(Re-recommending a trouble-making classic)

"Affluence, airplanes and highways destroyed good food in this country; we
want it to be easy and supersized," said Anthony Bourdain of _Kitchen
Confidential_ (quoted in a recent Portland _Tribune;_ the country he means
is the US). "Most people think a potato tastes like a Pringle. And who
remembers what a truffle tastes like? What people know now is truffle oil --
the ketchup of the upper class."


In a contrasting view of the history here, for around 30 years in print the
Hesses have argued, or demonstrated, that the books of Fannie Farmer and
the Romabauers spearheaded the decline of good food in the US, half a
century before Affluence, Airplanes and Highways. (The bland nationwide
brands and convenience foods after the second world war were just the
coup-de-grace). Ideas heralded as innovations in US cooking in the last
couple of decades emerge, in the Hesses' documentation, as rediscovery of
principles common in past centuries, but lost, in America. (By the way, to
take in vain the names of Fannie Farmer and the _Joy of Cooking_ sits badly
with some people who grew up with these books, but they might want to check
the Hesses' arguments for themselves. Discomfiture can spur discovery.)
_The Taste of America_ was received by some US food professionals as
important, even a landmark, when published.

As for ketchup, here are the Hesses in 1977. (These samples are typical of
the book.)

"The most popular cookbook of the nineteenth century first appeared in
Philadelphia in 1837. It was _Directions for Cookery,_ by Eliza Leslie,
which in our view ranks with Mrs. Randolph's _Virginia Housewife_ as one of
the two best all-American cookbooks ever written. James Beard, be it said,
has rendered a service in making Miss Leslie better known to modern cooks.
Why does he say, however, when he quotes one of her recipes for scalloped
tomatoes, that it is "a very good one even now"? He surely does not mean
"even now when tomatoes are no longer fit to eat," so presumably he means
"even now when cooking has become sophisticated." In truth, American cooking
reached its highest level in the second quarter of the nineteenth century,
with Miss Leslie as its guide. From then on, it was downhill all the way.

"Miss Leslie was sufficiently sophisticated to have written _Domestic French
Cookery_ (1832), which she described as a translation. But her classic
_Directions for Cookery_ is thoroughly American. It shares with earlier
cookbooks a concern for quality that now seems almost alien, and abounds in
such critical assessments as remarks [quoted] on choosing catfish, and "The
Portuguese pork, which is fed on chestnuts, is perhaps the finest in the
world." [On to further examples for the rest of the chapter.]
. . .

"There are other interesting omens of the approaching decline in our
cookery. One is the gradual disappearance of the shallot. Even the admirable
Miss Leslie makes only rare use of it, and after her, it virtually
disappeared from American cookbooks for a century -- a great pity. Out own
hypothesis is that the pervasive flavor of the tomato drove out the shallot
as bad money drives out good. Supporting this is the fact that the great
majority of ketchups that characterized early American cooking was gradually
replaced by the ubiquitous tomato ketchup. Miss Leslie, in 1837, published
recipes for eight kinds: anchovy (two), lobster, oyster, walnut, mushroom,
lemon -- and tomato. (Be it noted again, there was no sugar in any of them.)
Anyone familiar with Chinese cooking will recognize the original source of
ketchups, but they came to us from England. (the Oxford English Dictionary
says the word apparently derives from the Amoy Chinese kétsiap, meaning
brine of pickled fish. The Malay kechap [bar over the e], often given as the
source, may be from the Chinese as well.) Until about 1850, when an American
recipe called for ketchup, it most likely meant mushroom, walnut, or oyster.
These interesting condiments did continue for some decades, because Miss
Leslie's works continued to be best sellers. [To at least 58 editions by
1881, acc. to Bitting's standard bibliography -- MH]

"Her lobster ketchup ..." [on and on with details].

John L. Hess and Karen Hess, _The Taste of America_ (1977, ISBN 0670693766;
current 2000 reprint edition with new notes, ISBN 0252068750).


-- Max Hauser

Max Hauser wrote:

> In truth, American cooking reached its highest level
> in the second quarter of the nineteenth century, with Miss Leslie
> as its guide. From then on, it was downhill all the way.

Falling into the trap of romanticizing the past, I see.
That was an era before refrigeration, when meats
were preserved by being saturated with salt.
A fortunate few could afford a meager selection
of locally grown produce when it was in season,
but most vegetable products were dried or
pickled. Food adulteration was common, as
was food poisoning due to improper storage and
handling.

Today, we live in a Golden Age. We have access
to artisan chocolates far superior to anything enjoyed
by the Aztec emporers or their European conquerors.
We have freshly roasted coffees made from our
choice of beans from all over the world. We have
fresh fruits and vegetables all year round, both from
local sources and Latin America. We rightly complain
that our out-of-season avocados are lacking in full
flavor, but in the 19th century they had no avocados.

