On Forgiveness, Part 2

In the last post, I examined the dilemma posed by Simon Wiesenthal in The Sunflower and suggested that, in my (unsolicited) response, I would explore the Jewish idea of forgiveness, what it is, what it is not, and how it may differ from other conceptions of forgiveness.  I will start with the simpler, easier, answers before moving on the deeper stuff.  Also, my post will be split into two parts so it isn't so much to read all at once.

To answer Wiesenthal, first I respond to the direct question – what would I have done?  Like some others have stated in their published replies, I will not answer, because I have no answer.  That is part of what is so compelling about The Sunflower, the situation Simon is placed in is truly incredulous.  It is almost impossible to imagine oneself accurately in such an extreme situation.  To flesh this out a little more, I can’t answer because I truly have no idea of how I would be thinking if I had gone through what the Jews of the Holocaust went through.  I grew up in an entirely different environment, with little to no discrimination, much less brutality.  I do not know what it is like to be constantly expecting to die in some sudden violent manner.  What I do know is that, if I were face to face with someone who had tormented me and this person asked forgiveness, I would find it quite hard to be charitable.  But even this is not the situation at hand.  This is a person unknown to Wiesenthal but is merely a member of the same group of people who were systematically killing the Jews.  So perhaps I might be able to feel sympathy but, as I will explain shortly, that is not at all the same thing as granting forgiveness.

Moving on, I will briefly discuss the interaction with Karl’s mother.  Wiesenthal wonders if he was right to not tell her the truth about her son, to let her continue believing the lie that he was not a murderer.  I believe he was right in this.  She had lost her entire world, her family, her faith in her country.  To take away her last pleasant fiction would just be cruelty and perhaps more than she could bear.  There is one reasonable counter-argument to this though.  If we extend the principle further, and say in general we should let the “good” people continue believing in the supposed innocence of Nazis who committed atrocities, we are minimizing and excusing, perhaps even denying, what happened and are creating conditions where such evil can reoccur.  To me though, the mother’s situation is a special case.  It was too much too soon.  Also, she had tried to teach her son right from wrong and, from some of the things she said to Simon, one gets the impression she suspected he was not quite as innocent as she hoped.  Perhaps, if the meeting had happened many years later, or if her husband had not been killed too, maybe the circumstances would be different and it would have been the right thing to tell her the whole truth.  But at that time, sitting in the ruins of her bombed out home, with nothing but the memories of her family left – even her family was stolen from her –  and still coming to grips with the extent of the evil done by her country, the truth would not likely have done any good and could have done harm.

Now with the easy stuff out of the way, we move on to the deeper question.  Was Simon’s choice the correct one?  By that, I mean based only on abstract principles, taking what he had written to be the full complete and exact facts of the matter, was he morally correct in not granting forgiveness or would it have been appropriate to grant Karl’s wish?  All the commenters, even those who thought forgiveness should have been granted, take pains to point out this is in no way making a judgement on Simon’s character or questioning the appropriateness of the decision, especially given the circumstances involved.

Based on my view of Jewish traditions and assessment of the purported facts, Wiesenthal was right not to grant forgiveness.  In fact, it would have been incorrect for him to grant it.  It is for a reason mentioned even in the text of the story.  One of his friends back in the camp pointed out that these crimes were not committed against him, and Jewish tradition holds very clearly that one can only forgive sins committed against you.  You are only permitted to forgive in your own name, not in anyone else’s.  From this, the logical extension is quite obvious, and Jewish teachings confirm this:  murder is not a sin that can be forgiven, under any circumstances.  The reason is really quite simple:  the victimized party is deceased and is thus unavailable to hear, much less grant, a request for forgiveness.  As death is the definitive result of all murder, there are no circumstances where murder can be forgiven.  An interesting sidebar here is that Jewish teaching holds that there are in fact two – and only two – sins which are unforgiveable:  murder and lashon ha-ra, a term referring to the spreading of malicious gossip (other scholars have defined this sin as destroying someone’s reputation).  The reasoning why this second sin is unforgiveable is also another reason why murder cannot be forgiven.  That is because, just as one cannot raise the dead, damage done to a reputation cannot be undone.  Why this permanence is important we will see later.

But what about remorse?  Does it not count for something if a murderer is sincerely sorry for all the hurt he or she has caused, to everyone affected?  Yes of course it does, but it does not count for everything.  Without that remorse, forgiveness is never possible but, by itself, that is not enough.  Jewish traditions have a very well established process of forgiveness, called teshuva.  To start with, the approach to forgiveness depends on the sin.  There are two types:  sins against God and sins against people (traditionalists would say “against man”).  Yom Kippur is the Day of Atonement.  It is the holiest day of the Jewish year, the day when Jews ask God for forgiveness of sins committed against Him.  But the thing about sin is quite often one action would be a sin both against a person and against religious law (i.e. God).  So in the weeks leading up to Yom Kippur, Jews are expected to atone for all the sins they committed against others, make amends and gain forgiveness, if possible.  Because it is said God does not forgive the sins against Him, until the sins against man have been made right.  With this in mind, even suggesting the SS officer beseech God for forgiveness might not be of much use, as no atonement has been made for the human sins.  And at any rate, this person is not Jewish, so any claim that he may be asking for a religious type of forgiveness is doubtful.  He was raised Catholic, so if that were his aim it would seem confessing to a priest would be more appropriate.

