The Butter Heresy: A Response

I have read Mrs. St. Claire's column advocating for butter-based lobster rolls. I have read it twice, in case I missed some crucial nuance. I did not. Her position is as wrong now as it was the first time I encountered it, which was approximately thirty years ago, when she was equally incorrect.

The Argument Summarized

Mrs. St. Claire claims that butter lobster rolls are "what the ocean intended." She further claims that mayonnaise is "edible cement" and that those who prefer it are enslaved to tradition for its own sake.

I shall address these claims in order.

What the Ocean Intended

The ocean, to my knowledge, has never expressed an opinion about lobster roll preparation. Lobsters themselves, prior to becoming rolls, seem primarily concerned with avoiding capture. If we are to speak of natural intentions, the lobster would presumably prefer not to be eaten at all.

Once we have accepted that the lobster will, in fact, be consumed, the question of preparation becomes a matter of culinary tradition, not marine philosophy. And tradition, as I have noted many times, favors mayonnaise.

The "Edible Cement" Claim

This is rhetorical flourish, not argument. A properly made mayonnaise-based lobster roll is nothing like cement. It is moist. It is cohesive. It allows the lobster to be eaten without individual pieces escaping the bun, which is a problem with butter-drenched preparations.

Butter, being liquid when warm, has an unfortunate tendency to escape. One eats a butter lobster roll and finds oneself with butter on one's chin, one's shirt, and occasionally one's whale-embroidered trousers. This is not refinement. This is mess.

The Question of Tradition

Mrs. St. Claire suggests that my attachment to tradition is mere stubbornness. I suggest that her rejection of tradition is mere contrarianism.

Traditions emerge for reasons. The New England lobster roll, as prepared with mayonnaise for approximately a century, represents the accumulated wisdom of generations. It was not developed by fools. It was developed by people who ate lobster regularly, tried various preparations, and settled upon mayonnaise because it is correct.

To reject this wisdom in favor of butter—a perfectly acceptable fat that nevertheless has no place in a lobster roll—is to reject the collective judgment of our ancestors. Mrs. St. Claire may be comfortable with this rejection. I am not.

A Point of Agreement

I will concede one thing: Mrs. St. Claire is correct that "the lobster is dead." This is true. Lobsters in rolls are invariably deceased.

However, I fail to see how this observation supports her argument. The lobster's mortality does not excuse improper preparation. If anything, we owe the lobster a dignified presentation, and drowning it in butter is not dignity. It is decadence without purpose.

A Personal Note

Mrs. St. Claire and I have been debating this question for three decades. We have argued at dinner parties, in these pages, and occasionally across restaurant tables when circumstances have forced us into proximity.

I bear her no ill will. She is a passionate advocate for her position, and passion is admirable even when misdirected. I simply wish she would admit what I believe she knows in her heart: that the mayonnaise preparation is superior, and that her advocacy for butter is the rebellion of a creative spirit against the constraints of excellence.

I shall continue to order mayonnaise. She shall continue to order butter. Neither of us shall convince the other.

But I shall be correct.

Butter is for bread. Mayo is for lobster. This is not complicated.