Publican Inaugural Brunch with Live Tweeting

So I don't think I've seen any references to the Publican's inaugural brunch on LTH. My first visit to the Publican back in October was disappointing, and I was pretty sure I wouldn't go back there on my own choosing. However, I was sucked in by the buzz about brunch in the Twitterverse. The menu preview published in the Chicago MenuPages blog apparently made me forget my last Publican experience. Actually, the menu had me drooling. I was very excited about brunch today.

Bloody Mary


I rarely drink bloody marys (actually, I rarely go to brunch), but again, I was sold on trying the Publican's version by tweets about the not-secret-in-the-Twitterverse ingredient, balsamic vinegar. The drink was OK. I couldn't detect the balsamic, and I thought it was over-iced and the garnishes kind of obscene. I don't think it's apparent in my photo, but the lemon and lime wedges with the pickled okra in between overwhelmed the glass. They were really large. I didn't bite into the okra until the end of our meal, but I was grateful for the heat it provided--made me realize that there wasn't any heat in any other part of our meal.

Assorted smoked fish with ham quiche


I liked this dish a lot. I rarely have smoked fish other than salmon. We inquired about what the assortment consisted of. We heard trout, but the rest of our waiter's notes were illegible (to him). I also liked the quiche quite a bit--not very ham-y, a nice balance of cream and herbs. I just wish the portion was bigger. We were told when we placed our order that, unlike dinner at the Publican, the breakfast items were appropriate for one person, that is, not meant to be shared. I did split the dish (and all of the others) with one other person, dansch--still thought if I had eaten it all myself it wouldn't have been quite enough, which is how I felt about the Publican's dinner portions.

Bagel with house cream cheese


I meant to write down the name of the person who made the bagels. They were outstanding. A little denser than, say, NY Bagels & Bialys, but the same style, better, perfectly toasted with yummy house cream cheese.

Publican bacon


I think the Publican bacon had a lot of potential. It looked lovely, but the cut of the pork was utterly bizarre. It was cut with the grain (?) so that it was impossible to cut (we also didn't knives other than the ones we used to spread the cream cheese). Trying to eat it basically turned it to pork floss--very disappointing and just baffling.

Publican bacon turned to pork floss


I also couldn't really detect what was supposed to be the maple syrup with which the bacon was prepared.

Wood-fired eggs with harissa and gouda


This was another solid dish. I liked the balance of harissa and gouda. dansch noted that a little heat would have greatly improved it overall. I agree. From tweets, I was aware that the kitchen was having some toast issues. I'm not keen on toast blackened in any way. In this is instance, it was fine as a vehicle--not exceptional in any way.

Fresh ricotta with roasted pineapple and hazelnuts


This dish was a standout. Very simple, but the combination of textures and flavors was superb. The ricotta, which our waiter told us was from Brooklyn (?), was light and lovely. This dish was by far the most inspiring of our meal.

I think I'm going to take a break from the Publican for a while. While brunch was better than my dinner experience, it's still not hitting the mark for me. I still have my hang-ups about the flatness of flavors, portion sizes and the feel of the space. Again, I left feeling not quite sated, like I could eat another meal immediately. I look forward to hearing others' thoughts on brunch since I haven't seen much other than solid praise on Twitter. Overall, I think it was a very commendable effort by Chef Kahan and the Publican team. The Publican may just not be for me.

I edited the thread title after it was split into its own from the main Publican thread to reflect the related Twitter discussion herein.

happy_stomach wrote:From tweets, I was aware that the kitchen was having some toast issues.

This makes my head spin............

When I saw the bacon I though, oh man, Publican in my very near future. Disappointed to hear that gorgeous looking bacon was mismanaged.

Terrific pictures, interesting well thought out review.

Enjoy,
Gary

G Wiv wrote:

happy_stomach wrote:From tweets, I was aware that the kitchen was having some toast issues.

This makes my head spin............

When I saw the bacon I though, oh man, Publican in my very near future. Disappointed to hear that gorgeous looking bacon was mismanaged.

Terrific pictures, interesting well thought out review.

Thanks, Gary. Yeah, the tweets, even just from Chef Kahan, made my head spin. I just skimmed the toast updates, but apparently they got some kind of massive toaster for brunch that they at first didn't know how to operate and then maybe it malfunctioned? All I know is that eventually Chef tweeted that he was "grilling bread on the fly."

When ordering, one of the questions we had for our waiter was about the difference between the Publican bacon and the regular bacon on the menu. I don't think we even heard a description of the latter; we made up our minds even before he finished explaining the former. The Publican bacon sounded like the stuff of dreams and was absolutely beautiful when placed on our table. Then I took a knife to it...

