balmagowry

Nope, sorry - on semantic grounds I simply can't agree. "Pork" is not syntactically parallel with "clams." "Clams," the plural of the common noun "clam," refers to a group of objects, each of which is a single clam. Nowhere does that term allow for the possibility that any individual item in the group to which it refers is anything other, or less, than a clam. "Pork" is a different case entirely - it is a generic noun which has no plural and which can (and does) correctly refer to any edible portion of a pig. If the menu says "fried clam strips," great. If the menu says, "a plate of fried clam," it gets points for both accuracy and originality, because it has had the linguistic guts to use "clam" as a generic. But if the menu says "fried clams," then by hell every individual item on that plate had better be a CLAM - not a half-clam or a half-assed clam or a portion of a clam or even a clam and a half. 1 clam, not .8765 clam. Mind you, it doesn't have to be a soft-shell clam - unless the menu says it is. Technically "fried clams" could mean fried quahogs or fried razors or fried surf-clams or, heaven help us, fried sand-gapers (though I don't know quite how you'd fit more than one of those on a plate). But some sort of a clam - the clam, the whole clam, and nothing but the clam ('cept of course the batter...) - it must be.

Ahhh, now I get it. Thanks, balmagowry! Whenever I come across any talk of fried clams on Holly Moore's Website, I've noticed that he mentions whether the restaurant/shack includes the clam belly in the fried clams. I thought that the belly was some extra, tasty bit I had never eaten. But now I see why you might be annoyed if your there are no bellies in your fried clams. My pleasure. Actually, there's something to be said for the variety of "fried clam" made only from surf-clam rims. I kind of like them - the chewy texture, the flavor, the robustness. But technically, of course, they are not fried clams, nor are they much like them - texture and flavor are quite different - so for me at any rate the real objection to them is on Truth-in-Advertising grounds, if you see what I mean. I can see where there might not be much of a market for Fried Surf-Clam Rims, but I'm sure they could come up with a cutesy euphemistic name (like Sea-Legs for fake crab meat?) that would sell. There are practical and monetary advantages to using rims instead of whole steamers; but there's no excuse for passing one off as the other - no matter how gullible the public may be!

YESSSS!!! Thank you - this is exactly the kind of info I was hoping for. Shall have an interesting time trying to figure out why. Um - but speaking of why... just how little is your "little Kuhn Rikon"? I'm thinking that this might be another context in which Size Matters. If you think about the difference in capacity between the two, i.e. the amount of air that needs to be subjected to pressure (sorry, I haven't had coffee yet and I know the correct terminology is escaping me for the moment ), mightn't that account for the difference in liquid requirement? Not challenging your assertion as such, of course - just trying to look at it objectively and evaluate the factors that might affect it. (And wishing the books I've ordered on the subject would arrive, already, so maybe I'd have a better basis for my speculations!) What do you think?

Just noticed this hadn't been answered. I'm not up on all the finer points of clamatomy, but I think the black bit is the stomach, if a clam can be said to have such a thing. Which I suppose it must. But for some reason "belly" is generally loosely understood to mean the whole body of the clam, that is, the soft rounded part. In unscientific terms, then, a soft-shell clam is made up of the following components: - the shells - the membranes connecting the edges of the shells - the condomy thingie (actually all of a piece with the membrane) - the adductor muscle (sorry, that IS kind of scientific, isn't it) - the tail (which is really the neck which is really the nose which is really the siphon) - the belly - the rim (that firmer edge part that circumnavigates the belly) (And the two places from which a live clam can spit, especially after a good long drink, are the end of the tail/neck/nose/siphon and the middle of the membrane between the shells, where there is a little opening admirably adapted to the purpose.) If your clams are steamed and served in the shell then assuredly they do include the belly - though a couple of them may well have come adrift and gone to roost in someone else's shell. Typically it's only in a case like fried clams, where all the bits may be camouflaged in batter and somewhat unrecognizable, that you might discover that you're eating a plate of nothing but rims.

Oh. So sorry, and here I thought we were talking about steamers - or chowder. (Sounds awfully good, though, I must say - shall have to try something like it this season.) Well, in any case, you want 'em alive until you're good and ready to kill 'em, whether by steaming 'em to death or by severing their adductor muscles - so I stand by my statements re sea-water. Kinky.

