The case of a straying hand

The food world is abuzz with a brewing scandal. The subject at hand is the new book, the Seasoning of a Chef, by Doug Psaltis. The particularly contentious bit was the chapter on his all-too-brief tenure as a sous chef at the fabled French Laundry. Freshly out on his fanny after Mix, Psaltis took up the position, arriving in sleepy Yountville mid summer, before the end of fall he was out the door again.

Psaltis didn't have too many kind words about the restaurant's operation or his time there. He claimed that the walk-in at the French Laundry was a mess, the rank and file cooks incompetent, and Thomas Keller himself preferring aesthetics to taste. Nothing all that bad, as slandering comments go. Like most biographies, the stories all seemed heavily biased toward the teller himself. Nothing new or noteworthy there either.

It's all Rashomon, you might say. But then again, even in Rashomon, there were a few indisputable facts. A samurai and his wife traveled through a forest. They were met by a common thief. A fight ensued, the samurai ended up dead, and his wife disappeared. The four tales were all rifts off this factual theme.

The bone of contention here was mostly based on the story that Psaltis himself told, not in the book but rather belatedly on the thread discussing his book on eGullet. Psaltis claimed he slapped the hand of a runner who refused an order to remove his hands off the pass. For many, this story was highly disputable. Some wondered out loud precisely where Psaltis's straying hand hit the unfortunate runner. Others were caught mulling if this slap of hand -or wherever- contributed to Psaltis departure -voluntary or otherwise- from Yountville. So, in this case, it was the fact of the matter that was in dispute, not the retelling of the story from various points of view. Even my relativist self is demanding to know who is telling the truth. No, it is not all Rashomon to me.

The entire exchange had Michael Ruhlman, an occasional eGullet contributor, publicly urging Psaltis to come clean, to come really clean. The subtext of this hinted at a troubling incongruity between the account that Psaltis gave and those that Ruhlman gathered from his contacts at the restaurant. That same exchange also prompted Anthony Bourdain, eG's resident deity, to publicly retract the kind words he offered as a blurb on the book jacket. A moment of comic relief in an otherwise escalating contention arrived when Bourdain -bless his Blurb-o-matic heart- realized, to his more than palpable releif, that he had given no blurb at all for this book. No retraction required, he was then heading over -in his own words- to "bust Mario's balls" for blurbing in said book.

The battle for semantics had an eGullet founder Fat Guy -whose literary agent is none other than Psaltis's twin brother and co-author of the book in question- came to Psaltis's defense by flippantly referring to the unfortunate target of Psaltis strayed hand as "an obnoxious runner." Fat Guy also called for the nay-sayers to end all the innuendos -enough with accusing his poor Doug of sacrificing small children alright! Fat Guy went on to demand those who thought themselves in the know to come out say what they thought actually happened. Yet, inexplicably, he locked the thread in which he made those demands soon afterwards, denying all the chance to do the very things he asked, and guaranteeing himself the final words on this matter.

The thread on eG remained closed over night, and reopened early this morning with an edict from management that all "posts containing hearsay or innuendo will be deleted." Geez, we are speaking of a food forum right? If they were to delete all hearsay there would be what, ten lines, left in the entire thing, no? Most people debating the merit of Ferran Adrià's food have never even been to elBulli, after all. And if they were to delete all innuendos, they might as well begin with the one where the Illustrious Founder himself implied that the poor runner asked for it for being so obnoxious.

Inquiring minds want to know what the owls delivered in the night that got Mr.Ruhlman substantially toning down his inquisition when the thread reopened this morning. No owl could repress the indomitable Tony Bourdain, however, so he's still there calling into question both the seasoning and the chef himself. An ever shining example to rebellious souls everywhere. Bravo Tony.

The entire discussion is now meandering toward drudging irrelevance. With the eG management waiting to delete all hearsay, leaving but a handful of people present that faithful day in the Laundry's kitchen to really tell what happened. And that's never going to happen, ladies and gentlemen. I am sure Thomas Keller thought this whole affair quite beneath him. As for his staff, energetic young cooks aspiring to have a long and rewarding future in this small world would never stick their neck out and risk incurring the wrath from a big publishing house or from les frères Psaltis's myriads of influential friends in the business.

It was this that so annoyed me. That someone could take such liberty with the truth and likely would get away with it. You know, when someone told you they have been slapped, t'is not on the hand they usually referred to. Also, as someone in eG aptly commented "as anyone that watches Judge Judy can tell you, one person's "slap" is another's "sock upside the head." Blaming the poor slap-ee was also rather graceless on top of everything. And, yes, yes, though my formal training in research methods taught me to be supremely cautious in implying causality, I still have enough cause to question Psaltis's protest that this incident didn't contribute to his eventual departure from the restaurant. Not the least because the eventual departure Doug Psaltis alluded to was otherwise reported (by trustworthy sources -and yes, you'd have to take my word on this matter) as occurring the very next day. Intriguing chronology, is it not?

What of the book, at the end of the day, you asked? Let's just say that I regret not having better things to do with my time than suffering such tedium. If you want to see juicy bits, you won't find much on Thomas Keller, Psaltis reserved far more vitriol for poor Dan Barber of Blue Hill -though he was too chicken to even name Barber in the book.

Should you buy the book, you wondered? Well, I'm not going to tell you to do or not do anything. I would, however, point to the comfortable chairs they've got at your local Borders or Barnes and Noble where you could plant yourself and plow through the 30-ish pages containing the bone of contention. Heck, might as well damn yourself properly and get a Starbucks Frappacino to sip along while your are at it.

