MaxH

As many people said, it depends on interests. The three or four popular mainstream US pubs have been mentioned. (Gourmet is by far the oldest, its recipes were collected in the landmark and still useful Gourmet Cook Book, 1950. In the 1970s first (I think) Bon Appetit and then Food and Wine took it on seriously. I've bought issues of Gourmet in the past because of some beautiful food photography. Professionals I know read Food Arts and (for European wine reviews) Nouvelle Revue de France. Don't limit your consideration to North American publications even if you live there. In the past I got a lot out of the British wine journal Decanter, with an unapologetic, very international perspective (at least 15-20 years ago) and the Viennese food-wine magazine Falstaff. Years ago a professor I knew recommended La Cucina Italiana but didn't like the idea that it might be available in English translation. (It now is.)

Other threads here on eG mention remarkably (I think that term fits) coincidental titles, including one used in at least three food books recently. I mentioned (I think in another thread linked in that one) the Atlantic Monthly several years ago with a landmark article (on cholesterol), causing the largest volume of letters in the magazine's history -- and a few years later, a book by another author appearing with essentially the same title -- and not mentioning the Atlantic piece (that I could find). A generation ago, regional restaurant critic Jim Quinn published the revealing behind-the-scenes look at US restaurants, But Never Eat Out on a Saturday Night, partly expanding on his sensational and widely read article in a national magazine. The book's theme, laid out in the preface, was "The last days of Haute (or faux) Cuisine." Several years later another regional US critic published another book looking broadly at US restaurants, and though it cited certain icons (of the A. J. Liebling caliber) I didn't see mention of Quinn's book, with overlapping subject matter. Despite titling the new book The Last Days of Haute Cuisine. It happens in scholarship too. I don't know how many of these cases are truly "suspicious," but any unexplained sharp title coincidence in a related work, is, well, unexplained. An incentive for authors to (a) know and (b) cite their antecedents -- it helps everyone, especially themselves.

Look, what do you want, salsa72? First, I am not arguing about individuals, only specific information they've posted. Second, short of exhaustive, point-by-point analysis, comparable to a reworking of the Wikipedia page, I can only point in the right direction and leave it to people to see for themselves. What precisely in the two examples I just gave (quantitative toxicities of thujone, caffeine, and alcohol; Breaux's comment New Yorker 13 March 2006) is vague, or hard to check??? What don't you find to argue with, there? And to repeat, are you aware of those discrepancies already, and if so, what do you call them, if not spins? I have no commercial or advocacy agenda, I'm just concerned about accurate absinthe information. Became interested in the 1970s after hearing about it from my parents (trained in fine arts in the early 1950s and acquainted with it). Began exchanging about it publicly on the Internet, late 1980s. (What, re the 1970s and 1980s dates, do you consider an issue of "opinion," and why characterize it so?) Saw the Web sites appear, saw the number of search hits grow from literally a handful in 2000-2001 to hundreds of thousands, as absinthe moved from specialized to general interest. In the meantime I'd accumulated some authoritative sources bearing on the history of its demystification. For another concrete example, contrary to frequent assertions lately, thujone-free absinthe by chemical analysis is not recent but was claimed in the early 1900s, as quoted in modern popular absinthe writing. (Why isn't that mentioned by those "most qualified experts?") Most basic tutorial information on absinthe was public by the 1990s in standard sources* and has not changed. The newer sources -- hobby sites, Breaux, etc. -- did a decent job of repackaging that material, but -- my whole point here, for the Nth time -- I wonder at some emphases and omissions. Three concrete examples just given, please don't ignore them further. * Marie-Claude Delahaye's 1983 book; Barnaby Conrad's 1988 book based partly on it; and Matthew Baggott's 1997 online pharmacology notes are three prominent examples.

Welcome to eGullet, by the way, salsa72.Why do you assert as above? East-European issues may exist but they have no connection at all to my points here, recently summarized above for instance. I have a small library of very respectable and public sources bearing on absinthe. Some of their most important, and oldest, upshots are missing, or de-emphasized, in recent information offered to newcomers and journalists. I've followed absinthe honestly, and with interest, for longer than Ted Breaux, Hiram, and other people now commenting. They rarely say, for instance, that natural thujone's lethal dose (public for decades in any library) resembles those of other physiologically active food components such as caffeine. Caffeine is a convulsive poison at similar gross overdose levels to thujone's, but the caffeine in a cup of coffee (100-200mg) compares to the thujone in a bottle of even thujone-rich absinthe. That's around 1% of a human-lethal dose of the respective component -- but a bottle has 50 to 100% of a lethal alcohol dose. With or without thujone. Why isn't this prominent in Wikipedia or the WWS site? Why does Breaux (New Yorker 13 March 2006) cite a reference book about absinthe toxicity, but not mention caffeine's related toxicity, or alcohol's dominant toxicity in any absinthe liquor -- all in the same book -- which changes the message? There are other examples. I am raising serious points, not rhetoric. What do you call these representations, if not spin? Or are you not aware of them?

