[Sca-cooks] gravy

[Phil Troy/ G. Tacitus Adamantius]

Also sprach CorwynWdwd at aol.com:
>In a message dated 12/28/2003 12:05:56 AM Eastern Standard Time,
>StefanliRous at austin.rr.com writes:
>Recently you commented on the Europeans considering gravy to include
>just the drippings and not necessarily creating a roux, where the
>Americans consider a rouz necessary to call it a gravy.
>I missed this the first time around.... the first exception I can think of to
>test this rule is "Redeye Gravy", made with ham drippings, butter and black
>coffee. Not period, decidely American though, and in most examples I've seen,
>clear, or clearish.... Any other regonal examples?

Well, it's a generalization, but a fairly apt one. Of course there 
are exceptions.

Another regional example of an exception would be sawmill gravy, 
which can be stock and/or drippings or milk, thickened with cornmeal 
instead of flour.

Actually, if I said Americans consider a roux necessary, I misspoke. 
I should have said that the majority of American gravies appear to be 
thickened with flour, which can in turn be added straight to the 
gravy, made into a slurry, a roux, into beurre manie, and used in a 
variety of other ways, but all coming down to thickening by 
gelatinizing starches.

The various gravies which are dishes in themselves, rather than 
sauces (like sausage gravy, Italian ragus, which are sometimes known 
as gravy to English-speaking Italian-Americans, etc.) would also be 
exceptions.

But there'd have to be a lot more exceptions to outweigh the versions 
calling for roux made in the drip pan, or the Wondra flour versions, 
etc.

Adamantius