stevez wrote: Such is the dilemma of the GNR committee when making decisions about the GNR-worthiness of a particular restaurant. I sometimes find my personal tastes to be at odds with what I see as the board's consensus opinion.

im the same way, probably why the places I will recognize as GNR's is about 1/2 the size of the places that have been awarded one.

for the record I will eat white castle(rarely, been eatin since I was a kid), its no better or worse than McD's, Taco Bell, Wendys, Subway or any other fast food chain food to me. Sometimes surroundings dictate diet for lunch working in west suburban chainland.

i<3pizza wrote:This thread, and the debacle with [member whose name I forget] talking about the superior purity of French cuisine vs. Asian cuisines have really made me want to start an LTHForum aesthetics reading group, where we start, say, with Hume's "The Standard of Taste" and work our way through other attempts to argue about whether aesthetic judgments about food are based on mere preference, a feeling of pleasure accessible to all (and the standard for judging truly about a dish's aesthetic value), or a result of features of the food itself independent of what people think or feel about it. I just can't make up my mind about what to think.

I resist our culture's relativistic proclivities, so part of me feels like there has to be some truth in what David Hammond is saying, but I also don't think there's one timeless truth about which food is good and which isn't. But the important claim, I think, is that you can make judgments about food from two points of view -- one that takes into account your individual tastes, associations, preferences, memories, habits, etc., and another that means to speak 'for everyone' -- I mean, I find myself doing that with music: I'll agree that the Rolling Stones make good music when speaking 'for everyone,' but I personally don't like them and think their songs are uninteresting from a musical point of view and only interesting in terms of their position in the history of blues, rnb and rock n roll. But then, I also think video game music is awesome -- and in large part because of nostalgic associations to the sounds. So in that respect, I can relate to the distinction that Hammond is trying to draw. But what I don't know is whether there is something consistent and plausible to be said for the idea that there is a standard for telling whether someone is right in claiming 'for everyone' that a certain food is just bad. I want to say 'yes,' but I don't know how to show it!

A lot of times during this discussion I've felt philosophical issues bubbling up, and I've tried to suppress them (at least in my responses) as I thought referencing Aristotle or Longinus when talking about sliders was just too crazy even for me. But maybe it isn't.

I'd be all in for a discussion group, but I would push for it being a part of the board discussion. Going back over the years, I don't recall ever doing anything quite like this, but we could establish a general schedule of what chapters to discuss, then devote a thread to each chapter. This might actually require a separate sub-board, or not. It's an interesting idea, and there's no reason why it would have to be limited to aesthetics of food, though that's a fine place to start.

To go all philosophical for a moment, and in reference to my first post, I feel that the "craving" for bad food is an example of the "false needs" that capitalism generates and that Marx articulates. We think we want stuff that the system makes us think we need but that we really don't need (or ultimately even want) at all.

David Hammond wrote:To go all philosophical for a moment, and in reference to my first post, I feel that the "craving" for bad food is an example of the "false needs" that capitalism generates and that Marx articulates. We think we want stuff that the system makes us think we need but that we really don't need (or ultimately even want) at all.

Or perhaps we just crave a shit ton of fat and salt. I'm gonna go with that theory.

Binko wrote:

David Hammond wrote:To go all philosophical for a moment, and in reference to my first post, I feel that the "craving" for bad food is an example of the "false needs" that capitalism generates and that Marx articulates. We think we want stuff that the system makes us think we need but that we really don't need (or ultimately even want) at all.

Or perhaps we just crave a shit ton of fat and salt. I'm gonna go with that theory.

I satisfy that craving with a rasher of mulefoot hog bacon...and it tastes good.

Like I said, it's almost ludicrous to get too philosophical with this stuff, as we're talking about basic urges that may be no more philosophical than "Me want."

Sure. Mulefoot hog bacon will do the trick if I have it hanging around. I prefer the White Castle for that late-night craving, as I'm not the world's biggest fan of bacon, though I do appreciate it and have home cured and smoked it. Or a nice salty gyros/doner. Or, more often than not, I ignore the craving and just go to sleep.