I recently picked up my bottles of first release of the "absinthe verte" from respected artisanal California distiller St. George Spirits. First US product with AT-TTB approval for "absinthe" on its label; stories in December-5 numbers of San Francisco Chronicle and New York Times and in late December, aerial photo of queue to buy limited offering at the distillery. I'd put in an order at my regular spirits dealer ($69.95 a bottle) when the story broke, and the order was filled in December. (Should I see any of you in person, I'm happy to share.) The St.-George has a distinctive bottle and label, declaring 10 herbs used, and generic tag "brandy with herbs." 60% ABV. (The original Pernod absinthe, which started all the fuss 150 years ago, used a brandy base; details in Conrad's standard absinthe book. The Kübler and Lucid absinthes I've tried, retail in US, claim a neutral-spirits base.) Greenish-tan color undiluted, pale-green louche with water,* slightly herbaceous variant of classic absinthe nose and flavor, wormwood discernible. Anise-fennel flavors predominate as usual. There's a resemblance among absinthes I've tried (some better known than others) fashioned after the pre-ban products (especially Pernod) that the makers had sampled, and this one is solidly in that class. Overall a quality, artisanal impression, befitting St.-George (better known for its premium vodkas; I haven't tried them, malt whiskys are more my taste in materia distilleria, and St-George makes small batches of an excellent, distinctive malt). * Basis of the dialect word "pastis" in southern France, for drinks of this broad class that cloud in water when oils from anise etc. leave solution.

Like the parallel case of the third talked-about recent food book titled Secret Ingredients. (If I wrote a book review for the latest one, I'd name it something like "Secret Ingredients -- a new book genre." If you do see published professional reviews, look to see if they mention the previous books with the same title -- which would be hard for someone to miss, if they were watching food books in recent years.)

I too was struck that some of those titles are books I have, or have seen, from past years. Point's 1969 book (my English-language Lyceum edition 1974, bought used for $7.48) is one that's often referred to, even while long out of print. (Several others have that status and surface occasionally in discussions here on eGullet and other food communities.) I thought Russ Parsons's new ("Peach") book was remarkable when I got it last year because of the unusual angle -- like his previous ("French Fry") title but more so, I think -- combining agricultural and kitchen perspectives. (I told him so. He has posted on eG for some years, and credits the site in his acknowledgments.) I guess one implicit message here is that not all highly worthwhile food books are right off the press! Some people even go further than that ... -------- Fernand Point himself, curiously, had a kind of pyramidal look ... -- Ma Gastronomie

Amazing! I'm marveling at yet another book with this title -- we just had a thread on the previous one, by Innes, a few months ago. Carrot Top mentioned this newest one in September, and last year's thread on the previous one begins Here. That makes at least three modern popular food books (and I think I remember a fourth) with the same title (Robert's somewhat-classic about ingredients, a modern pioneer in the now-busy genre of food science for general readers, reissued 2001; Innes's appeared at the end of 2005). Obviously it's a side point from details of the new book, but this title has been used so much now and is so familiar through the other recent books that there's apt to be a little confusion. Again I wonder if reviewers have been pointing it out?

