Chris Amirault

Margy, glad to see you back on the horse! I'll start by pointing out the obvious: you posted a fantastic topic that struck a nerve in dozens of members -- thanks for that! I think the topic you chose goes right to the heart of "Food Traditions and Culture," and as a result it raised a lot of questions, ire, and commentary that bubble under the surface about food, dining, culture, obligation, desire, and Cobb salads. But, alas, popularity has its costs. As ludja wrote, I think that the reason why there's a lot of talk in this topic about people's behavior and yours in particular is because, well, you asked a set of questions about your food-related behavior. That was a gracious, honest gesture, and it enabled us to discuss a complicated situation involving food and culture with a vigor that may well have been lacking otherwise. Of course, it also enabled many posts to delve into assumptions about what the original post described, which raises lots of other interesting questions about the baggage we all bring to these sorts of topics and to food and eating in general. To that end, it seems to me that mean-spirited posts probably say more about what people use to fill in the gaps in stories about food and culture than they do about your behavior. My mother would here quote verse about complaining about the speck in someone else's eye while ignoring the log in your own -- and then pressure me to eat the chicken parm because I'd "really love it."

Only half a mediocre salad at best, apparently!

Irrelevant, your honor. The guest had already accepted the invition. Further, expecting to negotiate the place at which your host choses to dine with you is presumptive in the extreme. It is a social occasion, not a business deal. I respectfully disagree. A proper host, in my opinion, always asks if a restaurant choice is acceptable to would be guests, e.g., "would it be alright if we ate at X." ← Charles is right -- usually, of course, but moreso in this topic. And while we're dispensing folk wisdom, two wrongs don't make a right, even if you think that "forcing food upon people" (aka "taking them out to dinner" -- if that's what was happening) is somehow rude. It seems to me that talking about friends and co-workers is missing the point as well. This is about family and culture, not friends you choose. Meanwhile, where have you gone, MargyB? What're you thinking?

Any other diners at Biscuit lately?

Sounds like a plan -- though controlling conditions may be tricky. Maybe you'll have to use the exact same pan on the exact same burner and just repeat the experiment with identical times, etc?

So has the chef change at clarklewis had any troubling impact? (Please forgive if I'm missing a topic here; a quick search turned up a few pages but none on clarklewis itself.)

I think that we may be in a turtles all the way down situation here. Aren't the "classics," originally, "someone's personal preference"? I mean, someone decided that it would be a good idea to combine X with Y and call it Z because they liked it. I don't think that preference gets you out of this dilemma about historical accuracy, which may be more about naming conventions than it is about recipes. BTW, the reason why I and others like to try "historically accurate" cocktails is to better understand how tastes evolve. This is a tricky endeavor (liquor production has changed, citrus sweet- and tartness aren't stable, many ingredients are defunct), but I can imagine that Erik's excursion through the Savoy is fueled in part by that desire to connect to the past and its tastes. I'm not so sure that my local barkeep using the word "classic" in front of a Cosmopolitan ought to be held to the same research standards we're discussing here! However, to the larger point: we all know that facts change as sources are revealed. That's the precise point of doing the archival history, right? A reference to Thomas today might be illegitimate in a few years when a translation or newspaper article reveals new things. I think that's an excellent point. The brief sections in, say, Gary's Joy on different drinks evoke a time and place that locate the drinks in the contexts of the drinking itself -- more a social history of drinks than a drink history. But these comments raise a larger question. Why bother doing the history at all? I mean, what are you trying to accomplish with this research and writing? I mean that sincerely. I can't imagine that Thinking Bartender's statement, "historical facts are very interesting, and may lead to a better understanding of what cocktails can be" is the sort of thing that gets one up every morning to face the dusty stacks (or endless links). But, then again, I lean toward the social history of drinks perspective, I suppose, so perhaps I'm missing something.

Thanks, Abra. Are reservations essential there?

Welcome to the eGullet Recipe Cook-Off! Click here for the Cook-Off index. This cook-off focuses on felafel. I've enjoyed fine felafel here in the US and overseas, but I have literally no idea how to make this, the national street food of at least a handful of Middle Eastern countries. Several people who have recommended this cook-off did so because, while they felt they had some clues, they didn't really have a consistently successful recipe or method. Sounds like a good cook-off topic, eh? There are a few topics on the felafel matter, including this one on tips and tricks, an older topic that finds more woes than techniques, and this preparation topic, How Do You Like Your Falafel? I also found this recipe by Joan Nathan, which seems like it might be useful. But what do I know? Not much, I'll tell you. Time to chime in, you!

I'll be traveling to Portland in early April on business and would be interested to find out where I ought to eat for dinner on Wed, Th, and Fri nights -- as well as for breakfast on Saturday. (Not brunch. Breakfast. Don't be giving me no brunch suggestions.) I'll be staying at the Benson and won't have a car. I'm partial to moderately priced "ethnic" food and would be very, very happy to find a perfect cocktail lounge while there. Finally, I won't have the ability to drop major cash on any meal. Thoughts?