Comments

[Molto E]

I have spoke with a former French alum who says the walkin was cleaned twice a day, inventory was taken every day, all stocks and sauces re-boiled every third day and twice a year the walkin was taken apart, bleached scrubbed and left open to air out

[srhcb]

The denizens of another food board made up of self-described eG'ers

http://www.mouthfulsfood.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=6512

have been having a great time following this thread. They've offered a few pearls of wisdom amongst their running commentary.

[tom philpott]

Sauces and stocks reboiled every third day? Feeding 85 people a day with fifty cooks, shouldn't they be making sauces and stocks fresh?

[Steve Plotnicki]

Love your post on this. Someone with a connection to an insider told me that Psaltis was fired the morning after he slapped the runner. Unless the runner and a witness come forward, we will never know the truth, although I have to say I believe my source. The thing about it is, who the hell is Psaltis to have gotten a book deal? His claim to fame is that he was fired by the most famous chef in France, and the most famous chef in the U.S. Does he have any other accomplishments? Oh yes, Fat Shill, who Psaltis's brother the literary agent happens to represent, warned the New York restaurant reviewers that they were going to make themselves obsolete if they didn't recognize the greatness of Psaltis's cooking when he was at Mix! If I could post a thousand LOL's emoticons I would. So does it surprise anyone that he is still shilling for Psaltis in this context?

(partially snipped by Chez Pim management)

[Kate]

Absolutely Brilliant post, Pim! Mush more enjoyable and informative than the book.

[Joy]

I almost bought this book having no awareness of the controversy but ultimately decided against it. It sounds like one bitter pill to me. Tony Bourdain is my hero.

[Jack]

Amused here.

[Kudzu]

What a wild rumpus and so diverting. Whose hand did what? Whose finger pointed to whom? Whose brother wielded influence in the whole she-bang?

One might say, "Who cares?" except that it proves the more things change, the more they stay the same, or words to that effect.

Thanks for stirring the pot.

[shuna]

One day when I was working at The French Laundry the phone rang and I answered it. Person on the other end wanted a reference for a cook applying at their restaurant. I gave the phone to Eric (Ziebold) and then I heard only his half of the conversation:
"You want a reccomendation for whom?"
"Yes, he worked here."
"No, he was not a sous chef here. I am the sous chef here."

Out of the 50 or so people who work in the kitchen at TFL, only about 12 of them actually cook, and even fewer cook on the line. But once that name goes on your resume few are brave enough to fact-check or call for a referance.

BTW touching someone in any manner, especially a violent one, is illegal in American kitchens. In California, where the law rests on the side of the employee, few chefs will risk their business for a lawsuit involving any employee, managerial or not. I saw this at work at TFL and Bouchon as well as many other kitchens.

[Peter]

Is this really fascinating? I can't supose there are more than 200 people in the world to whom this means anything, and another 200 who tell themselves it means something. Just write about food, Pim. At least that hits a bigger audience.

[whatever]

Here's what I don't get: How many people have read the book? It does some critical things about The French Laundry. But throughout the book, it's very clear that Psaltis is a very headstrong and outspoken person. Everything he says about TFL has to be read in that context. Hello? How many people would have the self-confidence and outspoken manner to tell Keller they don't agree with his approach to food? It seems to me that a reasonable reading of the chapter, in the context of the book, is that if the walkin isn't the way Psaltis wanted it, if he wasn't getting the respect in the kitchen he wanted, if the FL chefs hadn't worked in as many top kitchens as NYC top-kitchen chefs have, he was going to say some strong things. Big deal.

Given what we know about what was going on with Keller's organizations during the time Psaltis was there (major transfer of kitchen talent to Per Se plus major problems with Per Se opening), the difficulty of getting broadly experienced cooks to move to Yountville, the fanatical devotion of Keller's cooks (and hangers-on like Ruhlman and Bourdain) and the fact it seems to have become clear that Psaltis wasn't going to have any real authority at French Laundry I don't have a hard time believing that he was a bad fit and also had some real disappointments there.

It also seems very interesting to me that no one has even thought that this situation might be spun against Psaltis by people loyal to Keller. We can't know what happened with respect to his employment, unless someone comes forward and makes a positive declaration. Yet because we have people like Plotnicki saying "someone with a connection to an insider told me that Psaltis was fired the morning after he slapped the runner" everyone seems willing to take that as fact. Well, we all know how unbiased Plotnicki is, not to mention his friend's friend's friend.

Bourdain called Emeril a no-talent Ewok, trashed Bobby Flay and made fun of Ferran Adria. Why weren't people crawling out of the woodwork to attack him?

Psaltis' book isn't exactly the best thing I've ever read. But for fuck's sake, get some perspective people.

[Steve Plotnicki]

The reason people are all over Psaltis is twofold. First he failed to disclose all of the facts. Had he been honest and up front about the incident, and how his employment at FL came to be teminated, then he wouldn't be suffering this criticism. Secondly, Shaw's failure to disclose his connection to Psaltis's brother, whioh goes all the way back to his review of Mix where he warned the New York restaurant review community that unless they recognized the greatness of Mix they were going to make themselves obsolete, makes things worse because it looks like the head moderator of eGullet is running interference for Psaltis, and supressing the truth from coming out. What any of that has to do with my being biased is a mystery to me.

I am happy to wear my anti-eGullet bias on my sleeve, and I would gladly offer the details of how it came about to anyone who bothered to ask me (but not on Chez Pim.)But let's not allow Whatever (who isn't even brave or honest enough to disclose his true identity) to switch the focus to me as a way to try and take the heat off Psaltis and Shaw. My feelings about eGullet couldn't possibly mitigate their lack of disclosure, and the credibility they have lost as a result.

[Jonathan]

Pim -- All I can say is that you were on the cutting edge and should have been quoted in yesterday's NYTimes article!!!!!!