POLL: "Shall I course that for you?"

[Jenise]

Kim Severson writes a eulogy of sorts for the restaurant entree in this New York Times article.
The trend toward small plates in today's top restaurants is taking over.

What do FLDGers think of the trend, and have you started serving food this way at home?

Personally, I'm a fan. Before I ever heard the term "small plates", I found that a lot of restaurants had fairly boring main courses but rather exciting appetizers. It was as if the chef filled the entree list with the foods you have to offer if you are a restaurant of a certain ilk (a big beef plate, a lamb alternative, a fancy fish dish, something poultry....), while putting both the really interesting ingredients and seemingly the largesse of their creative energy into the appetizers which made those the foods I really wanted to eat. I would often exclusively from that side of the menu, usually in sequence so that the timing of my foods would mesh with more conventional foods my table companions ordered.

I switch back and forth depending on the foods I'm preparing, but I often design meals at home according to a small plates regimen. It's a little harder in this house because the dining area is currently so separate from the kitchen, but the design of my new kitchen is built around my desire to have guests closer to, or even participating in, the kitchen so that I can do more of this type of entertaining.

[Robin Garr]

I'm crazy about it ... maybe it's just me, but I'd far rather enjoy a thoughtfully composed dinner of a half-dozen (or more) small plates than an app and an entree. I just love the variety and the contrast.

I wouldn't really say it's "taking over," though, or at least not here. I can think of two top-end restaurants that feature primarily small plates, and a bunch of ethnic eateries - not hole-inna-wall but trendy, including an Osaka-style Japanese place, a sibling pair of outstanding seviche joints, a Cuban-Caribbean place featuring small plates; a true Spanish tapas restaurant and a couple of bistros with "fusion" tapas as a big part of the bill of fare. Maybe a dozen, all told, but this in a city with a couple of hundred upscale independent restaurants, of which they comprise <i>maybe</i> 5 percent.

I love 'em all, though, and they do get a disproportionate share of my dining dollar.

I voted "It's interesting on occasion" but like dining that way more than that would imply. Just wouldn't want to do away with the appetizer/salad/entree set up to which we are accustomed. My husband would vote somewhere between not feeling like he got enough to eat and liking the big juicy steak. A group of my girlfriends and I go out for dinner and a movie about once a month and we always gravitate toward "small plate" places, or at least places that have an extensive appetizer menu and order almost exclusively from it.

Big fan, here -- the only real negative I've seen is that some restaurants have uneven quality plate to plate. It takes real ability to do a variety of dishes for a number of different tables, all eating at different times.

But done well -- very interesting and lots of fun.

I like it. I also like occasionally getting hearty servings.

I don't know if Thomas Keller said it but someone like him did -- a dish is truly interesting for about the first four bites. First bite, you are shocked by the flavors, second bite you notice other things like the texture, third bite you are relaxing and enjoying it, etc. but then if there are 25 more bites, it just gets boring, and the waiter might even be right when he comes by and says "You still working on that?"

So -- why not just SERVE five or six bites? I cook a lot with my neighbor, we experiment with recipes from Keller and other good chefs, and her ideal menu to serve would be a tasting menu. Doing it that way also exploits my cellar in the most interesting way.

I see Keller as probably the most important exponent of the tasting menu style in America but it's also true that everybody's doin' it.

Frank

the waiter might even be right when he comes by and says "You still working on that?"

That is without doubt my biggest peeve about untrained wait staff. I hate hate hate that!

Yes...I LOVE it!

I do think that here in the US, we are particulary bad with portion size...I know that when I eat in Europe, I can generally finish my meal and not feel overstuffed.

If a restaurant offers tapas or a tasting menu, I will always order that.

Sometimes I just want to order off the senior citizen's or children's menu , because I know that the entree is going to be waaayyy too much. And like Jenise, I would rather order a whole bunch of appetizers (which IMHO usually are much more interesting) than an appet., salad, entree, dessert.

Anyway, I rarely dine out these days, so I don't know if this is a tread or not, but I hope so !

I come at this from a different direction, not having seen Severson's article yet, but advocating the idea -- not as a move "down" from conventional restaurant portioning (?!) but rather, moving "up" from scratch in the creation of purposeful small-plates restaurants, a separate US trend for at least 20 years. (Does Severson mention that?)