As we just announced here, Susan Burgess (Susan in FL) is stepping down from her role as an eGullet Society volunteer. Her tenure included stints as a host in Florida and in Beer, and she was the foodblog czarina for a good long while. Susan will continue to participate as a member and will carry the emeritus staff designation, but we'd like to take this opportunity to thank her for this service. Please use this topic for food-related reminiscences about Susan's tenure. For personal notes of thanks, please use the personal messenger system.

Susan Burgess (Susan in FL) has stepped down from her role as an eGullet Society volunteer after a lengthy tenure. We thank Susan for her service and look forward to her continued participation as emeritus staff. To honor Susan's service, we've started a topic in the Member News forum here.

Thanks, sarge. As I mentioned above, I'm quite sure that the gambes were Mediterranean, and after I had made my purchase I saw some others buying what I had left behind (with a new sign indicating the price more clearly). Made me think that I didn't get ripped off. And the shrimp, as I wrote, were magical things.

Probably because the saturated fat is able to absorb more surface area during cooking and also clings (like cooked sugar) to the meat. ← I'm not sure I follow this. What does "absorb more surface area" mean?

Elsewhere in the Cocktail forum, we've seen little flareups concerning the original details of this drink or that recipe. While those particular discussions can be fascinating, this topic is devoted not to those sorts of donnybrooks but to the methods of researching and writing cocktail history. We have, of course, several well-known cocktail historians among the Society's membership, and from the looks of things, we have a fair number of amateurs who have well-thumbed Savoys atop their armchair's nearest table. So here are a few questions to get us started: What are the guiding questions in your research? What are your research methods? Where and how do you do that research? What primary and secondary sources do you rely on most heavily? Are there documentation sources (such as research libraries) that are particularly valuable? How do you know when you've identified sufficient support for a claim? Just as importantly, what process do you use to identify an illegitimate claim? How do the descriptions of the characteristics of particular drinks affect your understanding of how we would now make those drinks today, with (in many cases) radically different ingredients? Finally, are there examples of cocktail historians who have done it perfectly? What makes their methods so admirable?

I second Steven's recommendation of the salametti, which I first had at his dining table two weeks ago in NYC: a remarkable experience. I brought back some and have been blowing everyone away here in Providence. We've had nothing like it before. My wife pointed out that the interior texture is unlike any supposedly similar charcuterie in large part because the meat and fat, while clearly distinguishable to the eye (the stuff has perfect definition), meld in a magical way in the mouth.

I think that boning the duck meat makes for a more enjoyable eating experience, but that's your call. I would avoid shredding, however; it's nice to get chunks of the confit, not bits, and you'll be jostling them as you cook and mix anyway.

As I just noted over in this topic, Edible Rhody is starting up here in the Ocean State. Seems like a good opportunity to take stock of the current state of the RI food media here in the Biggest Little. What are your thoughts on the ProJo (great piece the other day on Blackstone Valley "ethnic" food, btw)? RI Monthly? Providence Phoenix? Providence Monthly?

The quarterly Edible Rhody is being launched this spring by publisher Alex Corcoran, who apparently has just moved to RI (brief bio here). The launch party is at Gracie's in a couple of weeks; I'll post a report here on the event. The media kit lists some pretty hefty ad rates (click). Are these typical for the other Edible newsletters?

It's not going to crisp up, but it might break down nicely if you mince it. Of course, you could take it off and crisp it up for your own self.

Different kids -- and adults -- react to different foods in different ways. Sugar, caffeine, chocolate: definitive lines cannot be drawn here. Furthermore, raising the specter of diabetes and obesity seems a way to justify moral outrage with quasi-scientific research. Indeed, I'm not sure that there are very many options for respondents to this topic besides expressing moral outrage or requesting some measure of restraint. As someone who deals with actual violence against children in my work, I'm in the latter camp, and I'd urge us to keep an eye on how we use terms like "abuse" when it comes to Hershey's Kisses.

There's really no need to do that. It's not as if you're making an emulsion for, say, a sausage; you're beating water next to fat molecules to make the rendering speedier. In fact, you want the emulsion to break and release the liquid fat. My sense is that, yes, this is more or less true, simply because your body, which sits at about 98.6F most of the time, will process anything that's in a liquid state at that temperature more effectively than it will process something that isn't. However, I'm far from certain, and my quick research suggests that it's not a rule of thumb. (This doesn't make any sense at all, of course, with oils.)