In any event, I’m really more interested in sins against people.  I’m not entirely sure I believe in God and, even if He (or She!) does exist, I believe that interpersonal relations have far more importance as far as morality is concerned.  We have to live with each other, so it is important we do so on the best of possible terms.  The process of teshuva here is well established.  The first step is admitting the commission of the sin to the injured party and expressing remorse.  But the most important part is still to come.  Teshuva means “to make right”.  This quite clearly means that the sin must not only be regretted, but concrete action must take place to correct matters.  If money was stolen, it must be repaid.  If one showed rudeness, one must now show kindness.  If there was an injury, assistance should be provided, as appropriate, in the healing process.  Some form of appropriate restitution is necessary.  Finally, the individual must find him or herself in the same situation and this time choose the correct course of action, and not repeat the same mistake. 

With those steps and requirements in mind, it is easy to see why the Nazi can not achieve forgiveness.  Since restitution, in the sense of undoing the damage, is critical, it is clear that this can never happen in the case of murder.  Try as one might, there is no repair of the damage done.  The only possible form of forgiveness conceivable in the case of murder is to seek forgiveness from the victim’s family and friends – not for the murder itself, but forgiveness for the emotional harm to loved ones this crime has caused.  This is nowhere close to a complete forgiveness but is a possible saving grace attainable by at least atoning for a collateral sin committed as a result of the other, unforgiveable one.  Another mark against the SS officer is that there is no way he could be tested in the final stage of teshuva, not repeating the action in similar circumstances.  As he is about to die, there will obviously not be the opportunity for this occasion.  Because it is never known whether a particular circumstance will ever arise again in one’s lifetime, this final step of teshuva is not necessarily essential to be forgiven, but it is necessary for complete atonement on the personal level.  Put another way, it is acceptable for an injured party to grant forgiveness without this final stage but the sinner would not be considered completely atoned until that final test is passed.  In the SS case, it may seem a non-issue, since this last stage is not essential to the request and there are many other reasons why it cannot be granted.  However, it points to another reason why this request for forgiveness is not appropriate.  Since the full process of forgiveness would require this evidence of changed behaviour, deathbed requests for forgiveness are thus highly dubious and not in my mind appropriate.  While as I just mentioned, it cannot be known whether the opportunity to test resolve will ever arise, if one asks forgiveness when one knows they are about to die, it is a certainty that the last condition will not be completed as it is abundantly clear there would be no time to do so.  It calls into question the sincerity of the remorse, since the sinner knows there is no way their change of heart will ever be put to the test.  And, as with the case we are examining, why was the request not made earlier?  The murders Karl confesses to were committed a year prior and there was no thought of remorse or forgiveness until he is about to die.  

There is still quite a lot more to this post, but I will end it here, since it is already quite a lot to digest.  But this time when I say the conclusion will follow shortly, I really mean it since the second part is already written.  Expect the post in a week from now or possibly sooner.

On Forgiveness Part 1

Towards the end of a long ago post about justice, I briefly touched on the concept of forgiveness.  This is a topic I have been meaning to address for some time, dating back to last year and, really, almost back to the beginning of the blog.  I never got around to it then, but I would like to do it now, as it is now the High Holidays and it seems like an opportune time.  This also serves as a review of the book The Sunflower by Simon Wiesenthal, as this book is centered around the nature and limits of forgiveness.  I believe that most people misunderstand what forgiveness actually is and I will attempt to address the issue.  This post will be written in two parts:  the first is the book review, which will lead into my thoughts on forgiveness in the second part.

Saturday September 14 is the Jewish holiday of Yom Kippur, considered by religious Jews the holiest day of the year.  It is described in English as “the Day of Atonement” where Jews ask God for forgiveness for their transgressions in spiritual matters.  But how does this relate to asking forgiveness from other people for transgressions against them?  And how does one respond when someone who harmed you (or someone else – an important distinction) asks you for forgiveness?  And do Jewish and Christian (and other religious and/or secular) views of forgiveness differ?