Thanks to EricB and other, local, advice I tried Sullivan's twice, not long ago; it stood out from comparable restaurants tried elsewhere. What struck me most was bold, intense flavors where many restaurants stay safe by dumbing them down. A seared Ahi appetizer came with uninhibited ginger and horseradish-mustard garnishes; the automatic iceberg-wedge salad with a main course had an edgy fresh-garlic vinaigrette (like I make at home) underlying its blue cheese. Order of sautéed mushroom caps came finished in what seemed like Madeira, onion puree, and butter, yielding wonderful juices. When I requested French bread to soak them up, a fresh-baked dense crusty unsliced mini-loaf arrived that did the duty superbly, with leftover bread for next day's breakfast. The bar-area ambiance when busy resembled a scene from The Big Sleep. Live jazz nightly from 4:30 or so, with an older duo -- sax and piano -- playing with feeling, on a Monday night, worth going just to hear. Happy-hour deal Thursdays and Sundays drops bar plates to $5. The bar did feature Martinis, though the specialty wasn't any classic Martini but one of the recent sweet neo-Martinis based on a tank of vodka with pineapple soaking in it. I did try some of the flavored vodka on request and it would make a fine after-dinner liqueur, if that's your style, but when I asked a capable bartender to make a really old-fashioned (pre-olive!) Martini he did so, well, but clearly an unusual request. (No orange bitters on hand -- "we do have basic 'bitters' " -- no thanks, I said -- the lemon twists will do the job.) I noticed that the well-chosen, eclectic wine list had a couple of the good Marlborough Sauvignon Blancs of another current eG thread. Talking to the wine buyer, I mentioned how popular these are in the Bay Area now and suggested offering more, and by the glass. He was ahead of me -- already tried it, but the partly vacationer customers didn't respond well to the unfamiliar labels -- the trade tended toward "domesticated" wine tastes, he said -- but still, with a little selling ... (New wines are like that: people resist the unfamiliar, but if it's a style they like, they go for it once they finally try it.) The few Sullivan's sites belong to the Lone Star Steakhouse & Saloon chain, with what restaurant analyst Mark Hamstra termed a "three-tiered steak-house strategy -- with the [large] Lone Star chain at the casual end, Del Frisco's at the high end and Sullivan's somewhere in the middle." Still I'm accustomed to being underwhelmed by chain steakhouses. Ruth's Chris was fine enough in its early locations, but by the 1990s often served things like mushy dull vegetables, and presently seemed hard to distinguish from any other chain. This Sullivan's in PD, in my experiences so far, was more like the truly one-of-a-kind, independent local steakhouses found in lucky parts of the US. Couple good lunches at the bustling Café de Beaux-Arts (73-640 El Paseo, not far from Sullvan's) with a staff that was attentive (and responsive to a tight timing one time); French is spoken. And though it was a very light meal, at the pleasant unpretentious inexpensive family-run Back Street Bistro (72-820 El Paseo), which offers live music certain days.

Good Marlborough SB's at USD $10-$12 retail (Matua Valley, Brancott, Kim Crawford, etc.) have been taking the SF Bay Area by storm on restaurant lists and supermarket shelves despite competition from major US wine-producing regions located nearby. Fresh wines with an edge of steely acid balanced by various citrus and sweet-pepper flavors, mercifully not over-oaked. (You can even see that aspect in the color, which tends to the greenish-yellow typical of natural SB wines.) Pairing-wise they could almost be cousins of European Rieslings, where fruits, minerals, and sometimes elements of sweetness (with or without actual sugar) balance an acid backbone (especially in the Mosel). A thread like this surfaced on another forum, but in the opposite direction: Given some dishes (initially chicken Piccata with lemon and capers), which Marlborough SBs to recommend? I've found them beautiful with sautéed fish and beurre-blanc, but more generally, versatile all-around food wines. The balance makes them agreeable by themselves before dinner, while the acid and complexity go with all sorts of foods. Cold-buffet stuff (cold meats, cheeses, nuts, raw vegetables, smoked fish), grilled sandwiches, many things.

None so far, evidently (of course it could come later). In case anyone doesn't realize it yet, this isn't about a difference of opinions, like some argument in a bar. The body of literature bearing directly on absinthe has certain basic upshots that aren't recent at all, and that anyone can verify to their complete satisfaction if they'll do the work. I'm just pointing this out. (If you aren't familiar with my standards of evidence, please read some of my eG postings.) As absinthe moved from the back to the front burner of popular interest recently, some people re-hashed standard absinthe tutorial information, and in many particulars I feel they did a good job. Certain quirks, though, appeared in the recent sources I mentioned. (I include Ted Breaux's quoted comments in popular media that repeat accurate published information about absinthe as far as they go, but omit the rest of the story, which significantly changes the message.) I listed some of these quirks previously. Since the upshots are fairly central to popular questions on absinthe, it's striking not to see them clearly laid out in Wikipedia and other recent tutorials, where other, much more subtle, details are punctilious. That's all background: Here's the immediate issue. People here and there, aware of these quirks (or spins and omissions) in absinthe tutorials, have been speculating about why. Are they conscious spins, or not. I don't know, and don't presume to guess. (I know where I'm coming from, but can only read other people's words, not minds.) The complaint posted on Wikipedia could be relevant (whatever its other messages or limitations -- Czech products and so on). It opens with the undisputed point I also noticed when checking current online absinthe information, that a very small group of people mostly in absinthe businesses do a lot of writing, including on Wikipedia, and are well represented in links there.

