SC - Foodie "thingies"

[Philip & Susan Troy]

Catherine Deville wrote:
> 
> I said:
<snip>
> > > folks know that they are posted and where is probably the
> 
> and Adamantius replied:
> > The what? The best solution? I agree. Why, exactly, are we having this
> discussion?
> 
> to the first question, yes... didn't I type that?  apologies if I dropped
> someone, but I'm agreeing with you on this point.  can't we discuss when we
> agree as well as when we disagree?  again, I'm confused.

Sure, we can. It was unclear what you meant because I believe you did
leave an unfinished sentence. The trouble (that I perceived) was that
after you referred to my language as emotionally charged (it may be, but
generally I am not) and announced that you had some points of
disagreement, you proceeded to agree with most of what I said, apart
from a suggestion that somehow my line of thinking limited creativity. 
 
> i don't always disagree with a whole line of argument.  sometimes i just
> disagree with points (sometimes nit-picky little points).  i'm just trying
> to outline *where* i agree and disagree, and the difference is primarily
> semantic.

I've been meaning to mention that I think you'd be right at home on the
East Kingdom e-list ;  ) .
 
Me:
> > Failing that, if I
> > do have to add something in an emergency, my preference is to use
> > something that would have been found in a medieval kitchen, something
> > that doesn't aggravate any known health or other dietary issues, or any
> > anticipated ones. This is an informed risk, perhaps, but, I think, more
> > conservative than simply adding anything and adding it to the list. This
> > is a solution that, to me, is preferable over others, and that doesn't
> > mean a cook is never forced to do otherwise.

You: 
> and I would tend to agree with that as well.  perhaps I'm communicating
> poorly, but I'm not advocating "country cupboard cooking" at a feast
> (although I've had to resort to it... but even when I did I tried to work
> with what was on hand, which was *supposed* to be what would have been
> available in a medieval kitchen in the first place.)

OK. We all occasionally make decisions based on alternatives that aren't
our preferred choices. Would I rather get a stick in the eye or be
whacked over the head with this bag of lead shot? Well, on
consideration, I think I'd rather have be whacked with a loosely stuffed
bag of feathers, if you've got one. No? Just checking. I guess I'd
rather have the bag of lead shot, as long as it isn't too heavy, and no
swinging more than 90 degrees, okay? The entire thrust of what I was
saying is that there are relative degrees of
preferability/non-preferability, and that we should always choose the
most preferable from among the possible. What is preferable is generally
pretty static, at least for our purposes: we want to go for solutions
that are within people's food necessities, and which are also better
recreation. What is possible, though, often is not static. We play with
the cards we are dealt in the best way we can.
 
> what I was having problems with is the idea that you can't change anything
> because there's no way to notify folks or the idea that you can't change
> things because you've got to follow the redaction to the letter.

I'd have a problem with that, too. I don't recall anyone saying that
that was the case, though, not even the most extreme Stuffy
Authenticists (tm) on this list, all of whom have the odd chink in their
otherwise well-maintained recreationist armor.

> of
> course, i'm sure that some people will always believe that is the only
> right way to do it and will shake your head in disapproval anytime that a
> cook strays, I'm just expressing a different POV.   (I'm sometimes bad
> about playing Devil's Advocate as well.

I've been known to put on the horned, powdered wig myself a time or two.
Or seventy-eight. I think the key to this is to avoid speaking in
universals. Boom. This is right, this is wrong. I've always tried to
speak in terms of which option is preferable, i.e. a better choice under
a given set of circumstances. Which one is better depends on the
circumstances, and saying something is less preferable is not
necessarily a condemnation. 


> o.k... now it's my turn... sheesh!  lighten up!  I wasn't making
> allegations,

My apologies, then. It certainly appeared you did make allegations
regarding emotionally charged language...

> just observations and the reply, while addressing your points,
> was not intended to say that you *do* have anything against creativity.

... and again, while I can't say it seemed directed specifically at me,
it did seem as if you were trying to suggest that solving as many
problems as possible from _within_ the constraints of the recipe was
somehow a damper on creativity. I prefer to think of it as a challenge
to mine.  

> I
> was simply trying to point out, in a general way, using rebuttals to your
> statements as examples leading to a conclusion, is that sometimes you don't
> have much choice in your solutions, and you have to work with what you
> have.

If I failed to mention that, it's because I forget that I'm not in a
room with people that have known me for years. I consider it a given.

If I may give you a run for your money, as it were, I'll share a
[hopefully] brief story regarding the Louisiana chef Paul Prudhomme and
working with what one has. I've dealt personally with the man, and for
various reasons I've never had huge amounts of respect for him,
professionally. A year or two ago, several famous American and European
chefs were invited to take part in producing a series of dinners in
celebration of the 3000th anniversary of the city of Jerusalem. They'd
all been chosen for their reputations for creativity as well as their
respect for classical cookery. And probably for fame as well. In any
case, it was revealed to these chefs that they would be working within
the dietary constraints of Kashrut. Several of the French chefs (who
considered themselves, as a group, the finest chefs on the planet)
immediately packed up and went home, and almost to a man the remainder
groused and complained about the lack of fresh and cured pork products,
the impossibility of enriching a sauce for meat with cream, the
unavailability of shellfish, etc. Many of the French chefs, and some
American ones, whined and complained as they used non-dairy substitutes,
turkey bacon, etc., in what they considered a pale shadow of their
regular cookery. And that's probably exactly what it was. Prudhomme, on
the other hand, as well as the other Americans involved, took a slightly
different approach, mostly along the lines they'd experienced from the
career of James Beard, and in Prudhomme's case from personal experience.
He explained that he'd been informed by his doctor that if he didn't
stop eating all that fat and salt, he'd very simply up and die. Bear in
mind that Prudhomme weighed something like 395 pounds and went around in
a little electric cart because he could no longer stand for any length
of time. Jabba the Hut in a toque, and not yet 50. Prudhomme realized
that since his doctor's warning, he'd been cooking without adding animal
fat or even much vegetable oil, without any salt in his personal cookery
other than naturally occurring sodium in the food itself, which was
carefully monitored. Products like cream, butter, bacon, etc., simply
did not exist in the personal batterie du cusine of Paul Prudhomme, and
all pangs of hunger had to be answered from outside that box of
ingredients. He said he found it rather simple to think of Kosher
cookery in the same way. Meat mixed with dairy simply did not exist for
him.  Bacon was a legend without substance. Oysters a fairy tale heard
as a child. The reality was Kashrut. He cooked perfectly legitimate
Kosher food, under the supervision of rabbis, using every ounce of his
creativity _and_ avoiding on principle the fake dairy and the fake
bacon. The result was a triumph, probably because the man actually
_wanted_ to stay within the rules, not circumvent them through
loopholes, and it was in no way a non-creative result. My respect for
him rose immeasurably. 
 
> unfortunatly, mi'Lord... I think that in many ways we're coming from such
> different directions that we're almost speaking a different language, and
> as a result, I think we're actually having a different discussion on our
> respective sides.  I really don't disagree that your ideas a good way to do
> things... I'm simply pointing out that it's not the *only* good way to do
> things.

I'm really not sure how different are the directions we're coming from.
I think in actual practice we might well act similarly, but I never
meant to suggest I was speaking ex cathedra in any way. I was expressing
relative degrees of preferability, which I would not have mentioned as
an approach if they had no viability at all.

Adamantius
- -- 
Phil & Susan Troy

troy at asan.com