etamny

I have to admit: my *very* first thought? That it wasn't Fisher. But that doesn't mean anything. I went searching for her journal entry about E.M. Forster/E.F. Benson the other day and was surprised to rediscover on a nearby page that she had commented on the Duncan Hines guide (forgot she had). I think I know Fisher pretty well, but even--especially--with those you know well it's amazing how much you can be surprised. Good luck! Let us know what you find!

I can't keep up with eGullet most of the time, but I ran across this post and had to do a little digging. I was quite sure it's not in Art of Eating, thought perhaps in an introduction (Dubious Honors) or one of the newly-published rarer magazine pieces, or maybe in With Bold Knife and Fork. Didn't see it anywhere there, so I asked Joan Reardon, who wrote the Fisher bio. She thought to check Conversations With (good idea), other intros and didn't see it. Her best guess: "The only thing I can think of is a published piece on her address to Jay Perkin’s Culinary School graduation in Santa Rosa, but don’t know the source. MFKF didn’t write very much about professional chefs--" That's the thing I was thinking, too, as the biggest clue--she didn't write about pros much, but that didn't get me far. Anyhow, thought you might want the lead. Yours in elliptical Fisher prose--

Oh my LORD!!!!! I thought I was the only person in America who still mourned the Beefer! I *loved* those, LOVED them. I had a nickname that involved them! Unfortunately, too, they only grow in Proustian significance, the farther away they are. They *can't* have been as good as I now remember them...could they? *tinkly music*

There's something about this funny little topic that is just totally entertaining--I guess it's partly all the different things people eat! And satisfy hunger with! Esp. in the morning. Totally fascinating. Anyhow, do please continue to post--maybe I will someday too if I can ever get bum in gear to make breakfast. I'm already feeling somewhat inspired now to haul out the grits for a lil savory breakfast somethin or other here.

I wanna know about the onion too. It was a whole sentence, that onion. It said, "Onion!" My fav embarrassing sammch: chunky peanut butter and bologna. I guess it's a cousin to the PB & bacon concept, but that actually might be giving it too much credit. I also have a Thing I do with eggrolls, but I don't know if I know y'all well enough for that. A fun offshoot of this discussion is Crazy Single Person Fud (speaking as one)...I love hearing about the weird stuff people eat by themselves, esp. guys. I subsisted in my leaner years on a bizarre combo of rice, tuna, soy & parmesan. Still tastes good once in a while. Peanuts & cola is a southern thing, yo! (re: previous threads) Moonpies and RC wif peanuts. You put a few salty ones in the bottom of your bottle... Is anybody else thinking of Fisher's essay about the tangerines? And everyone's "secret eatings"? Or the great essay about the graduate student "sludge."

So...'djall see it? I thought it was fluffy and Astonished in that 60 Minutes way, but okay. Who is that annoying ladyinterviewer...

Thanks for headsup! Easy to miss this kinda thing during the week...

I wanted to chime in...just 'cause. This is my favorite "food" movie, bar none, and the interesting thing is that it has less to do with the actual food served/shown, in some ways, than other sensual foodie flicks. It just works, the whole thing, as an analogy, in its contrast, in its size and scope, the suspense, on all the different levels it presents itself. The sappiest, most defensive and/but stubborn part of me knows that the line "Throughout the world sounds one long cry from the heart of the artist: Give me the chance to do my very best," is true, and that's what makes me bawl when I see it. Plus there's just something so freakin cool about Stephane Audran. She is completely convincing. It's not the happiest food movie ever (query: are they ever, usually? gotta think about that), but it's the most moving. It's also not *precious* in any foodie way (some of the early opera stuff might be, a little), but the food preparation isn't. The movie says a lot with a little and lets the action speak for itself. It's even a little harsh, and I like that. This is a pretty decent analysis of the particulars, from Priscilla Parkhurst Ferguson's Accounting for Taste: The Triumph of French Cuisine, which is a pretty decent book: http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/243230.html

I'd also think you could get cachete pretty easily at one of the bizillions of (say) Latin markets or carneceria(a) in places like Rogers Park and Humboldt Park (for curing your own).

This is a little after the fact, but I was curious - I finally saw Vatel, and now have a better understanding of how whatever French film co. made it went bankrupt. Okay, not the point. My question is: Nowhere have I found commentary or questioning about how it changes what few known facts there are known about him. That is, Vatel goes from the martyr who offs himself in the name of perfectionism, who takes himself too seriously, to a man chafing under the slavery of his court position, who kills himself rather than be promoted (to Versailles) into more slavery. (I thought it was interesting also that they didn't play up the cheffy/foodie side to it all in their marketing, even if Vatel was more properly a maitre d' of the court or whatever his title was.) A very different tack, seems to me. Maybe there are few enough facts to make him whatever people want him to to be, but still--an interesting choice, then, and kind of out of line with how you might guess this guy would be portrayed. Even in France. Even in pre-post-Loiseau France. Whatever. Anyhow, just wondered if anybody had thought about it. Cheers! Liz