Austin

Thanks for the compliments guys, and keep checking in on the blog, I'm updating it daily. We'll solve this mystery soon! Austin

Abra: Hi again. Was shopping earlier and went into a couple bakeries, but couldn't find exactly what I think you're describing (I did find something similar though, a "Danish" topped with fluffy pork and generously slathered with sweetened condensed milk! Mmmm....). I'll keep looking, and when I do find it I'll show a pic of this, and other Thai-style "baked treats" that are certain to open your eyes to world of baking you'll probably think should not be allowed to exist! Austin

Abra: I'm thinking of leaving my house today (been sick lately), in which case I'll stop by one of the numerous "bakeries" around and buy what I think is the bread you're describing and post a pic of it at my blog, RealThai. But I won't eat it! Austin

Khanom pang just means "bread" and naa moo means something like "pork topping", which makes me think it might be a particularly disgusting (sorry, it's true!) snack they have here that takes sweet, light bread (w/ raisins if you desire) topped with, as we call it, "fluffy pork", cotton-candy-like strands of meat. Ugh... Austin

Hmm... Odd, doesn't sound familiar to me at all. Like I said, there are so-called bakeries here, but actually raisin-cinnamon bread is a bit of a rarity, and to consider it an accompaniment to fried pork? Sounds a bit bizarre to me! Did you tell you the Thai name of either the bread or the particular kind of fried pork? Austin

The bread you describe is probably available at the numerous "bakeries" here in Thailand, but it certainly is not known as something you eat with fried pork! The traditional accompaniment to fried pork is sticky rice. To make authentic Thai-style bread, use the cheapest flour and margarine or oil (not butter!) you can find, and add about twice as much yeast as necessary to make it as soft and light as possible! Austin

Gosh, can't believe all the responses this has generated. Some interesting thoughts here. Honestly, I think if you'll scroll back to the beginning, some of my original statements have been twisted and misunderstood (this wasn't meant to be Thai vs. US!), but there's way too much to respond to at this point. WHS: take a look at my blog (RealThai, below) for a pic from MahaNaga. I went there for an article I was writing and photographed the som tam pork chop. There are more pics of other dishes at upmarket Thai restaurants there. (And by the way, duck curry and mee krob aren't Isaan dishes, if I'm understanding you correctly. They are very much Central Thai dishes.) Austin

Mine would have to be moo paa tom kati, wild boar in a spicy coconut curry at this stall at the night market in Trang, Thailand: I guess this isn't technically a restaurant, but it certainly wasn't at home! The curry was very rich and had a strong taste of cumin, not common in Thaifood. Thai boar has a very distinct flavour, and the whole mess was served with a plate of vegetables (cucumber, young cashew tree leaves, pennywort), and nam phrik, chli paste. I ate there three nights in a row. It cost less than 50 cents US. Austin

John: You're right and I agree with what you say, but is close to $40 (not $26) for four bowls of noodle soup in the reach of most people? Maybe it is, but again, this and fast food are sort of at the bottom of the heap of dining in the US, and I can't imagine most people being able to afford more quality food without having to pay more than they're willing. As I mentioned before, for many people in Bangkok at least, price is not even really an issue. It's too bad that things aren't like that in the US! That's a good point about cooking being an example of an art. My complaint is that the majority written about this "art" in newspapers and magazines seems to focus on high-end restaurants and chefs. Personally, I'd be more interetsed in reading about what Swedish people eat for breakfast, or the history of chilies or whatever, but we all have different desires, and I reckon I'm a minority! Austin

By the way, I just want to say that to some extent, I am playing the Devil's Advocate here, but these things were really on my mind after reading the piece, and I think the post has brought about some interesting discussion! Austin

Mayhaw: I never suggested making "high end dining available to the masses", but I would like to see good, healthy, creative food available at a price that normal people can afford. Although I'm far away, I get the impression that this is not the case in America. And if things are as you say, why doss dining in the US seem so exclusive and prohibited when compared to Thailand or somewhere else? Maybe you haven't been abroad, but there is a very different feel, at least in this part of the world. Why can't US chefs do something more inclusive? Although it sounds virtuous, I think that would be a much more difficult and requires much more skill and talent to make good food at low prices than the opposite. Will this ever happen? Anyway, all good points. Austin