Well, DUH! I thought you were supposed to be the marine biologist around here. Do you really need to be told that putting them in fresh water will kill them? You'd thrash/flounder too, in their shoes. (Note to self: do not even THINK about whether or not clams have shoes.) If you really want to calm them down and remove the grit - salt water, put them in salt water. SEA-water. You want 'em alive when they go into the pot. Good thing biologists ain't like "most grown men," though. Would if you waited a bit....

Thank you; we prefer to think of them as delicate. Yes, I wasn't thinking they'd be tough at that size - the "large" ones here aren't - but that the bellies would be flabby and mealy. And of Lawn Guylanders. Yes, very likely. Though by that logic I'm surprised they grow here at all. And I still want to know why you put them in fresh water.

I do not doubt it. But either way I found it felicitous. That's rather a personal question, isn't it? Seriously, I wouldn't eat one bigger than 7 cm - but the best ones (IMNSHO) are closer to 4cm. 20 cm is a veritable monster in my eyes, and I quail at the thought of the consistency. Might well be perfectly fine for chowder, though - if a bit flabby in places. Hard to imagine it's the same creature. Er - why do you put them in fresh water? [EDIT, out of esprit d'escalier but also out of self-defense, to add cheeky crude remark before someone else does!]

Hang on a minute here. Steamers that are "only" 20 cm long or so? Oy, Adam, I hope you mean mm not cm, or you're dealing with some form of Mutant Mya that could take over the whole Arenaria! No wonder the sand gapes! Hmmmm. But if they're 20-mm steamers they won't be a good solution to your problem, not if you want to taste an "echt" clam chowder. They have plenty of flavor, but it's the wrong flavor. And they're too tender. As someone said along here somewhere, the clams in chowder should be a bit tough. Chewy. OTOH if they're 20 cm that won't be a problem, I suspect. But I still think razors are a better approximation. BTW, I have to say I really love your typos - often much more valuable and felicitous than other people's correctness. See what I mean?

I'd be concerned about how it would affect the consistency. Despite the many creamy bisque-like concoctions which are often perpetrated in its name, a true chowder is a poor fisherman's dish, and as such should have a thin thin broth, slightly milky and intensely clammy. Seems to me that the real problem with the puree idea is that it would cloud and thicken the broth to an unacceptably un-chowder-esque degree.

A shellfish shibboleth! Not to mention that Waltham is "Wal-tham" (with the 'th' sound elided) rather than "Walt-ham." And then there's Quincy ("Quinzey"), and don't forget Billerica ("Bill-RICK-a")!

Sure he would. Dump it in a bucket. Take it back to shore. Sell it. Baymen are pretty imperturbable, you know. Conspiracy, obviously. Not unlike most of the rest of the English language, now I think of it.

Ah - thank you, that was a very wise disclaimer to use in the presence of us lifelong clammers from Lawn Guyland! And one important point I neglected to mention in my earlier post - though it really isn't relevant to the how-to-eat question it is a useful piece of knowledge when you're in the field, as it were: the best implement for soft-shell clamming (as an adjunct to fingers, that is) is a toilet plunger. How wonderful! I love that kind of etymology. Reminds me of the Sartorius - oops, that's WAY OT. I think I may have posted this somewhere else: if you aren't clamming for commercial purposes the subdivision of hardshell clam types becomes a lot simpler. Basically, either they're small enough to be good raw, or they're big enough to be cooked. So for the past 20 years or so we've just dispensed with all the fine gradations and divided every catch into "Eaters" and "Chowders." Done. Supermarket clams - hmph. What can you expect? I realize not everyone can go out and get their own (you poor things ), but for something like clams it's at least worth finding a reliable fish-market or -monger. You wouldn't buy oysters from a supermarket, would you? Would you? Mussels. Same thing. Or more so. Yeah well - better gulls should use surf-clams for that purpose than steamers and crabs. They're not bad, though (surf-clams, I mean, not gulls) - we sometimes pull up a lot of them during August tides, and the smaller ones at least (up to maybe 3" long) are fairly tasty. Not as sweet as steamers, of course, but I kind of like the consistency once in a while. Also, I have this theory that almost nothing can taste really bad if it's cooked over, and eaten near, a driftwood fire - we have a couple of big old beat-up pots that are consecrated to beach use for chowder or surf-clams or blue-claws or whatever else the day's catch has produced. The sea is good to us. Raw! Duh, never thought of that. I've cooked 'em on occasion, and they're a bit tough and rubbery, as you might expect from the way they dig. Nice flavor, but hardly worth the effort. But raw. Good, this year I will make a point of trying it. And report. Useless? Is Euell Gibbons useless? Not to those who love shellfish. I for one am immensely grateful and edified.

