[Sca-cooks] New issue of TI number 173

Gretchen Beck grm at andrew.cmu.edu
Wed Jan 20 07:37:49 PST 2010

--On Wednesday, January 20, 2010 7:27 AM -0500 "Phil Troy / G. Tacitus
Adamantius" <adamantius1 at verizon.net> wrote:

>>> I think that she is saying some people do find it a hardship, but not
>>> that she necessarily finds it such.
>> Thank you for clearing that up. Obviously i don't know Brekke at all.
>> I'm feeling much more reassured.
>> But i'm still not certain what is "modern food".
> I'd say modern food is A) clearly typical of our era -- by historical
> standards "modern" generally means 19th century and forward, which fits
> in nicely with people like Careme, Escoffier, etc., in the Western,
> European/American scheme of things, and B) not typical of the preceding
> period, or most of it. 
> As in the SCA, ingredients are often a tip-off, sometimes cooking methods
> (for example, while various coal-browned and roasted foods existed for a
> long time, you don't find a whole lot of gratin-type dishes before ovens,
> and ultimately broilers or grills, start appearing in homes).

I think perhaps "modern food" was not the right term for this particular
argument (that some people don't want to eat two weeks of medieval food). I
know with 2 weeks at Pennsic, what I want, after a few days, is my idea of
comfort food (tossed salad, stews with lots of tomato, grilled cheese
sandwiches)-- which, although I love medieval food dearly -- most period
food is not. Something that is comforting, but not exciting/different to
eat. I think the better term might be "familiar, everyday food" -- for
whatever ethnicity/time period you typically put on your kitchen table.  If
Forme of Curye is what you cook regularly, then that's what fits the bill.
If you are (and I know no one here is, but just saying) pasta and jarred
sauce three times a week, then that's what fits the bill.

toodles, margaret

More information about the Sca-cooks mailing list