SC - Fun vs Authenticity

[Philip & Susan Troy]

L Herr-Gelatt and J R Gelatt wrote:

> Here's my true sentiment---bound to be blown to bits by those professing to
> play the "True Game, unsullied by outside influences": It is far far more
> interesting to me to do this sort of detective work than to go to the proven
> period source, open it up, and bang away. I've done that. I want to move on.

<snip>

> You're right. It's a gamble. But who is to say for sure it won't payoff? The
> proof of the pudding, etc...

You seem to have made an informed decision to go for the gusto at the
expense of risking some inaccuracies. That's all right. I often do it
myself (See the chapter on the Infamous Durkee French Fried Onion Ring
Garnish in the Chronicles of Adamantius.) But then, my warning wasn't
especially aimed at you, but at anyone who would read what you wrote,
and assume that anything in MWBOC is period food. 
> 
> But for me that interest and scholarship are not the only criteria. Other
> things weight at least as heavily. As examples of what to strive for, we
> almost never get the real foodstuffs themselves as they were consumed in any
> version we can speculate from, at least in our periods of history. We only
> have recipes to work from, with varying levels of reliability. So I have to
> ask myself (because for me, FUN came first, and HISTORY followed): Is it
> reasonable to expect people to consume this and like it? The answer is yes.
> Is it based on an historical instance of at least partial reliability? I'd
> say yes (some wouldn't). Is it attractive? Yes. Do I like cooking it? Yes.
> Can anyone help me make it? Yes. Will my kitchen accomodations allow for
> lots of it to be made easily? Yes. Can I afford it in my budget? Yes.
> Bingo. Menu Hall of Fame. I could have have gone to an earlier source. I
> admit it. Mea Culpa. Bad Aoife. No Biscuit. I liked those recipes. They
> appealed to me. My brain works like this: I read a cook book like a novel.
> When planning menus, they often come to me complete and in a lump, but I
> know what sources come from where. I guess it's creative versus academic,
> and if I were a true academic, creativity would play less of a role. The
> only reason I go on and on about this is because I care what others think,
> but not as much as I care to produce something my epicurean muse can
> appreciate. Here I am sailing close to those cliffs again.

Yeah, well, these are all important considerations, and just how close
to that cliff you're willing to get is up to you. My general course is
to try to strike a balance between creativity (which is easier than it
might sound because the period recipes are so often vague -- mucho
leeway for experimentation), historical accuracy (which is why I almost
always work from the primary source of a given recipe, or as close as I
can get to it), and edibility, since if the food doesn't get eaten it
becomes only symbolic as an object lesson, and a very concrete waste of
time and money. This is where the things like the feast preview come in,
of course.
> 
> Now, just like the woman that I will adroitly change the subject:
> 
> Adamantius, your lady wife sounds lovely. Does she cook at least a little
> (does she have to, with you in the house)?

Taught me everything I know about Southern Chinese cooking. It's quite
interesting to deal with someone who, when asked, "Do you like pot
roast?", says, "I don't know. I never tasted it before. I'll try it and
let you know."

Toodle-Pip!

Adamantius