To be a little less flip than in my last post: I am not going to disagree that there is an element of capitalist consumerism in our food choices. Of course there is, nobody is completely immune to advertising. But I do think the majority of these types of "craves" are simply biological urges to satisfy our bodies with carbs, salt, and fat. I'm not going to say it's necessarily a universal urge, but most places I've been to in the world, the street food satisfies those basic needs. For example, in Hungary, a langos was my crave. It's just a deep fried dough made with potato and flour, somewhat reminiscent of an elephant ear, topped with any variety of savory toppings, but usually at least salt and garlic, and then most often sour cream and cheese. It is a carb-fat-salt bomb. It is absolutely unhealthy and not "good food" by any definition (other than it's hand-made from scratch, and fried to-order). Yet, I, and many Hungarians (judging by the long lines in the langos stand at the market) crave this crap. It's not like we're bombarded with marketing telling us we want or need this stuff. Nobody advertises this. The only connection to capitalism and "false needs" that I see is the fact that there is a stand selling the food, which is a capitalistic activity. The reason people crave this, IMHO, is because carb-fat-salt is a like a drug. It is pleasureful to eat langos, just as I find White Castle pleasureful to eat. It satisfies my desire (not need) for salt, fat, umami, carbs. It's simply a taste I, and many others, enjoy. No more, no less.

stevez wrote:

JeffB wrote:Hard to believe that Krystal is so bad and Waffle House so good, serving the same people in the same neighborhoods very different food in the wee hours.

Waffle House is no sure bet, either. I've had some terrible meals in Waffle Houses. One in particular in the Tampa area. I guess it all depends on the chef; something that can't be claimed by WC or Krystal.

Cathy2 wrote:Hi,

I like Waffle House.

Until Steve Z suggested asking for the hashbrowns crisp, this solved my variability issue with them.

The car always wants to stop upon seeing one of my various trips. Don't always go, though it is very tempting.

I also adore the other Waffle House of America in Michigan with the exceptional toilets!

Regards,

Don't want to take this tightly focused discussion off on a tangent, but a word about Waffle House. Steve, if the Waffle House you visited in Tampa is the one on Dale Mabry near Kennedy/West Shore, then there's a huge context you are missing. That's not a restaurant, it's a portal into an alternative universe furnished with varied sex-workers, drug dealers, drug users, dingbats, riff-raff from nearby entertainment centers, and, for a very long while, George Steinbrenner - who used a booth in the back to conduct business and execute history-making trades, though largely only after the nearby, mobbed-up, Burt-Reynolds-frequented, dark and dangerous (but pretty good) Malio's steakhouse shuttered. That WH is what statisticians and economists call an "outlier."

The broad middle swath of Waffle Houses is solid. Then, there are Waffle Houses like the one I visited recently in a tiny town on the edge of the Great Smoky Mountain National Forest where I had easily the best meal of a recent family road trip around the Mid-South wherein we visited any number of LTH-approved and Roadfoodesque spots. That WF was staffed by geniuses, including a grill man who could cook eggs and make waffles, plus a manager who brought in spectacular tomatoes from home. Also, easily the best grits of the trip despite some pretty fancy versions on the list at other sports. My standard order: large bowl of grits topped by 2 eggs sunny side up, side of sliced tomatoes, raisin toast. Fucking ambrosia.

Been to the bizzaro Michigan WH a few times: I appreciate their legal zeal in protecting their right to fly the Waffle House flag, and the decor is noteworthy/strange in a dusty and cluttered Cupie's or Margie's way, the pies are OK, but I have had poor luck with the food. I will admit, I don't get the waffles. Probably my mistake.

JeffB wrote:Don't want to take this tightly focused discussion off on a tangent, but a word about Waffle House. Steve, if the Waffle House you visited in Tampa is the one on Dale Mabry near Kennedy/West Shore, then there's a huge context you are missing. That's not a restaurant, it's a portal into an alternative universe furnished with varied sex-workers, drug dealers, drug users, dingbats, riff-raff from nearby entertainment centers, and, for a very long while, George Steinbrenner - who used a booth in the back to conduct business and execute history-making trades, though largely only after the nearby, mobbed-up, Burt-Reynolds-frequented, dark and dangerous (but pretty good) Malio's steakhouse shuttered. That WH is what statisticians and economists call an "outlier."

