Fishy Paprikash

The dish is what the chef cooks. The meal is what the customer eats.

At 3pm this afternoon, I bit into a chicken paprikash. “This tastes fishy,” I said to Partner, and shifted to the other chicken thigh on the plate. 

Fifteen minutes later, Partner ate from the fishy thigh. “This tastes fishy,” she said. I agreed, and we continued on with our snack.

At the end of the meal, the waiter asked why we’d only eaten 2/3 of the portion. I said, “That piece tasted fishy.” 

The waiter took the plate back to the chef. Two minutes later, he returned. The chef had tasted the piece. The piece did not taste of fish. “The fish, you see, is kept in a sealed bag separate from the chicken.” 

Partner replied something like, “It tasted fishy to me.” I agreed. Partner clarified: we did not think it actually was fish, just that it tasted more like fish than chicken should. (I did not say anything. I thought it more helpful solution to let the guy spin his way to a result.)

The waiter left. He returned with a plate of pickled red onions. “We discovered what it is!” he said. “Three of us in the kitchen tasted and conferred. These may have been on it, so it might have tasted like fish.”

We tasted them. They tasted like pickled red onions. We said, “These taste like pickled red onions.” He insisted we smell them, then taste them. We smelled them, then tasted them. We said, “These taste like pickled red onions.” 

Neither of us had been terribly unhappy. One of the two chicken thighs tasted like fish. No biggie: there are plenty of chicken paprikash in the Budapest sea.

Later, as I reflect, I’m less irked by the fishy food than the denial. Whether or not the dish “contains” fish, our experience of it was fishy. Taste is an experience.

The waiter could have won. Studies show that dissatisfied customers whose experiences improve are actually happier than those who were never dissatisfied (the Service Recovery Paradox). How about honoring our experience? “I’m so sorry you experienced it as fishy. The chef tasted it and I tasted it and we couldn’t get to the bottom of it, but I hope you’ll give us another shot next time” beats denying the fishiness.

Throw in a free shot of palinka (super cheap Hungarian national alcohol that everybody’s grandfather makes), even better. Partner & I wouldn’t have drunk it (we’ve had enough palinka for three lifetimes), but that’s not the point.

We weren’t fishing for a discount or trying to catch some special treatment. But even if we are, he’s better off taking our bait. Floundering for an explanation only sinks the ship deeper. 

No amount of swimming upstream would change our reported experience, and a little humility would have been net-positive.

The chef tasted the food. We ate the meal.

Five Chicken Paprikash

In only 2 days.

At the end of Budapest day 4, Partner & I have eaten 5 orders of chicken paprikash. We didn’t even have any until day 3. Tomorrow’s plan: more chicken paprikash.

Budapest is now my favorite food city. Good Budapest restaurants all hover between 4.5 and 5 stars. You might think the high ratings come from rating inflation. They do not. The food is actually that good.

I like good food. I want to experience local dishes. After only two days of exploring, I did not expect to start to exploit

Explore Phase

Friday lunch: goose “bacon” and shakshouka at a well-regarded local jewish eatery.

Friday dinner: beef tartare, goulash in a basement whose walls might date back to the 1800s.

Saturday lunch: duck pate with rabbit tenderloin, and monkfish at a Michelin-starred restaurant.

Saturday dinner: beef tartare in a stunning courtyard.

Sunday afternoon: beef tartare, along with our first chicken paprikash, at some basic, non-descript restaurant. 

Now I’m Hooked

Sunday dinner: 1 more beef tartare, and 1 more chicken paprikash. But we’re still hungry, and Partner wants cake that is mostly chocolate buttercream, so we head to a local cafe for dobos torte and another chicken paprikash. 

Monday lunch: beef tartare & chicken paprikash from a place recommended on reddit. 

Monday dinner (tonight): chicken paprikash and a disappointing goulash soup. 

Explore within the Exploit

Trying every chicken paprikash is an exploration. 

Partner and I fly to Paris on Thursday. That gives us 2 more full food days. 

We might have beef tartare and chicken paprikash at 6 more meals. We would love this. Imagine the variation within the form! The different specificity! The hyper-specific options! 

When the chicken was roasted separately, it lacks a depth of cohesive flavor (i.e. the chicken is separate from the sauce, not one with the sauce). When the sour cream sits atop the noodles, you must mix it in or perish. The “dumpling” variation is vast: each chicken paprikash comes with a “dumpling”, but they range from crêpe to cube to spaetzle. (And frankly I think it’s nonsense to refer to any of them as a dumpling anyway.) 

Deep exploitation is exploration, just on a finer grain. 

Partner is excited to learn to cook it, and what better way to make it well than to try all the variations and learn what you enjoy?

[Partner says, “I want your fanbase to comment other Hungarian food for us to try. They won’t.” Prove her wrong?]