A side note that probably deserves its own thread.... I'm also very curious to hear about what folks' thought about the live tweeting, by Chef and others, of the brunch. I put my phone away to eat, so I read everything at once after leaving the Publican. I'm not convinced of the value of live tweeting in general--that is, I've seen very, very few examples of what I think of as good live tweeting--but I'm curious about implications for food, kitchens, chefs, eaters... I tweet frequently and often am doing other things while I'm trying to eat (something I'd very much like to change). Obviously, I have no problem taking pictures at the table or taking notes, but I can't yet imagine myself live tweeting a meal that I'm sharing with someone else...maybe except if I was on a *really* bad date? Thoughts on this?

happy_stomach wrote:A side note that probably deserves its own thread.... I'm also very curious to hear about what folks' thought about the live tweeting...Thoughts on this?

Well, since you asked... What I think of it is...absolutely nothing. In fact, I had never heard of it before your post and, frankly, I hope to never hear of it again . A month or two ago, dansch tried to sell me on the virtues of tweeting, but I was a tough customer then, and I remain so. I also recently had a discussion with nr### (sorry Tom, if you're going to use such an obscure screen name, I'm not going to try to memorize it) about how I sometimes wish it were easier to enjoy a meal without overanalyzing it. Sometimes I'm jealous of the yelpers that can just sit back and say "Wow, that shit is the bomb!" without pondering the cooking technique or "flavor profile". Live tweeting of a meal seems to take over analysis to the extreme, and I'd fear that it would diminish enjoyment of the experience.


(edited typo)

The ricotta, which our waiter told us was from Brooklyn (?), was light and lovely.

I would guess it came from Salvatore Bklyn, which makes two types of whole-milk ricotta (plain and smoked). It's hard to find ricotta like theirs outside Italy.

http://www.salvatorebklyn.com/

happy,

I'm not sure I understand -- was Kahan tweeting (or twittering?) while he was cooking the meal?! If so, perhaps if he put down the I-phone and just cooked the meal, it would have been more successful?

happy_stomach wrote:I look forward to hearing others' thoughts on brunch since I haven't seen much other than solid praise on Twitter.

At 140 characters or less, how detailed can someone be on Twitter? Restaurant comments on twitter seem useless at best if they can only range from "Brunch good/bad @ Publican," and a moderated review is something like, "Brunch @ Publican had its high/low points." Wouldn't think such comments would be that informative, either.

P.S. Don't think I want Kahan's tweets if they all read like his latest: "No matter how much I work out I still look fat. Wrestler neck . . ." Falls into the category of "too much information."

happy_stomach wrote:A side note that probably deserves its own thread.... I'm also very curious to hear about what folks' thought about the live tweeting, by Chef and others, of the brunch.

not interested at all in twitter/tweeting at all. If a dining companion was doing it I would consider it rude, and it would probably be the last meal we shared.

I prefer to enjoy my meal, engage in conversation with my my fellow diners, and relax. I like technology, but I think some aspects of it are getting a bit ridiculous, and turning people into techno-zombies unable to function, or communicate face to face.

Kennyz wrote:

happy_stomach wrote:A side note that probably deserves its own thread.... I'm also very curious to hear about what folks' thought about the live tweeting...Thoughts on this?

Well, since you asked... What I think of it is...absolutely nothing. In fact, I had never heard of it before your post and, frankly, I hope to never hear of it again . A month or two ago, dansch tried to sell me on the virtues of tweeting, but I was a tough customer then, and I remain so. I also recently had a discussion with nr### (sorry Tom, if you're going to use such an obscure screen name, I'm not going to try to memorize it) about how I sometimes wish it were easier to enjoy a meal without overanalyzing it. Sometimes I'm jealous of the yelpers that can just sit back and say "Wow, that shit is the bomb!" without pondering the cooking technique or "flavor profile". Live tweeting of a meal seems to take over analysis to the extreme, and I'd fear that it would diminish enjoyment of the experience.


(edited typo)

Kenny, I agree with you though I think you're being too generous in regards to live tweeting. My main issue with the practice is that it is often devoid of analysis. Usually it seems just to be a stream of observations with little interpretation or unique insight. I think I would enjoy live tweeting more, especially in regards to food and meals, done by other people, if there was analysis. Again, I'm not interested in doing it myself (though, to be clear, I mean live tweeting rather than just regular tweeting--I've found a lot of value in the latter), but I'm curious to hear about the motivations and experience of people who are interested, who do live tweet about food.

fleurdesel wrote:

The ricotta, which our waiter told us was from Brooklyn (?), was light and lovely.