At $6.50 a bowl, for a family of four that would be $26. This doesn't include drinks, or a tip (how much is an acceptable tip in the US nowadays?). My guess is that the total will be something like $36-40 US for four bowls of noodle soup. Is this cheap? To me it seems expensive, considering what you're getting (single bowl, rather than a complete meal), but again, I've been living in Thailand too long! But yes, I agree, here at eGullet there's a wide range of discussion. I think that is partially because a lot of us here are interested in making food, not just eating it. I looked back at the magazines I mentioned earlier, and those that concentrate on dining seem to focus on the expensive, where as those that emphasize cooking seem to include recipes that range from inexpensive to expensive. And the point above about the lack of a food culture in the US is true. In Thailand, it's accepted that people are crazy about food; always eating and talking about it. People here seem to "live to eat", whereas people in the US are possibly for of the "eat to live" kind. Austin

Thanks for all your replies, and sorry for my late reply! (As I mentioned, I live in Thailand and went to bed right after I wrote the post.) Chrisamirault and Richard: point taken that not 100% of food mags (including Gourmet) is elitist. But, I am actually a freelance writer/photographer, and in looking at the pages of Gourmet (Feb 2005), Australian Gourmet Traveller, Vogue Entertaining + Travel, there seems to be an unhealthy fascination with things expensive. On the other hand, Chile Pepper and Intermezzo seem to avoid this to an extent. And yes, critcizing Gourmet for its elitist approach is somewhat like shooting fish in a barrel, but in reading that interview I kept getting the impression that people actually believe that what these restaurants are doing is having an impact on the food that everyday people eat, which seems ridiculous to me. Carrot Top: I agree that it's a vague term, but by saying real food for real people I mean two things: One, I'd like to see more of an effort on the part of talented chefs to do something that benefits all people (real people), not just those with money. Regarding Jamie Oliver, I was going to mention him, and I think it's a great example of someone talented in the area of food that has decided to contribute something to the average Joe. Too bad this isn't happening more. I reckon there's no money to be made in it! And secondly, it seems that waaay too much of the modern food media still prays at the altar of a few chefs and overexaggerates their influence. Personally I'd much rather read about what people in Bangladesh eat, or what is English food nowadays. This, in my mind, is food, sustenance, and what people really eat. It is a product of location and culture and history. Pan: Regarding Thai food, I wasn't suggesting that the wealthy eat at stalls. I think the reason they would frequent humble restaurants is because these places specialize in a few dishes, or perhaps a genre of Thai food, and do it well. Behemoth: I really can't agree with you that food in the US is cheap. I gasp every time I have to buy food when I go home. Do you think the average American family can afford to eat at a restaurant that eGulleters would consider good? I doubt it. And taking the entire family to eat out is a weekly occurence for many people in Bangkok.