I disagree with Leviathan: I actually believe that there are a few pretty damned solid cookbooks that focus on the cuisines of Asian nations, broadly defined. True, those cookbooks are impossibly general, but so is any cookbook, after all, particularly when trying to represent some absurdity like "Chinese cuisine," itself a constellation of cuisines. All are flawed: such is life. So, with that in mind, I offer two books. One, oft discussed here, is Jeffrey Alford and Naomi Duguid's Hot, Sour, Salty, Sweet, which I think does a very good job of introducing readers to the flavor palate of southeast Asian cuisines, particularly for the Western (read: US) kitchen. But one of the best cookbooks available of any sort and my standard starting point for most discussions of Asian cuisines is Charmaine Solomon's remarkable Complete Asian Cookbook. Complete it is not, both for the reasons indicated above and for the fact that its sections on Thai, Japanese and Chinese cooking are very limited. However, her introductions to each cuisine, the choice of representative dishes, the emphasis on techniques and on appropriate ingredients (substituters, beware: she won't let you off the hook), and the remarkably successful recipes throughout the book make this a must-have for every kitchen bookshelf. I mean, what's your go-to book for Sri Lankan mas ismoru, Indonesian sambal goreng telur, kai Lao, and Philippino kari-kari? Of course, as you get focused and want more precision and variety, you can go get your David Thompson and Shizuo Tsuji. But Solomon is a great place to start.

I agree with Abra. While it might not have a major impact, the structure of the pork fat changes during the curing, and the smoke would be quite noticeable. I would definitely blanch it.

This is the second topic in our series, "Better Cooking Through Science." The purpose of this series is to talk, ask, and learn about an important concept in food science, how that concept functions in specific foods and recipes, and what you can and should do in your own cooking to incorporate those insights into better practices. If it works, we can all figure out how to tackle seemingly challenging scientific knowledge and bend it to our uses! The first topic on the series, on emulsions, is here. In this topic, we're hoping to get the skinny on fat. I admit to being totally confused about animal fat and its components, and the news media isn't particularly helpful on the subject either. However, as always, Harold McGee's On Food and Cooking: The Science and Lore of the Kitchen is coming through when all others fail; most of the material I quote here is from pages 797-802. (I haven't checked Shirley Corriher's Cookwise: The Secrets of Cooking Revealed yet, but I will tonight at home.) Fats (and oils) are lipids, and lipids have a lot of useful characteristics for cooking. For one, they taste good and feel lovely on most people's tongues. They can provide a tenderizing effect: think of the velvety consistency of a well-made duck confit. Fats, of course, have gotten a bum rap, in part due to another beneficial property, namely, their ability to store a lot more chemical energy than most substances. (That energy is measured in calories, of course.) In addition, depending on the various proportions of saturated, monounsaturated, and (trans-)polyunsaturated fats -- and your reading of current research -- a large foundation of animal fats isn't probably the basis of a healthy diet. Thankfully, however, this isn't "Healthy Eating Through Science" but "Better Cooking Through Science," so I'm not going to try to unravel any of these carbon chains. Instead, let's focus on something we all know and love. Fats are fantastic media for heating foods. Anyone who's ever eaten pancakes cooked on a non-stick skillet without fat knows that the microscopic distance between the pan and the food is in fact a vast, tasteless gulf that must be filled with something. Water works, but just for a few seconds on a hot surface, at which point it turns to steam and evaporates; adding more water than can evaporate is poaching, which has its own limitations. Since lipids by their very definition are unlike water, they can form boundaries between organic compounds that include water (vegetable matter, meat protein) and the cooking surface. The stove then heats the fat to temperatures much higher than the boiling point of water, transferring that heat energy though the fat via convection currents. Evenly distributed across the item's surface, fats are crucial aids in the drying, crisping, and browning of your hash browns and pork chop, effects achieved by the Maillard effect and caramelization, both of which require higher temperatures than 212F/100C. More fun fat facts: Fats don't have sharply defined melting points (think of your butter in the fridge, on the counter in winter, and next to the stove). Fats that are more saturated are more stable in relationship to the oxygen in air (think of dry-aged beef) whereas the more unsaturated fats are more likely to go rancid (think of dry-aged chicken skin). Free fatty acids are the pests behind smoke points -- the more free acids, the less stable the fat, and thus the lower the smoke point -- and because fat breaks down a bit more each time you deep-fry, the quality of the oil deteriorates and the smoke point lowers. Searing that steak in fat on both sides doesn't "seal in the juices," but you know that, don't you? Any animal fats can be rendered in order to provide a pure cooking medium; many Society members boast proudly of their collections of schmaltz (rendered chicken fat), duck fat, lard (rendered pork fat) and others bumping around the back of their fridge. For years I had used fifi's method for rendering fat (click here), but I've discovered a more efficient and controllable method that I've posted to RecipeGullet here. Creating an emulsion of fat and water before rendering is a particularly useful technique if you want to get the most out of duck or chicken skin and don't want cracklin's or gribenes to snack on at the end. I still have lots of questions even after reading up. For example, what precisely causes food to taste unpleasantly greasy, and what can you do to avoid it? What kinds of fat have affinities for what sorts of cooking tasks? (For example, busboy will tell anyone who listens that potatoes and duck fat are a marriage made in nirvana.) There's likely a lot more questions out there, and hopefully a few of us can figure out answers and share tips.