Serious Eats - seriouseats.com

I agree. I think the focus on something being authentic misses the point. It drives me crazy, for example, when people say Tex Mex is not real Mexican food. We know! That's why it's called Tex Mex. I'm all for culturally authentic experiences. But if something tastes good, it tastes good. Who cares what it is called.

I enjoy trying out "authentic" food, but when push comes to shove I'm going to eat what's tasty. Sometimes that's the authentic joint, and sometimes it's not, but I'm not going to only eat at the authentic joint to be some sort of pretentious food snob. I get enjoyment from the taste of a good meal, not telling people they enjoy food the wrong way.

That op-ed piece was pathetic. To quote:

"In the last year, I have read that there are five, six or eight great regional traditions of Chinese cooking. In fact, there are four, always and ever four."

Quelle horreur. America is a barren wasteland of crap food because most people don't know how many regions of Chinese cooking there are, and that the Chinese only steam black skinned chickens instead of eating them. Give me a break.

To a large extent I'd have to agree, although the situation is complicated by the fact that in many Chinese restaurants that do serve authentic Chinese--to their Chinese diners--have a whole other menu they present to Non-Chinese customers. this makes it a bit difficult to gauge authenticity. The few experiences I've had of dining with Chinese at Chines restaurant were so different from others I had in some of the same places, that it would be difficult to even discuss just one Chinese restaurant in its two modes. And yes, some of the ingredients were to strange for me to enjoy (although others were great discoveries... grass jelly is fantastic).

The real issue that I have with the 'authenticity' argument is its implication of some sort of fundamental 'goodness', of honesty and integrity. Leaving aside the need to adapt to missing or somehow different ingredients, anyone who enjoys cooking and who is not desperately homesick will, sooner or later, WANT to try some of the options in his or her new environment. The food produced will still have integrity, but will reveal some trace of an emergent hybrid identity. This doesn't seem dishonest or bad, it seems natural.
Can anyone imagine living in China, and not finding themselves eventually incorporating Chinese ingredients and approaches to their cooking? After a while, it becomes second nature.

I've lived in several different countries, and can state with confidence that authenticity is no guarantee of deliciousness. As a current example, I'm mostly in Denmark these days, and even the Danes will usually describe their food as 'sanitary' and 'filling'. There are a few delicious dishes, but they usually come out best when the step involving boiling is omitted. But then it isn't 'authentic'. And don't even THINK of saying 'oh well, DANISH cooking...'; if the concept being championed is 'authenticity', then one country's authentic cuisine is as important as that of any other.

Certainly, authentically traditional Chinese food is good, but if no one considers French nouvelle cuisine 'not authentically French', then why not also accept the natural growth inherent in any any living tradition, and the subsequent grow and change over time, particularly when it is being created by chefs who are living abroad?

This is an interesting discussion. I am going to have to side with Ferretti for the most part. Ed makes a nice point about Chinese chefs having to adapt to ingredient availability but beyond that I think Fred is right. I would be intrigued to know which Sichuan restaurants Ms. Dunlop enjoyed....for my own reference.

As for the rest of the piece I think the argument depends on how one views eating ethnic food. I like to eat it to learn more about a culture. Clearly the deep-fried, sticky-sweet glop that is Chinese-American cuisine is going to teach us that Americans like sugar (and far too much of it) with deep fried stuff. I like authentic Chinese because it is telling of where it is from (chilies & Sichuan pepper from Sichuan, chilies & vinegar from Hunan and so on) and like Thai food it tends to walk the tight rope of balance between all of the flavors in a dish. I like duck tongues and daufu and beef tendon. Can we at least agree to distinguish between Chinese-American and Chinese? The difference is tremendous and that way I'll know which places to avoid.....

More authentic food, please. As foodinmouth wrote, I'd like to know what the real thing tastes like, but on an average day it's much easier to reach for my MetroCard than my passport. When I use scarce stomach space to eat Italian-American and Tex-Mex (Chinese-American is a stretch, for me), not only do I want it delicious, I also want to understand how my meal would differ if it didn't have a hyphen.

"Authentic" is vastly over-rated. Talk to the immigrants themselves and they're all keen on making their favorites with what's around them - now there is always going to be that special thing that makes "x" dish "x" dish, and that obviously needs to remain, but cuisine neither lives in a vacuum nor a museum. You will note that neither chiles nor the tomato (the Chinese invented ketchup, yes?) are indigenous to China. Where would Sichuan cuisine be without chiles?

As for the coastal argument, all I can say is balderdash! (God I love that word...) I was deer hunting in Miles City, Montana a few years back and after an unsuccessful day my buddy and I wandered into the only Chinese place in town. We saw the buffet and all the anglos feeding at that trough and resigned ourselves to crap.

