Here's how this got started. Ingrid and I have a big anniversary coming up soonish: in January 2008 we'll have been together for ten years. We'd been making vague plans to celebrate by going to The French Laundry -- considered by most to be the best restaurant in the entire Bay Area, by many to be the best restaurant in the country, and by some to be the best restaurant in the world. We knew it was pricey, but when one of the best restaurants in the world is just an hour away, it seems a shame not to splurge on it at least once.
So we were chatting with my in-laws when the subject of The French Laundry came up. We mentioned our plans… and they told us exactly how expensive dinner for two at The French Laundry is.
Including everything -- food, service, wine, tax -- dinner for two at The French Laundry costs about $750.
And poof -- there go those plans.
It's not so much that we can't afford it. If we saved up, if we stopped going out to dinner for a few months and set that money aside, I'm sure we could manage.
But the idea of spending $750 on dinner for two makes my gorge rise. It doesn't make me think "romantic luxury splurge." It makes me think "class warfare." It makes me think of what the blue-collar families in our neighborhood -- hell, on our block -- could do with that money. Hell, it makes me think about what we could do with that money. The thought of taking that money and shoving it down our gullets makes me both morally and physically nauseous.
Which isn't exactly the frame of mind you want to be in when you're eating at the best restaurant in the world.
But I started this piece by saying, "I may be being unfair," and I meant it.
It can be argued -- it has been argued -- that a meal at a place like French Laundry isn't simply a luxury or a splurge. It's a work of art. And I don't have any moral revulsion at all over spending $750 on a work of art. I'd do it all the time if I could afford it. I get a little grossed out when I read about millions of dollars being spent on a Van Gogh -- especially since Van Gogh lived and died in poverty and won't ever see a dime of it -- but if someone spent $750 on a sculpture by my friend Josie Porter, I wouldn't be troubled in the slightest. I'd think she deserved every penny of it, and more. Artists work hard at what they do, and spend lots of time learning how to do it well. And I don't have any doubt that the chefs at French Laundry are artists.
And it's also the case that this is, to some extent, a question of scale, a difference of degree and not of kind. We've never in our lives spent $750 on dinner for two -- but we've certainly spent $60, $80, $100. Not that infrequently, either. And while the idea of people spending $750 on dinner for two makes me think fond thoughts about storming the castle and parading around with the baron's head on a pike, I'm sure that for many people, the idea of people spending $100 on dinner for two makes them feel exactly the same way.
So maybe the whole gorge-rising, heads-on-pikes, moral and political outrage thing really isn't fair. Maybe it does make sense -- not just financial sense, but moral sense -- to save up our eating-out budget, to forego the nice dinners out for a while and save up for one truly spectacular one.
I dunno. I really can't figure this one out. Thoughts?