In what is sure to be a failed attempt to save this thread from a spider hole of nonsense and false logic, I’d like to ask if anyone here has dined at n/naka in the last six months?
Specifically wondering if anyone had noticed if there are any ingredient or techniques that are being newly explored in the menu. I haven’t been in a very long time.
I will echo this. I would like to see a top 10 or 30 list if possible.
I have, haha
I ate there in August. But since it was my first time I can’t say what is new.
The four seemingly principle dishes I don’t recall seeing in blogs were:
Portobello/foie/strawberry/brown butter
Mussels/pickled onions/tarragon cream
Grilled Wagyu with charred cauliflower and Yuzu aioli
Bitter Matcha and Watermelon Ice
Any of those seem unusual to you?
You’ve missed my point and you’re misconstruing what I’m saying. No, it’s not just about intention. There indeed is a qualitative difference in the actual food between N/Naka and Californios - both are great, but their menus are different in character for sure, because of the actual dishes served and the meal as a whole. I was just at Californios and can confirm, once again, that the types of dishes they’ve served - carne asada, arroz con pollo, etc. are inherently Mexican indeed. The food is modern Mexican, not Japanese, even if at some points they intersect; they are distinct. For the last time, kaiseki does not have an exclusive license on each individual trait that comprises it, but when taken as a whole, kaiseki is a type of cuisine that isn’t necessarily interchangeable with “all of the 2 and 3 Michelin star places.” This was my point about how each restaurant has its own viewpoint, and why lumping them together is a disservice because you don’t get to grasp what their respective cuisines are about.
Maybe I’m not being clear. But I’ve said enough on this, and I believe a reasonable person can understand where I’m coming from. If I couldn’t make my point clear to you above, then I won’t be able to now. Sorry, but I’m moving on.
To me they are, in terms of flavor and how much I enjoy eating there.
Do you actually view every single restaurant as exactly as good as all other restaurants?..
Perhaps that’s the disconnect. I view some restaurants as far superior to others, not based on the type of food they serve, but how good the food is in terms of the pleasure in eating it whether that pleasure is intellectual or more visceral. I confess I lean towards the visceral, but the greatest places seem to as well to me.
Maybe it’s just smarter of frame.
You seem to be someone who eats at a $250+ dinner every day, and from that vantage point N/Naka is with going to as a curiosity.
If you only eat a couple of such meals per year it seems much less so.
Not sure about techniques, but the dishes are always changing. Even old standbys will be replaced. For example, back about 5 years ago when she first left Inaka to start n/naka, her most notable dish might have been the shredded crab with egg yolk and truffle shavings, now the most notable dish might be the pasta with abalone and pickled cod roe. For some reason, she always has some type of Wagyu prep on the menu (one year it was prepped Houbayaki style, other times it was teppanyaki’d, and most recently for ishiyaki). And, of course, there is always a sashimi type course (or courses).
Through it all, from a very biased observer, I will say that from 2011 to now, Chef Nakayama has matured into a more confident chef, willing to take bolder risks without losing sight of her personal vision of how food should be presented and enjoyed.
I do need to go back soon. My sense memory is beginning to fade, not helped by the fact that I don’t really do pictures. But I remember the abalone pasta well. Loved it, of course, but the stand outs for me were the crab dish you mention and that dobin mushi. When such a delicate dish is pulled off with such finesse it is astounding.
Okay . . . time to start planning.
This is way off topic, but maybe it’ll help you to understand how other poster may think (and, more importantly, feel) about what you write.
I think you’re missing the point. The term “Orientalism” is associated w/ viewing Asian populations in an exotic manner in order to objectify and de-humanize them and to justify their subjection under European Imperialism. It is an emotionally-loaded term for many.
We are not simply talking about a cuisine anymore in this thread; we are also talking about human beings (both posters and the chef). Using the term Orientalism implies that posters here may have a skewed opinion of the restaurant b/c they are viewing her cuisine as exotic and perhaps b/c, in part, they view the chef as a sexual object to conquer.
Talking about “provincial pride” can be offensive b/c you don’t know the ethnicity of the various posters here and b/c you’re implying that their ethnic identity is skewing their opinion of the food (which of course presupposes that there is some sort of easily defined objective criteria by which we should be judging food, which, AFAIK, there isn’t).
And then there’s the whole part where at least one poster specifically said that they didn’t like N/Naka all that much, and yet you seem to think that EVERYONE who has posted has absolutely LOVED the food and think it’s the BEST in the country… which isn’t an accurate repreentation of what’s been said.
Race and gender can be, in and of themselves, unpleasant and deeply triggering for people. However, especially given the events of the last 2 months in this country, these topics are even more emotionally-laden than they were before. You may do not feel emotional about them, but other people might.