This is the central theme of The Sunflower by Simon Wiesenthal.  The book (really a non-fiction novella followed by a series of responsa) provides a variety of views and attempts to answer the essential question Wiesenthal poses in the story.  This was originally written in the 1970’s and refers to events in the 1940’s but the themes remain relevant to this day.  A revised edition with new responses was published in the 1990’s.  As I mentioned in that earlier post, Simon Wiesenthal survived the Holocaust and devoted his life afterwards to locating escaped Nazis and bringing them to justice.  In The Sunflower, Wiesenthal recalls an incident while in a Concentration Camp in 1943 when he was assigned to be part of a work detail for a few days cleaning a German army hospital.  In that hospital there was a Nazi soldier near death from his battle wounds.  Apparently he was aware that Jewish prisoners were at the hospital that day and requested to speak to one of the Jews in private, it just so happened that Wiesenthal was the one chosen.  The soldier was obviously severely wounded and had also been blinded.  He was also well aware that death would come soon.  The soldier proceeded to describe an incident a year ago when he participated in the slaughter of a Jewish family by burning the house and shooting anyone trying to get out.  He also vividly described the child, as that image continued to haunt him.  And why was he telling all this to a Jew who was already well aware of these brutal methods and had already suffered greatly and would soon suffer even more or be dead himself?  Well, the soldier new he was about to die and now his conscience had finally re-emerged – or perhaps he was concerned that he would not be heaven bound as a result of this great sin.  In any event he claimed to feel great remorse for what he had done and asked Wiesenthal – as a member of the Jewish people – to forgive the Nazi for this sin.  Wiesenthal was shocked and somewhat disgusted at that request.  At the time, Wiesenthal said nothing and he returned to his work detail and managed to survive the Holocaust.  But this incident continued to bother him.  He wondered if he had done the right thing.  The man seemed to be genuine in his remorse – so shouldn’t he have forgiven him?  After the war, he was able to locate the dead soldier’s mother and went to visit her.  He saw that this man apparently had a moral and religious upbringing and, as far as his mother knew, her son had been involved only in the war and had nothing to do with atrocities.  Wiesenthal ended up not telling her what the soldier told him, leaving her in the dark.  This caused him more psychological disturbance.  Was this the right thing to do?  Was it right to allow her to continue to believe her son was not involved in genocide?  Was this the humane choice or is this dishonesty?  But the final question he poses to the reader is:  should he have forgiven the man?   And what would the reader have done in that situation?

As many of the respondents to the symposium that follows were writers, several stated they would have been pleased to offer a literary criticism of the book, but what he had asked was actually far more difficult.  Wiesenthal’s challenge puts the reader in the very difficult place to imagine oneself in a situation so horrible as to seem unfathomable to many (and for survivors to relive the most horrifying and traumatic time of their lives) and then respond to a request that seems unfathomable.  On top of that they are to critique the actions of someone who found himself in that singular situation.  Quite the task, but the revised and expanded edition contains 53 responses, of which only a selection of the first edition responses are included.  There are Jews, Catholics, Buddhists, and secular commentators.  Many are academics, in theology or secular disciplines such as the Humanities, others are authors.  Others are religious leaders:  rabbis, priests, and even the Dalai Lama.  Most of the Christian commentators are Catholic, in large part because this was first published around the time of the Second Vatican Council, which had a focus on Christian-Jewish relations, and also because Karl, the SS officer in the story, was raised a Catholic so his request for forgiveness came from the viewpoint of a Catholic.  A great many agree Wiesenthal’s decision was the correct one, though sometimes for different reasons, while others believe forgiveness should have been granted.  Others seem to skirt this issue, by evasion or explicit refusal to answer, and instead address another aspect of that central theme.  A very notable contribution that must be mentioned was written by Albert Speer.  Speer was a high-ranking Nazi and a minister in Hitler’s government.  At the Nuremburg Trials in 1946 he was one of the very few to plead guilty and perhaps the only one to publicly acknowledge responsibility for the crimes of the Third Reich.  He was sentenced to 20 years in prison and, after serving that term and after reading the Sunflower, began a correspondence with Wiesenthal, eventually resulting in a lengthy face-to-face meeting.  In part, his response is a thank you for that meeting, praising Wiesenthal’s remarkable compassion, both towards Karl and later to Speer.  As for forgiveness, he expects none, from Wiesenthal or even from himself.  He acknowledges these crimes are unforgiveable; the best he can advocate is sincere repentance with the hope of receiving understanding and compassion, with no expectation or request of forgiveness.

There are so many big questions raised in this work and are open for commentary.  One of the biggest issues raised is whether Wiesenthal has any right to forgive, as the crime confessed was done to someone else, now dead, and not him.  Can one forgive on behalf of others?  Is forgiveness based on a deathbed confession too easy, a form of “cheap grace”?  And is Karl truly reformed and sincere, and thus potentially deserving of forgiveness, or do his actions still show an unchanged callousness right to the end?  Finally, what of the mother?  Was Simon right to withhold the truth of her son’s activities?  Was this compassion, as most agree, or was it irresponsible?  Stepping away from the incident itself, what, if any, are the limits to forgiveness?  Is there such a thing as collective guilt (such as the guilt of the German nation for Nazi crimes)?  And if so, can this collective guilt ever be forgiven?  Is there a difference between forgiving and forgetting, and can one exist without – or with – the other?  So many different questions and so many views on each question.  It is a general pattern that Jewish respondents tend to say he shouldn’t forgive while more Christians say he should.  Although my views will come next time, I want to note here that this pattern appears have much more to do with different approaches to and definitions of forgiveness between the two religions than from personal or emotional responses.  I will attempt to address a few of these questions, based on how interesting the answers are and how much time and space I want to devote to this.