But then I looked at the menu and lo and behold! Duck tongues, real hot pot and various (probably illegal) esoteric items using local game animals. And they offered what is still to this day the finest wonton soup I have yet eaten (and yes, I used to eat in New York's Chinatown all the time). Was it "authentic?" No, because there are no elk in China, for one thing. Was it fantastic? You betchya.

Hmmmm...definitely food for thought. haha

Its nice to bandy about the term "authentic", but most of us just want good food...and FEEL like we've had an authentic experience because the restaurant was full of *pick an ethnicity* people. Unless you've had some first hand knowledge, you will have to take some food critic's word that your experience was as authentic as it's gonna get.

Take for instance pho (addictive Vietnamese noodle soup). I have enjoyed some great pho in places full of Vietnamese people with servers who prefer you order by telling them the item number. After moving to the midwest, I had a great deal of trouble finding good pho, so I decided to make my own. Well, after tons of research I discovered that "authentic" pho is not the lavish bowl of noodles with tons of meat and mung bean sprouts and jalepenos and thai-basil and saw grass. Turns out "authentic" pho is very austere, little meat, and you're lucky to get any vegs. And guess what? I realized I wasn't looking for authentic, I was looking for good. And apparently, so were all those Vietnamese people at Pho So 1.

Good food evolves. Authenticity is pointless if no one wants to eat it.

I think Nina and Tim Zagat wrote this op-ed already.

@synaesthesia.dc, I think the Zagats' op-ed is more about the immigration issues of true Chinese chefs than the broader issue of authentic versus taste.

For authentic Chinese food, I think of the food my mom, my grandparents, old ladies at church cooked and dim sum. They're nothing like what you'd find at a Chinese takeout place. They were mostly simple steamed dishes of meat, vegetables, and fish. The other dishes from restaurants in Chinatown I've never though of whether it was authentic or not. They're just cheap, delicious, and what's available.

As for what's better I think it would be the authentic homecooked Chinese food I've grown up with because it is homecooked. But that doesn't mean that I don't like the food in Chinatown either. I've grown up with that food too. And once in a while I'd be in the mood for something from the local Chinese takeout place.

Also, I like cubes of congealed pig's blood! I think I'll get some the next time I go yum cha.

"Authentic" and "delicious" are two completely separate qualities that have no bearing on each other. They can only combine with each other, the total possibilities being:

A. authentic and delicious

B. authentic and not delicious

C. not authentic and delicious

D. not authentic and not delicious

When exploring "ethnic foods," there is more than just deliciousness at stake. It become a bit of an anthropological expedition. You are seeking to understand and commune with a culture other than your own. Thats what the euphemism of "ethnic" means when you say "ethnic food," by the way. So, to that end, option A is the ultimate experience, even when compared to an equally delicious yet not quite authentic experience (option C.)

But, one can always ask also, what is "authentic?" Authentic by whose authority? Whose history?Wars have been fought over this. Does authentic mean it has to be old? Is the avant guarde not authentic yet, faulted for it's newness?

But wait a minute, seyo. You forgot

E. slightly authentic and a little bit delicious

Five is such a nice number, and also important in Japanese cooking.
.............................

Thinking of the suggestion somewhere above that "authentic" be authenticated by a panel of experts who obviously have shown some sort of expertise in some way (scholars? tradespeople? hunter/gatherers? politicians? wheeler-dealers?) I was reminded of an article in Gastronomica titled "How Caviar Turned Out to be Halal" by H.E. Chehabi.

It can be downloaded and read at Gastronomica . It makes for a fascinating inside look at how a food obtains a formalization in terms of acceptance with some sort of stamp of honor on it, such as halal or even perhaps, "authentic".

Problem is always going to be the definition of authentic. Is it authentic if it's what's served in that country's restaurants today? What about street food, in cultures where that is common?

Or are we looking for what's served in homes in that country today? Or do we have to go back in time? Are we thinking about what the older generations cooked and that the youngsters aren't bothering to make any more? Granny-food? Do we want to go back a couple generations? Back before other cultures intermingled?

Food preferences change. As people learned about other countries and cultures, they brought in new foods and new spices and new ideas and integrated them into their own cuisines. At what point do we stop the progression and say that "this" point it where it was authentic, and beyond that, it is -- what? Fake?

I like good food. I like trying foods from different regions and different cultures. I like to find out what people in other countries cook at home. But when I go to a restaurant, I don't expect them to adhere to someone else's definition of what is right and proper, whether it's some definition of what is authentic, or whether it's local-only or seasonal-only or organic-only or nose-to-tail cooking, or slow food, or any other notion of what is "right." I expect that the restaurant will serve food that is acceptable to the majority of the local clientele, or it won't be around long. And let's face it, unless the restaurant has a large majority of ethnic diners, the food is going to be less than authentic, by anyone's definition.