I just finished reading the Ruth Reichl interview, which I found interesting and entertaining, but almost the entire time reading it I couldn't help but think to myself that virtually everything discussed revolved around the topic of expensive food for rich people... Probably I'm stating the obvious, and perhaps this is the realm of Gourmet magazine (judging by the name of the magazine alone it probably is!), but even in reading eGullet and other mags I still get a strong impression that the general concept of food in the US today is pretty elite. Wide-reaching terms mentioned in the interview such as "the next cuisine" or "food trends" seemed only to refer to expensive food prepared for a relatively small group of wealthy people in urban areas. And is it really sane to assume that what this small group of people does actually has an impact on food in general (the food that people eat every day) in the US? I find this disturbing, but perhaps this stems from the fact that I have lived virtually my entire adult life in Thailand, where food is, for the most part, a very inclusive and non-elitist entity. Of course there are expensive restaurants here, but it would be ridiculous to imagine that they have any impact whatsoever on the cuisine as a whole. And anyway, in Thailand, good, truly good honest healthy hearty food is within the reach of all but the most destitute, so why go somewhere expensive? Here there seems to be little concern about what's "new" or what's "next" but rather, what's "good", and price is not even a factor. Sounds unbelieveable doesn't it? On the topic of regional cuisines, there was a point brought up about Algerian food in the interview, but I get the impression that part of the OP's frustration about North African is that the cuisine is not well represented in expensive restaurants in NYC. Is this necessary? Does food have to be served at a high price to rich people before it can be appreciated? It seems to me that the OP's efforts to spread knowledge about Algerian cooking via his blog are much more laudable than serving the same thing at $30 a plate to a stockbroker or a food critic. Personally, I think the highest praise one can pay a cuisine is a well-researched, beautifully photographed book highlighting food that people actually eat (Hot Sour Salty Sweet by Duguid and Alford comes to mind). And why is there such an emphasis on expensive restaurants, when in reality even average restaurants (let alone the ones featured in Gourmet!) are out of the reach of many, many Americans. Growing up, my family was not poor by any means, but even a visit to an average restaurant chain was somewhat of a luxury, and didn't happen very often. I reckon we liked the food at these places, but in hindsight, there was certainly nothing special about them, especially when one considers the crappy raw ingredients (Sysco) and lack of creativity put into the food. It would be wonderful to see the chefs and restauranteurs so lauded on these pages use their talents to promote creative, good healthy hearty food using good quality ingredients at a price that the average Joe can afford. In my opinion, accomplishing this would be a true culinary masterpiece. To close, I realize that there are numerous blogs and websites and the great cookbooks out there doing a lot to promote food that people actually eat, but there still seems to be an unhealthy and unrealistic emphasis on the elite, and I think we need to get our feet back on the ground and acknowledge that good food is something that we all deserve to enjoy, not just food critics and lawyers. Personally, I hope the "next thing" in cooking is an emphasis on real food for real people; that would be worth writing about! Austin

Sorry, still can't recall the name of the night market. It was inland though, north of the Kuta area. I remember eating at a stall at Jimbaran. We chose a lovely fish and asked to have it grilled. When it arrived it was coated in a disgusting bottled sweet chili sauce and cost a ridiculous amount of money... Never again. Austin

With my most recent gumbo, I heeded advice previously found in this forum that suggested that the stock should be at room temp or cooler when added to the roux. I did this for the first time and there was no fat separation at all. Regarding curries, at least Thai and Burmese curries, fat separation is seen as a good thing. When making coconut milk-based curries, Thais fry the curry paste in hua kati ("head of the coconut milk", ie thick coconut milk) until it smells fragrant and nam man tok meaning that the oil has separated. I think this has to do with releasing the oils in the chilies and other ingredients, as well as in the coconut oil, making the dish much more fragrant. On the topic of oil, the oiliest food in the world must be Burmese food. A typical Burmese curry has a good 3 cm of oil floating on the top! And they are, to my knowledge, the only people in SE Asia who really use peanut oil. Despite what you may read or hear, peanut oil is a rarity in SE Asia--I've never seen it used or for sale in Thailand. Austin

I recently had to go to the Blue Elephant to take photos for a piece I was writing and was very impressed by their setup. The owner and her daughter were copiously friendly, said hello, and invited me to take a look around the school. Although I haven't yet taken their course, everything looked quite professional and well organized, and there's a real positive, friendly aura there. Austin

If we're talking about REAL Balinese food (as opposed to tourist food) then my memories are of pork, pork, pork, pork, pork. And pork. But damn was it good. I recall chipping my tooth on a pork rind! And the wonderful night market in... God, what was the name of that town? Austin

I live in Thailand, so I'm a bit spoiled for wok ingredients... However, my favorite wok dishes are the Chinese-influenced fai daeng dishes. Fai daeng literally means "red fire" and refers to the fact that the oil is ignited during the cooking process. The most common fai daeng in Thailand is made with an acquatic plant called phak boong ("morning glory"). This is fried with copious amounts of garlic and chile smashed together, and flavored with fermented soy beans ("tao jiaow"), oyster sauce, and sometimes fish sauce. Mmm... I have this about once a week! I've tried making this at home in the US, on my parents' electric stove, and it's just not the same. Like most people in Thailand I have a propane stove, which makes it easy to cook the veggies for a short time at a high heat (less than 1 1/2-2 minutes, on average) and to "ignite" the oil for the wonderful smoky flavor. Austin

