A Puritanical Approach to Serving Food

Yesterday, while inattentively munching on pancakes, a newspaper was suddenly thrust atop my meal. "Well," said my father, " What do you think about this?" I gazed down at the article which read, "Have it Your Way? Puritanical Chefs Say No Way." The piece discussed the backlash, or just generally lashing, of New York restauranteurs and owners who -- presumably after too much abuse -- refuse to capitulate to the blasphemous whims of customer preference. I retell this experience more than slightly facetiously, for as I read, the more convinced I was that this must be written by The Onion. Bagel Shops, for example, refusing to toast their bagels, yet still offering the illustrious "pizza bagel." The anticipated customers' dissatisfaction was more confusion, "...but a toasted bagel is fierce, right?" Fierce indeed. Or, a coffee shop that offers only porcelain espresso to-go cups for $12.00 a pop, not because of any green initiatives, but rather, espresso in a paper cup bastardizes the experience. This was sadly not The Onion, it was the New York Times -- quelle surprise! I interpret the author use of the word "Puritan" to evoke the notion of food "purity," yet the associated connotation of "fanatical" keeps hitting me in waves.

Even so, I must admit, a part of me empathized. Underneath the all-too-easily-mocked-absurdity, was a nugget of something raw, meaningful. I thought about my 19 year old self waitressing at breakfast joint in Amherst. My boss, Rob, finagled "the customer is always right" mantra down our unhappy throats, and we sang it our for the restaurant to hear. We perpetuated the expectation in that it is the duty of the establishment to tirelessly and intrepidly fulfill the needs of the patrons. Their money bought our dignity, our self-worth. This sounds hyperbolic, I know, but more often than not, we all felt this. The relationship between server and served is out of balance.

So where does this end? I see substance in the NYtimes article, whether we ought to trust the chef's preference of taste or remember their humanity beyond that of a serving automaton. On the other hand, there is also substance to its critique, where a chef ought to (at the least) politely appreciate the beauty of taste preference as it exists differently in each person. Like so many answers in life, the question of "rightness" comes down an "it depends."