It's another of those glorious food traditions elsewhere that made its way to North America and is becoming mainstream. I believe some of the very, very best and most convivial dining traditions in other cultures (often inexpensive too) use numerous small dishes. I can't remember all the regional forms I've seen or heard of, but they include south-Chinese Dim Sum (really the point of "taking tea" -- wan cha -- there), Russian zakuski (quot'ns below) and variations in nearby countries; the famous "snack shops" of India; Spanish tapas, which by the way were all the rage in US cities 15-20 years ago; other specific forms of many-little-dishes dining in Greece, Scandinavia, Austria ("Wiener Gabel-Frühstück" or fork-brunch), Thailand -- each very distinct. About time we saw more of this in US!

Re foo-foo and affected, again I don't know Severson's article, but I doubt many people would apply such words to the traditions of good small-plates dining in those many countries or to the good, deliberate US renditions I've experienced (a wine bar in Ithaca NY with superb small plates, and a bustling restaurant in San Francisco -- Park Chow -- come to mind; both are circa 20 years old).

Zakuski can be a great trap. When Melba, the famous soprano, went to supper with the tsar ... very hungry after singing at the opera ... she innocently and eagerly applied herself to the magnificent buffet, which included every kind of hot and cold hors d’oeuvre. She had just reached saturation point when dinner was announced. This experience, in more modest form, has befallen many unsuspecting foreigners visiting a Russian house for the first time. ...The Russians laugh kindly at protests but expect you to go on eating, like the host in Gogol’s Dead Souls, who rebuked his guest for lack of appetite ... -- Nicolaieff and Phelan (1969)

Vodka and zakuski (appetizers) are theoretically indivisible. The word zakuska denotes specifically food that is eaten with vodka, in order to temper its effect on the body. It’s ridiculous to drink vodka without zakuski. You’ll get drunk immediately, especially if you’re hungry, and you won’t be able to appreciate the dinner to come. ... In combination, vodka and zakuski stimulate the appetite, cheer the soul, warm you up, and prepare you for a feast. -- Tatyana Tolstaya (1993)

[Both quotations from original sources -- recommended! -- not online.]

I do think that here in the US, we are particulary bad with portion size.
=

Two nights ago, Maria, I went to a Mexican restaurant with friends and ordered what I thought a simple shredded chicken burrito with tomatillo sauce. It was large enough to feed a family of four--I kid you not. I ate waaaay more of it than I needed to that night, took the rest home, had a very generous lunch of it the next day, and still had plenty for a very hearty breakfast of it this morning. It was too good to let it go to waste.

I don't always like it, because I am big into sharing. These little plates are usually only good for a bite each. Bigger portions means you can share with everyone at the table and still have enough left over to actually eat. Of course, not everyone is as happy to have people eat off thier plate as I am.

Last night we had beef carpaccio and bone marrow costini which came in large enough portions for Amy and I to happily eat, and still share with Thor, Coad and Lisa Allen.

Of course, if people don't like to share or are germaphobes, I like the small plate idea.

Best,
Joe

Kim Severson writes a eulogy of sorts for the restaurant entree in this New York Times article.

The thing I find etymologically amusing is the term "entree". In English usage, this means main course or centerpiece around which the rest of the meal revolves. But in its original French meaning, it is the introductory course that one encounters as one enters the meal, not the central or main part of it.

I dunno--I find appeal in both types of meals. I've thoroughly enjoyed meals consisting of 8 to a dozen separate dishes served sequentially in small portions, each a complete delight. I also enjoy that big steak or roast that forms the centerpiece of a whole meal. Or the Chinese presentation involving 4 or 5 fairly substantial courses.

It's like asking which is better theater, a revue with ten excellent acts, or a single magnificent play. Both have their place.

Another thing that I think has its place is uncomplicated home cooking executed with the level of art that only a great cook or chef can bring to the task. The great barbecue joints fall into this category. As do some of the great French restaurants that refine their traditional regional cooking to perfection. These sorts of places often don't get top reviews from the critics because they're not innovative enough.