There are a few foods today, such as the tomato,
which have become industrial commodities, with
all the flavor and delicacy bred out of them. But
it is unfair to point to those as representative of
the entire food industry, while simultaneously filling
your cart with genuine Parmesean cheese and
prosciutto, red bananas and plantains, a dozen
different types of olives and goat cheeses, etc.

We have a greater abundance today at a lower
prices than at any time in the past, and the situation
is improving. Only in the past few years have
hot house tomatoes become widely available.
They are available at any time of the year, and
they look great -- like my mother had grown them
in her garden. They're still flavorless, but I have
expectations that within a few years that problem
too will be licked. Food today is better than it's
ever been, and it's getting better.

"Mark Thorson" in ...
> . . .
> Food today is better than it's
> ever been, and it's getting better.

Mark, you are starting to sound like _USA Today._ (Average small story on
page1 below fold: "Things Getting Better and Better -- Govt Says So.")

Anyway I do recommend to check out the Hesses' remarkable book (and _then_
decide what you think of it). (If necessary I'll give you a copy of it,
you've certainly been generous in giving books to me over the years.)

Cheers -- Max

"Mark Thorson" in ...
> . . .
> Food today is better than it's
> ever been, and it's getting better.

Mark, you are starting to sound like _USA Today._ (Average small story on
page1 below fold: "Things Getting Better and Better -- Govt Says So.")

Anyway I do recommend to check out the Hesses' remarkable book (and _then_
decide what you think of it). (If necessary I'll give you a copy of it,
you've certainly been generous in giving books to me over the years.)

Cheers -- Max

The Joy of Cooking is encyclopedic, but very bland.

--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Louis Cohen
Living la vida loca at N37° 43' 7.9" W122° 8' 42.8"


"Max Hauser" > wrote in message
...
> (Re-recommending a trouble-making classic)
>
> "Affluence, airplanes and highways destroyed good food in this country; we
> want it to be easy and supersized," said Anthony Bourdain of _Kitchen
> Confidential_ (quoted in a recent Portland _Tribune;_ the country he means
> is the US). "Most people think a potato tastes like a Pringle. And who
> remembers what a truffle tastes like? What people know now is truffle
> oil --
> the ketchup of the upper class."
>
>
> In a contrasting view of the history here, for around 30 years in print
> the
> Hesses have argued, or demonstrated, that the books of Fannie Farmer and
> the Romabauers spearheaded the decline of good food in the US, half a
> century before Affluence, Airplanes and Highways. (The bland nationwide
> brands and convenience foods after the second world war were just the
> coup-de-grace). Ideas heralded as innovations in US cooking in the last
> couple of decades emerge, in the Hesses' documentation, as rediscovery of
> principles common in past centuries, but lost, in America. (By the way,
> to
> take in vain the names of Fannie Farmer and the _Joy of Cooking_ sits
> badly
> with some people who grew up with these books, but they might want to
> check
> the Hesses' arguments for themselves. Discomfiture can spur discovery.)
> _The Taste of America_ was received by some US food professionals as
> important, even a landmark, when published.
>
> As for ketchup, here are the Hesses in 1977. (These samples are typical
> of
> the book.)
>
> "The most popular cookbook of the nineteenth century first appeared in
> Philadelphia in 1837. It was _Directions for Cookery,_ by Eliza Leslie,
> which in our view ranks with Mrs. Randolph's _Virginia Housewife_ as one
> of
> the two best all-American cookbooks ever written. James Beard, be it
> said,
> has rendered a service in making Miss Leslie better known to modern cooks.
> Why does he say, however, when he quotes one of her recipes for scalloped
> tomatoes, that it is "a very good one even now"? He surely does not mean
> "even now when tomatoes are no longer fit to eat," so presumably he means
> "even now when cooking has become sophisticated." In truth, American
> cooking
> reached its highest level in the second quarter of the nineteenth century,
> with Miss Leslie as its guide. From then on, it was downhill all the way.
>
> "Miss Leslie was sufficiently sophisticated to have written _Domestic
> French
> Cookery_ (1832), which she described as a translation. But her classic
> _Directions for Cookery_ is thoroughly American. It shares with earlier
> cookbooks a concern for quality that now seems almost alien, and abounds
> in
> such critical assessments as remarks [quoted] on choosing catfish, and
> "The
> Portuguese pork, which is fed on chestnuts, is perhaps the finest in the
> world." [On to further examples for the rest of the chapter.]
> . . .
>
> "There are other interesting omens of the approaching decline in our
> cookery. One is the gradual disappearance of the shallot. Even the
> admirable
> Miss Leslie makes only rare use of it, and after her, it virtually
> disappeared from American cookbooks for a century -- a great pity. Out own
> hypothesis is that the pervasive flavor of the tomato drove out the
> shallot
> as bad money drives out good. Supporting this is the fact that the great
> majority of ketchups that characterized early American cooking was
> gradually
> replaced by the ubiquitous tomato ketchup. Miss Leslie, in 1837, published
> recipes for eight kinds: anchovy (two), lobster, oyster, walnut, mushroom,
> lemon -- and tomato. (Be it noted again, there was no sugar in any of
> them.)
> Anyone familiar with Chinese cooking will recognize the original source of
> ketchups, but they came to us from England. (the Oxford English Dictionary
> says the word apparently derives from the Amoy Chinese kétsiap, meaning
> brine of pickled fish. The Malay kechap [bar over the e], often given as
> the
> source, may be from the Chinese as well.) Until about 1850, when an
> American
> recipe called for ketchup, it most likely meant mushroom, walnut, or
> oyster.
> These interesting condiments did continue for some decades, because Miss
> Leslie's works continued to be best sellers. [To at least 58 editions by
> 1881, acc. to Bitting's standard bibliography -- MH]
>
> "Her lobster ketchup ..." [on and on with details].
>
> John L. Hess and Karen Hess, _The Taste of America_ (1977, ISBN
> 0670693766;
> current 2000 reprint edition with new notes, ISBN 0252068750).
>
>
> -- Max Hauser
>
>