Part 2. Spins and selective information are visible on [current online absinthe] sources. That's actually not hard at all to demonstrate to impartial observers, though it takes space and willingness to look seriously at the subject. (Impartial observers, by definition, lack emotional stake so are undistracted by a need to defend anything.) I don't know which new info that alludes to, Hiram; instead of repeating that assertion, please demonstrate it. I've looked at those sites periodically and -- aside from things like esthetic product discussion and comparison, an important exception -- I saw very little substantive scientific or absinthe-history background that I haven't also read in mainstream sources decades (even many decades) old. On the other hand, here are examples of what I mention above: 1. Thujone-free absinthe by analysis isn't a recent claim, it was in absinthe advertising a century ago, reproduced for years in modern absinthe literature. (And if someone knows absinthe literature, they know this.) 2. Whether it contains thujone or not is virtually irrelevant to absinthe's toxicity by standard published LD50 measures, which say that in all cases the principal toxin (by factor at least 100 or so) is the alcohol. (Still rarely a problem, in moderation.) 3. Item 2 also raises question why any recent writing continues to flag thujone as toxic, or uncritically quote comments that say or imply so. My expert friends agree that language like "toxic" or "poisonous" is meaningless without quantitative info and context. Everything is toxic in enough quantity, even water. LD50 (lethal-dose) measures for natural thujone (from common first-reference sources, in any library by the way -- not specialized papers) are in same ballpark as some other herbal constituents consumed daily in foods in far greater quantity than any absinthe would be. Therefore of all substances mentioned here, why acquiesce in thujone's long-obsolete stigmatizing? 3a. Further, if writers of recent tutorials ("foremost authority on absinthe in English-speaking world" or otherwise) know the subject, they also know all the points I raise here, and easy sources for them. If so, why do they withhold this insight; if not, on what basis do they claim expertise? (thujone.info does cite many research papers exploring thujone -- as are published for countless other biochemicals too -- yet doesn't call out the upshots I list here, central to absinthe.) 4. This is a harder upshot to summarize because it covers wide ground. Science learned much about absinthe and thujone within a few decades after the 1912 US ban. That knowledge, to those who saw it, dissipated most residual 19th-century stigmas on absinthe and thujone. Thujone came to be seen like other common herb essences, more widely found in plants than previously thought. (Last sentence paraphrases a standard reference book, 1940.) Grossman, in his US drinks reference book (4th edition 1964), who'd handled absinthe professionally in various countries, dismissed its persistent "aura of mystery" and tagged alcohol as its toxic component. That echoed available scientific information. I raised same point, discussing absinthe publicly on the Internet in 1988. Some of this picture emerges in current FAQ postings, but I fear readers may not come away learning Grossman's key point. 4a. In an odd current contrast, FDA's continued prohibition of thujone in wormwood products resembles a 19th-century view while its simultaneous unrestricted and "safe" classification of sage (thujone-bearing, in similar concentration) reflects more closely a modern (post-1940s) perception of all these plants. 5. A few terminology choices conflict with standard usage in related literatures. An example is Upthread. In view of these examples, what exactly is the objection to my 1-Jan-08 posting?

Since folks are interested, I'll happily elaborate. It may help understanding. I'd also caution against further mis-reading or second-guessing: First, I wrote, Wikipedia Absinthe Discussion page has major item down the page [header X, conclusion Y]. Quoted its author's header and conclusion. My posting labeled this "allegations" and "charges;" I'm sorry to see Shabba reading, or at least responding, to my posting as if it "used Drabsinthe's statement as a fact." Second, Hiram, I don't know where you get that stuff. It doesn't aid your credibility. On what basis do you presume to second-guess my motivations, then reply to your own guesses? ("Call into question anything new" ?? "As if priority conferred authority" ??!?) That's off-base and uncalled-for. Technical and historical information are constantly updated. I identify sources as earlier because they're earlier. Decades of technical scholarship and peer-review work showed me that understanding publications' sequence aids perspective. (I've written professional technical articles since 1973.) Also, where new writing repeats standard sources, pointedly crediting those sources isn't just good grace, it helps the reader separate what's new. Evidential standards in professional publications are stronger than in popular ones. (It's not good form just to assert whatever you happen to believe.) But I apply them also to my postings here -- what you see is usually just the top of the iceberg. Now to clarify, I know nothing of Czech absinthe, nor am concerned with such issues from the Wikipedia poster. I've no connection with absinthe businesses and no quibble with any group for absinthe tasting or connoisseurship (I think it's admirable in fact) or any of the Web sites, beyond criticizing certain tutorial information on absinthe. This critique embraces quoted statements by Ted Breaux (on the sites and elsewhere). My points are limited and specific, let's stick to those, OK? This reply is in two parts, from the two specific assertions I made in the previous posting. Part 1. Wikipedia talk item alleges a few people, with absinthe business interests, author US hobby sites and the Wikipedia absinthe page. The item opens claiming links from Wiki absinthe page go disproportionately to a few sites. First four are "1. Liquers de France, 2. FeeVerte [feeverte.net], 3. Thujone.info (same as 2.), 4. The Wormwood Society [wormwoodsociety.org] - of which the main writer of this [Wiki] page is a senior member." That assertion appears not even controversial. Hiram of WWS confirmed his and David Nathan-Maister (feeverte.net, thujone.info)'s commercial activity, above. Two people linked to three US hobby sites and Wikipedia page. QED. Next point.

