[Sca-cooks] Tips on Redactions

[Philip & Susan Troy]

david friedman wrote:

> Adamantius writes:
>
>> In general I agree with the idea that a modern cookbook is probably a
>> better tool for teaching general cooking techniques than a period one,
>> and leaves a person so exposed better prepared to deal with a period
>> recipe than a period cookbook would prepare one to handle a modern recipe.
>> Situation A) Someone who has a basic familiarity with "The Joy of
>> Cooking", say, can pick up something from The Forme of Cury and be told
>> how to draw up an almond milk or clarify sugar, right in the recipe,
>> especially with a basic modern background already installed. They might
>> have a little trouble with the vocabulary, but when told to hack
>> something into gobbets, can immediately do so.
>>
>> Situation B) involves a person exposed only to period cookbooks, limited
>> more or less to the technology and terminology represented in those
>> books, and if called upon to produce a modern dish according to a
>> specific recipe, could have quite a lot of trouble. If told, right off
>> the bat, to cut a fine brunoise, not only would they probably have
>> trouble with the vocabulary, but wouldn't, I suspect, be very good at
>> the technique, either, without some practice.
>
>
> I think the question was not modern cookbooks vs period cookbooks but
> ordinary modern cookbooks vs modern "period cookbooks" (_Pleyn
> Delite_, _Fabulous Feasts_, ...).

Aah. Excuse me, my error; I did rather skim the earlier portions of this
discussion. However, I think in some ways that only underscores and
supports my point, which is that an inexperienced _general_ cook, one
who is learning to boil water, is probably better off learning some
basic, soon-to-be-intuitive processes from a modern cookbook, and then
applying that information to the pursuit of period cookery, than by
absorbing the technical stuff not directly related to the primary source
recipe from a secondary/tertiary source author such as Cosman or Hieatt.

As has been mentioned, a cook with a little basic skill gleaned from
modern sources will at least be able to make his/her own judgements on
how to apply the newly acquired skills. On the other hand, someone whose
  skills are acquired from modern "period" cookbooks is getting the
author's take on both the period process ("'hew hem into mony partes and
smeor thi past all of one dole' means to make ravioli") _and_ a modern
skill battery which may, at best, be dubious.

Cosman, for example, states in "Fabulous Feasts", (unless I'm mistaken)
that she was pretty much in the process of teaching herself to cook
while writing FF. Some of her modern adaptations of period recipes
appear to reflect this ;-). Conversely, you have someone like Karen
Hess, whose delving into historical cookery spans many time periods,
indicates a very broad understanding of how food behaves under various
circumstances, and who is known, more or less unilaterally, as a fine
cook and hostess. She is, in short, what Martha Stewart would aspire to
be if MS were a real person and not a corporate logo. Except, perhaps,
for the billionaire part.

It's true that the possibility exists for a modern skill battery to lead
to a specific interpretation of a period recipe that may not be
accurate, but it's probably just as easy to make mistakes with a
comparatively limited food view as provided by secondary-source
cookbooks, and it's someone else's food-view, as well. And ultimately,
I'm of the opinion that no learning experience is wasted, and the
experience of elarning from a wider variety of sources is almost
invariably a richer one.

Adamantius
--
Phil & Susan Troy

troy at asan.com

"It was so blatant that Roger threw at him.  Clemens gets away with
things that get other people thrown out of games.  As long as they
let him get away with it, it's going  to continue." -- Joe Torre, 9/98