The Joy of Cooking is encyclopedic, but very bland.

--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Louis Cohen
Living la vida loca at N37° 43' 7.9" W122° 8' 42.8"


"Max Hauser" > wrote in message
...
> (Re-recommending a trouble-making classic)
>
> "Affluence, airplanes and highways destroyed good food in this country; we
> want it to be easy and supersized," said Anthony Bourdain of _Kitchen
> Confidential_ (quoted in a recent Portland _Tribune;_ the country he means
> is the US). "Most people think a potato tastes like a Pringle. And who
> remembers what a truffle tastes like? What people know now is truffle
> oil --
> the ketchup of the upper class."
>
>
> In a contrasting view of the history here, for around 30 years in print
> the
> Hesses have argued, or demonstrated, that the books of Fannie Farmer and
> the Romabauers spearheaded the decline of good food in the US, half a
> century before Affluence, Airplanes and Highways. (The bland nationwide
> brands and convenience foods after the second world war were just the
> coup-de-grace). Ideas heralded as innovations in US cooking in the last
> couple of decades emerge, in the Hesses' documentation, as rediscovery of
> principles common in past centuries, but lost, in America. (By the way,
> to
> take in vain the names of Fannie Farmer and the _Joy of Cooking_ sits
> badly
> with some people who grew up with these books, but they might want to
> check
> the Hesses' arguments for themselves. Discomfiture can spur discovery.)
> _The Taste of America_ was received by some US food professionals as
> important, even a landmark, when published.
>
> As for ketchup, here are the Hesses in 1977. (These samples are typical
> of
> the book.)
>
> "The most popular cookbook of the nineteenth century first appeared in
> Philadelphia in 1837. It was _Directions for Cookery,_ by Eliza Leslie,
> which in our view ranks with Mrs. Randolph's _Virginia Housewife_ as one
> of
> the two best all-American cookbooks ever written. James Beard, be it
> said,
> has rendered a service in making Miss Leslie better known to modern cooks.
> Why does he say, however, when he quotes one of her recipes for scalloped
> tomatoes, that it is "a very good one even now"? He surely does not mean
> "even now when tomatoes are no longer fit to eat," so presumably he means
> "even now when cooking has become sophisticated." In truth, American
> cooking
> reached its highest level in the second quarter of the nineteenth century,
> with Miss Leslie as its guide. From then on, it was downhill all the way.
>
> "Miss Leslie was sufficiently sophisticated to have written _Domestic
> French
> Cookery_ (1832), which she described as a translation. But her classic
> _Directions for Cookery_ is thoroughly American. It shares with earlier
> cookbooks a concern for quality that now seems almost alien, and abounds
> in
> such critical assessments as remarks [quoted] on choosing catfish, and
> "The
> Portuguese pork, which is fed on chestnuts, is perhaps the finest in the
> world." [On to further examples for the rest of the chapter.]
> . . .
>
> "There are other interesting omens of the approaching decline in our
> cookery. One is the gradual disappearance of the shallot. Even the
> admirable
> Miss Leslie makes only rare use of it, and after her, it virtually
> disappeared from American cookbooks for a century -- a great pity. Out own
> hypothesis is that the pervasive flavor of the tomato drove out the
> shallot
> as bad money drives out good. Supporting this is the fact that the great
> majority of ketchups that characterized early American cooking was
> gradually
> replaced by the ubiquitous tomato ketchup. Miss Leslie, in 1837, published
> recipes for eight kinds: anchovy (two), lobster, oyster, walnut, mushroom,
> lemon -- and tomato. (Be it noted again, there was no sugar in any of
> them.)
> Anyone familiar with Chinese cooking will recognize the original source of
> ketchups, but they came to us from England. (the Oxford English Dictionary
> says the word apparently derives from the Amoy Chinese kétsiap, meaning
> brine of pickled fish. The Malay kechap [bar over the e], often given as
> the
> source, may be from the Chinese as well.) Until about 1850, when an
> American
> recipe called for ketchup, it most likely meant mushroom, walnut, or
> oyster.
> These interesting condiments did continue for some decades, because Miss
> Leslie's works continued to be best sellers. [To at least 58 editions by
> 1881, acc. to Bitting's standard bibliography -- MH]
>
> "Her lobster ketchup ..." [on and on with details].
>
> John L. Hess and Karen Hess, _The Taste of America_ (1977, ISBN
> 0670693766;
> current 2000 reprint edition with new notes, ISBN 0252068750).
>
>
> -- Max Hauser
>
>