I would guess it came from Salvatore Bklyn, which makes two types of whole-milk ricotta (plain and smoked). It's hard to find ricotta like theirs outside Italy.

http://www.salvatorebklyn.com/

Thank you! I'd had fresh ricotta before but never like the stuff served at the Publican. It was divine.

aschie30 wrote:I'm not sure I understand -- was Kahan tweeting (or twittering?) while he was cooking the meal?! If so, perhaps if he put down the I-phone and just cooked the meal, it would have been more successful?

That's what it seemed like from what I saw on Twitter before we went into the restaurant, though I think he was out on the floor the entire time we were there, serving and chatting with VIPs. I didn't observe him working in the kitchen at all.

aschie30 wrote:At 140 characters or less, how detailed can someone be on Twitter? Restaurant comments on twitter seem useless at best if they can only range from "Brunch good/bad @ Publican," and a moderated review is something like, "Brunch @ Publican had its high/low points." Wouldn't think such comments would be that informative, either.

P.S. Don't think I want Kahan's tweets if they all read like his latest: "No matter how much I work out I still look fat. Wrestler neck . . ." Falls into the category of "too much information."

For me, it's not a question of how much detail can fit in 140 characters. I've seen plenty of food- and non-food-related tweets that have been really thoughtful and provocative. I don't think it's very difficult to pose an excellent, pointed question in a simple sentence. As for the wrestler neck tweet, I definitely agree. Twitter, like Yelp or any other forum really, requires sifting depending on the type of experience you want to have--plenty of interesting stuff but lots and lots of unhelpful information, too.

Kennyz wrote:

happy_stomach wrote:A side note that probably deserves its own thread.... I'm also very curious to hear about what folks' thought about the live tweeting...Thoughts on this?

Well, since you asked... What I think of it is...absolutely nothing. In fact, I had never heard of it before your post and, frankly, I hope to never hear of it again . A month or two ago, dansch tried to sell me on the virtues of tweeting, but I was a tough customer then, and I remain so. I also recently had a discussion with nr### (sorry Tom, if you're going to use such an obscure screen name, I'm not going to try to memorize it) about how I sometimes wish it were easier to enjoy a meal without overanalyzing it. Sometimes I'm jealous of the yelpers that can just sit back and say "Wow, that shit is the bomb!" without pondering the cooking technique or "flavor profile". Live tweeting of a meal seems to take over analysis to the extreme, and I'd fear that it would diminish enjoyment of the experience.


(edited typo)

I think if you look at it in terms of kitchen theater, it's quite interesting. We seem very accepting of open kitchens, kitchen tables, moto-style acrobatics, or Achatz-style production numbers, why not this style?

I'm not saying that it's something I'm particularly interested in, but I think what most interesting about this form of kitchen expression is that it's completely optional to be a viewer.

eatchicago wrote:I think if you look at it in terms of kitchen theater, it's quite interesting. We seem very accepting of open kitchens, kitchen tables, moto-style acrobatics, or Achatz-style production numbers, why not this style?

Great point. As someone who doesn't watch TV, has seen a total of only a few minutes of reality shows and only reads occasionally about professional kitchens, tweets by cooks are my main source for kitchen entertainment.

eatchicago wrote:I'm not saying that it's something I'm particularly interested in, but I think what most interesting about this form of kitchen expression is that it's completely optional to be a viewer.

Yes, one can choose to be a "viewer," which is passive. This is usually me. For example, I could have been sitting at home in my pajamas eating toast and following Chef Kahan and the brunch activity. However, one could also choose to be more participatory. One thing I have really enjoyed since using Twitter on a more regular basis is that it's given me access and allowed me to communicate with really interesting people, "experts" in certain fields for example, with whom I'd probably have no other contact and certainly no interaction. I don't remember from Chef Kahan's brunch tweets, but he could have easily answered questions posed on Twitter in real time. He certainly re-tweeted positive brunch comments during service.

eatchicago wrote:We seem very accepting of open kitchens, kitchen tables, moto-style acrobatics, or Achatz-style production numbers, why not this style?

For one thing, this style uses "words" like tweet, twitter, twittering, and tweeting. While "open kitchen" has a perfectly innocuous ring to it, these other "words" sound like fingernails on a chalkboard.

happy_stomach wrote:He certainly re-tweeted positive brunch comments during service.

