Yup - the current menu lists “FILET MIGNON Roast Filet mignon “Rossini”; Foie Gras, Medley of Vegetables, Sauce Périgourdine”
Sure, it’s a filet. But it’s a hell of a lot more than a filet, and someone who came in and started rearranging it is missing the point. “Rossini” indicates a specific preparation; one with foie gras and truffles. Sure, you could ask for it without the foie gras, without the sauce (Périgourdine is a sauce made with black truffles) but man, if you don’t like foie gras and truffles, then order something else!
And I think that’s another point - fine dining is all about the garnishes and sauces. The protein is one component, it’s not THE THING. You start asking for them to leave off bits and pieces and you destroy the dish. In other words - if you want a simple steak, go to a steakhouse. Don’t go to a fine dining place and expect them to act like a steakhouse.
I agree with this. It’s up to the restaurant to inform the customer when he’s asking for something different that they don’t do special orders. The customer can then accept that or dine elsewhere. It is not ok for a restaurant to accept a special order and then ignore it.
Someone, who’s name I don’t remember right now, said that chefs work in the pleasure business. Personally I think of food as pleasure instead of food, which is why I would avoid the food as art type places. Some others may enjoy it, and that’s perfectly fine with me. I just wouldn’t dine in those restaurants.
EDIT: The pleasure business line was by Anthony Bourdain.
Which is another question about the OP/are we on the same page. What kind of requests/modifications are we talking about?
I can’t imagine completely rearranging a dish–we’re probably on the same page in that. Like I said, I don’t have any experience with Harry/Sally-like requests.
If a dish is served with mermaid bits, and I have a moral/ethical problem with mermaid bits, I won’t order it if it’s a main component. If the mermaid bits are part of the sauce, I won’t order the same sauce without the mermaid bits; they’re (generally) too involved in the creation of the sauce to be removed. But if they’re a garnish or otherwise separable? If I’m interested enough in the dish then I have no problem hurting the chef’s feelings with asking for them to be left out.
We’re probably on the same page in terms of going for the overall experience and taking the vast majority of menu selections as a wholly constructed piece that’s far beyond my kitchen-hobbiest abilities in terms of creativity, preparation, ingredients, and technique. But we may differ in terms of whether or not we’re allowed to question the chef’s authority or insult his or her training by asking for exclusion of a particular ingredient (if possible).
Come to think of it, that’s also part of the “what changes are we talking about”? I’ve been focused on done-ness, exclusions or arrangements (e.g., X on the side). I can see being told ‘no’ if I asked for a boiled steak, or something so far off menu as to be absurd. I’ve just never had cause to ask for such a thing, so we may not be on different pages.
Just a minor point, because it’s bugging me - if I’m reading correctly, the steak in question normally comes with butter on top, which is what the customer wanted. The restaurant mistakenly forgot the butter (amongst other errors).
I think when you go to a true fine dining establishment, asking for changes beyond requirements from allergies is not cool. A chef’s reputation is based on his food, of course, and if you ask for changes, the dish he/she created is no longer that dish. It wouldn’t be fair to change a dish, then fault the chef because it wasn’t wonderful after that, but people will do exactly that.
Our friend isn’t any kind of chef, but he apparently did refuse to barbecue a good cut of beef to charcoal in spite of his parents’ insistence.
Well, of course you’re allowed to. But that comes back to “why are you going to Restaurant X (and spending a ton of money to do so) if you don’t think you agree with the chef’s taste in food?”
Also, if it’s something that’s incredibly easy to leave off - like a garnish - why not just not eat it when it comes? Certainly it’s OK to get a dish, see that there’s some cauliflower on it, and simply not eat it because you hate cauliflower. But if the cauliflower are part of the main theme of the dish - as in something Du Barry - I think it’s better to just order something else rather than ask if it could be made without the cauliflower. But I think that’s more or less what you just said, right?
I also think it’s perfectly OK to talk to the server about any food dislikes or allergies, and ask for suggestions, as long as you’re not lying about the allergy. (I mention this thinking about a former acquaintance who claimed she was allergic to salt. Is that even possible? I know it made for some really awkward situations at restaurants, and I’m pretty sure she just didn’t like salty food.)
The original question used the word “duty”, which to me can only mean one thing: in exchange for the chef’s salary, the chef has a duty to the restaurant owner to perform whatever role was agreed upon. If the restaurant owner specifically sought out a recognized artist who would cook only how he wanted but was so good that they’d draw people to the restaurant, then there is the answer. If the restaurant owner specifically sought a talented chef who would be prepared to cook to order, then there is the answer too.
If the restaurant owner is the same person as the chef, then nothing is different. The chef / owner will determine what sort of establishment they are creating. As long as they are upfront with the customers about being prepared to cook to order or not accepting substitutions then they can do whatever the hell they want. I don’t see why people are automatically claiming that a chef is an artist whose work can never be changed, or the opposite of it. It depends. If you don’t like how a particular restaurant operates, go somewhere else. I’ve had wonderful experiences at both types of establishment, so I’m not going to say one is automatically better than the other.