"Naomi Darvell" wrote [about the Hesses' _Taste of America_]
>
> It's an outstanding book, and a fun read, too.
> Anybody who's interested in food should read it.


People who were around and following US food writing in the late 1970s will
probably remember this book and the stir it caused, the thoughtful comments
in print. Since then it's been an underground classic. References to it
surface in surprising places. A generation of new US food fanatics
experienced the ritual of hearing about it and checking libraries or the
used book market for copies of the original 1977 book. This quest was eased
after the Hesses reissued it in 2000 with supplemental content. Before
writing this book, John Hess was an experienced food writer and editor and
former dining critic for the _New York Times._ Karen Hess is a food
historian known for her work on cooking Americana including the mysterious
"Martha Washington" cookbook. In 2001 I put some comments about _The Taste
of America_ on amazon.com's listing of the reissue; currently those comments
are he

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg.../-/0252068750/

I have a few books about food (I started accumulating them in the early
1970s). Of those that deal with US cooking, I reckon the Hesses' to be one
of the most important, and certainly most informative.

-- M.

"Naomi Darvell" wrote [about the Hesses' _Taste of America_]
>
> It's an outstanding book, and a fun read, too.
> Anybody who's interested in food should read it.


People who were around and following US food writing in the late 1970s will
probably remember this book and the stir it caused, the thoughtful comments
in print. Since then it's been an underground classic. References to it
surface in surprising places. A generation of new US food fanatics
experienced the ritual of hearing about it and checking libraries or the
used book market for copies of the original 1977 book. This quest was eased
after the Hesses reissued it in 2000 with supplemental content. Before
writing this book, John Hess was an experienced food writer and editor and
former dining critic for the _New York Times._ Karen Hess is a food
historian known for her work on cooking Americana including the mysterious
"Martha Washington" cookbook. In 2001 I put some comments about _The Taste
of America_ on amazon.com's listing of the reissue; currently those comments
are he

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg.../-/0252068750/

I have a few books about food (I started accumulating them in the early
1970s). Of those that deal with US cooking, I reckon the Hesses' to be one
of the most important, and certainly most informative.

-- M.

"Louis Cohen" > in
...
> The Joy of Cooking is encyclopedic, but very bland.
> Louis Cohen

> [Earlier text snipped considerably]


That is my take on it also, in a nutshell. It went through a number of
important editions though, and the character changed considerably. It was
originally a home recipe collection. Someone I know with the original
edition (very limited number, badly bound) reports that it is based on
canned ingredients and that "when her daughter redid the book, the recipes
were from scratch."


-- Max Hauser. (Mens et manus!)

I think this thesis ignores the fact that while much processed
food of the middle 20th century was less good than some home-made
food of the earlier history of America, much of it was also better
than some.

I.e., your culinary mileage would have varied a lot,
even when it was covered by horse and carriage.

--Blair
"I bet I can find at least one thing
Bourdain makes--and ten that Batali
makes--that I think suck worse than
a can of Pringle's."

I think this thesis ignores the fact that while much processed
food of the middle 20th century was less good than some home-made
food of the earlier history of America, much of it was also better
than some.

I.e., your culinary mileage would have varied a lot,
even when it was covered by horse and carriage.

--Blair
"I bet I can find at least one thing
Bourdain makes--and ten that Batali
makes--that I think suck worse than
a can of Pringle's."

"Max Hauser" > wrote in message >...
> "Mark Thorson" in ...
> > . . .
> > Food today is better than it's
> > ever been, and it's getting better.
>
> Mark, you are starting to sound like _USA Today._ (Average small story on
> page1 below fold: "Things Getting Better and Better -- Govt Says So.")
>
> Anyway I do recommend to check out the Hesses' remarkable book (and _then_
> decide what you think of it). (If necessary I'll give you a copy of it,
> you've certainly been generous in giving books to me over the years.)
>
> Cheers -- Max

Good thread! I think there are two more books which bring an
understanding of the evolution of American cooking are 'Perfection
Salad' by Laura Shapiro and 'The Nuts Among The Berries' by Ronald
Deutsch. They cover the Home Economics movement and health fads, both
of which contributed to deleterious influences on our eclectic
cuisine. Luckily, there have been many positive forces. Oops! Almost
forgot Adele Davis...

