[Sca-cooks] Most important factor?

[Michael Gunter]

>I'm having a discussion with some people about judgements of
>SCA cooking in terms of the Arts.

It depends on what you are basing the discussion on. Is this
a formal A&S entry or an important feast or a small casual
feast or something done in camp? How is the meal presented and in
what context?

>From everything I've seen on this list, the most important thing
>SCA cooks look at one another's cooking in terms of the
>Art (as opposed to the service) is "Was it made from a period
>recipe? How well did they follow the recipe?"

Well, I believe the most important thing isn't whether or not it's
period but does it taste good? You can have the most documented
recipe in the world but if people don't want to eat it then the
whole thing is a waste.

Now, I'll go on the assumption that you are talking about an A&S
entry. This is how I judge A&S cooking entries. First thing I do
is look at the overall presentation. Is the entry on a placemat or
cloth of complimentary color? Are there layers of presentation?
How are the tastings presented? Plastic forks and small cups for
samples? Taste out of the dish? Are there napkins and a disposal
device for the leavings? Etc....

Then I will read the documentation. Is there a photo of the original
source? Is there a transcription of the original source? Is there
a translation if the language is not English? Did the presenter do
the translation? Is there a redaction of the recipe? Now, how did
the presenter create a modern recipe from the redaction? Did the
procedure follow the instructions of the period source? Are there
explinations on why there were differences between the modern and
period recipes?

What I want to see is if the presenter understands the dish he or
she is presenting. In understanding the dish then the presenter
understands a bit about the cuisine. Far too often I see A&S
cooking entries that just have a modern recipe. This only tells
me the presenter can simply follow a modern recipe and does not
understand the cuisine.

The final thing I do is taste the dish. Does it taste good? If
it doesn't taste good is it because it's a bad recipe or just
something I don't care for (Like Beet Surprise)? Another mark
of the artistry of cooking is making a dish that is palatable.
Too often I've had cooking entries, or feasts, where I wonder
if the cook even tasted the dish before it was sent out. A good
cook and true artisan will take even unfamiliar foods and make
it palatable to modern tastes.

All of these factors are part of an A&S entry. Note that the LAST
thing I do is taste the dish. If a cook uses cheap soy sauce for
murri, I'd like them to know it's because of the experiment where
researchers followed period recipes exactly for murri and found
it tastes a lot like cheap soy sauce. If the dish calls for
partridge and the presenter uses Cornish Game Hens then that should
be noted and why. It's just a logical extension.

Now, if you are talking about feasts and such, that is a whole
'nother ballpark and I'll be happy to go all eloquent on that
as well.

>Anyone care to propound a different theory?

I don't know if it's a different theory, but there's some
propoundance for you.

>-- Jadwiga Zajaczkowa

Yers,

Gunthar

_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com