SC - fish and game ...

[Robin Carroll-Mann]

- ----- Original Message -----
From:  Adamantius

> I've found that the less daring people respond better to fish, rabbit
> and other semi-unusual foods in a form where they're not being stared
> down by a whole, dead animal. Fish fillets in portion-sized chunks seem
> to go over better than whole fish with skin and bones intact, more's the
> pity from the gastronomic standpoint. Rabbit parboiled and pulled off
> the bone, or boned before cooking, or simply jointed like a chicken,
> seems to go over better than a whole roast rabbit. I think part of the
> problem may simply be that a lot of people never learned to carve and
> serve properly in the first place, and that this may be compounded by
> big sleeves, ruffs, etc.

I must say that I am far more likely to try something new if it doesn't
_look_ like the original animal - and I don't think this has anything to do
with my inability to carve.  I actually get a bit squeamish when "meat"
strongly resembles "animal" and have real trouble forcing myself to eat it -
I can even feel physically ill at the idea.  Now, I know that this is likely
psychological, but that doesn't alter the fact that it is so.  Oh, and I
find it truly off putting to have my dinner looking at me - eyes on a cooked
fish I find disturbing - even better if it has no bones either.

On the other hand, a leg of lamb or a roast bit of beef or stuff in a stew
doesn't _look_ like "animal" and so my mind can ignore the fact that "meat"
comes from "animal" even though I know it intellectually.

I wonder if a lot of the "beef and lamb" types are like me in this regard?
If so, then Adamantis' suggestion about stews and fillets makes perfect
sense - IMO.

Gwynydd