D.M.

D.M.

"Max Hauser" > wrote in message >...
> "Mark Thorson" in ...
> > . . .
> > Food today is better than it's
> > ever been, and it's getting better.
>
> Mark, you are starting to sound like _USA Today._ (Average small story on
> page1 below fold: "Things Getting Better and Better -- Govt Says So.")
>
> Anyway I do recommend to check out the Hesses' remarkable book (and _then_
> decide what you think of it). (If necessary I'll give you a copy of it,
> you've certainly been generous in giving books to me over the years.)
>
> Cheers -- Max

Good thread! I think there are two more books which bring an
understanding of the evolution of American cooking are 'Perfection
Salad' by Laura Shapiro and 'The Nuts Among The Berries' by Ronald
Deutsch. They cover the Home Economics movement and health fads, both
of which contributed to deleterious influences on our eclectic
cuisine. Luckily, there have been many positive forces. Oops! Almost
forgot Adele Davis...

D.M.

D.M.

x-no-archive: tes

Louis Cohen wrote:



>The Joy of Cooking is encyclopedic, but very bland.
>

The original Joy of Cooking was weird. It could make for fun reading,
especially the comments before the recipes. For a diet salad dressing: "No, it
isn't particularly good, but it can be eaten by the bulging with a clear
conscience." (Quote may not be exact, but I lost my copy.) Some of the recipes
were good and others were crap.




Naomi D.

x-no-archive: tes

Louis Cohen wrote:



>The Joy of Cooking is encyclopedic, but very bland.
>

The original Joy of Cooking was weird. It could make for fun reading,
especially the comments before the recipes. For a diet salad dressing: "No, it
isn't particularly good, but it can be eaten by the bulging with a clear
conscience." (Quote may not be exact, but I lost my copy.) Some of the recipes
were good and others were crap.




Naomi D.

Naomi Darvell wrote:
> x-no-archive: tes
>
> Louis Cohen wrote:
>
>
>
>
>>The Joy of Cooking is encyclopedic, but very bland.
>>
>
>
> The original Joy of Cooking was weird. It could make for fun reading,
> especially the comments before the recipes. For a diet salad dressing: "No, it
> isn't particularly good, but it can be eaten by the bulging with a clear
> conscience." (Quote may not be exact, but I lost my copy.) Some of the recipes
> were good and others were crap.
>
>
>
>
> Naomi D.
>
JOC serves more as a blueprint for recipes (as most recipes.) I find it
the most complete and eclectic cook book of the times.

There is no other collection that can boast such properties for the
price. A true bible of cooking.

Rich

--
"Dum Spiro, Spero."

As long as I breath, I hope.

Cicero (Ancient Rome)





ø¤°`°¤ø,¸¸¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸¸¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸¸¸,ø¤° `°¤ø,¸¸,ø¤°`°¤ø
><((((º>`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸.·´¯`·.¸. ><((((º> ·´¯`·. , .·´¯`·.. ><((((º>

Let there be fish!!!

(Naomi Darvell) wrote in
:

> x-no-archive: tes
>
> Louis Cohen wrote:
>
>
>
>>The Joy of Cooking is encyclopedic, but very bland.
>>
>
> The original Joy of Cooking was weird. It could make for fun reading,
> especially the comments before the recipes. For a diet salad dressing:
> "No, it isn't particularly good, but it can be eaten by the bulging with
> a clear conscience." (Quote may not be exact, but I lost my copy.) Some
> of the recipes were good and others were crap.

"original" Joy of Cooking? There have been numerous editions. Which
edition do you mean?

--
Wayne in Phoenix

*If there's a nit to pick, some nitwit will pick it.
*A mind is a terrible thing to lose.

(Naomi Darvell) wrote in
:

> x-no-archive: tes
>
> Louis Cohen wrote:
>
>
>
>>The Joy of Cooking is encyclopedic, but very bland.
>>
>
> The original Joy of Cooking was weird. It could make for fun reading,
> especially the comments before the recipes. For a diet salad dressing:
> "No, it isn't particularly good, but it can be eaten by the bulging with
> a clear conscience." (Quote may not be exact, but I lost my copy.) Some
> of the recipes were good and others were crap.

"original" Joy of Cooking? There have been numerous editions. Which
edition do you mean?

--
Wayne in Phoenix

*If there's a nit to pick, some nitwit will pick it.
*A mind is a terrible thing to lose.

Bob (this one) wrote:

> Here's the bizarre inconsistency - we want our food to be pretty,
> every pepper green, shiny, crisp and big, every carrot tapered, bright
> and heavy. No blemishes, no spots and it should sit unspoiled and
> unwilted in the refrigerator until we decide to use it, as though it
> came from some Henry Ford farm producing identically perfect tomatoes,
> matched melons and esthetically equal eggplants. And there should be no
> chemicals used to get there; no chemical fertilizers, no insecticides,
> no fungicides, no waxes to make it shiny, no gases in the boats or
> railroad cars from the fields to the stores.