People following various absinthe sites that surfaced to offer information in recent years may want to know allegations visible on Wikipedia. (I had independently encountered some of the same points.) Several charges appear, but the one of widest relevance is that a very few people, generally connected to absinthe businesses, control US hobby sites and the Wikipedia absinthe page. That might explain the spins and selective information visible from those sources. (Contrasting with the record in the wider, impartial literature relevant to absinthe, all of which predates these online sources.) The Wikipedia Absinthe Discussion page has a major item down the page somewhat, under header Page is controlled by a minority. Conclusion:

That's a great picture of the absinthe fountain on the blog, Carloyn! Have you been to that famous old New Orleans bar (I think it's the Old Absinthe House) that had fixtures installed around for customers' use before the ban? When I last visited, only absinthe substitutes were offered and they were unpopular. That was before the recent fashion (before Lucid, before all the absinthe Web sites). Late at night we tried a couple local drinks and the high point was an unsteady young woman from Abilene informing all that peanut butter would cure her hiccups, if she could just find some. To her patient and sober boyfriend: "Ah must have peahnut buttah, and SUGAH!" For years you could pick up earlier-make absinthe glasses for a song, they were out of fashion. Thanks to a thoughtful friend, I have some, haven't used them for 5-6 years. Yet another example of the value (learned mainly with wine) of shopping for something before everyone else suddenly finds that they need it.

I don't know Yan's recipes -- except a dazzling one I was introduced to by someone else, a sizzling black-bean chicken with shallots and ginger, which worked very well and has become a stand-by for me -- so I can't speak to his books. Rather, he's an example well known in North America of one of the people that have at least privately credited Lo for breaking ground in popularizing Chinese cooking methods overseas. Not to belabor it but muichoi, first, assumption about me is again inaccurate: I began cooking Chinese recipes from Kenneth Lo, therefore tried them as a beginner. Second, presuming unknown facts about me is off the main issue. Were you to specify in which recipes you found difficulty and why, in Lo's books that I recommended (Chinese Regional Cooking, Chinese Cooking on Next to Nothing, and The Top One Hundred Chinese Dishes), and for Martin Yan's now that you've also dismissed his work, it would give substance to your arguments in readers' eyes. More than repeating "they don't work." (Just a tip from someone who has been reading such things on the Internet, now coming up on 26 years.) -------- "... all about food, cooking, cookbooks, recipes and other alimentary effluvia." -- Steve Upstill, announcement on net.general Sun Jan 31 10:16:27 1982.

Also BrandonPHX, since you seem to be in the US, this might be useful: a recap of something I posted here and there a few years ago on the subject of that miraculous unique spice, Sichuan "peppercorns" -- more citrus than hot in flavor. -- One unusual Chinese cookbook I use has some of the most rewarding spicy stews and similar dishes, some of which (like the simply named "red cooked beef with noodles") exquisitely employ Sichuan peppercorns. (In that case, with lots of of scallions, ginger and whole garlic cloves.) This book has spoken for most of those peppercorns that I used in recent years. The book is unusual in being an oral account from a skilled Chinese cook, transcribed and translated by English speaking writers. It has been a US underground classic for 30 years. Schrecker and Schrecker, Mrs. Chiang's Szechwan Cookbook, Harper and Row, 1976, reissued 1987. ISBN 006015828X for the reissue. Readily available on the used market and probably some libraries. amazon.com currently lists 44 copies available, starting at $4.07. A good value, in my opinion. PS: The Chiang book includes a recipe and background info about the famous tofu dish (spelled mapo doufu). Also, comments from Eugene Wu of the Harvard-Yenching Library who claims to've had the dish when he was young, in Chengtu, from the famous pock-marked lady herself, whom the dish is named for. Quoted in support of this review and recommendation: "You ordered by weight, so many grams of bean curd and so many grams of meat, and your serving would be weighed out and cooked as you watched. It arrived at the table fresh, fragrant, and so spicy hot, or la, that it actually caused sweat to break out. Dr. Wu says that Mrs. Chiang's version of the dish rivals that of the famous old lady. It is just as rich, fragrant, and hot. / If we had to choose the quintessential Szechwanese dish, this spicy preparation of bean curd and chopped meat would probably be it. Its multiplicity of tastes and textures first stuns, then stimulates, the senses. ..." (The writers go on about the relation of the dish to Sichuan cooking traditions.)