                                                                                                                         

The Sunflower is a rather intense and thought-provoking read.  To begin with, reading a first-hand account of a concentration camp experience can be difficult and emotional, especially when the writer is as gifted with words and mental imagery as Wiesenthal, since he can actually put you in that awful place.  The book also serves as a partial and limited biography of the author’s life (he wrote a more complete account of his life and work in a later memoir) which gives some context to his decision to bring Nazi war criminals to justice (not to get revenge, as I mentioned in that earlier post).  Next comes his challenge to the reader – what would you have done?  Finally, though his story is now finished, the book is nowhere near its end.  Such a diverse collection of commenters are featured it makes for very interesting reading.  It is virtually certain a reader will strongly disagree with at least some of the opinions expressed, while most likely there will be others that fit perfectly with your views.  Naturally, the cover gives top billing to the more famous, household names that are featured, such as the Dalai Lama and Bishop Desmond Tutu.  However these replies are among the shortest and least involved essays, especially when there are far more detailed offerings from others that truly address the core of Wiesenthal’s question.  There is even another entry that gives a reply from the Buddhist perspective that is more detailed and nuanced than that of the Dalai Lama.

Again, my discussion on forgiveness will come in the next post, but my very short response right now, is that from my view of forgiveness, Wiesenthal was completely correct in his actions, both regarding what he did and did not do.  It is entirely consistent with an appropriate approach to forgiveness and being a compassionate person, despite the unimaginable circumstances.  More details to follow.

*******************************************************************************

A postscript.  In a future post you will see something most interesting in this blog.  It occupied a fair amount of my non-work time this summer and is one reason for lack of posting.  I wrote an article based on the report of my final research project at school and will be published very shortly in an industry magazine.  After waiting a certain required time after publication, I will be able to share it here with you.  So stay tuned.

Restaurant Review – The North Restaurant

This is the fanciest dining restaurant in Barrie and, yes, probably the most expensive. Naturally that made it irresistible to try, even in my financial position.  But I justify it in that I hardly ever eat out so, when I do, I can spend more on that dining experience.  In fact, over my stay in Barrie, I ate twice at the North, and I think the differences between the two experiences, as well as what was common to both events, say something about the restaurant.

I ate at the North at the end of last December, and again in mid-April, as I was getting ready to leave Barrie.  On both occasions I opted for the 7-course tasting menu as, in a high-end restaurant with a top-caliber chef, the tasting menu is the best way to see what a chef truly has to offer and to try the most variety off the menu.  As far as I can tell, the North is the only Barrie restaurant with a true tasting menu.  Other places may have something they call a tasting menu, but is usually a “table d’hote”, a fixed price specials menu, that is often lower priced than the a la carte menu.  The price, at $70, may be steep for a restaurant meal for one but is actually quite a reasonable price for a 7-course menu, as long as the food is sufficiently elevated and the portions are of appropriate size.  In Toronto, you would expect to pay quite a bit more for a chef’s tasting menu.  The two tasting menus I tried of course were different, as the menu changes seasonally and a tasting menu changes often on a nightly basis.

The first menu, in late December, could be best characterized by (almost) flawless execution, excellent flavours, but lacking in cohesion, both within each course, and in the flow of courses.  The first course was bits of beef tenderloin with asparagus.  It was somewhat of an odd choice as a first course and, while good, was not especially memorable.  Next came a trio of carpaccios.  I believe the meats involved were kangaroo (?), bison and kobe beef.  The kangaroo, if that is what it was (it has been a while) was the best and very well suited to both the carpaccio preparation and the garnishes, with the kobe unfortunately being the weakest element.  The third course was a trio of shrimp, each with their own sauce.  The only one that sticks out for me today was the one with a coconut milk and lemongrass sauce, probably the best single bite of the entire evening.  All the shrimp were perfectly cooked, but only that one was accompanied with a truly great sauce.  Up to this point, all courses were very small – only a few bites.  Now tasting menu portions should always be small since you have more of them (we’ll talk more about this later), but to have not increased portion size slightly by the third course is a bit problematic.  The fourth course though certainly was a bit larger.  This was at least the size of a full appetizer (if not a bit larger) and was a sea bass rolled around shrimp and lobster puree, served on lobster risotto.  The bass was very nice and the skin was especially tasty.  I’m not sure the lobster was necessary here, as the shrimp overpowered it, but everything was correctly cooked and was very flavourful. 

 The fifth course was the intermezzo, a small palate cleanser, most often a sorbet, that prepares you for the main course.  In this case it was an apricot sorbet, which I am pretty sure was made on premises.  It was an extremely good sorbet, but not sure it was the most appropriate for the purpose.  Having chunks of fruit in a sorbet is great for a sorbet served for dessert and makes the overall product much better, but may not be the best choice for cleansing ones palate.  Finally the main course was a full size main course, which was necessary given the small size of most of the other plates.  This was beef tenderloin with veal sweetbreads.  The beef was cut a bit strangely, which did not make for the most even cooking, but the sweetbreads were good and the sauce was very tasty.  Finally the dessert was actually quite memorable.  This was banana sushi.  Yes, banana sushi.  This was a cold preparation with nori wrapped rice with banana in it.  There was also a thick chocolate sauce smearing the plate which was a good match, but what made the dish was a small sprinkling of sesame seeds, which reinforced the sushi aspect and actually did match with the chocolate and banana (a classic pairing on its own).  

