Chris Hennes

This particular piece is a great example of how much Bourdain has changed over the years: he doesn't call Emeril an Ewok, he gives props to Martha, and he is basically a very reasonable-sounding guy. Honestly, I'm always a little surprised to compare his current No Reservations episodes with the early ones, and especially with his early writing. While he started out hilariously irreverent, he was basically just a very funny jackass. He's slightly less funny now (because just being jackass is kinda funny in and of itself), but seems to have gotten past the schtick. I wonder how much of the transformation into a "Kinder, Gentler Bourdain" is due to his travels, how much to his family, and how much just to getting older (and hopefully wiser!).

No preview copy, alas, but I'm looking forward to seeing how he makes his case: I see no reason why there should be some magical simple integer ratios behind everything, so if that's his point color me skeptical. Then again, many of his other books are very good (Charcuterie in particular quite literally changed my life), so I will try to keep an open mind. I'll certainly buy the book, at any rate!

Batard - where are you seeing this? In my copy of the second edition, on pg. 600, section on Double Stocks, he says:

I think one of the post intriguing things about this is the idea of increasing diner participation in the meal: it could be an opportunity to engage diners in more active discussion of their food. I think you need to be careful to ensure that it is a compliment to the food and not a distraction from it, but careful attention to how and when you involve technology should help there. ETA: Thinking about "hot" communications technologies at the moment: Twitter, Facebook, Flickr, texting, eGullet ()... can you incorporate any of these into the meal? A live Twitter feed from the kitchen?

Having made that drive many, many times, I will second the advice to just wait until getting to Philly. You could also consider eating in Harrisburg, assuming you are taking 322 down to the turnpike, though the only place I ever ate there was the McDonalds along the freeway. Edited to add: alternately, stay an extra couple hours in SCE and eat at Herwigs: excellent Austrian food, right off campus: I don't think you'll find anything like it in Phila.

How much do you want to spend? I am thinking of something like Microsoft's new "Surface" thing, on a smaller scale, for your plates. Some kind of LCD display mounted under the table would give all kinds of geeky visual opportunities. Or a projector mounted above? And I would definitely try to work speakers of some kind in while you're at it. Also, re: using cell phones at the table... what about having them take pictures and upload them to flickr or the like, and show a live feed of the album on a screen? Sort of an interactive food-photography-while-eating thing.

Interesting thought: I wonder if Bravo considers that at all, i.e. "how does the way we portray the contestants this season affect our ability to recruit talent for the next season?" And, does it really affect casting options? Or are there enough chefs out there who would like the publicity that it doesn't matter?

How did you prep the bowls for your initial efforts? Butter and flour? I am a big fan of parchment-lined cake pans, but that is going to be pretty painful to get a smooth finish on a bowl. I would definitely give your iSi bowls a shot, they should be fine in the oven.

So, you are looking for a hemisphere? I assume you are trying to avoid purchasing any new cake pans for this effort?

I find myself feeling a bit regretful about this trend. The baconization of everything burned hot and bright: over the last year who hasn't seen at least one random add-bacon-to-something-unusual article per week? And sometimes many more? And just like every other trend, once it moved from "only the cool kids get it" to "everyone gets it," well, "it's dead, Jim." I really do like bacon, quite a lot in fact. Alas, now it seems that liking bacon has become passé. But hell, I liked bacon before the trend, and I liked it during the trend, and now that we're moving into the anti-bacon trend, I still like bacon. I also still think adding bacon to everything is a dumb idea, and was only funny the first few times. So, just like every food trend (hell, every trend of any kind), bacon settles back down into comfortable obscurity. It had its moment in the sun, and, just like Keyser Söze and (hopefully) the phrase "jumped the shark," it's gone.

To clarify, those Ziploc vacuum bags are not intended to be heated. They are freezer bags, and when I contacted the company they were quite adamant that they should not be cooked in: they said reheating was OK, but anything longer-term than that was off-limits. The same goes for the Reynold's Vacu-Seal bags: for freezer use, not for cooking in.

My reading of the certification requirements is that they simply don't consider salt or water when they are looking at organic status. After all, what the heck is "organic" salt in a non-biochemistry sense? Remember, we're not talking about "truth in advertising" here, we're talking about actual official certification—if you don't want to use their "100% Organic" label, it is a moot point and if I was you I'd feel comfortable labeling the bread as organic based on slkinsey's arguments.

That's very interesting. So it looks like gfron1 would fall into the "Organic" category for certification: He will be basically 100% organic if you are allowed to omit water and salt, but the page is unclear if non-"whole" foods ever get that label.