Assertion: (I mentioned negative UK comments on Lo, and some of his later books had a different style that might conceivably fit this. Would like to learn more about it some time.)But muichoi, you may not know it, but the categorical negative comment "They don't work" -- like many sweeping characterizations -- is very demonstrably inaccurate as I'll explain, and further, it's an assertion without data. It implies testing all Lo's books, including the two I named upthread, and The Top One Hundred Chinese Dishes (1992). These three include some of my most-used Chinese recipes (again, Chinese Regional Cooking is translations from a large national cookbook). Of the 20 or 30 recipes I tested in those books, all worked well when I tried them. (Maybe I should ask Martin Yan or Lawrence Chu to comment -- their words would carry more weight.) Disproof of assertion by multiple counterexamples; quod erat demonstrandum. For Sichuanese cooking, Fuchsia Dunlop's Land of Plenty (2001, ISBN 0393051773), if you overlook some fussy claims of the authentic or sole genuine way to make a certain dish (like the Guide Culinaire 100 years ago), is recipes studied and tried there, then reproduced successfully in Britain. For perceptive, incisive East-West fusion concepts I find it hard to surpass the 1990s series by husband-wife team Hugh Carpenter and Teri Sandison (Carpenter's a former Chinese-studies scholar turned cookbook author and teacher). Those books are alive with flavor, a gold mine of ideas that deserves more recognition. Amazon.com lists half a dozen of them or so, linked together.

I see the deep problem there: Ambiguity. (Does it mean black powder, which everyone has smelled who has ever set off or been near fireworks, and is sulfurous, sort of volcanic; or does it mean the smokeless powder used in modern firearms? Given the word "smoke," I'd guess the former.) That means a slightly eggy, sulfurous smell, I think combining H2S and SO2 (the two usual, very different, sulfur odors frequently found in some wines) because black powder gives off much of its combustion products as solids, including sulfides, in finely divided form (aka "smoke") and they affect the smell. Someone who'd think of such a descriptor likely either likes fireworks, or has been around reproduction old black-powder arms, or else (like me) has worked on professional fireworks crews. (One old-fashioned manual-reload show makes anyone an expert on the smell of gunpowder smoke!)

Kenneth Lo, expatriate Chinese writer, teacher, and cook, is credited as mentor by prominent US Chinese-émigré chef-authors such as Martin Yan and Lawrence C. C. Chu. He pioneered popular English-language cookbooks about real, contemporary practice in China, including Chinese Regional Cooking (ISBN 0394738705, "used and new from $1.55" at one point on amazon) and Chinese Cooking on Next to Nothing. I posted re the first title to rec.food.cooking in 1988 (some people have copies of the posting but it's not currently in public archives). Lo, writing mostly in England, owned and partly translated an 11-volume national cookbook, one of several such titled Famous Dishes of China (Peking: Ministry of Commerce Foods and Drinks Management Department, 1963). Eloquent evocations of China itself, attention to underlying principles and folk recipes, condemnation of shortcuts like MSG (Lo was hardly the only Chinese chef to disparage MSG). I have various other titles from Lo. (For some reason, some of his later and British books have a different, more hack-work tone, and I spot also a different perception of Lo among some British readers.)

Experts identify the following as the two most important points for any hangover advice, yet they're still overlooked or even contradicted in popular sources. Text of background note on this, sent to food/drink editors in my region: -------- Should you be planning an annual New Year's Eve "hangover-cure" or "hangover-prevention" story, you could add reader interest, and stand out from the pack, by giving this information to the writer. 1. Along with the inevitable colorful, mutually contradictory folk advice, please research and mention the two substances reported to substantially aid liver detoxification: water, and milk thistle seed extract. The latter is inexpensive as a dietary supplement, more expensive as the active ingredient in commercial "hangover remedies." 2. Before suggesting specifically acetaminophen, a.k.a. Tylenol for this purpose, please Google the word combination acetaminophen+alcohol and check results. Each separately can cause liver damage; acetaminophen carries manufacturer's danger warnings with alcohol use. (Example quotation from UC-Davis site: "Taking acetaminophen after a weekend drinking binge can prove fatal. The amount of alcohol and acetaminophen necessary for this toxic reaction varies from person to person, and thus, unfortunately, it is not possible to give guidelines for safe alcohol ingestion with acetaminophen use.") (I've no professional connection with any of this, but along with some scientist friends around the US, have raised such points annually on Internet food-drink discussions.)