I'd forgotten about buckwheat being related to rhubarb. Wouldn't you think then that the perfect combination would be a buckwheat crepe with a rhubarb-based filling? Sounds good to me. I too have very happy memories of The Magic Pan - perhaps even more so of its chief competitor, at least in NYC: La Crepe. Carolyn said: Yes, it sure would - and it might be even more interesting if some enterprising soul would try to re-start it, or something like it. Everything old is new again, and the time might just be ripe for people (well, at least the non-Atkins crowd) to rediscover and love creperies all over again. Hell, look how nostalgic eGullet is waxing! Like another fond fad of the same period which also spawned a chain of restaurants: remember La Fondue? In the 60s we used to do festive fondue evenings at home which featured everything but melting: sort of Bourguignonne and beyond. A pot of boiling oil for every two people; platters to pass around with chunks of raw beef and chicken, also large shrimp when the exchequer was up to it; always six* different sauces; a simple pilaf to accompany - mix your own mess, and oh how good it was and what fun - food and entertainment at the same time, dinner party as performance art. When I grew up I reinstated the custom for occasions like my parents' anniversary; when one of the close family friends in that group went veggie, I added a feature to the table: a large bowl of raw vegetables and a small one of tempura batter. The good times, they rolled. (*I can remember five of them - the sixth has been shrouded in the mists of family myth for at least 20 years. A warm brown sauce meant mostly for the rice, sort of a chasseur; a pseudo-Chinese-ish mix of duk sauce, soy sauce and dry mustard; and three mayonnaise-based sauces, flavored respectively with curry, capers, and dill. My mouth is watering. Quick, someone, get me the DroolGuard.) The question about savory crepe recipes also brings back lovely memories. My grandparents had a wonderful cook (a story, or a series of them, in herself) who made a version of canneloni that used crepes in place of pasta. So rich, so decadent, so delicate, so delicious, so... well, they were sublime, is all. I don't know if there was ever a recipe, as such (ooh, there might be, and I just realized where - never thought to look, but I will), but I have improvised imitations since then that, if they didn't perfectly duplicate Isabel's marvel, at least paid worthy homage to the memory. And of course, speaking of blini... there's always the blinchiki that I keep harping on about. (Which in my memory were always made with white flour not buckwheat BTW, but then my memory stops considerably short of the old country, so that may well have been a change made when my great-grandparents came over here.) The recipe for these, scribbled in my mother's handwriting, includes a quick precis of the Dione Lucas standard crepe recipe and says, don't bother to cook second side. Aha! Wasn't it right here on eGullet that I learned, a few weeks ago, that this is precisely the factor that constitutes the distinction between a blin(tz/ni/chik) and a crepe! What an education you guys are.

Yes, that condomy thingie is the clam's siphon. And the clam's siphon does what regular siphons do, it's takes in and expells water. And since they live in the ocean, the water that's siphoned in and out will contain grit/sand. Um, no - the "tail," AKA "neck," is the siphon. The condomy thingie is just a condomy thingie, i.e. a protective skin worn over the siphon - 'cept that unlike a good condom it has a couple of holes in the end so the siphon can... well, siphon. BTW, while I wouldn't care to eat the condomy thingie (which basically tastes like... nothing), I do eat the siphons. Worth it for a bit of grit - and I'm the only one in my crowd who likes 'em, heh heh, so I make a killing. I find it's actually a bit sweeter than the rest of the clam. Also, ours aren't usually all that gritty to begin with - or if they are it extends throughout the clamatomy (clam's anatomy?), so it doesn't much matter. When I was a kid the local folk wisdom was that you could get rid of the grit by keeping the clams (still alive, alive-o, of course) in a bucket of sea-water for a few hours after pouring a lot of corn meal in with them. The theory went that over a couple of hours they would suck in the corn meal, spitting out the sand to make room for it. Turns out that's hogwash. At least the corn meal part is. Leave them in a bucket of sea-water for a couple of hours and they'll spit out most of the sand anyway. See, clams don't LIKE having their little nostrils all full of sand, so when you put them in an environment where that isn't necessary they are perfectly happy to sneeze it the hell out. They do take in quite a bit of the water, though - as anyone can tell you who has pulled a plump clam out of the bucket and given it a good squeeze. Best candidates for this are those that have luxuriously exte-e-e-e-e-ended their siphons while purging the sand - a little unwieldy to aim, but otherwise almost as good as a water pistol! EDIT to add that BTW, steamers don't live in the ocean - they live in the bay. The ocean clam is a different animal - harder shell, more symmetrical shape, less tender flesh, less sweet flavor. I am given to understand that in many commercial establishments that claim to serve "fried clams," what you're actually getting is ocean-clam rims. Easier to work with than steamers - less fragile. And under all that batter, goes the reasoning, who's gonna notice?