I bet he did!

happy_stomach wrote:One thing I have really enjoyed since using Twitter on a more regular basis is that it's given me access and allowed me to communicate with really interesting people, "experts" in certain fields for example, with whom I'd probably have no other contact and certainly no interaction.

[Don't mean to pick on you, happy_stomach, and this is probably a conversation best done in person . . .] But did you know these people to be "experts" prior to Twitter? Otherwise, how does one establish themselves to be an expert in anything in a medium which allows you one sentence per Tweet? With only one sentence, it seems like anyone could represent anything because one sentence doesn't allow enough detail or discussion to ferret out whether that person is full of crap or not.

But did you know these people to be "experts" prior to Twitter? Otherwise, how does one establish themselves to be an expert in anything in a medium which allows you one sentence per Tweet? With only one sentence, it seems like anyone could represent anything because one sentence doesn't allow enough detail or discussion to ferret out whether that person is full of crap or not.

I'll answer that. I follow Grant Achatz, Rick Tramanto, Gus of WaSC, Paul Kahan, etc. I know these people to be 'experts' when it comes to certain types of cooking. I also follow, say, Scott Tobias (film editor at the onion), Penn Jillette (expert magician, we can surely all agree) and Claire McCaskill, senator from Missouri.

These are all real people, whose credentials are known to the real world, who happen to sometimes communicate in 140-character bursts.

Everyone keeps talking like you get 140 characters and then you're done. There's nothing stopping you from having a thought span multiple tweets, carrying on a conversation, or linking to more extended thoughts at blogs. Some people tweet once a week, some 100 times a day. At that high end, you can very quickly learn a whole lot about a person, what they know, and how they think.

Kennyz wrote:

eatchicago wrote:We seem very accepting of open kitchens, kitchen tables, moto-style acrobatics, or Achatz-style production numbers, why not this style?

For one thing, this style uses "words" like tweet, twitter, twittering, and tweeting. While "open kitchen" has a perfectly innocuous ring to it, these other "words" sound like fingernails on a chalkboard.

Well, now we're just talking about personal preference. I don't really care for what moto does, but I'm certainly willing to recognize its place in the landscape.

aschie30 wrote:

happy_stomach wrote:One thing I have really enjoyed since using Twitter on a more regular basis is that it's given me access and allowed me to communicate with really interesting people, "experts" in certain fields for example, with whom I'd probably have no other contact and certainly no interaction.

[Don't mean to pick on you, happy_stomach, and this is probably a conversation best done in person . . .] But did you know these people to be "experts" prior to Twitter? Otherwise, how does one establish themselves to be an expert in anything in a medium which allows you one sentence per Tweet? With only one sentence, it seems like anyone could represent anything because one sentence doesn't allow enough detail or discussion to ferret out whether that person is full of crap or not.

I'm glad to provide what clarification I can about Twitter. It's something that's easy to dislike, especially with little information and experience. The "experts" I was referring to are people I already knew of. Again, I'm using the term very loosely in this context to refer to people with knowledge that's interesting to me, whether it be well-known food bloggers, food journalists, chefs...and from other interests...academics, entrepreneurs, Chicago figures in politics, technology, social media, the arts...all people I knew of before but could only access through publications or conferences or the occasional email query.

{Ditto gleam, who I think was posting at roughly the same time I was writing this.}

You just have to make sure the people you're following are the people you think they are.

There was a fake Shaq for a while (the real Shaq is on now and his feed is hilarious). Also, some guys from Deadspin were pretending to be Rick Reilly but they got busted (they still post as Fake Rick Reilly, which is even funnier than the Shaq feed if you've ever read any of the real Rick Reilly's writings).

So I guess the answer to my question regarding experts is that, yes, you knew of them prior to Twitter.

jesteinf wrote:You just have to make sure the people you're following are the people you think they are.

There was a fake Shaq for a while (the real Shaq is on now and his feed is hilarious). Also, some guys from Deadspin were pretending to be Rick Reilly but they got busted (they still post as Fake Rick Reilly, which is even funnier than the Shaq feed if you've ever read any of the real Rick Reilly's writings).

There was/is also a fake Doug Sohn (Hot Doug).

I'll add that following the Publican brunch kept me quite amused while the girls bought tchotches at Maxwell St (to think some go for reasons beyond the food).

But even better, it was fist bumps all around at @LocalFamily when this AM, when we saw that Bittman RT @EmilyNunn RT @LocalFamily on the subject of turnips.

aschie30 wrote:There was/is also a fake Doug Sohn (Hot Doug).

Time Out interview with faux-Hot Doug

I actually find the Hot Doug twitterer very helpful. My last two visits for encased meats were because of him/her.