Thanks for emphasizing that, Eric -- it's true that it's the first such liquor I know of made as well as sold in the US. From a consumer's standpoint I think it important to consider competing products if they are absinthes in all but name, and already widely available in the US. If so, they are pioneers in this market even if not in US manufacture. (Versinthe is another one, from the Liquoristerie de Provence and sold legally in the US since 2000 or so. Manufacturer claims to use wormwood herbs but meet the current low thujone requirement, like St. George, and others -- Jade Liqueurs, made outside US. Versinthe comes at least slightly sweetened, unlike classic or neo-absinthes where the user will often sweeten the drink when diluting with water.)

It can be very fine to join wine-appreciating friends, arrange thoughtful foods, relax and enjoy a sociable meal without micro-analyzing it to death. Here's an example by a regular local tasting group. (Members are experienced amateurs de vin, most also are wine professionals in some way.) We chose favorite wines we owned,* then passed the list and our budget (for a special-occasion, but not really lavish, dinner) to a skilled veteran chef (Suzette Gresham-Tognetti, partner in Acquerello, San Francisco; earlier renowned at Donatello in the 1980s) for food pairings. Below is what she selected and cooked. Reception Tartine of house-cured salmon (fine old-fashioned toast-triangle open sandwiches) Arancini di riso with black truffles (little rice balls on spoons) 1996 Champagne Billecart-Salmon brut, cuvée Nicolas-François Billecart Menu Delicate Parmesan budino with squash and fried sage leaf NV Champagne Charles Heidsieck brut (magnum) Poached ling cod over puntarelle with beets and chives, toasted nut garnish 1990 Reinhold Haart Piesporter Goldtröpfchen Spätlese 1997 Egon Müller (Le Gallais) Wiltinger Braune Kupp Spätlese Carnaroli risotto of salmi of Guinea hen with drizzle of poultry glaze 1997 François Jobard Meursault 1er Cru Les Genevrières 2001 Comtes Lafon Meursault Clos de la Barre Seared beef filet, foie-gras torchon slice (cold house-cured in salt and brandy) on tortino of potato and cardoon, with spinach 1990 Pothier-Rieusset Pommard 1er Cru Les Rugiens (magnum) 1996 Armand Rousseau Gevrey-Chambertin 1er Cru Clos-St-Jacques 1999 Armand Rousseau Gevrey-Chambertin 1er Cru Lavaux St-Jacques Cheeses: Erbe dei Colli Berici, Moliterno al tartufo, Gorgonzola Dolce latte 1971 Remoissenet Musigny (magnum) 1985 J.-F. Mugnier Chambolle-Musigny 1er Cru Les Amoureuses 1976 Fr. Baumann Niersteiner Pettenthal Auslese (50% Riesling, 50% Sylvaner) Chocolate hazelnut torte, crostata of pears and huckleberries 1955 Muscat de Rivesaltes 2001 Paolo Bea Sagrantino Passito Restaurant impressions: Acquerello (www.acquerello.com, 1722 Sacramento Street, San Francisco; one Michelin star), in my limited experience of it, has shown standout professionalism and sureness of touch. Acquerello is known for creative northern Italian cooking (and a splendid Italian wine list) and, among local wine experts I know, as an understated high-end restaurant giving exceptional value. That was emphatically true this time. This wine group and others do many casual dinners, in homes and restaurants, and this one stood out. Pacing was superb. And the food pairings! They didn't just work, they sang. Credit belongs to the chef. Every course was right on; portions moderate but satisfying. Service was keenly wine-sophisticated -- this is the restaurant where, last year, a sommelier gently relieved me of a Burgundy I guarded jealously against over-handling, and expertly decanted it off its sediment. This time the host and partner, Giancarlo Paterlini, opening some of our wines, passed a sample of mine thoughtfully in a glass. I sniffed it -- slightly but perceptibly corked -- he nodded agreement, opened the second bottle (brought for that contingency). Another staffer, also from Italy, kindly translated the back-label narrative on the Sagrantino bottle, when our Italian fluency failed woefully. Chef came out after dinner and described cooking methods and unusual ingredients, and why she chose the pairings. Group resolved to do more dinners. Tasting notes: Good! All of the wines showed well. No microanalysis here, but some standouts to me were the exquisite German rieslings with the ling-cod course -- not "sweet" wines at all, due to balancing acid -- the cod was poached in milk with a touch of wine, the toasted nuts finished it off perfectly against the wines. 96 Rousseau red Burgundy was beautifully, earthily aromatic, as was 85 Mugnier. What pinot noir is all about. 01 Sagrantino Passito (500ml bottles) was intensely dark with a fresh fruit-skin quality -- blueberryish rather than woody or carameled. 55 Muscat going strong -- complex and sensual. The risotto was finely herbed, redolent and flavorful of the savory fowl. First course, little custard of Parmesan budino (pudding), was a revelation: a humble dish that would be equally magnificent with any good riesling or pinot noir as it was with sparkling wine. *Wines were bought when new on the market, generally at modest prices, and stored carefully for such use. That's the point and tradition with wines like these. Had participants tried to buy the wines today, those available at all would be far more expensive, prohibitive for this group of diverse people of moderate means. (Likewise if we'd bought the wines after they were "highly rated" instead of tasting and liking them.)

