個人資料
正文

食與願違

(2016-05-31 14:34:03) 下一個

      So, what is real Chinese? ——資深吃貨遇到了新問題。

      起因是卡麗娜,昨日她群發伊妹兒,說有工友要過生日,約大家一起出去爬個梯,啜一頓。有兩個選擇:PF Chang's,或者Souplantation。前者是迎合歪果仁口味的中餐,說是中餐,實際上,烹調參數都作了調整, 隻能算是美式中餐。至於正果仁,吃中餐當然要來真的。尤其是資深吃貨,對中餐往往懷有先入之見。尚未開吃,便有個期待,就好像與盤中餐,有個預約:吃起來該是這麽個味道,這麽個口感。若是哄歪果仁的,那就另當別論了。憑以往的經驗,美式中餐,待端上來,看一眼,okay,馬虎相。再嚐一口,哎呦喂,甜不拉嘰,酸不溜秋的。也不是很反感,就是不怎麽對味。這叫“食”與願違,不爽!

      再說Souplantation,顧名思義,soup + plantation,喝湯 + 吃素。主要食材都是從種植園裏進貨的各種菜蔬——店家是這樣標榜的——由顧客自選,自拌沙拉。也不是百分之百吃素,也有葷素搭配,要認真找,肉星子還是找得到的。還有各種麵點,曲奇,批薩,烤土豆,烤紅薯,冰淇淋等。不管怎麽說,這家店子是名副其實的洋餐,銳兒(real)洋。

      由於自認是資深吃貨,寧要銳兒洋,不要假中餐。所以,我義無反顧地選擇了Souplantation,並且理直氣壯如此這般地回複卡麗娜:

      PF Chang's is not real Chinese; Souplantation is not Chinese at all. But I can take a break for a real American lunch. Anyway, I would be with the majority...

      卡麗娜明白了我的意思。可是,她扔過來一個問題:So, what is real Chinese?

      我一看,愣住了。不是問題太複雜,是太簡單了。簡單到似乎不用想,卻從未想過答案。天天吃中餐,什麽是中餐?一時還真難下定義。難就難在:一,真相讓人尷尬。總不能說:告訴您呐,食有五味:酸、甜、苦、辣、麻。可你們歪果仁,在飲食文明方麵,缺心眼,還停留在酸、甜的初級階段。人家聽了不好想嘛!二,說穿了也不妥,說:再瞧我們正果仁,早就進化到了苦、辣、麻的更高境界。——是不是有點不中聽?要是人家不好你這一口,你不是自作麽?三,如果不說真相,不捅破窗戶紙,哼哼哈哈,繞彎彎,那麽,要繞得漂亮,也是蠻費周章的。

      憋了半天,想起了我家掌櫃的,平常煮南瓜湯、紅苕粥,講究的是一個清談,原汁原味。於是,我回複道:

      Good question!

      The difference between real & American-style Chinese dishes is not about the food per se, it’s about how you cook it.

      If you cook your food without manipulating its natural taste too much, except for adding a bit oil and salt, then you probably end up with real Chinese. If you put so much sugar in it, or do deep-frying, then it's something else.

      沒想到還挺討喜,大家都說領教了(very well said)。工友Hawaii還饒有興致地議論道(鋪墊一下先:工友們搗騰的買賣,主要是交通模型):I really like your comments on Chinese food. To make it a little more work-related:

      The difference between real and policy-driven transportation models is not about the model per se, it’s about how you build it. If you build your model without manipulating its original data too much, except for adding a little bit math and computer-science, then you probably end up with real model. If you put so much political-correction in it, or do deep-intervening, then it’s something else.

      卡麗娜最後總結道:See, this is why our unit works so well together, we all bring a little something extra to the table. So, our food or model will meet all our palettes。

      我原想補充Regardless if it’s real or not。轉念一想,還是不要桶破了那層紙。

      由於我最初的彎彎繞,對majority產生了一定的影響。所以,大家最終決定去Souplatation。

      有時,真相並不重要。事與願違,不妨繞個彎,而且要繞得漂亮。

[ 打印 ]
閱讀 ()評論 (0)
評論
目前還沒有任何評論
登錄後才可評論.