 This was a Sunday night the day before New Year’s Eve, so the chef was off that night and the sous-chef was in charge.  I did get a chance to meet the sous-chef and talk with him for a bit.  I discussed my impressions of the menu and mentioned in particular the apparent lack of a clear progression to the meal – there should be a logical flow from course to course that makes the entire tasting menu a cohesive meal.  Another issue I had with the entire meal was a noticeable overuse of reduced balsamic vinegar.  This intense sweet and sour syrup made by boiling down balsamic vinegar and (usually) adding sugar is meant to be an inexpensive substitute for true aged balsamic, which ages for decades and reduces naturally through evaporation.  Since the taste can liven up many things, and it looks striking when squiggled on a plate, chefs have been known to overuse the stuff.  This had clearly happened here.  It showed up in places it had no business being, like the carpaccio dish, even a few dots on the plate on that shrimp dish.  And in a dish where it was appropriate, like the main course, they used a substantial amount, probably too much.  This was another issue I discussed with the sous-chef.

If I were to have written the review based on this dining experience alone, I’m pretty sure the impression I would have left would be somewhat negative, which is unfair as I actually did like the food very much.  By most standards this is an excellent, sophisticated restaurant with exceptional food.  However, since they offer a full tasting menu, I judge them by considerably higher standards, as they are now placing themselves in direct comparison with top restaurants in Montreal and Toronto.  So on my last evening in Barrie before coming back home, I returned to the North.  This was a Saturday night in April, and both the chef and sous-chef were in the kitchen.  This time the experience was quite different.  These descriptions will be more detailed as this was more recent.  Starting with the first course, right away the portions were larger.  While I did feel the portions last time were slightly small, they may have gone too far in the other direction. 

 The first course was prosciutto-wrapped shrimp with pesto and a napa cabbage slaw, which worked very well, especially considering wrapping seafood in prosciutto can make it difficult to eat, but that was not the case here.  Like my previous visit, very well executed – but this time there was something noticeably lacking from my earlier visit: a logical progression to the meal.  Lighter courses were served before heavier ones.  I do not recall precisely the second course (possibly scallops? – I took pictures throughout this meal.  They have served nicely as a memory aid after all this time but I forgot to take a picture of this one). 

Prosciutto-wrapped shrimp with napa slaw

 The third course was something I feel is almost an essential for a top tasting menu – seared foie gras.  Foie gras is often paired with something sweet, like dried fruit.  The pairing this time was a bit more unusual but still very effective.  It was served on a base of lobster risotto and topped with caramelized onions.  A little excessive to be pairing rich with rich but somehow it worked.  The peas in the risotto were especially helpful providing that necessary sweet element.  Next came the fish course, sea bass served over citrusy lentils, with asparagus.  Once again, the bass was expertly cooked, but the citrus flavours actually made the lentils the star of the dish, playing perfectly off the fish. 

Seared Foie Gras with lobster risotto

Sea Bass with citrusy lentils

 As before, the fifth course was the intermezzo, that same beautifully made apricot sorbet, this time served on a plate drizzled with fruit coulis topped with dusted cocoa powder.  While fruit coulis would not normally be smart for an intermezzo (too sweet) the bitterness of the cocoa powder cancelled that and actually contributed to cleansing the palate.  The one improvement would have been if the earlier courses were a little smaller.  As you can see, this fish course was pretty much a full serving.  The result was that, by the time the main course arrived, I was pretty much full.  This was quite unfortunate as the main was, for me, a real prize.  This was a wagyu beef striploin steak (wagyu is the breed of cattle used to produce kobe beef – the difference is these cattle are raised in North America and do not get quite the same over-the-top treatment as in Japan.  And in keeping with the large portions this was a full main course size.  As one would expect, this steak had a lot of fat in it, but the beauty of this type of beef is that it doesn’t taste like you’re eating fat; it tastes like an explosion of juices and richness.  If I had not been as full, I would have been able to finish it all at this perfect state of doneness.  Still, I was able to take it home and it made quite the decadent breakfast the next day.   

Wagyu striploin - so good!

After taking some time, I was however able to finish dessert, though I didn’t think I would be able to.  This was helped somewhat by the fact the dessert was on the lighter side, mostly mousse and custard based.  There was a mini banana cream pie (they like bananas here!) served in a crispy phyllo cup topped with bruleed banana (very good).  In the middle was their version of tiramisu.  The coffee-infused whipped cream was very nice but overall that did not quite work in its miniature format.  But the biggest problem with this element was the pulled sugar garnish.  Sugar decorations should be delicate and brittle, but this had the texture almost of taffy – it had probably been sitting around in the humid kitchen for some time after being made, reintroducing moisture.    Though somewhat heavier, the best of all was a spiced fudge cake.  Very rich and smooth with the spice provided a much needed lift.

left to right:  fudge cake, tiramisu, banana cream pie

Once again, execution was again very close to perfect and the flavour combinations were well thought out, exciting and bold.  I was also impressed to see the use of the previously ubiquitous balsamic reduction was much more restrained; it was only used on those dishes that could genuinely benefit from its presence.  The same sous-chef was there again that evening but, this being a Saturday night, the chef/owner was there as well, though he was not in the kitchen the whole time.  He spent part of the time entertaining some friends and/or colleagues and part of the time supervising the kitchen staff.  His presence likely meant he had set the tasting menu, whereas it was probably up to the sous-chef last time, and the difference showed in the thoughtfulness of the progression.