A friend told me a story, possibly untrue, about his father the grocer
who, whenever he had over-ripe or imperfect produce, simply sold it by
putting a sign saying "organic" on top of it. This was many years ago
and before there was a legal definition for organic. At that time,
organic meant carbon-based so the signs were true. So if the bananas
were past prime, getting black, covered with fruit flies, and obviously
not selling, he'd dream up something like "Special New Zealand Organic
Zebra Bananas," and they'd fly out the door. That story, more than
anything else, brought home to me the truth about how consumers demand
perfect fruit unless they want chemical fertilizers, no insecticides and
no fungicides more.


--Lia

Bob (this one) wrote:

> Here's the bizarre inconsistency - we want our food to be pretty,
> every pepper green, shiny, crisp and big, every carrot tapered, bright
> and heavy. No blemishes, no spots and it should sit unspoiled and
> unwilted in the refrigerator until we decide to use it, as though it
> came from some Henry Ford farm producing identically perfect tomatoes,
> matched melons and esthetically equal eggplants. And there should be no
> chemicals used to get there; no chemical fertilizers, no insecticides,
> no fungicides, no waxes to make it shiny, no gases in the boats or
> railroad cars from the fields to the stores.


A friend told me a story, possibly untrue, about his father the grocer
who, whenever he had over-ripe or imperfect produce, simply sold it by
putting a sign saying "organic" on top of it. This was many years ago
and before there was a legal definition for organic. At that time,
organic meant carbon-based so the signs were true. So if the bananas
were past prime, getting black, covered with fruit flies, and obviously
not selling, he'd dream up something like "Special New Zealand Organic
Zebra Bananas," and they'd fly out the door. That story, more than
anything else, brought home to me the truth about how consumers demand
perfect fruit unless they want chemical fertilizers, no insecticides and
no fungicides more.


--Lia

On 22 Nov 2004 03:38:40 GMT, (Naomi Darvell) wrote:

>x-no-archive: tes
>
>Louis Cohen wrote:
>
>
>
>>The Joy of Cooking is encyclopedic, but very bland.
>>
>
>The original Joy of Cooking was weird. It could make for fun reading,
>especially the comments before the recipes. For a diet salad dressing: "No, it
>isn't particularly good, but it can be eaten by the bulging with a clear
>conscience." (Quote may not be exact, but I lost my copy.) Some of the recipes
>were good and others were crap.
>
>Naomi D.

if the quote is not exact, it's damned close. irma was a pistol, all
right.

your pal,
blake

On 22 Nov 2004 03:38:40 GMT, (Naomi Darvell) wrote:

>x-no-archive: tes
>
>Louis Cohen wrote:
>
>
>
>>The Joy of Cooking is encyclopedic, but very bland.
>>
>
>The original Joy of Cooking was weird. It could make for fun reading,
>especially the comments before the recipes. For a diet salad dressing: "No, it
>isn't particularly good, but it can be eaten by the bulging with a clear
>conscience." (Quote may not be exact, but I lost my copy.) Some of the recipes
>were good and others were crap.
>
>Naomi D.

if the quote is not exact, it's damned close. irma was a pistol, all
right.

your pal,
blake

On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 03:45:12 GMT, Richard Periut >
wrote:
>>
>JOC serves more as a blueprint for recipes (as most recipes.) I find it
>the most complete and eclectic cook book of the times.
>
>There is no other collection that can boast such properties for the
>price. A true bible of cooking.
>
>Rich

it's true that there's a method in there for cooking damn near
anything. the only thing i fault her for is cooking maryland blue
crabs by boiling. steam is the only way! but she was from michigan
or somewhere, so i'll let her slide.

your pal,
blake

On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 03:45:12 GMT, Richard Periut >
wrote:
>>
>JOC serves more as a blueprint for recipes (as most recipes.) I find it
>the most complete and eclectic cook book of the times.
>
>There is no other collection that can boast such properties for the
>price. A true bible of cooking.
>
>Rich

it's true that there's a method in there for cooking damn near
anything. the only thing i fault her for is cooking maryland blue
crabs by boiling. steam is the only way! but she was from michigan
or somewhere, so i'll let her slide.

your pal,
blake

"Naomi Darvell" wrote:
>
> I thought what they said about food culture-- cuisine, restaurants,
cookbooks,
> food writing-- was fascinating. Some of it may be less than compelling,
> sociologically. People like the Rombauers, who pushed ideas like mixing
canned
> tomato soup and canned pea soup, happened to be dealing with a changed
world
> where upper middle class people suddenly had to do their own cooking. So,
some
> of the ideas they put forth were for people who didn't care about cooking
but
> now had to do it anyway. That would contribute to a kind of inevitable
> lowering of standards.