the "you" i was referring to in my post wasn't you but azrael--who seemed to be more interested in adaptation of certain western classics to the pressure cooker. Ooops! Sorry - I'm not usually quite so solipsistic. (Wait - who'm I kidding? Yes, I am. Oh well, never mind... I had fun going off and ranting in my little corner and pretending people were paying attention.) Thank you - that's great! No, I don't think Suvir had posted any recipes - it wasn't that sort of thread. Hmmmm - obviously I need to go hang around the India thread for a while. I could learn a few things, I suspect...

You can get respectable stuff for $16.99 a gallon - but you don't have to schlep literally half way round the world to get to the Bronx! In Vikram's case it'd be like going 10 miles out of the way to pay a penny less per gallon of gas (we all have parents who do that, right...? ), only much, much more so. I can't imagine it's an economical shopping trip from any part of India.

Oh good heavens, please don't be. It's the best possible riddance of bad rubbish, and I got plenty out of it and am blessedly free of it. Funny how you can distort your own meaning in the course of a post, though - here all I meant to do was write a humorous counterpoint to Mudpuppie's scathing remarks about her ex (Gawd, if the liquid aminos don't just say it all!), and in my own head I had done exactly that, and I never even noticed that all the ironic little eyebrow-lifts were missing, let alone that it would therefore come across sounding bitter. Ooooops! Nah, he's welcome to those recipes, and my escape is cheap at the price. Besides, I'm a good teacher but I'm not that good a teacher - I very much doubt that those few days made a cook out of someone with no instinct and too much baggage. I'm sure he's tried to reproduce those recipes, and I'm sure he failed, and I'm sure he blamed me, and I don't give a damn because I'll never have to hear about it. Now I'm cooking for someone who appreciates my cooking - and me - without hanging a lot of hidden booby-traps all over his approval. This is the life. And it all started with clam sauce, which (as I later learned) scared the hell out of him because he'd never had it before!