So your consideration of this (especially on a food board, where these topics are kinda/sorta unnecessary to explore in great depth) is appreciated.
To put this metaphorically, posters in this thread are trying to write individual letters w/ a 0.5mm leaded pencil. You are writing mathematical equations w/ a paint brush that’s 10 inches wide. There is nothing inherently wrong with your approach, but there is simply a fundamental disconnect. Sometimes things (especially food) are just intuitively sensed, in addition to being an intellectual exercise. I think you’re just looking for people to clarify what they mean, but it’s hard to clarify the subjective and sensory.
So I’m saying that sometimes it’s okay to just let things go, rather than hoping to divine The Truth through an iterative questioning process. There’s no “The Truth” here. And the repetitive questioning can be… tiring (to put it diplomatically).
If the topic of food is by worth discussing in depth then why have a discussion forum for food at all?
It seems you’ve read everything backwards.
Is I not a form of Orientalism to value a place only because of the ethnicity of the chef and the cuisine, not the quality of the food? This is what people are engaging in by claiming N/Naka is good just because it has a Japanese chef and ethos to it. I am personally opposed to this practice and think that a the chefs ethnicity shouldn’t matter.
Provincial pride = LA pride; and we are the LA board; why is it not ok to presume most people here live in LA?
I spectate your post. I agree that talking about the subjective is difficult but does that mean we shouldn’t try? I thought that’s what an open forum was all about?
I am just trying to expand my own understanding.
Additionally this all started by me saying there are many other restaurants one could go spend the same amount of money at and eat just as well which is the primary mode of challenge.
Finally, people are free to ignore any post made here… Right? You don’t have to reply right?
If no one wants to justify or explain their enjoyment of a place, I can’t force them to as far as I know, and I have no desire to; I just seek to understand why people like certain places.
Weirdly enough, from this thread, my rating of N/Naka was decreased as it has highlighted significant failures in the meal I didn’t even catch.
But still I search. Just from the words spoken it seems like people are acting in racist ways to me… But it’s ignored because it’s positive racism.
Is racism ok if it’s positive?
And that will be my final contribution to this thread…
tl:dr - A rather lengthy, rambling musing with some - I hope - helpful insights.
[quote=“Aesthete, post:51, topic:4817”]
this all started by me saying there are many other restaurants one could go spend the same amount of money at and eat just as well which is the primary mode of challenge.
[/quote]I think this is the crux of the issue, @Aesthete: yes, there are other restaurants where one can go and eat just as well - or even better - for about the same amount of money…but they’re not equivalent.
It’s the apples and oranges thing: you’re comparing restaurant to restaurant (or fruit to fruit), but not evaluating each restaurant (or each fruit) on their own merit.
One goes to dine at these higher end, unique restaurants because they are unique. El Bulli, Noma, Aliena…one can make generalizations about these three:
One goes to these restaurants - and others at this level - because of the specific, unique experience each offers. It goes far beyond the food (though the food is at the core and everything, on some level, expands outward from that).
One does not go to Noma expecting the same experience as one would have had at El Bulli; likewise, one does not go to Californios expecting the same experience as one might have at n/naka.
Yes, one is going to both to eat. One is expecting to pay a rather high price (though that is always relative depending on one’s finances and one’s priorities) for that food. One is expecting that the food - and the experience - to be worth that money. (However, what is an acceptable QPR for you is not, necessarily, the same acceptable QPR for another person.)
What one experiences at a restaurant is, in many ways, singular: two people can be seated at the same table, served the same dishes by the same servers in the same order, and come away with two very different feelings about the meal and the experience. One diner might have loved the different platings and appreciated some subtle nuance of particular dishes; the other might have been annoyed, visually, by how the food appeared on the plate (maybe the lighting was slightly different from their angle, or they didn’t like the way the colors contrasted/complimented) and frustrated that they were served multiple dishes made with ingredients they didn’t care for.
One chooses to eat at n/naka, Californios, Noma, etc., because they are singularities.
The appeal of each restaurant is unique and is enticing to certain people. I, for one, have no interest in molecular gastronomy (it does zilch for me - I have no appreciation for or interest in it, other than in a general, “Hmmm, that’s interesting” kind of way: I have no desire to shell out my limited “dining out” funds on a molecular experience). That is me. I am not saying that molecular gastronomy is wrong, shouldn’t exist, is a waste of time or money, that people are idiots for enjoying it, or otherwise passing judgment. I’m saying it’s not my thing. And that’s okay.
You went to n/naka and it didn’t work for you: for whatever reason(s), what you experienced was not the same as what some other people experienced and you came away from your meal with a different assessment of QPR and everything else. That’s okay.
