once in awhile.

[jparrott]

Get a few more in town that focus mostly on veg dishes while tossing in a couple of meat or fish items for the carnivores who might dine there once in awhile.

This may be a very sustainable way to do it. To wit--you can sauce meat dishes with veg-based sauces, reducing the amount of total prep for a primarily veg restaurant (you can't sauce veg dishes with stock-based sauces, obviously). And if you design the kitchen the right way (and that requires a bit more space), you don't get a surface contamination issue.

[Meshe at Eve]

The presentation---its ceremoniousness, dare I say its officiousness--was a separate issue, although I certainly disliked that style and prefer service that doesn't take itself quite so solemnly. (CityZen and 2941 were far better on that score.) Details like that are fair game for such a piece which was, of course, not a brief devoted to one thesis as you seem to insist on wanting, but very personal in tone and therefore full of spiky detail. Hardly a hatchet job.

Sir, next time don't order 9 courses-with the addition of the chef's liitle gifts 9 turns into 12 - to eat 12 courses is not an easy task and should only be reserved to those who are in it 'for the sport'

As far as ceremiousness, we take what we do very seriously. Be we do not take ourselves too seriously. Big Difference. Solemn? hmmm, If so, we always take

the que from the table.