Though the food is the centre of the dining experience here, the other aspects should be addressed as well.  When dining alone, I often sit at the bar.  This is what most restaurants prefer as any of the tables can accommodate at least two people and seating a single diner there represents loss of revenue.  I like to do this anyway as it allows for more observation of the service, since ordering stations are often in the area and servers have to go to the bar to get their drink orders.  At the North there is an additional benefit, as the bar is next to the kitchen, which is open on the side adjoining the bar, so I have not just a view into the kitchen but also an unobstructed view to the line, the actual cooking space.  

 The overall ambience is refined and very nice as well.  It used to have a corner lot in a somewhat bad area of town.  They had recently moved (though only to next door) onto the intersecting residential street into what probably used to be a (possibly) historic house.  Their old premises are still standing and I think they use it for storage and it is clear the atmosphere there was less refined than their current surroundings.  Even the move of just a hundred metres or so took them off the main street and thus reducing the perception of a “bad area”.  A refined restaurant must have refined service.  On my first visit service was very friendly but slightly lacking in polish, especially on the part of the bussers (the person who most often brings the plate to your table – if it is not your server it is not a waiter at all).  Yes this was a tasting menu which changes daily and it was a slow night, but the busser could not fully explain the elements on the plate, a must for complicated presentations with unusual combinations.  I even asked what fish was used on the fish course (the primary item on the plate) and she had to go back to the kitchen to ask.  She was probably inexperienced and, since I had no such issues on the second visit, this was either an isolated instance, or an issue that has since been resolved.  The wine list is fairly good with a reasonably wide selection of wines by the glass, both imported and local (by which I mean from Niagara.  There are no vineyards in the Barrie area).

While I have discussed many things that could be improved and found fault with several things, I want to stress that overall I was very pleased with my experience and would recommend this restaurant without hesitation.  It is just that this is a high end restaurant which, for me, comes with some more demanding expectations.  And given that they come close to the quality of a big-city restaurant tasting menu, $70 is exceptional value for money, especially in a menu that features foie gras and wagyu steak.  Also, I shared my criticisms with the kitchen on my first visit and noticed a marked improvement on the return visit, so likely they will continue to improve and already great restaurant over time.

Spaghetti Bolognese

I can’t believe the blog has gone on this long without posting this recipe, the very first savory meal I ever made by myself.  I don’t actually remember when that would have been but somewhere around age 12, possibly a little later and definitely before I was 14.  And this is a dish I have made ever since.  It was my mother’s specialty but now when we have this meal as a family (and I am at home) I am always the one who makes it (which isn’t usually the case for other family favourites I now make myself).  This is likely a dish most home cooks make with at least some regularity, especially if they are cooking for children (what kid doesn’t like spaghetti?).  But I really think mine is better.  Like many of my dishes it does take some time to make but, like many of the dishes I post here, it is not all that difficult or particularly time consuming.

3lbs ground beef

2 onions

Olive oil

1 head of garlic (you can use a little bit less)

1 green pepper (optional)

Mushrooms (optional)

Carrots (very optional)

2-3 cups tomato sauce (or 1 can San Marzano tomatoes)

3 tablespoons tomato paste

2 tbsp rosemary

2 tbsp thyme

2 tbsp oregano

2 tbsp basil

1 tsp cayenne (or to taste)

1 tsp salt

½ tsp allspice

½ tsp cinnamon

1 piece parmesan rind (or about ½ cup grated parmesan)

½ cup red wine

Spaghettini or Spaghetti

There are many options possible for this recipe.  One thing I have done at times is to add some bacon to this.  When I do, I add about ¼ cup of chopped bacon to the pot at the very beginning and cook until the fat is rendered out, then use the bacon fat in place of some of the olive oil and proceed with the recipe.  Also, there are many vegetable options that you can use, just keep in mind this is not a vegetable-based sauce, so the vegetables should only be an accent.  Aside from the onions, none of the vegetables are actually required and others could be used instead.  If I happen to have mushrooms and green pepper in the house I will usually use them in this.  I know that carrots are very frequently used in Bolognese style sauces, but they would need to be diced very fine or grated in, and I don’t think it’s worth the trouble.  Zucchini might be another good option here.