I don't recall JOC advocating anything of this kind.

My JOC wasn't anything like that. I can't imagine a book with painstaking
hand-drawn illustrations of fashioning soufflé collars and slicing chilled
scratch cookie dough with a length of thread, shilling prefab shortcuts.

"Naomi Darvell" wrote:
>
> I thought what they said about food culture-- cuisine, restaurants,
cookbooks,
> food writing-- was fascinating. Some of it may be less than compelling,
> sociologically. People like the Rombauers, who pushed ideas like mixing
canned
> tomato soup and canned pea soup, happened to be dealing with a changed
world
> where upper middle class people suddenly had to do their own cooking. So,
some
> of the ideas they put forth were for people who didn't care about cooking
but
> now had to do it anyway. That would contribute to a kind of inevitable
> lowering of standards.

I don't recall JOC advocating anything of this kind.

My JOC wasn't anything like that. I can't imagine a book with painstaking
hand-drawn illustrations of fashioning soufflé collars and slicing chilled
scratch cookie dough with a length of thread, shilling prefab shortcuts.

"Max Hauser" > wrote:

>Anyway I do recommend to check out the Hesses' remarkable book (and _then_
>decide what you think of it).

I, myself, have attempted to read it on numerous occasions. Each time
I have abandoned it because of the pretentious and self contradictory
nonsense that fills it.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

"Max Hauser" > wrote:

>Anyway I do recommend to check out the Hesses' remarkable book (and _then_
>decide what you think of it).

I, myself, have attempted to read it on numerous occasions. Each time
I have abandoned it because of the pretentious and self contradictory
nonsense that fills it.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

"pennyaline" in ...
> "Naomi Darvell" wrote:
> >
> > People like the Rombauers, who pushed ideas like
> > mixing canned tomato soup and canned pea soup,
> > happened to be dealing with a changed world ...
> > ... That would contribute to a kind of inevitable
> > lowering of standards.
>
> I don't recall JOC advocating anything of this kind.
>
> My JOC wasn't anything like that. I can't imagine
> a book with painstaking hand-drawn illustrations
> of fashioning soufflé collars and slicing chilled scratch
> cookie dough with a length of thread, shilling prefab shortcuts.

Here is the reason for this apparent contradiction, I think. I mentioned
earlier in this thread that this book underwent major changes of style in
the various editions. The 1931 "true first" edition by Irma Louise (von
Starkloff) Rombauer, aged 54 (following a casual recipe collection she made
up in the 1920s for a Unitarian church-sponsored course) is not the first
"commercial" edition but privately printed and family-distributed. My usual
informant, who has one or two of them and is used to answering questions
about this book, reported in a newspaper interview

The author used canned ingredients in the
recipes. When her daughter redid the book
the recipes were from scratch.

That second would be, I assume, the 1936. In 1943 (the first copy in my
family) the book changed radically by merger with another by Rombauer,
_Streamlined Cooking_ (1939). The 1943 is conspicuous in seasoning most of
the meat dishes, even though they were in rich variety, with exactly salt,
pepper, and paprika. (It also is credited with the recipe format seen in
later editions.) A major third revision followed in 1952 with the daughter
named as co-author. For some details here I checked DuSablon (a standard
modern reference on US cookbooks; I don't know how much of relevance is
online, BTW, or how much of the inevitable wholehearted misinformation is
also online). DuSablon is a bit hagiographic on this classic, not
mentioning any limitations.

My usual advisor (a principal collector and dealer in cooking Americana)
says that the 1931 is badly bound and reports receiving, a few years ago, an
urgent order for six copies of the true first edition, for some sort of
Celebrity Foodie Event (CFE). She was obliged to gently clue the organizers
that on short notice, this would cost them three hundred thousand dollars at
current market prices, and the books probably would not look like much.
(The Event made alternative plans.)

-- Max

"pennyaline" in ...
> "Naomi Darvell" wrote:
> >
> > People like the Rombauers, who pushed ideas like
> > mixing canned tomato soup and canned pea soup,
> > happened to be dealing with a changed world ...
> > ... That would contribute to a kind of inevitable
> > lowering of standards.
>
> I don't recall JOC advocating anything of this kind.
>
> My JOC wasn't anything like that. I can't imagine
> a book with painstaking hand-drawn illustrations
> of fashioning soufflé collars and slicing chilled scratch
> cookie dough with a length of thread, shilling prefab shortcuts.

Here is the reason for this apparent contradiction, I think. I mentioned
earlier in this thread that this book underwent major changes of style in
the various editions. The 1931 "true first" edition by Irma Louise (von
Starkloff) Rombauer, aged 54 (following a casual recipe collection she made
up in the 1920s for a Unitarian church-sponsored course) is not the first
"commercial" edition but privately printed and family-distributed. My usual
informant, who has one or two of them and is used to answering questions
about this book, reported in a newspaper interview

The author used canned ingredients in the
recipes. When her daughter redid the book
the recipes were from scratch.

