[Sca-cooks] Documentation "Fun"...was "Potatoes andpersonalissues"

[Terry Decker]

> Terry Decker <t.d.decker at worldnet.att.net> [2006.05.20] wrote:
>> Actually, providing documentation at a feast produces some interesting
>> games as people try to figure out what they are eating, especially when
>> kitchen misadventures force you to swap the order of service.
>
> How do you square this with allergies? I allways post a menue somewhere
> pulic, which lists the name of the dish, the source, and what it
> contains. Sometimes I have a "restaurant style" description as well.
> That way people can know that the strawberryes contain almonds, that
> the cawdel of saumon do not (I tend to nick the fast day alternation of
> "milk of kine or almond", reverse it, and use to get around the dreaded
> 5-verions-of-everything syndrome whenever needed)
>

Why do I have to square my documentation with anyone's allergies?  The 
documentation normally provides recipe, translation, and adapted recipe as 
close to the original as possible in planned order of service.  In my case 
it is usually a booklet which also serves as the feast token.  You get it 
only after you decide to purchase the feast.  For marketing the feast, a 
menu and a full list of ingredients for each dish is posted at the gate and 
at the kitchen, but it is not part of the documentation.  While 
circumstances may change the order of the dishes, the ingredients do not 
change.  Where there may be a problem, an announcement of the change in 
order of service is made.

I also try to be aware of any special dietary needs and adjust accordingly. 
For example, I do not use many nuts in planning a feast as there is a local 
that would go anaphylactic from the them, and I deal with the issue that the 
Baron has gastric problems with chicken and the Baroness detests fish.  The 
only dietary question I have not been able to answer is whether the yeast I 
used was cultured on potato starch (unmarked bulk yeast doesn't provide many 
clues).

>> The greatest
>> offense I find with feast documentation is when it is used to justify bad
>> cooking.
>
> Good food is a given. Noting gos out that is not at least good tasting,
> preferably it is better than that.
>
> UlfR

Unfortunately, good food is not a given.  I would hate to say how many times 
over 30 years I have encountered bad cooking being excused because it was 
"period."  And from modern recipes no less.

Bear