Actually, that one sounds pretty good! No, the one I'm talking about is in St. Pete Beach. That one is at the very bottom of the scale of variability among Waffle Houses (or is it Waffles House?). I've been to my fair share of WHs, and I know that given the proper fry cook, they can be pretty good, but I've never been to one worse than the one in St. Pete Beach.

Binko wrote:But I do think the majority of these types of "craves" are simply biological urges to satisfy our bodies with carbs, salt, and fat. I'm not going to say it's necessarily a universal urge, but most places I've been to in the world, the street food satisfies those basic needs.

New words to eat by for me are "Street food everywhere is usually the most satisfying food you can eat anywhere."

Binko wrote:It's simply a taste I, and many others, enjoy. No more, no less.

You mentioned your lit degree (I have a few of those, too -- assuming you weren't joshing), and I'm sure during your school days you encountered people who said "Why do I have to analyze a poem? It just is." Did you find that a satisfactory response to literature? Me neither.

David Hammond wrote:

Binko wrote:But I do think the majority of these types of "craves" are simply biological urges to satisfy our bodies with carbs, salt, and fat. I'm not going to say it's necessarily a universal urge, but most places I've been to in the world, the street food satisfies those basic needs.

New words to eat by for me are "Street food everywhere is usually the most satisfying food you can eat anywhere."

Binko wrote:It's simply a taste I, and many others, enjoy. No more, no less.

You mentioned your lit degree (I have a few of those, too -- assuming you weren't joshing), and I'm sure during your school days you encountered people who said "Why do I have to analyze a poem? It just is." Did you find that a satisfactory response to literature? Me neither.

I did find a lot of the English literature analysis to be pseudo-intellectual masturbatory nonsense, yes. Not all of it, but a lot of it. I'm more of the "let the work of art be" type of personality. The reaction to a great piece of art, or any art for that matter, to me should be primarily visceral. Analysis can lead to greater appreciation, yes. And, as an intellectual pursuit, analysis can be fun. But, in the end, it comes primarily from the gut for me.

Binko wrote:I'm more of the "let the work of art be" type of personality.

Archibald MacLeish.

JeffB wrote:The broad middle swath of Waffle Houses is solid. Then, there are Waffle Houses like the one I visited recently in a tiny town on the edge of the Great Smoky Mountain National Forest where I had easily the best meal of a recent family road trip around the Mid-South wherein we visited any number of LTH-approved and Roadfoodesque spots. That WF was staffed by geniuses, including a grill man who could cook eggs and make waffles, plus a manager who brought in spectacular tomatoes from home. Also, easily the best grits of the trip despite some pretty fancy versions on the list at other sports. My standard order: large bowl of grits topped by 2 eggs sunny side up, side of sliced tomatoes, raisin toast. Fucking ambrosia.

In which town is this greasy Shambhala? It sounds like a road trip destination to me.

stevez wrote:

Cathy2 wrote:

little500 wrote:After polishing off his sliders there was the refreshing palate cleanser of a Chesterfield regular, lit with a kitchen match.

Did he strike it against the sole of his shoes? My Grandfather did that, which always impressed me. No fussy matchbooks for him, he used his shoes!

Regards,

Who needs a shoe when you have a thumbnail.

Hah! He struck it on the iron support for pots on the old gas stove with a standing pilot. That was also the location of the coffeepot which contained the muddy remains of the morning's brew and was constantly reheated during the day. I should also mention that after the evening meal his usual attire was a sleeveless undershirt (the strap kind) and boxer shorts with snap closure. My girlfriend (now wife) was quite surprised on her first unannounced visit to the homestead.

Katie wrote:

Binko wrote:I'm more of the "let the work of art be" type of personality.

Archibald MacLeish.

Nice. I wasn't referencing him specifically (I was more thinking of the "l'art pour l'art" philosophy), but his verse from Ars Poetica ""A poem should not mean/but be" does summarize my viewpoint.

ETA: I should add, is it just me, or is it quite ridiculous that the discussion of White Castle sliders has evolved into the nature and purpose of art?