That second would be, I assume, the 1936. In 1943 (the first copy in my
family) the book changed radically by merger with another by Rombauer,
_Streamlined Cooking_ (1939). The 1943 is conspicuous in seasoning most of
the meat dishes, even though they were in rich variety, with exactly salt,
pepper, and paprika. (It also is credited with the recipe format seen in
later editions.) A major third revision followed in 1952 with the daughter
named as co-author. For some details here I checked DuSablon (a standard
modern reference on US cookbooks; I don't know how much of relevance is
online, BTW, or how much of the inevitable wholehearted misinformation is
also online). DuSablon is a bit hagiographic on this classic, not
mentioning any limitations.

My usual advisor (a principal collector and dealer in cooking Americana)
says that the 1931 is badly bound and reports receiving, a few years ago, an
urgent order for six copies of the true first edition, for some sort of
Celebrity Foodie Event (CFE). She was obliged to gently clue the organizers
that on short notice, this would cost them three hundred thousand dollars at
current market prices, and the books probably would not look like much.
(The Event made alternative plans.)

-- Max

Wayne Boatwright > wrote:

>That would be from 1931. I would guess that not all that many people have
>that one.

You would guess somewhat wrongly. For the 60th anniversary a
reproduction was issued and sold widely.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

Julia Altshuler wrote:

> Bob (this one) wrote:
>
>> Here's the bizarre inconsistency - we want our food to be pretty,
>> every pepper green, shiny, crisp and big, every carrot tapered, bright
>> and heavy. No blemishes, no spots and it should sit unspoiled and
>> unwilted in the refrigerator until we decide to use it, as though it
>> came from some Henry Ford farm producing identically perfect tomatoes,
>> matched melons and esthetically equal eggplants. And there should be
>> no chemicals used to get there; no chemical fertilizers, no
>> insecticides, no fungicides, no waxes to make it shiny, no gases in
>> the boats or railroad cars from the fields to the stores.
>
> A friend told me a story, possibly untrue, about his father the grocer
> who, whenever he had over-ripe or imperfect produce, simply sold it by
> putting a sign saying "organic" on top of it. This was many years ago
> and before there was a legal definition for organic. At that time,
> organic meant carbon-based so the signs were true. So if the bananas
> were past prime, getting black, covered with fruit flies, and obviously
> not selling, he'd dream up something like "Special New Zealand Organic
> Zebra Bananas," and they'd fly out the door. That story, more than
> anything else, brought home to me the truth about how consumers demand
> perfect fruit unless they want chemical fertilizers, no insecticides and
> no fungicides more.

So there we were, experimenting with a whipped custard in my first
restaurant and not only didn't it whip, it sat there as a sodden mess.
I was getting ready to toss it when Marge, my lead cook said, "Give it
to me." She took care of it. Later, when lunch was almost over, I
noticed the specials board. It said that today's lunch special was
some kind of sandwich (I've long since forgotten what kind) with
"Swedish soft custard parfait." Sold it all. Couldn't duplicate it.
Every time thereafter, it worked properly and never sold as well as
the mistake.

Wonder where Marge is now, 28 years later...

Pastorio

(Derek Lyons) wrote in news:41aad492.4085060
@supernews.seanet.com:

> Wayne Boatwright > wrote:
>
>>That would be from 1931. I would guess that not all that many people have
>>that one.
>
> You would guess somewhat wrongly. For the 60th anniversary a
> reproduction was issued and sold widely.
>
> D.

Well, ya win some, ya lose some. I had completely forgotten about the
reproduction.

--
Wayne in Phoenix

*If there's a nit to pick, some nitwit will pick it.
*A mind is a terrible thing to lose.

Bob (this one) wrote:

> So there we were, experimenting with a whipped custard in my first
> restaurant and not only didn't it whip, it sat there as a sodden mess. I
> was getting ready to toss it when Marge, my lead cook said, "Give it to
> me." She took care of it. Later, when lunch was almost over, I noticed
> the specials board. It said that today's lunch special was some kind of
> sandwich (I've long since forgotten what kind) with "Swedish soft
> custard parfait." Sold it all. Couldn't duplicate it. Every time
> thereafter, it worked properly and never sold as well as the mistake.


It was supposed to be a vegan lemon cake. I'd made a similar recipe a
thousand times with oil, tofu, whole wheat flour, maple syrup, and it
had always turned out fine in a vegan sort of way. This time I baked
and baked it, but it wouldn't set in the middle. The batter tasted
great, but it wouldn't turn into a cake with nice brown top and a soft
crumb. It stayed soft and soggy in the middle. I spooned it into
plastic containers, called it lemon pudding cake and got tons of
compliments. Like your Swedish custard parfait, it defied duplication,
but it was good while it lasted.


--Lia