(continued)

Most people are pretty conservative and would rather order what they know they'd like than be disappointed. What's the best way to broaden their culinary horizons?
You can't tell anyone over the age of five what they want. As a matter of fact, most people resent it. Acutely. Now, if the maitre d' or a chef says, "this is maybe something that you would be interested in" instead of "have this," the customer's reactions will be far more favorable. Maitre d's should introduce you to what the chef has created in such a way that you feel that you wanted it all along but you never knew it before.

When your students construct menus, do you give them help with lingo?
We emphasize an extensive vocabulary at the school that all students have to learn. If you really want people to understand your food, maybe you put a little explanation behind it. If you say "black angus beef with french fried Idaho potato served with a vegetable of the day," suddenly you have a lot of information there with not too many extra words than "steak and potatoes," and then the waiter doesn't have to stand there and play Abe Lincoln [with a seven-hour speech] to explain a dish.

I would say that a majority of people probably use the lexicon incorrectly. For instance, searing is done in a pan, on a stove; basically, you're sauteing something very quickly at a high heat. Another classic gaffe is "sauteed in white wine." You can only boil something in white wine, you sautee in a pan with oil or a fat like butter. The 3-4 star restaurants, where most of our students end up, make an effort to make it right.

But a restaurant doesn't have to be high-end to have an accurate menu or serve great food. I've been to Gyro places where there's a good chef in there. He knows what he's doing, everything is fresh, everything is presented nicely, everything is perfectly explained in the menu -- even if it's a xeroxed flier. He's not Daniel Boulud, but he's a damn good cook.

What about juxtaposing flavors? The chipolte pepper chocolate torte?
I call it Indonesian lasagna syndrome. Sometimes it's very pleasant, most times it's just damned annoying and it's trying to be novel for the sake of being novel. This brand of insensitive "creativity" is what contributes to the restaurant industry's high failure rate.

What about having the history of the restaurant on the menu?
Oooh. Tacky. I feel like I'm going to Luchow's [the legendary German restaurant, formerly of 14th street]. If you're going there, it should speak for itself, there's a reason why you're going. The best word is word of mouth. Of course reviews help but talking about yourself on the menu is kinda like accolading yourself. Don't throw rose petals to yourself, let someone else do it, and be gracious about accepting it but never appear like you're doing it.

Who is getting it right?
I admire Wayne Nish at March a lot for his deft interplay of flavors. It's so obvious a thing to do with a menu that people don't even see it. His food is clean, modern, eclectic, works with the seasons, and takes advantage of the freshest ingredients available, like Alice Waters. He looks at food for what food is, he's not trying to force the square peg into the round hole. A lot of people try to push food into unnatural conditions, contortions, really. Why make things into such a mess?

Restaurant Daniel is a trip to Mecca. Over there, they're masters of the craft, and you know that anything they put down on that menu is one hundred and one percent correct. There will be no mistakes. None.