Vital Information wrote:But even better, it was fist bumps all around at @LocalFamily when this AM, when we saw that Bittman RT @EmilyNunn RT @LocalFamily on the subject of turnips.

Exciting (in a geeky twitterer kind of way)! Congrats.

But even better, it was fist bumps all around at @LocalFamily when this AM, when we saw that Bittman RT @EmilyNunn RT @LocalFamily on the subject of turnips.

What does this mean in Earth language?

happy_stomach wrote:

aschie30 wrote:There was/is also a fake Doug Sohn (Hot Doug).

Time Out interview with faux-Hot Doug

I actually find the Hot Doug twitterer very helpful. My last two visits for encased meats were because of him/her.

Can you explain what this means? As a non-twitterer, I mean this seriously - not sarcastically as it may sound. I am curious how Twitter helps one realize that he/she should go to Hot Doug's. Having never Twittered (at least not on purpose), I still manage to recognize that Hot Doug's is a place worth going to.

Kennyz wrote:Can you explain what this means? As a non-twitterer, I mean this seriously - not sarcastically as it may sound. I am curious how Twitter helps one realize that he/she should go to Hot Doug's. Having never Twittered (at least not on purpose), I still manage to recognize that Hot Doug's is a place worth going to.

Fake Hot Dougs tweets the day's game of the week and celebrity sausages (but not any of the other specials). I usually only go to HD if I see a special that appeals, but I don't remember to check every day. FHD solves that problem.

This is one usage of Twitter that actually makes sense to me-- if you "follow" Hot Doug, who is not actually Hot Doug, you get a message saying what the game dog of the day is and so on.

The idea that you're saying anything beyond that in a series of disconnected brain farts which your followers read in between their other friends chattering about whatever... well, I already have a condition functionally indistinguishable from schizophrenia, which is, having young children.

Out of curiosity, did you usually go to some sort of a website (Twitter itself, maybe) to check out Fake Hot Doug's updated info, or are his updates pushed to your phone or RSS reader or something?

I thought I was doing pretty well in terms of keeping up to date on emerging technology & online trends...then Twitter came along & totally threw me for a loop.

I dunno, it always strikes me as rather skeevy (and these days, cliché) when people purport to be someone else, then try to spin it as either an homage or a social experiment when they get called out.

But I guess if he's providing a service people find value in, that's a silver lining. I just don't understand how calling himself something more truthful, like HotDougsFan, instead trying to pass himself off as HotDougs (no matter how "serendipitous" claiming that name was...I'm not buying that, by the way) would have decreased the value of this updates.

Mike G wrote:This is one usage of Twitter that actually makes sense to me-- if you "follow" Hot Doug, who is not actually Hot Doug, you get a message saying what the game dog of the day is and so on.

OK, but I get that message whether I'm driving near California and Roscoe or vacationing in Islamorada. If I'm actually contemplating a Hot Doug's visit, and will only go if the game dog is something I want - it seems much more efficient to just check out their website on that day. I guess in the push vs. pull communications debate, I fall solidly on the pull side.

Well, when you sign up for twitter and start following people, their updates are shown on your home screen at twitter, so that's the simplest way. You can also have updates pushed to your cell phone, and you can reply via your cell phone. There are also dedicated apps for many phones (Twitteriffic, TwitterFon, TwitterBerry) and for the desktop (TweetDeck, which is what I mostly use).

Finally, you can get an authenticated feed of all of your friends status updates to plug into an RSS reader.

Mike G wrote:

But even better, it was fist bumps all around at @LocalFamily when this AM, when we saw that Bittman RT @EmilyNunn RT @LocalFamily on the subject of turnips.

What does this mean in Earth language?

It means that Mark Bittman and Emily Nunn* basically quoted and then shared Rob's info with the Twitterverse**. Bittman has over 3500 "followers" who could potentially see the "retweet" and Emily Nunn over 500.

*Again, Twitter geek here. Emily Nunn's Twitter ID is actually nunncookchicago (not Emily Nunn) in case you're looking for her.
**additional jargon to annoy Kennyz

Kennyz wrote: If I'm actually contemplating a Hot Doug's visit, and will only go if the game dog is something I want - it seems much more efficient to just check out their website on that day. I guess in the push vs. pull communications debate, I fall solidly on the pull side.

I guess the primary difference is that I work close enough to Hot Doug's that I tend to be able to go there for lunch on any weekday, so it's almost always an option, and I'd have to check the site every day. It's not always an option for you, so maybe you'd choose not to follow FHD.