It isn't exactly the question I was asking, but that doesn't mean I'm not interested in learning about the recipes! What an education, this eGullet; I'm chagrined to say that until very recently, when I read Suvir Saran's posts on the other Pressure Cookers thread, I had no idea that Indian cooking made so much use of the pressure cooker. Of course, the moment you hear it you realize what an obvious fit it is, what with all those intractable dals, as you so elegantly put it. It simply hadn't occurred to me until now. Also, if you've read my posts up-thread you'll know that my pressure cooker must be nearly as stone-age as yours and that I am firmly convinced that the fancy-schmancy stuff, while it may be nice and sexy to have, is by no means critical. Certainly in my fairly long experience with pressure cookers I haven't run across any recipe or technique that required more complex features than those you cite. So in that sense, your answer is part of what I'm looking for: evidence on both sides of the debate. I realize that the debate, if such it be, is really only raging in my own head at the moment, but I am rather hoping to change that. Not (as I said to John earlier) to try to talk people out of their lovely toys if they want them and can afford them, but to come to a truer understanding of what it is that drives the desire. For instance, I swear by my old-fashioned Magnalite pots. I know there are those to whom cast aluminum is in itself anathema, and besides that I know that lots of people like newer fancier shinier stuff for one reason or another. Fine. But this whole line of thinking has led me to consider seriously: why do I feel so strongly about my Magnalite? Answer: for a complex combination of reasons. To begin with, features of the pots themselves: I like the way they conduct heat, I like the sizes and shapes they come in, which I find useful and also pleasing to the eye; I am comfortable using them, and this comfort is born partly of their quality and partly of my long familiarity with them. Then there's sentiment: these are the pots that my mother and my grandmother and another family friend used - not only the same ones but also in most cases the self-same ones, so I have all sorts of memories attached to them; OTOH I also love the first and only one that I bought new all by myself - it was one of the last of the line (though I didn't know that at the time), and buying it was a rite of passage in a way, something that gave me a sense of accomplishment and belonging. At the other end of the purchasing spectrum, there are the yard-sale and eBay coups - finding a missing piece to add to one's collection or that of a friend, and getting it for a fraction of its perceived (by me, anyway!) worth. There's also a touch of esoteric cachet, I guess, because so many people have no idea that there is such a thing as old Magnalite, let alone that it has inspired a minor cult. This may be reverse snobbism - I'm not sure. But whatever it is, it pleases me. And that's the crux. I don't propose to make any kind of moral or qualitative judgment about why people prefer the things they prefer; these things are highly individual and I can't think of a single reason that wouldn't be valid. All I'm after is clarity. If you buy a Fagor Marine because it matches your decor - great! It isn't what I would do - but maybe I can learn something from you, since I have no decor to speak of, at all. Buy the pot you like because you lust for it, because it haunts your dreams, because it goes with your dog's eyes - whatever. BUT... do not then turn around and try to tell yourself you bought it for its superior features... if in fact it doesn't have any. Hmmmmm - I don't know quite how this rant [A] got to be a rant and put itself into the second person. Tricky things, rants. Obviously this one is not addressed to anyone in particular! It is, however, a challenge nevertheless; a challenge to all comers to face the truth about the pressure cookers of their souls. Ooof! and there's melodrama for you. Time to exit stage left with a halo and a strangled sob, I do believe!

Only about my favorite Thai dish of all (if favorites I can be said to have, which is in itself problematical). I'm sold! Thanks for the tip.

The sentiment is entirely mutual, I assure you. Ha! I got the best of that deal, heh heh. I have my EXH's microwave, the one he received as a wedding gift for his second go-round (I was #3) in 1980. Still going strong. Another Old Reliable in its way: two mechanical knobs (How-Long and How-High) and no fancy-schmancy beeping electronic buttons to fail just when you need them. Damn - maybe we need to start a Luddite thread! I think we've touched a nerve here. Too quick, too dry. Too quick, too dry. And thank you for reminding me - one of my favorite things to "presh" is lamb shanks. Mmmmmm... white beans... think I'll head over to the market NOW.

Aha! NOW you've told me something! Thank you! There we have both a love of the Old Reliable, lurking under a thin veneer of Fancy Goods, and ALSO a real, practical preference of one mechanism over another. Thank you! That's exactly what I'm trying to find out. Sheesh - I suppose someone must have done. Wonder whether he survived.... Well done. Yes, my husband loves his monstrous new Chevy Avalanche (the car he uses when he needs to schlep something besides himself, and to be fair he schleps a LOT) and touts the engineering virtues of his (admittedly tried-and-true, not to mention very sexy-looking) Mercedes... but every once in a while he'll drive my 5-speed Honda and afterward he'll invariably turn to me with a big silly grin, saying, "Wow, that's fun - I keep forgetting what it's like to drive a Real Car!" (Which when you think of it is only partly the case, the Civic being not so much a car as a motorcycle dressed up in its Daddy's car-suit. But it's certainly a lot more Real than either of those other behemoths.)

Hey! Did someone give permission for reasonable talk on this thread while I wasn't looking? I thought this thread (OK, OK, except for my stupid linguistic digression, I'm SORRY already) was for expressing childish prejudices in high, whiny voices, like this: Eeeeeeeewwwwwww!!!!

Sounds just wonderful. I'm pretty sure you can still get preservative-free raw cider at some stands or at least from organic sources - though I suppose that would be expensive. This is a bit OT, but I've been thinking about doing the same with cider vinegar - mother too good to waste, so I thought, why not slip it into a gallon of raw cider and let it do its thing. But now you've got me thinking of more exciting applications. Is it October yet?