To say it is a guilty pleasure of mine would mean I felt guilty about loving them. Which I don't. Feel guilty that is. They're iconic to some, understand it or agree or not. Ate 22 cheeseburgers once with my older brother egging me on.

Binko wrote:I should add, is it just me, or is it quite ridiculous that the discussion of White Castle sliders has evolved into the nature and purpose of art?

Actually it seems oddly apropos.
Kind of like "Pornography Vs. Art - Discuss"

Jazzfood wrote:To say it is a guilty pleasure of mine would mean I felt guilty about loving them. Which I don't. Feel guilty that is. They're iconic to some, understand it or agree or not. Ate 22 cheeseburgers once with my older brother egging me on.

I absolutely agree. Don't couch your tastes into a "guilty pleasure." Be loud and proud unto the world: "This is what I like, and darn you if you disagree!"'

ETA: Wait, 22 cheeseburgers??? You are way, way, way, more hardcore. I salute you!

Binko wrote:I should add, is it just me, or is it quite ridiculous that the discussion of White Castle sliders has evolved into the nature and purpose of art?

What's ridiculous is to assume that any discussion that goes on for this long will not evolve in some way. I read a Tweet today where someone was snarking about "four pages of discussion about WC" on LTH. But the discussion has been about so much more than WC, and that's just fine. I've always thought of LTH as a big cocktail party discussion, with ideas starting here and ending there; that meandering journey is just fine, and if it's not fine with you, then grab your hat and adios, no worries.

Jazzfood wrote:To say it is a guilty pleasure of mine would mean I felt guilty about loving them. Which I don't. Feel guilty that is. They're iconic to some, understand it or agree or not. Ate 22 cheeseburgers once with my older brother egging me on.

Alan, you know I have huge respect for your taste (in music as well as food), but one of the many points that has come up in this wide-ranging discussion is that the attraction to WC sliders has little to do with taste. They're iconic, agreed. They resonate with people's warm memories of family, agreed. But taste? That is a topic that seems frequently not to come up, and I think we all know why.

Tastes like my childhood which I thoroughly enjoyed.

David Hammond wrote:What's ridiculous is to assume that any discussion that goes on for this long will not evolve in some way.

Dude, I'm just making an observation. The concept of "ridiculous" (in an exacting sense) involves extreme incongruity. I thought it was rather humorous and vaguely surreal to see a conversation on White Castle morph into quoting Archibald MacLeish's "Ars Poetica" and the purpose of art. Of course I understand the concept of conversational drift. I'm not saying it's bad. I'm just remarking that it's a bit absurd. I'm tensely waiting on tip toes for a rhinoceros to come crashing through this thread.

Anyhow, cocktail conversation theme taken into account, how about a side discussion about the concept of "a guilty pleasure." I posit that one should not feel guilty or ashamed of what they enjoy. Why should one feel "guilty" because they enjoy a taste the "tastemakers" don't approve of? A guilty pleasure rarely has anything to do with personal guilt. Sure, there are guilty pleasures like that big fattening donut you have from time to time when you're supposed to be on a diet. That's not the kind of guilty pleasure I'm talking about. I'm talking about guilty pleasures that come from without--that are based on the approval of a peer group. For example, if you were on a fast food lovers message board, would you describe eating White Castles a guilty pleasure? Of course not. (Unless you're being snarky, Mr. Hammond.) Yet here, on LTH, one might couch it in those terms in order to say "hey, I know you guys don't approve of this, so I'll sheepishly admit that I agree that I'm not supposed to like it, but I do." As the kids say, FTN.

Like what you like, and don't feel guilty about it.

Alan, you know I have huge respect for your taste (in music as well as food), but one of the many points that has come up in this wide-ranging discussion is that the attraction to WC sliders has little to do with taste. They're iconic, agreed. They resonate with people's warm memories of family, agreed. But taste? That is a topic that seems frequently not to come up, and I think we all know why.