Dice the onions and mince the garlic.  Saute the onions on medium heat in olive oil, along with the green peppers, if using.  When the onions have softened, add the mushrooms and continue to cook until mushrooms have cooked.  Then add garlic and cook for 1-2 minutes, until the garlic is fragrant.  Then add the beef and brown/cook it (in most pans, with the quantities in this recipe, the meat won’t really brown – too crowded – but that doesn’t really matter here, you just need to get the meat cooked).  When all the meat is cooked, add the tomato sauce and paste, mix well.  Then add salt and all the herbs and spices (I typically use dried herbs for all the herbs called for here.  Yes, I realize many, if not most, chefs consider the use of dried basil to be completely unacceptable, but in this case I disagree.  It does have enough flavour.  If you have fresh basil absolutely use it, the sauce will be even better, but dried works fine.  The same goes for all the herbs with the possible exception of oregano – even with fresh you should still use some dried).  Make sure to taste for seasoning and balance here.  Herbs and spices vary in strength and they can lose their strength over time.  Next add a piece of parmesan rind.  The way to get this is, once you have finished grating all the usable cheese off a piece of parmesan, keep the rind – in the fridge or the freezer – until needed.  If you don’t have a piece of rind available, just use grated parmesan.  Then add the wine and simmer on low with the lid on for at least ½ hour – if you have more time even better. 

 Meanwhile prepare a large pot of water for the pasta.  Make sure the water is salted generously, as this is the only opportunity to actually season the pasta.  In my view, there is no real benefit to putting oil in the water – if you use a pot that is large enough, the water will not boil over, and the oil will definitely not transfer to the noodles on draining.  When the water is at a full boil add the pasta, making sure to stir it occasionally so it does not stick.  Cook to al dente, most package directions are actually not too far off so if you start checking it maybe 2 minutes before the package says, it should be done.  Drain the pasta right away but DO NOT WASH IT.  Many chefs now tell you to save some pasta water and mix it with the sauce.  While this is generally good advice, this is in no way an authentic Italian pasta sauce.  The proportion of sauce to noodles will likely be way off and a chunky sauce like this is actually not the best type of sauce for spaghetti anyway.  This is really a recipe for meat sauce with pasta.  For that reason, adding pasta water won’t help you much in this instance.  Anyway, put the drained pasta back in the pot and toss with olive oil.  Serve the sauce with the pasta, and garlic bread if you like.

Garlic Bread

While there is some halfway decent garlic butter available in stores, I think it is still worth the effort to make your own.

Garlic

Butter

Fresh herbs (I suggest parsley & thyme)

Salt

White wine

Parmesan cheese

Chop the garlic and mix it with melted butter.  Cook in the microwave for a minute or so, then add salt, herbs and wine.  Don’t add too much wine, but it is there to add some acid and some water to soak into the bread and help infuse the garlic.  Use a crusty Italian-style bread – Ciabatta works very well as it bakes wide and flat.  When split, it is perfect to hold plenty of garlic butter.  Brush the garlic butter onto the bread, top with the cheese, and broil with the broiler set to low.  Watch the bread carefully and you may have to rotate the pan, move pieces around, and remove some pieces earlier, to make sure everything crisps nicely but does not burn.  Serve immediately.

Here we go Again…

I know you haven’t heard from me in quite a while, but school had taken every bit of my time and even more of my energy.  So even when I had a little downtime, the desire to do more writing was not there.  Also, some events in the surrounding blog community had some influence as well – specifically the disappearance of Amar’s World.  On my list of links, I have added a link to a mirror site set up shortly after Amar went offline.  I have been reluctant to encourage this, since there may have been a reason Amar’s World was taken offline rather than continuing to stay up with no more posts.  But the overall good the site has done outweighs the other concerns, especially since nobody has requested this site be taken down.  The posts are a great source of hope and possibility so I continue to provide this legacy link.

The academic portion of my studies are now complete and I have begun my internship (a paid one!) in Toronto.  To save money (and quickly get my debts paid off) I have moved back home with my family again.  What this means though, is a very long commute to work every day.  However, the good side of this is that I have three hours sitting on the train every weekday.  I think this is a good opportunity to add writing time back into my schedule, so I will now try to restart the blog.  Just so everyone is aware, one thing you will not see here is anything about my work.  The company I work for has many clients with strong privacy requirements and my employer takes privacy and security very seriously.  My supervisors are also aware of my blog so it certainly can’t be hidden (in fact I used one of my posts as a writing sample during my interview!).

As before, I do not know how frequent my posts will be, or even if this new dedication to my blog will continue, since I have made similar promises before.  And of course I have no idea how frequent the posts might be, so we will all have to just wait and see.

I wonder how many of my old readers are still here and even no I am writing again?  Amar’s Brotherhood used to be my largest reader base and that source has been cut off, in addition to my not posting for 6 months.  Yet my daily hit totals are not much below what they were last year, so I wonder who my readers are.  Regardless, I will continue to write primarily for me as opposed to for whomever I believe to be reading.  Stay tuned for more posts…I hope.

The Mega-Quarry is Dead!!

For more than a year now, from Foodstock to Soupstock, I have brought you news of the fight against a giant quarry planned for rural Ontario that would be devastating to the environment. Environmentalists, community leaders and chefs have all been involved to save this prime Ontario farmland and ensure that our land and water remains secure.

Now I have found out that Highland Companies has withdrawn their application for the mega-quarry, specifically referencing a lack of community support for the project. They also expressed displeasure that an environmental assessment had been ordered.