Honestly, as horrible as some of these meals appear, I think a great deal of the yuck factor is due to a lack of photography skills rather than bad cooking! Too much flash, glare, bad composition, and in particular, a lack of understanding of White Balance don't exactly help very much! I would recommend that those of you with digital cameras take an afternoon (or three) learning about your cameras and trying different things with them. In particular, learn about the different types of flash (slow-sync flash, for example, uses a slow shutter speed and "less" flash, which allows more ambient light to creep in), and White Balance (which can either be set in-camera, or altered using Photoshop or with your camera's editing software), which has a HUGE impact on the colors of your photographs. Austin Bush www.austinbushphotography.com

I was in Yunan (south of Sichuan) last year and brought home some Sichuan pepper and some of Yunan's wonderful smoked ham to make a dish a dish I had several times while there. Basically, you just fry the fatty smoked ham in a copious amount of oil, add dried chilies and the Sichuan pepper, and then follow with bell pepper. garlic, ginger, onion and soy sauce. Amazing... Austin

Hmm... Having scanned through the many, many pages here and have some both some interesting and frightening concepts of laap! Some of the permutations mentioned might be tasty, but they're not laap as it's eaten in Thailand or Laos. So, in the interest of real laap (which, on second thought, might be kind of disappointing!): First of all: there's no galangal (khaa in Thai) in laap. In fact, dried galangal hardly exists in Thailand, other than to sell to tourists! No kaffir lime leaves in laap. And no coriander/cilantro either. And the meat? You can make it using anything (I like catfish laab, which I just had tonight), the most common in Thailand however is pork. If you want to make laap like the Thais do take the cheapest, chunkiest, fattiest ground pork you can find, and briefly boil it, until just done. No frying or grilling or whatever. Then just mix the pork up with ground sticky rice (khaao khua, an essential ingredient--you have to use this stuff), sliced shallots, chopped green onions (if desired), chilis, and lime juice and fish sauce to taste. Eat it with sticky rice. That's it. Thai style anyway... Some variations on laap are koy, a Lao/Isaan (NE Thai) version, usually made with fish. In Laos and rural NE Thailand laap is usually made with raw meat, usually beef. My favorite kind of laap is from northern Thailand, and is called laap khua, literally, 'fried laap'. This kind is usually made using beef, including the good bits like heart, lungs, and liver, which are fried in a chili paste that includes a delicious herb found only in northern Thailand called makhwaen, and a bitter-spicy leaf called phak phai. Due to the makhwaen and other spices used, the meat has a dark, almost black color. I ate A LOT of this at a wedding in Pai, Mae Hong Son (northern Thailand) once. Oh yeah, an on the pronunication, I guess it would be somewhat close to the English word 'lob', but with a longer and more a-sounding vowel (and a high falling tone, if you really want the details). There is no difference in Thai between a final 'p' or 'b', so I reckon it can be spelled either way. Austin

Looks like there are two products that we can refer to Sriracha: The American version, invented by an American of Vietnamese origin in California, is the one that most of you seem to be familiar with. It's thick, bright red, and spicy and sour and the same time, with a healthy dose of garlic. The Thai version, on the other hand, is chunky, sweet/spicy, orange-red in color, and sort of 'jellylike', and is really only used as a dipping sauce for fried/grilled chicken. Incidentally, Sii Raachaa is the name of town in Chonburi province, but is known much more for its seafood than its dipping sauce. Most Thais would not associate Sri Racha as a brand/type of dipping sauce. Austin

Dried galangal is virtually uknown here in Thailand (I've only ever seen it sold to tourists in Chiang Mai). And I've never seen or eaten galangal (khaa in Thail) in laap. Never. This might give laap additional "Thai flavor" but it's not a Thai way of cooking. In Thailand galangal is mostly pounded up with other ingredients to make nam phrik (chili pastes) or khreung kaeng (chili pastes that serve as a base for curries). They are also used in different soups, such as tom yam or of course, tom khaa. Austin

Yeah, it's very common to eat eggplants raw in Thailand, especially with nam phrik. (In case you're not familiar with it, nam phrik is a generally spicy "dip" eaten by Thais.) Raw eggplants are slightly bitter, but are usually appealingly crunchy. When sliced, it's best to squeeze a lime over them so they don't turn brown. Austin