Coffee, lunch or dinner?

That depends on where you land on the friendship scale

 

It’s a question that is asked often of us: who is your 3 am friend? As in, who would you not hesitate to call in times of need, no matter what time of day or night it was. And frankly, only the very fortunate among us would have even a couple of friends who fit in that category.

 

But when I was last asked that question, it got me thinking of the many different kinds of friends I have on my list. And how, the best way to differentiate between them is on the basis of what kind of meal/drinks we sit down for together on a regular basis.

 

At the bottom of that list are what I call my “coffee friends”. These are people who are notch above casual acquaintances and a notch below close friends. These are people I am happy to catch up with every month or so, but would not dream of whatsapping on a regular basis. The relationship we have is restricted to coffee and cake; it never extends to a proper meal. When we meet, we are happy to exchange notes about the world in general and the latest social media controversies. But it never goes any deeper; and it never reaches the level of real confidences being exchanged. 

 

On the next rung are my “lunch friends”. This list mostly comprises women with whom I have an independent relationship that does not involve our respective husbands. So, instead of doing ‘couple dinners’ we do ‘solo lunches’. And frankly, I would not have it any other way. It is with these “lunch friends” that I have the most interesting conversations; with whom I discuss my deepest thoughts and share my darkest fears. It helps that we go back a long way. These are women who have seen me through my worst and celebrated me at my best. But despite the closeness of our bond, we remain determinately “lunch friends”. Heading out for dinner together somehow seems like a bridge too far.

 

So, who are my “dinner friends”, you ask? And since they come on top of the list, would it be fair to describe them as my closest friends? 

 

Well, that’s a tricky one. Some of my “dinner friends” are, indeed, part of my core group. They are people my husband and I have been friends with for decades, and with whom we have a very high comfort factor. These are folks with whom I can be myself. I can slip my shoes off, put my feet up on the sofa, and gossip with them late into the night, secure in the knowledge that none of my indiscretions will come back to bite me in the derriere. 

 

But then, there are those who qualify as “dinner friends” only because of social and professional obligations that we have to fulfil. So, while we may drink and eat, laugh and joke, exchange confidences, discuss our lives, a certain je ne sais quoi is missing. There is a faux-intimacy to these interactions; they don’t have the authenticity of real friendship. 

 

Are these categories watertight? Do the people from one friendship group ever migrate to another? Sure they do. Some “coffee friends” become “lunch friends”. More rarely, “lunch friends” make the transition to “dinner friends”.

 

As for 3 am friends, I am still stuck with the same two I have had for the past two decades. And I know I am lucky to have them.

Sunny side up

Who is to say that breakfast should only be eaten in the morning?

There is nothing I love more about hotels than a room-service breakfast. It seems so wonderfully decadent to lie in bed, with a plate of French toast (or eggs and bacon; waffles; aloo parathas; medhu vadas; you can choose your own poison) balanced precariously on your pristine white sheets, a cup of coffee with easy reach, and the newspaper crinkling crisply as you turn the pages. I can’t think of a better way to start the day.

Or, indeed, to end it. Because, seeing that they are on to a good thing, some hotels have started to serve breakfast around the clock. So now, if you are so inclined, you can both start the day with a hearty breakfast and then end it with yet another slap-up breakfast. (And yes, I often do.)

Hoteliers will tell you that the round-the-clock breakfast menu is meant for jet-lagged travellers who have flown across time zones and have such screwed-up body clocks that they want the comfort eating epitomized by a good breakfast no matter what time they check in. But I know better. The truth is that they have put breakfast on the round-the-clock menu because it has such scrumptious options that it seems a shame to restrict them to just one meal of the day.

And who made up these stupid rules anyway? About how you can only eat certain things for breakfast and others for lunch and dinner? If you ask me, it makes no sense. Anything that tastes good first thing in the morning will taste just as good last thing at night. To misquote Shakespeare, a blueberry pancake would taste just as sweet if you ate it at 8 am or 8 pm. So, who’s to say that it is best served with your morning tea or coffee? For that matter, why can’t you have a bowl of crunchy muesli with milk for dinner rather than breakfast without being seen as a bit of an eccentric? Or even a full English fry up of eggs, baked beans, sausages, hash browns and toast?

It’s not just breakfast options, though. How about tea-time treats? Why should they only be reserved for the evening? A couple of crisp samosas or a plateful of pakoras (or bhajias or whatever you call them in your part of the world) with some spicy chutneys on the side would make for a delightful lunch or even dinner. So why do we always eat them as snacks or ‘naashta’ rather than at meal times?

Part of it, of course, is down to social conditioning. More often than not what you eat and when you eat it is a cultural thing. For instance, in Italy, salad is served at the end of the meal rather than at the beginning. So instead of stuffing yourself full of greens at the start of the meal and feeling too full to enjoy your main course, you relish your main dish, and then cleanse your palate with a salad dressed with olive oil and a dash of balsamico so that you can truly appreciate the cheese and dessert to follow.

Makes much more sense, doesn’t it? And yet, for some reason, when you eat out in India, you are always served the salad first and then the main. Result: by the time the dessert is served, you are far too sated to really enjoy it. (Now don’t be a spoilsport and say that that’s just as well; you know as well as I do that it’s the high point of the meal.)

Talking of dessert, why is it taken as a given that it will be served at the end of the meal rather than at the beginning? Why is ice-cream presented to us as a reward if we are good little children and finish our greens first? Why does chocolate cake have to wait until the cheese has been cleared to make an appearance? Yes, I know that delayed gratification is supposed to be good for you, but you are talking about chocolate cake here!

Some people have the right idea though. Some years ago, I ate at a restaurant called Ente Keralam in Chennai and was surprised to be offered a sweet as the beginning of the meal. Chef Reji Mathew explained that in his Syrian Christian community, it was usual to start a feast with a sweet rather than a savoury dish to prepare the palate for the treats to come. And I have to say that it worked like a charm.

So now, after many decades of following the dictates of of

od fascists, I have decided that when it comes to eating there is only one rule: that there are no rules. Or better still, that you get to make your own rules as you go along.

If you feel like having a bread and butter pudding for breakfast, go right ahead (nutritionists will tell you that this is the best time to have high-calorie sweet treats, anyway). If you fancy an almond croissant and not much else for dinner, that’s fine too. And if you want to have breakfast at all three meals of the day, dig in. Bon appetit!