For me, n/naka is one of the very few of what I consider high-end, unique dining experiences, that has an appeal. I hope to go there some day, for the vegetarian menu. I am intrigued by the history and traditions of kaiseki and would love to see how the chef has taken that tradition and made it her own.
I would not go expecting a “traditional” kaiseki experience, for that is not what she is offering. She is providing her interpretation, based on using ingredients local to this area, our seasonal changes, and many other things. That appeals to me.
Do I have the knowledge to appreciate all the nuances of the meal and the experience? I highly doubt I do - but I’d like to see what my experience is like.
Just because n/naka wasn’t a breathtaking experience for you doesn’t mean there’s something wrong with you - we’re all unique and that’s fine. It wasn’t a good match for what you desire or enjoy.
But on this thread, it feels as though you are looking down on and passing judgment on people who did find a meal at n/naka to a revelatory, magical experience. You are challenging and confronting people and that’s off-putting and alienating.
Sometimes an experience is impossible to put into words - even the most erudite writers struggle to convey certain things. Some events cannot be encapsulated in mere words. Is this a failing of the author? Of our language? Of the fact that we can’t yet do a mind meld thing so we can experience exactly what another experiences?
I understand the challenges of living with Asperger’s and how your perception of events, because they’re filtered through your specific brain chemistry and wiring, is challenging. I understand you’re striving to connect with others and to understand what they experience. I really do believe you have no ill-will or malice; I also believe - very strongly - that you’re frustrated, you yearn to understand others, and that living on the spectrum is challenging as hell. I do not, in any manner, mean to minimize that.
All of us, whether we’re on the Autism spectrum or not, experience things through our own, very unique, filters. Our different brain and body chemistry, our taste buds and what tastes “good” or “bad” to us, our perception of textures, sounds, colors, our comfort in a chair at a table rather than on a stool at a high table in a bar dining area, what we were exposed to as children, what we’ve experienced as adults and what has happened to us as we’ve grown and aged (physically, mentally, emotionally) - all of these filters affect how we perceive and interpret the world.
We’re all here because we’re fascinated by food. That is our common ground. But not a single one of us brings the same things to the table in terms of our filters, our expectations, and our experiences.
That is a good thing, as it’s a celebration of our diversity. And it is a challenge, as we struggle to communicate what we experience, what’s important to us, to others.
That is true in this forum. That is true in all parts of each of our lives.
I keep thinking of an old family friend who often said, “I like vanilla ice cream, you like chocolate, and your mom - for some reason - likes that daiquiri ice thing; that’s why there’s 31 Flavors!”
Very thoughtful and incisive post. The son of one of our best friends was diagnosed with AS when he was in elementary school. He is now 17 and has come a long way.
A lot of what the parents attribute to his progress is his increased positive social interaction coupled with a complete change in environment.
Here, he was constantly victimized by the classic school bully types because of his social awkwardness. This was exacerbated by school officials who considered political correctness trumped discipline - they thought because he was white and his tormentors were not, he should get over it and the instigators should get a pass. “Your son has a very stable upbringing - these other kids don’t - hopefully you can understand…”
The family moved to a semi-rural area out of state, and he was greeted and embraced by boys his age and their families. The presence of his buddies gave him acceptance, avenues to meet others in a comfortable environment, and helped shield him from bullies by his association with his friends who were popular with others and very cohesive. He now has a girlfriend - huge step for him. We are so happy for him.
When I consider our friends’ son and this board’s issue, it’s hard to compare since these are two very different people with two very different upbringings and personalities. But while our friends’ son could exhibit frustration, he never instigated, exhibited perceived malice, circumvented pointed truths while at the same time creating “outs” like, “…people are free to ignore any post made here… Right? You don’t have to reply right?”
I for one sense calculated statements that are meant to incite. If AS is the culprit, I can only shrug - I am not qualified to diagnose or treat. But I can voice displeasure and try to skip any threads that exhibit the said posters’s contributions. And it appears others have as well.
I appreciate your thoughtfulness. You are an angel.
Was poking around on Lucky Peach (I’m going to miss delving into those pieces!) and stumbled across this article on kaiseki; I think it’s a decent, though not comprehensive, intro to the history and tradition. I appreciate the statement that kaiseki is not static:
http://luckypeach.com/guides/what-is-kaiseki/
And from there I followed a link to another piece that also mentions kaiseki:
http://luckypeach.com/guides/30-iconic-dishes-fine-dining/
and was delighted in a different way.
Maybe we can do a group project and everyone prints out ten separate articles, then we combine them all. Then take them to Kinko’s and print them out. Like when they had fanzines in the eighties.