Innovation isn't everything. Great traditions usually have a reason why they became traditional. I think executing to perfection a dish that's 200+ years old is just as praiseworthy as being flamboyant and clever in a temporarily fashionable sort of way.

-Paul W.

they include south-Chinese Dim Sum (really the point of "taking tea" -- wan cha -- there), Russian zakuski (quot'ns below) and variations in nearby countries; the famous "snack shops" of India; Spanish tapas, which by the way were all the rage in US cities 15-20 years ago; other specific forms of many-little-dishes dining in Greece, Scandinavia, Austria ("Wiener Gabel-Frühstück" or fork-brunch), Thailand -- each very distinct.

Don't forget the Indian "Thali" tradition. You get a wonderful selection of tasty bites (TM) on a silver platter. What could be better! (Max mentions the snack shop but "Tiffins" have not penetrated America, even on Oak Tree Road in Edison near where I live!)

Frank

[Robin Garr]

The thing I find etymologically amusing is the term "entree". In English usage, this means main course or centerpiece around which the rest of the meal revolves. But in its original French meaning, it is the introductory course that one encounters as one enters the meal, not the central or main part of it.

Actually, that's <I>American</i> English usage. I'm not sure about the Brits, but in Australia and New Zealand, they use "entree" as "appetizer" in the European fashion.

I dunno--I find appeal in both types of meals. I've thoroughly enjoyed meals consisting of 8 to a dozen separate dishes served sequentially in small portions, each a complete delight. I also enjoy that big steak or roast that forms the centerpiece of a whole meal. Or the Chinese presentation involving 4 or 5 fairly substantial courses.

It's like asking which is better theater, a revue with ten excellent acts, or a single magnificent play. Both have their place.

-Paul W.

I pretty much agree with what you say, Paul. I think one can have great meals either way. I think in a lot of cases, whether I feel like going with a number of small plates or one large one just depends on my mood at the moment.

Actually, that's <I>American</i> English usage. I'm not sure about the Brits, but in Australia and New Zealand, they use "entree" as "appetizer" in the European fashion.

Yes, Robin, definitely an American phenomenon. I wonder how it came about?

-Paul W.

The thing I find etymologically amusing is the term "entree". In English usage, this means main course or centerpiece ... in its original French meaning, it is the introductory course that one encounters as one enters the meal, not the central or main part of it.

Actually, that's <I>American</i> English usage. I'm not sure about the Brits, but in Australia and New Zealand, they use "entree" as "appetizer" in the European fashion.

Indeed gentlemen, it's even more complicated than that! (And beloved trivia among word fans who also are food fans -- I nearly mentioned it above but the posting was already long). I've seen British usage like what Robin cited above as European, in recent years. That's more remarkable when you see that the original French sense, which is not actually an introductory course but something yet different, has evolved like the US. When in doubt, look it up in authoritative sources, which yield a mini-tutorial on meal evolution:

Although in French the word entrée literally means "beginning," it does not in the culinary sense mean first course as some people seem to believe. The entrée is the course which, in a full French menu [i.e., meal], follows the relevé (remove) or intermediate course, which, in its turn, follows the fish (or whatever course may be served in place of it). In other words, the entrée is the third course. [On to some practical options for it.] -- Larousse Gastronomique, Crown 1961 English edition.

Today, the entrée is usually the main course of the meal, but in a full French menu it is the third course, following the hors d'oeuvre (or soup) and the fish course and preceding the roast. At a grand dinner, the entrée is either a hot dish in a sauce or a cold dish ... [Former different formal classifications of entrées of this type.] With the trend towards simplification and reduction in the number of courses, today's menu usually centres on a main dish, preceded by an hors d'oeuvre or soup and followed by a salad, cheese, and dessert ... -- Same title, Crown 1988 English edition.

Same title, 2001 English edition, follows 1988 with slightly shorter list of modern French entrée examples.

(That's from the texts, not online. All of these editions are readily available and I highly recommend them -- the 1961, which is the most famous, even for pleasure reading as cited before.)

I am surprised at myself that I am in the "love it and hate it" category. I love it because, of course, it's fun to try a whole bunch of dishes, especially at a restaurant that I might not have time to frequent that often. It's the appeal of tasting menus, as well.

