Chris Amirault

Suzi, what kind of clams are those?

Ruth, what's great about it? Do tell!

I'm not sure I even understand the hype. What does "3 layers of ceramic reinforced non-stick coating is 10 times more durable especially on a honeycomb surface" mean? More durable than what? Especially how? Anything that has as a bullet "healthy cooking" smells a bit funny to me.

That's right. I was underexplaining in that sentence you quoted, surmising that most of us know about the conduction properties of fat in a skillet and that fat isn't required for browning. But that knowledge you detail here is not common knowledge for the cook just starting out. Another good point -- and I'll also add here that I don't think Ruhlman is claiming to write The Book for Newbies. I was addressing the question Anne posed. I mean, let's face it: there's nothing without holes. Every book on cooking has to make certain decisions about its presumed audience and then explain certain obvious things while presupposing others. I've found the cookbooks that Ruhlman has (co-)written have done a very good job of targeting this particular reader (especially The French Laundry Cookbook and Charcuterie), and the balance between useful detail and overkill has often been spot-on. Having said that, I now crave far greater curing and sausage-making detail than Charcuterie provides, and the "holes" in the book are far more annoying. Given the fact that Charcutierie is precisely the book that developed my skills sufficiently to form that critique, such annoyance is minor and possibly even unfair. As an introduction to the craft, Charcutierie delivered on its promise. My beef with Elements is that, for me, it does not do the same.

I still haven't figured out the julienne problem with my Oxo, but I want to report that the removable blade sharpens up very nicely.

I think that's an excellent question, Anne, and one that none of us can probably answer effectively, given that we're hardly first-years around here. I'd like to know what the rest of the folks think. My two cents: It's hard to tell if the tone and scope would be a problem for your charges, and the lack of illustrations would hamper a lot of the information for some. Its level of detail regarding the French tradition might strike your fam as a bit off base when, say, they find seven (or nine, depending on how you count) entries that start with "Beurre" but can't find "Beets." The book is nothing like McGee, as Ruhlman makes clear. I think it's far more approachable than McGee: the categories are fewer, the research less detailed, and the overall feel more useable for a newer cook. But I think that the book doesn't give a new-ish cook all of the tools needed even for the topics covered. Here's a good example: the one-page entry on "fat." Unlike McGee, Ruhlman doesn't require that you go through the index and several different pages throughout the book to get the information you're seeking (and you don't get a lot that a newer cook wouldn't want). Ruhlman covers many of the basics connected to flavor, cooking, the unsatur/satur/hydrogenated categories. However, like many entries, it's missing a crucial (one might say elemental) point: the importance of fat in producing the Maillard reaction when browning food on the stove. That's a lost opportunity, and particularly essential for those starting to cook who are prone to "save calories" by using insufficient amounts of fat in a thin, non-stick pan and likely to scorch their proteins instead of brown them. edited to fix spelling error and clarify -- ca

This is what I meant by wobbly categories. If "formal" means "continental" or "French," then you've answered your own tautological question; if by "schools" you mean CIA, J&W, etc., then you've done the same. But if you expand your frame of reference, there are Chinese, Indian, German, Mexican, Italian, Moroccan, and Japanese culinary academies all over the globe (to name a few), as well as several in the U.S., that offer formal instruction in those cuisines and techniques, each of which has a distinct set of foundational skills, methods, and dishes. My point is precisely that we live in a much smaller world these days, and the best chefs draw from global traditions. Why limit the scope when defining the essential elements if they don't? As for mirepoix, my guess is that mirepoix means mirepoix throughout the international cooking world, just like bhuna and dashi do. I don't think anyone's proposing kicking the French tradition and all of its terms out of their kitchens. Again, I reference my own freezer!

I guess in my initial post I should have written, "I planned to have only two or three drinks, to tip well, and to avoid attempts to engage fellow customers in loud discussions on the intricacies of arranging happy endings at massage parlors and the taxonomy-related differences between 'Mexicans and Hispanics.'" In case, you know, that wasn't clear. Say hi to your dad for me.

Nothing whatsoever in my review was disingenuous. I meant everything I wrote, and I'll bet that Ron, Dave, and Rachel would say the same thing. That we don't all agree is a sign that it is, in fact a book that we all read from our own perspectives. If you'd like to point to a specific statement that is insincere or snarky, I'll be happy to try to explain whatever I've written. Such explanations aren't likely to lead to agreement, though! The claim that all formal or 'formal' (I'm not sure of the distinction) culinary training is largely French-based is both inaccurate and a good example of some of the problems I had with the book.

I'm basing it on a comparison of what the book is and what it claims to be: a compendium of the essential elements of cooking. It's a compendium I find lacking for the reasons I stated above. But, hey, YMMV (ETA: when you get and read the one you ordered!), as can be seen by the variety of responses here!

