Each day this week, we dive into the surprising and unverified history of the five-course meal. Join us as we interview resident food critic Bianca Strings on each course’s complicated social and political history at a restaurant worthy of Restaurant Week.
Those Stories: The second course for a five-course meal is the appetizer. It feels like the appetizer swings between two poles. On one side, an appetizer is so good that it should be a whole meal. Then there’s the appetizer that doesn’t possess main course energy. It seems pretty straightforward. What am I missing?
Bianca Strings: All the pressure is on the restaurant for the appetizer. They need to make patrons want to continue the meal. You would be shocked to know how many people leave a restaurant due to a bad appetizer course.
The first question the course must answer is, are we even hungry? The chef has to make a dish so good that people’s mouths are watering, so that they’re excited to move on to the final three courses.
The second question is, do we want to eat this food? It’s not too late to change your mind if the service drags or the cheese isn’t properly melted—appetizers rely heavily on cheese.
The third question is, did we eat too many appetizers to enjoy the rest of the meal? There’s a delicate balance where the restaurant can’t let the patrons indulge too much in the appetizers. Without a main course, the restaurant loses money.
At one high-stakes dinner, a restaurant owner realized that diners were consuming too many appetizers, so he raced outside, found a string quartet, and paid them to come in to serenade the table. Then, while the patrons were distracted, the staff swooped in and grabbed all the appetizers.
Those Stories: What’s your favorite appetizer?
Bianca: I don’t have one.