Victory! In an era when large corporate interests always seem to carry the day, it is wonderful and heartening to see a grass-roots community based movement take down a damaging plan from a powerful corporation. And it is clear that the end of the mega-quarry is DIRECTLY tied to these grass roots efforts.

28,000 people attended Foodstock on a remote farm on a cold and windy day last year and a similar crowd converged on Woodbine Park in Toronto last month for Soupstock. And the community groups that rallied around the cause took up as their first challenge lobbying for an environmental assessment for the mega-quarry despite the fact that provincial law did not require one. Fortunately the governing Liberal party was facing an upcoming election and decided to order one to appeal to their base. Then they survived the election and actually carried through on that promise. Now Highland finds the approval process asking many more questions and that they have no community support, so they drop the project and withdraw the application. As they still own that huge tract of land, it is not fully dead, and Highland has not ruled out applying to start a smaller quarry at some future time, still the massive impending disaster of a mega-quarry will not happen. This would not have been possible without so many people mobilizing against it and making their voices heard.

Since I never got around to reporting on Soupstock, despite attending the event, I will write a little and post a few pictures in this post. It was an absolutely beautiful day, a little warmer than average for late October and sunny all day long. This time, we had to buy tickets to get servings of soup, with 3 servings costing $10. I found that this was worth it, as each serving of soup was actually a full portion. Like last year, I attended the event with my mom, and we had about 6 servings each. As this was a month ago, my memories aren't quite as clear as I would like, but some highlights were an onion soup with braised Cumbrae Farms lamb, a hot and sour soup prepared by Susur Lee, a potato, leek, and sunchoke (Jerusalem artichoke) soup with bacon, and a peach soup with granola and yogurt. Almost every soup we had was excellent and offered something noteworthy. As this was a park in Toronto, many people brought their dogs along, which added to the friendliness of the atmosphere.

So, great news for Ontarians and all those who care about the environment and sustainability. This may not be over forever, but it still a victory and a sigh of relief.

Soupstock 2012 - Still Fighting the Mega-Quarry

Hello again.  Now I know the answer to what starting school would do to my posting.  This has been such a huge workload that I really haven’t had time to write posts, with all the writing I have to do for my classes and all the time the program occupies – both in and out of class.  But when time allows, I will continue to make posts, and this one is important.

It has now been a year that I have been following the fight against a mega-quarry in prime farmland in Melancthon Township.  Last year I attended Foodstock, a fundraiser on a potato farm in the region that had over 70 local chefs providing tastes of their cuisines.  While the mega-quarry is not a reality yet, the application is still alive and making its way through the various permit processes.  The Canadian Chefs Congress along with the North Dufferin Agricultural and Community Taskforce (NDACT)  continue to fight the project and are still raising money for legal representation to be sure the voice of sustainability is heard.  This year, there will be another big event, and this one will be in the city, with the expectation of more participation and a crowd that could top the 28,000 that attended Foodstock last year.

Now the cause has a large additional ally, the David Suzuki Foundation, perhaps Canada’s most respected environmental organization.  This year the event is Soupstock, and it will be held Sunday, October 21, 2012 at Woodbine Park in Toronto, Ontario, from 11am-4pm.  

View Larger Map

 As the name suggests, all the chefs will be serving soups, something I’m pretty sure was inspired by that cold, windy and rainy day we had at Foodstock last year.  The cost of the event is also being handled in a somewhat different way.  While last year it was a $10 suggested donation to enter, this year entry is free but the servings of soup will be pre-purchased with tickets.  $10 will buy three servings of soup.  Similar to last year, participants will be expected to bring their own bowl and spoon.  Seeing as they are charging $10 for only 3 portions, I am guessing the servings of soup may actually be full, or close to full, servings as opposed to tiny tastings that they had last year.  There are well over 100 chefs this time, I’m sure a result of relocating to Toronto.  Notable attendees include returning chefs Michael Stadtlander, Jamie Kennedy and Brad Long, and other chefs joining include Susur Lee, perhaps Canada’s most talented chef, and Greg Rennet, the chef from Painter’s Hall right here in Barrie, the subject of one of my posts this summer.  The set list for the musical portion of the day is also considerably more extensive.

I will be attending this year as well.  While I am very busy, Soupstock is taking place during my reading week, when I will not be in Barrie and will have access to transportation.  Furthermore, this time I have a larger network of friends and colleagues and I will make an effort to spread the word and suggest to many of my classmates that this would be a worthwhile event.  Since some of them live in the Toronto area and might be home for reading week, I hope some of them may be able to attend and lend their support to this cause.

Again, I ask any of my readers who live in the Greater Toronto Area to please consider attending this event and lend your support to this very important cause.  You can taste soup of some of the best chefs in the country and keep up the fight against the mega-quarry.  For information about the mega-quarry visit the Soupstock website or refer to my post from last year.  And in addition to my voice, I include this message from David Suzuki of the David Suzuki Foundation.

***********************************************************************
Oh, and of course, one more thing.  Happy Birthday to me!!  I'm 31 now, and at least I'm finally making some progress towards my future.