I've made it clear (I hope) that I love them for their taste, as I have no nostalgic association with them. My parents never bought them growing up. My Hungarian ex loved them, too, without any sort of cultural associations. But, regardless, continuing on the philosophical intellectual cocktail banter track, why is memory NOT a valid component of taste? Our memories and experiences of food shape how we perceive their taste. Taste absolutely has a neurological component to it--look at the studies about cilantro, like here. It's not just a simple genetic component. Something can taste vile to one person and delectable to another, simply because of their own memories and cultural associations with the stuff, even on a subconscious level. Cilantro tasted like soap to me the first half dozen or so times I had eaten it. Now, I can't get enough of this stuff. So, is cilantro objectively vile and it's just because of my repeated exposures to it and perhaps nostalgic memories of hanging out with my high school friends at the local taqueria that I've just learned to like this stuff? It may be, it may not be, but who cares? For whatever reason, my taste perception of the herb has changed. Does this mean the cilantro hater is the person who is "objectively correct" about the taste of cilantro? Because nobody in their right mind would like something that tastes like soap or stinkbugs, right?

Binko wrote:

David Hammond wrote: What's ridiculous is to assume that any discussion that goes on for this long will not evolve in some way.

Dude, I'm just making an observation. The concept of "ridiculous" (in an exacting sense) involves extreme incongruity. I thought it was rather humorous and vaguely surreal to see a conversation on White Castle morph into quoting Archibald MacLeish's "Ars Poetica" and the purpose of art. Of course I understand the concept of conversational drift. I'm not saying it's bad. I'm just remarking that it's a bit absurd. I'm tensely waiting on tip toes for a rhinoceros to come crashing through this thread.

Silly me, I thought you meant the word in the much, much more common sense of "deserving of ridicule."

Binko wrote:Anyhow, cocktail conversation theme taken into account, how about a side discussion about the concept of "a guilty pleasure." I posit that one should not feel guilty or ashamed of what they enjoy. Why should one feel "guilty" because they enjoy a taste the "tastemakers" don't approve of? A guilty pleasure rarely has anything to do with personal guilt. Sure, there are guilty pleasures like that big fattening donut you have from time to time when you're supposed to be on a diet. That's not the kind of guilty pleasure I'm talking about. I'm talking about guilty pleasures that come from without--that are based on the approval of a peer group. For example, if you were on a fast food lovers message board, would you describe eating White Castles a guilty pleasure? Of course not. (Unless you're being snarky, Mr. Hammond.) Yet here, on LTH, one might couch it in those terms in order to say "hey, I know you guys don't approve of this, so I'll sheepishly admit that I agree that I'm not supposed to like it, but I do." As the kids say, FTN.

Who are the guys who "approve of this" or anything? In this discussion, we've had no less illustrious voices than yours and jazzfood saying they like the taste of what I believe is an abomination against taste. We disagree. We're all just expressing opinions here. Let the reading public decide.

David Hammond wrote:Silly me, I thought you meant the word in the much, much more common sense of "deserving of ridicule."

It also very very commonly means "absurd." I had both that and the more precise definition in mind.. Apparently, I failed in my word choice.

David Hammond wrote:Who are the guys who "approve of this" or anything? In this discussion, we've had no less illustrious voices than yours and jazzfood saying they like the taste of what I believe is an abomination against taste. We disagree. We're all just expressing opinions here. Let the reading public decide.

Which is exactly what we are doing. What's the problem here?

Binko wrote:

David Hammond wrote:Silly me, I thought you meant the word in the much, much more common sense of "deserving of ridicule."

It also very very commonly means "absurd." I had both that and the more precise definition in mind. Apparently, I failed in my word choice.

David Hammond wrote:Who are the guys who "approve of this" or anything? In this discussion, we've had no less illustrious voices than yours and jazzfood saying they like the taste of what I believe is an abomination against taste. We disagree. We're all just expressing opinions here. Let the reading public decide.

Which is exactly what we are doing. What's the problem here?

I'm questioning the reference to guys who "approve of this"? (I fixed your misattributed quote; you're welcome)

David Hammond wrote:Who are the guys who "approve of this" or anything? In this discussion, we've had no less illustrious voices than yours and jazzfood saying they like the taste of what I believe is an abomination against taste. We disagree. We're all just expressing opinions here. Let the reading public decide.