I also endorse MFKF, she helped establish non-cookbook "food writing" as part of a wider writing career (originally in Hollywood), as well as eventually becoming one of the colorful locals in my region. More: (And note my remarks above about Joy of Cooking reflect in no way on the many people who've found editions of the book useful, including me, but rather, that digging beyond the familiar can reveal realities that surprise us, and even diminish icons.) Eliza Leslie, already mentioned, is also noted for adapting French recipes for the US public in her 1832 Domestic French Cookery, if not the first then one of the wider-read US authors to do so. Though Julia Child may be the name most familiar in this role to current readers, when she continued this 200-year tradition what she pioneered was certainly not adaptation or popularization of French cooking,* but doing it on TV. Frances Moore Lappé moved vegetarian principles to the US mainstream with her bestselling Diet for a Small Planet (1971, written, I understand, at the age of 26). This book popularized eating "lower on the food chain" by demonstrating how to complement the partial protein sets found in various vegetarian food sources (and even, pragmatically, how the same principles could benefit even carniverous diets by cleverly leveraging small amounts of meat proteins). US livestock were "protein factories in reverse" with inefficiencies from 1:3 for small poultry to 1:16 for beef cattle. The book's bulk was recipes, again showing (not just asserting) that vegetarian cooking need be neither narrow nor bland. Joyce Chen, from her little Massachusetts restaurant, began demystifying and popularizing Chinese cooking to the US half a century ago, in a series of books perennially reprinted and still recirculated on the used market. At the time, many gringos thought Chinese cooking meant things like chop suey (an American invention). She paved the way for such popular authors as Kenneth Lo and his followers such as Martin Yan. *Knowing this is so, and why, is one indication of familiarity with US cookbook history.

Look, you folks. Please don't be limited by writers who happen to be in bookstores now, or old-standby household names. (Fannie Farmer? The Rombauers?!? Originally a local fundraising cookbook based on canned foods! A parody of US cooking!! Useful only because it was totally reinvented each subsequent edition and usually mentioned simply because it's familiar.) Far and away the single most durable US cookbook happens not to be common today (or on the Food Network), yet it dominated the 19th century in a way demonstrably without parallel in the 20th. That was Eliza Leslie's Directions for Cookery (Philadelphia, 1837. 1999 Dover facsimile reprint, ISBN 0486406148.) The earlier but slightly less influential one is Mary Randolph, The Virginia Housewife Or, Methodical Cook (Washington, DC, 1824. 1993 Dover facsimile reprint, at US $7.95 suggested retail, ISBN 0486277720). Those two books commence the cooking Americana collection at the Copia food and wine museum. (In the Dover facsimiles -- I've handled those copies myself.) 60-plus editions of Leslie appear in principal cookbook bibliographies. Also, the book had life, spirit; it talked about quality in ingredients, passion in results. (In 19th-c. language, of course.) A criticism of the Fannie Farmer, popular from early 20th c., and despite its considerable scope and coverage of basics, is that its "scientific" tone was at the expense of flavor, quality, and the sensual side of cooking -- inappropriate maybe for the Boston Puritan tradition. It is an important book but it also has been credited with setting back the standards of US cooking during the 20th century. Other names: Karen Hess certainly, she unearthed some of this and more (Martha Washington; slave cookbooks -- look into the early slave cookbook that Hess edited.) Katherine Golden Bitting wrote the epic US food-book bibliography (1939), still definitive; later started the US Library of Congress's cookbook section with her collection (1946). There are principal women writers in other countries (Elena Molokhovets, author of the Russian national cookbook in the 19th c., a big subject in its own right, PM me for more; Mrs Beeton, more or less her British counterpart; Mme. de Saint-Ange among others in France and a recent discussion topic Here.)