So, why would I hate it? Well, maybe it's my metabolism I hate, but for starters, it's tough enough to have the will-power to do portion control when dining out, but the more dishes you have - the more foods you have - the harder it is to use moderation. When I do a typical appetizer-entree meal, I know I can have the appetizer and half the entree, wrapping the rest to go. Small bites means that plan flies out the window. Furthermore, I find that small bites makes wine pairing really challenging unless I'm dining as, at least, a party of 4 to be able to have multiple bottles open. Finally, again, while I do greatly enjoy the small plates experience, I feel a little guilty because I feel kindof ADD that I don't have the attention span for fewer courses.

Furthermore, I find that small bites makes wine pairing really challenging unless I'm dining as, at least, a party of 4 to be able to have multiple bottles open.

Good point, Eden. You're right.

I'm a big fan because it lets me taste so many different things on the menu. If a tasting menu is available, I pretty much choose it for the options...WHy have only three courses when you could have five little ones? And I don't like HUGE portions, either, so this way, I'm not worried about saving room for dessert. I find the quantities to be much more appropriate.

B

I've seen this small plate trend done two ways. First, as a tapas style menu, where a variety of things are offered in small portions. That's nice for a light meal.

The second, and far more interesting way, is a chef-designed tasting menu that is meant to be eaten in order - usually three to five courses. To make it even better, a wine pairing (about 3 oz.) is often offered for each course. This allows me to be bold and try new things that I would never order an entire entree or bottle of.

[Jenise]

I believe some of the very, very best and most convivial dining traditions in other cultures (often inexpensive too) use numerous small dishes. I can't remember all the regional forms I've seen or heard of, but they include south-Chinese Dim Sum (really the point of "taking tea"

Re foo-foo and affected, again I don't know Severson's article, but I doubt many people would apply such words to the traditions of good small-plates dining in those many countries or to the good, deliberate US renditions I've experienced

Complete agreed on your first paragraph, but I wonder what your take is on why it's been such a hard sell on the American public? I'm remembering a dinner out for casual Chinese with friends in Anchorage. He a PhD--truly, a rocket scientist--and his wife a nurse, in other words two well educated persons, shocked us with their naivete about food. While Bob and I stared at the menu, John announced that Barb would have "her usual, sweet and sour pork" while he was having Mongolian Beef. They wondered if we wanted to share an appetizer.

Not only did they not understand that Chinese food is to be shared. They were applying the typical American appetizer/entree/dessert mentality to Chinese food. Too, neither was interested in cooking, and though they could easily afford it they didn't go out for higher end cuisine where they'd have been exposed to a wider variety of dining styles. It would be easy to understand how the rather low ratio of Maxes and Jenises to Johns and Barbs over the last few decades made any prior attempt to popularize small plates an uphill battle.

Re your second paragraph, Kim didn't use the words 'foo foo and affected'--that was my interpretaion of the way some people would feel about any deviation from convention and the familiar.

[Jenise]

I don't always like it, because I am big into sharing. These little plates are usually only good for a bite each. Bigger portions means you can share with everyone at the table and still have enough left over to actually eat. Of course, not everyone is as happy to have people eat off thier plate as I am.
Best,
Joe

And if it's just you and Amy, you probably share which in essence turns every dish you order into what is effectively two small plates worth of food, right? Bob and I do likewise. In fact, we've been known to order two entrees, and ask them to be served in sequence so that we can share one at a time.

[Jenise]

All of these editions are readily available and I highly recommend them -- the 1961, which is the most famous, even for pleasure reading as cited before.)

Agreed, I have the '61 and the 2001. Wouldn't be without either.

[Jenise]

Paul W said:

I've thoroughly enjoyed meals consisting of 8 to a dozen separate dishes served sequentially in small portions, each a complete delight. I also enjoy that big steak or roast that forms the centerpiece of a whole meal. Or the Chinese presentation involving 4 or 5 fairly substantial courses.

It's like asking which is better theater

Ah, but I didn't ask which was better. To full embrace and love the small plates concept doesn't require that you leave your big steak behind. My poll questions merely allowed for the fact that some will say, "I love the way I eat, and I'm not interested in anything different". I allowed for all varieties of open-mindedness, in other words, including 'unremittingly closed'.