As part of the reading public, I have decided long ago, that White Castle is ass. I eat there apporximately once every two years wondering if I will ever understand why anyone would enjoy it. I always fail. The buns get soaked with gray ooze, the burger is just gray stuff without flavor. I do like the pop of the pickle slice which basically since it plays off of nothing except the essence of cooked onion bits, has to "pop" by default. I grew up in a completely White Castle-less home. My parents obviously loved me. Oh STOP IT- I'm just kidding and you know it.

But, White Castle sandwiches are still most definitely ass.
I do like their onion rings though.

Have noticed that WC is a love or hate kinda thing with many ppl I have lunch discussions with. I grew up un a decidedly Burger King home as far as fast food goes. Mcdonald's was a bad word to my parents for some reason. I currently have a Mcd and a WC easily within striking distance of the house. In the past 6 years of living here, I think I've gone to wc twice in six years, and MCD probably once a month. On taste alone, I would never, ever, opt for WC sandwiches. They are bad, unless of course, you dig ass. Please, you know I am kidding.

Ass is prolly a little better.

David Hammond wrote:I'm questioning the reference to guys who "approve of this"? (I fixed your misattributed quote; you're welcome)

Well, you beat me to the edit.

The "you guys don't approve of this" refers to the group's hierarchy of taste, not any specific individuals. I just felt like couching it in more conversational language. It's nothing specific to LTH. Most, if not all, groups have some sort of hierarchy of tastes, values, etc. It's all part of group cohesion. I'm just saying that I find the concept of a "guilty pleasure" silly. There's no need to be apologetic about it, which is what it sounds like when you qualify "pleasure" with the word "guilty."

seebee wrote: I eat there apporximately once every two years wondering if I will ever understand why anyone would enjoy it. I always fail.

I had the same perverse relationship with the McRib sandwich. I've finally broken out of the cycle, but every year for many years, when the McRib came out, I would convince myself that this was the year I would finally understand the appeal of the darned things. I played right into McDonald's scarcity marketing or whatever the heck you wanna call it. And every year would end in bitter disappointment. It was only about two years or so ago that I finally gave up. You can do it, too. I have faith.

The concept of "guilty pleasure" seems usually to apply to one's own sense of guilt (rather than any external though tacit public criticism one might receive for eating a specific food or quantity of food). As Louis C.K. says, "I don't eat until I'm full. I eat until I hate myself."

David Hammond wrote:The concept of "guilty pleasure" seems usually to apply to one's own sense of guilt (rather than any external though tacit public criticism one might receive for eating a specific food or quantity of food). As Louis C.K. says, "I don't eat until I'm full. I eat until I hate myself."

My observation of the concept differs from yours. While there is a type of guilty pleasure that comes wholly from within, in my experience, it is usually external and relative. Guilt itself is internal, but the cause of the guilt can be external or internal. I find the external source to be far more common.

For example, if I'm on, say, an indie rock message board and I see someone claim, oh, Nickelback or Captain and Tenille as a guilty pleasure, I don't think they are referring to an internal sense of guilt. Why would one feel guilty for liking the music they like? The only reason for this "guilt" or calling it a "guilty pleasure" is in response to that person's perception of that particular group's hierarchy of taste. Without that conflict, a guilty pleasure doesn't exist.

I'll leave it at that for now. Off to work I go.

Wow, who would have imagined that White Castle burgers would lead to such a divisive discussion. As foodies, we all love/hate different things. So be nice. I love to have a nice burger from Kuma’s Corner or Paradise Pup. But my go to burger is the slider. Thanksgiving wouldn't be the same without stuffing made with sliders.

Da Beef wrote:Wow miss a couple days, miss alot. I'm not going to lie, I'll eat WC now and then and thats most likely bc I loved it when young. My uncle used to load us up with sliders when we went into Cubs games, they'd never check kids for sneaking in food.

Point of clarity - Wrigley Field allows pretty much anybody to bring any food into the game. No restrictions. We've brought large pizzas, Chinese carry-out, subs, burritos, etc. in to the stadium. No problem.

Jazzfood wrote:Tastes like my childhood which I thoroughly enjoyed.

Nominated for banner quotation of the week.

Katie wrote:

Jazzfood wrote:Tastes like my childhood which I thoroughly enjoyed.

Nominated for banner quotation of the week.

Agreed. Shut my mouth.