It's not deliberately obtuse at all. I believe that it's wrong to claim that the only elements of cooking worth knowing these days come from the French/continental tradition. That's not to say that the tradition isn't worth knowing. Heck, his veal stock recipe is a good one, as my freezer can attest! But there's too much good cooking out there that isn't in that tradition and that is for me part of any good professional or amateur cook's repertoire. There are models for that sort of book, too. I'd point to The Cook's Book, edited by Jill Norman, which attempts to recognize both new techniques and non-Western cuisines as essential elements to a cook's battery. What can I say? I hoped for and expected more from this book.

See - here's my problem. If we take this sentence and strike through the word "Western" and insert the word "Asian" or "Mexican" (you choose the ethnicity) all hell would break loose about our lack of political correctness. Why is there something wrong with trying to maintain the traditions of one cuisine whatever its ethnicity? There's nothing at all wrong with trying to maintain the traditions of one cuisine. But the book isn't called "The Elements of French Cooking" or even "The Elements of Western Cooking." It's called "The Elements of Cooking." If the book claimed to be merely a compendium of advice and opinions about one cuisine, then it could get away with its focus, as far as I'm concerned. But the book seeks to state (I quote from the dustflap) That's not a claim to cuisine-specific information. That's a claim to universality.

In the adjectival sense only: heritage. As in "Heritage Turkey."

I just snooped through the website but can't find any figures on cost. (I know, if you have to ask....) Anyone have a clue?

I think that you should start asking for current and vintage menus at each new restaurant you visit and see if you can convince your well-traveled friends to do the same. I've had the privilege to go through the menu collection at the Johnson & Wales Culinary Archive, and, well, it's basically one person's obsessive gathering of hundreds of menus from virtually every meal he had.

Try Born Cooking, Corretger, 9 (off Princesa) 933 10 59 99. It's a small shop with American goods run by a Greek American woman who operates a catering facility for restaurants and private customers. I'd bet she' getting Thanksgiving up and going.

Do you mean ones that you've collected, or ones that you've bought from others who have collected the menus themselves?

Trial run on that was a bust; the wife hates licorice, and there's star anise in that infusion. So we're going with the Crop Duster: 2 oz applejack 1/2 oz lemon juice 1/2 Maraschino Dash orange bitters Dash peach bitters

You're harshing my Cherry Heering mellow, dude.

I swear to you that I didn't try to foist a Picasa lop yuk slide show on anyone.

The light is low, tis true.

You're not offending me, Mike! When your posts have questioned my food & drink priorities in the past (click), I've taken it in stride. Part of the tussle that makes eG Forums great, methinks. Sure, this is no more a big deal than the proper composition of cassoulet or the tasting menu at Alinea. But the situation to me (and to quite a few others who are posting to and reading this topic) does raise some interesting notions about what is appropriate or not appropriate behavior in bars and restaurants in the 21st century. It's clear, for example, that some of us think of a laptop as just another component of social existence, no more intrusive or vibe-blowing than a pad of paper. If I had thought that I was ruining the evening of everyone else in the bar I wouldn't have gone there with the computer. (I'll repeat that I did in fact find a bar whose staff and customers felt no ill will.) I went there because I thought it was a good place, not a place I wanted to punk. It's also clear that the very presence of this particular piece of technology signifies something really bad to people who go to bars to escape the workplace. The absolutism of many of the positions taken on that side are surprising to me: one laptop leads to another then to a Holiday Inn lounge; silent laptops are compared to blaring TVs. I thought I was going to finish up an article, not disrupt the pleasures of every other person in the place, but from the posts here, it seems I may have unknowingly been on track to do just that. I find it genuinely baffling. To me, the differences between this small computer (I'm using it now) and a pad of paper are insignificant -- and I'm clearly not alone. I started the topic because I didn't understand what happened and why. I do wish Mike had talked with me in a collegial manner about this policy so that I could understand, and maybe we'll find out that he wishes the same.

Back at it again this year. I think I'm starting with this cocktail, another applejack sour (I pander to family tastes -- what can I say) using the vodka spice infusion I've been working on (click), this one based on Dave the Cook's Crop Duster, an Aviation variation: 2 applejack 1/2 Maraschino 1/2 vodka spice infusion 1/2 lemon dash Angostura

I'm not sure if this is implying that I've trashed him here, but in case it is, I'd like to clarify that I offered up this question precisely because I wasn't sure what to make of this. As I said, I think his position is defensible; I just disagree with it. I'll also add that Mike has been invited to participate in these discussions -- via a friendly card sent through the USPS. (No email address for him or the restaurant, natch.)

No need to rub it in.