Yes, you are a paying customer who bought a ticket for Othello. Not Ling Lear.
If the chef already has all the food for the night ready and finished ahead of time, then from my experience in resistants, your getting dried out food.
Assuming he is making the food to order why can’t you ask for the food how you want it? If he uses mushrooms in the dish, and they make you break out it a rash or something, do you just deal with it? Or do you ask for no shrooms?
I’ll admit that I have pretty pedestrian tastes in food. I like things bland. I’m also a vegetarian. However, my in-laws are into fancy-schmancy restaurants. When we go out to dinner, it’s often to much higher end restaurants than I would choose. (To be honest, I won’t step foot in an Applebee’s, either, but that’s neither here nor there.) I’m not really very interested in the chef’s “art,” and I’m not likely to appreciate it much. I have no qualms about asking for something that’s not quite on the menu. I don’t believe I’m a bitch about it, though. And if I don’t especially care for whatever I get, I’ll have a bowl of cereal when I get home. No big deal.
Sometimes, one’s friends or family members choose the restaurant.
You bloody well order something else. We are not talking cooks here. We are talking chefs. You either trust their judgement on what a dish should contain and the way it should be prepared, or you eat somehwere else. I’m not about to tell someone with 2 Michelin stars that his dish is wrong. I’m eating at his restaurant to taste his art, not what my plebian taste-buds might be used to.
Because my preference for/against mermaid bits is a small fraction of the overall experience, and because tastes differ.
While it’s rare that something prompts a request (the recent commercial ban on mermaid fishing makes them hard to find on a menu), the thought that it’s somehow boorish because I’m not taking the dish ‘as is’ seems somewhat absurd. If the mermaid bits are on the side and I can ignore them, fine. Again, we’re not talking Harry/Sally particularity. But if it’s a mermaid sauce, it’s going to affect the flavour of the rest of the dish. And if there is unicorn horn somewhere on the menu and I ask for a reasonable substitution, it’s still a small fraction of the overall experience, one much different than at a less pricey restaurant.
Again, looking at our cross-examples I don’t think we’re talking about much of a difference. Neither of us is asking the chef to use A-1.
Your missing something here. Ordering food isn’t like going to a concert. It’s closer to highering a musician to play what you want.
If a high price chef just pushes out the same dishes all night and can;t handle alterations, either he isn’t very good, or is lazy. If he dosn’t know the food well enough to be able to alter it and still have it come out excellent, he isn’t an artist. He’s not much more than an assembly line worker at an Olive Garden.
Sure, but why should they waste good, edible mushrooms on someone who won’t eat it and doesn’t want it? Food exists in order to be eaten, and unlike other forms of art, what goes onto one patron’s plate will never go to another customer if the first chooses not to eat it. It will be discarded forever.
I definitely believe that customers should stick to the list of choices that the restaurant offers. But if the menu says (for example) that they serve some entrees with mashed potatoes on the side, and others with rice on the side, it shouldn’t be a big deal for a patron to request mashed potatoes with one of the dishes that’s served with rice, or vice versa. Serve the food that will get eaten.
For example, my wife and I went to Gordon Ramsay’s West Hollywood two years ago. We chose the 7 course sampling menu.
The server explained how each dish was prepared, and there we learned that one of the desserts contained ingredients my wife is allergic to. I asked if we could substitute another dessert, and our wish was granted.
That being said, because we wanted to taste food prepared/designed/inspired by a well-respected chef (I know he wasn’t back there cooking it). we ate the food the way it was supposed to be prepared. You will never know if you like lemongrass-infused goodies unless you go to a place that knows how to do it.
No one is forcing you to visit restaurants that take you out of your food comfort zone. If you decide to venture out there, have some manners. If it won’t make you sick, eat it and STFU.
Maybe that’s another difference. Some of us don’t consider our taste-buds to be plebian. Some of us acknowledge the level of training and expertise and expect a level of gloriousness in what’s served, but that doesn’t translate to a level of subservience.
I don’t see asking for relatively minor alterations as calling his choices wrong. They just may not meet my needs/desires that evening. If the chef comes back and says that a particular alteration is impossible then I’ll choose something else or live with his decision. But I’d have no problem asking.
I’m not against reasonable requests. Personally I just won’t order something that has mushrooms in it; problem solved for everyone.
If I order a steak that normally comes with onions and mushrooms, I can either ask for no mushrooms or I can ignore the mushrooms that come with it. That’s reasonable. If I don’t want that extra dollop of butter or salad dressing on the side or easy on the salt, these are reasonable requests and I can’t imagine most chefs/cooks would have an issue.
OTOH, if I order the mushroom casserole with mushroom sauce but hold the mushrooms, that’s a ludicrous request and I should be dragged out back and shot in the face. Okay, no, maybe I should just be told to order something else. To quote from an episode of Dead Like Me, “A dish is a collection of flavors, consistencies; you start swapping ingredients in that carefully thought out melange, it’s like fucking with the Jenga tower of taste.”