If it's good food, I'll go back. If I want food cooked or served in a way that isn't available in the local restaurants, I'll find a way to make it at home.

seyo, I must also add that if one travels the wide country of the USA, avoiding large cities and just eating wherever one happens to land, the usual thing one will find is "slightly authentic and a little bit delicious" in any category of dining.

As this is the way of life outside large sophisticated vital cities, it is a category to be reckoned with.

I've heard from people who live in other countries that this category exists in some large numbers in their countries also.

In my list, I'd keep it as a category - one very much alive and kicking.

Looking at the world as it is is my point, seyo.

While you may feel genuinely sorry for people who only have that quality of food at their disposal, and while you are interested in the ontological scale (big word there) you defined, my interest is in what exists non-ontologically but globally in reality and factually (as much as facts can in fact be discerned and agreed upon) in practical terms.

If one thinks of how or whether a thing should be changed, altered, shifted (if it even can be) in a real way - they must look at what exists. Not at metaphysics.

That's my point. If you wish me to cede that your points are ontologically or metaphysically correct, sure, okay. For you they are. Using stark logic they may be.

Did speak outside the box that was set up? For goodness sake, I think I may have. Someone slap me.

I've read the articles you've posted and more. My attitude, however, does not have to be one of an altar boy in a church towards this stuff in order to be a (ahem) Serious Eater.

Cookbooks give recipes.
In order to feed someone, one must know how to cook and then be capable of doing it.

If you want me to cede that Ed is right, okay. Ed is right. If you want me to cede that Fred is right, okay. Fred is right too. (This all reminds me of a children's story about an Ed and a Fred who were friends who had Dr. Seuss-like adventures. "Ed and Fred were friends it started, and then they had hilarious mis-adventures together through the book, as each one had a different way of doing things. One slept in a big bed, one slept in a small bed. One liked this, the other liked something else. Great book, and apt to the conversation. Indeed, if I could remember the name of the book I would not need probably to read this topic, for metaphysically, the subject at hand would be covered.)

Ontologically, if you still don't see what my point is, I am sorry, seyo. I've done my best to explain it in real terms. If it still does not make sense to you, I'm afraid I'll have to live with that fact. I think I can manage to do so.

That may be true to you, seyo. It may be true to others. I'm pretty sure its not true to everyone who read what I wrote, but if so, then I am fairly sure that I would be uninvited to post here, and that has not occurred - though of course it could happen if what I post is in the eyes of Ed (not Fred, Ed) without point or full of nothing. We'll see, I guess.

You are an excellent writer on food issues, seyo - passionate and interested. I hope that, like your parents do with you, if I take my own children to France each year to learn the ways of things gastronomic, they will also be as passionate and interested in this important subject.

I have been fascinated by the range of responses to my original post. Also, I've been generally blown away by the really intelligent twists and turns the comments have taken. I think Mongoose is really on to something:

"Authentic ingredients are wonderful things, but when this becomes
THE central focus, it's easy to lose track of what makes food deeply enjoyable, and it instead becomes a museum piece."

And I, too, would love to hear the Chinese and the Chinese-American perspective on this issue.

Mongoose, you are absolutely correct, in that the authenticity of ingredients is only one aspect to the greater authenticity of a cuisine. And you are also correct in pointing out the fetishism associated with ingredients. Spanish ham that costs upwards of $150/lb. Truffles costing upwards of $800/lb. Finger limes. Ramps. Yes, these are delicious, yes they are essential to certain cuisines. But they are only part of the picture. You need both authentic ingredients and authentic preparation by a trained cook, and in some case, even the way the food is served and eaten has bearing on the overall authenticity of the experience.

Such as when eating Ethiopian food. For the authentic experience, diners sit around the mesob, a woven basket like table, upon which is placed a large pancake-like sourdough flatbread called injera. All the dishes are put directly onto the injera. Each diner is given smaller cut pieces of injera bread, and the food is consumed by grabbing it with your own little pieces of bread. No utensils are used. Eating Ethiopian food with silverware at a dinner table, even if the food is perfectly prepared and delicious, falls short of the fully authentic experience.

So, yes, authenticity is a very complex issue. But unlike deliciousness, which remains highly subjective, authenticity can be vetted, using definitions and criteria that everyone can agree on. It takes education, passion and dedication. Something which is seriously lacking in most eaters, who want the familiar, the easy, the gut filling, 99% of the time, and don't really want to be bothered with thinking about what it means to eat food from another culture. Selling food is a business, so there are plenty of people willing to dumb down their culture's food in order to sell it more readily to this demographic.