Are you saving them for any particular reason? Frankly, if you've decided not to worry about the mold, just eat them now. Storing them is only going to increase your risk: you got a good deal, time to celebrate!

Just the ham in mine, in the spirit of using up stuff taking up freezer space. It's a very smokey homemade ham, and I think it contributed a great flavor to the gumbo. I actually would like to come up with some kind of almost-vegetarian gumbo (I say almost because I would still use pork or chicken stock in it). I couldn't come up with anything suitable for this iteration, however. Anyone have any suggestions?

Until last week I had never made gumbo before. In fact, I'm not sure I'd ever even eaten gumbo before. But, there's a first time for everything, and that's kinda the point of the Cook-off series anyway. So, here's my entry in the gumbo category. Won't win any prizes in Louisiana, but it's still mighty tasty. I started with your standard trinity, plus a can of diced tomatoes, some salt, some cayenne, and some McCormick's "Cajun Seasoning," whatever that is. I also broke out a package of homemade ham from the freezer. It's sliced for sandwiches, but I don't think that hurt anything: I keep reading that I'm looking for a roux the "color of a Hershey's bar." Well, mine isn't quite the same shade, and might be a smidge too light, but this is as brave as I could manage: As directed, I dumped in the trinity and stirred like mad: I used a homemade pork stock, plus a little beef stock I had leftover in the fridge: Finally, the ham is added, and I cooked it in the oven at 250°F for a few hours, till the flavors were feeling harmonious: To serve, I fried up some more trinity (sorta: I used poblano instead of green bell this time), then added some medium grain rice and water to cook. Served the gumbo poured over the rice, but I forgot to take a picture until I had stirred mine up:

There are cons? I think re-using the fat from confit, as long as it still smells good, is perfectly OK, and can give fantastic results. I have not experimented extensively, but the few times I've tried it I've had no problems.

I'm partial to the creme brulee I had at some restaurant that I can no longer recall that had some sort of apricot compote hiding under the custard: really delicious. Over in the France: Cooking and Baking forum we have an excellent topic on the various techniques recommended for preparing the classic style. Much of the advice there probably also applies to the various "modern" variations.

I like the fact that the finale is a head-to-head competition: if you can't be at the peak of your form after months of rest and preparation, you don't deserve the title. I think, given that, Hosea won fair and square and deserved the title ONCE he got there. The other two simply screwed it up. Period. No one else was to blame but Stefan and Carla. That said, I could see some kind of cumulative ranking being used in earlier episodes, like a points system to get INTO the final four. Even then, though, there would be a legitimate concern that the last episode or two before the finale would be moot. It's a question of whether you are trying to choose the best chef, or trying to make the best TV show.

Worse still, some even have the gall to add a sugar cube and BITTERS!! Nothing wrong with a champagne cocktail, IMO. And ya may as well use the good stuff.

Maybe she brought some of her own cheese? If I recall, at least in seasons past chefs have been allowed to bring some ingredients with them to the finale. Still, that must have been one HELL of a cheese if she thought is was going to win her 100 grand.

Exactly. And how, given months to prepare for the final challenge, do you not show up knowing exactly what you are going to do? OK, maybe you don't know how many courses it's going to be, but still. Hell, the same goes for Stefan's dessert: that was the best desert he could come up with given months of prep time? Seriously. Hosea really seems like he was the only one to bring his A game to the finale. Carla simply completely dropped the ball, and Stefan thought he had it locked up already.

I dunno. I put myself in Casey's shoes for a minute: even if Carla didn't trash talk her, Bravo certainly portrayed her in a very negative light. Here she comes back and tries to help Carla out, and in their zeal to portray Carla in a positive light, Bravo spins it like it was all Casey's fault. So, she's pissed. Hell, I'd be pissed to. I'm not saying it was a classy thing to do, but I do think it's understandable, and I can't say for sure how I personally would act in similar circumstances.

I agree, and I'd love to see some way of incorporating past performance into the judging, but I don't see that happening. But at the very least I wish that they had changed their editing so that he was not perceived as quite so weak. They did their best to knock Stefan down in the last two episodes, and to bring Carla up, but they just coasted on Hosea. Like others have suggested, though, maybe that was all they had to work with; seems a shame, though.

I just find it hard to believe that in all those hours of footage, and those Q&A's with whoever is hiding behind the camera in the interviews, that they couldn't piece together a few clips that would make Hosea seem like a worthy winner. All we ever seemed to get was him bitching about Stefan or lamenting his relationship with Leah. Was there really nothing else?