Streamlining the classics

[mkayahara]

Mark Bittman has a post up today arguing that, while there is value in making labour-intensive recipes the traditional way, there's also value in taking shortcuts on them if it means the difference between eating them and not. The example he gives is North African preserved lemons:

I never devised a “new” way to make preserved lemons and, as a result, for literally 20 years I ate them only in restaurants.

In principle, I see where he's coming from on dishes like cassoulet. But preserved lemons? The amount of labour for the traditional version takes no more time than the "minimalist" version he proposes. Most of the time involved in preserved lemons is just waiting for them to be ready, while they slowly transform in your fridge. To my mind, a shortcut to preserved lemons is really just a case of culinary ADD: I want it now, and I don't want to have to plan ahead for it.

Or maybe it's just because I'm still in my early 30s, and my life is as leisurely as Bittman's was when he was in his 30s.

What do you think? Is the perfect the enemy of the good?

[Chris Amirault]

It doesn't surprise me that "The Minimalist" believes these are "basic tenets of real cooking in the contemporary world":

You can put it this way: “Perfect is the enemy of good enough.” Or you can say, “compromise is essential in practical cooking,” or “I’d rather eat a good version of a dish than sit around and think about the ideal one.”

I guess you can put it that way, but these quasi-syllogisms seem specious to me. I make my own preserved lemons the long way, as it turns out, and I hardly think they're perfect, whatever that means. I also don't think they're "good enough" (for what?) whatever that means. The next proclamation sets up false binaries: there is a world of options between eating the results of your actions and pondering the shadows on the cave wall.

Edited October 20, 2010 by Chris Amirault
clarification (log)

[Nikki Rose]

I figure there's only one way to preserve lemons. That's not a treat I'd want to expedite -- producing inferior results. That would be a pointless effort to me and a waste of lemons. And I wouldn't dare share them with my neighbors, especially here in Crete where preserving fruits is a great art.

If I crave food that requires more than a flash-in-the-pan minute of my attention, I'm make the time to prepare it properly. If that's considered "old school" or "the arduous way," well that's just the way it is. Let's leave the brainwashing fast-food marketers out of this. So to each his/her own. Cook/eat the way you want to. If you love the results, that's what counts.

Edited October 20, 2010 by Nikki Rose (log)

[Jenni]

Hmm...my life is crazy busy, but when I want to make a certain dish, I make it properly. I suppose that if your quick method results in the same taste it doesn't matter, but I have found many times that changing the method results in something that isn't really like the "real" thing anymore.

I don't understand the preserved lemon example though. It takes a very short amount of time to make preserved lemons, and it's not even difficult. Or is he saying that he doesn't want to wait for the lemons to be ready? In which case, it's just lack of patience, and I would really encourage him to get some...they are worth waiting for!

ETA: More thoughts!

Much of the time, I think "good" is the enemy of "perfect". So many magazines, websites, etc. nowadays have recipes, and often they end up being pretty blah versions of the original dish. For example, we live in a world where plenty of people now know what risotto is. They've eaten it in a chain restaurant, they've seen and maybe even tried a recipe off a cooking show or food blog. But have they ever eaten a decent risotto, or have they just eaten something that vaguely resembles risott? The problem is that, now that all sorts of different people are posting recipes online, and coming up with their own versions in books and on TV, there are loads of watered down versions of dishes.

People call something risotto if it's made with arborio rice and is a bit sloppier than a pilau. People call something chili con carne if it's a meaty stew with chillies and beans it (even though there is some debate whether chili even should have beans in it). There are probably large numbers of people in the world who think you can make a bechamel sauce with cornlour and milk.

I'm not saying that we should all become completely anal about "authenticity" and making things "the long way" all the time. But I do think there should be standards, an understanding that when you make something differently from the traditional way, maybe it's not always appropriate to call it by the name of the original dish. Otherwise we end up in a situation where most people don't know what a dish should actually taste like - because they've only ever been served or made an approximate version.

Edited October 20, 2010 by Jenni (log)

[Tri2Cook]

If you love the results, that's what counts.

That sums it up for me. If the old way is better, do it the old way. If you find a new way (quicker, easier, more streamlined, more accessible, etc.) that gives you equal or better results, go for it. There's nothing wrong with respecting tradition but, in my opinion, there is something wrong with assuming something isn't as good because it wasn't done in the traditional manner. Of course, it does require the ability to admit when something isn't as good as the traditional version even though it was easier. Many people like shortcuts and may mistake easier for equal to or better than.

[Alcuin]

I think many people have gotten used to not thinking about what they want to eat until it seems impossible to cook anything, so the option is super quick shortcuts or having someone else prepare it for you at a restaurant. Making stuff often takes time, but not much effort. You just have to think ahead. I tell my composition students to spend the same amount of time they always would on their assignments, but stretch it out over several days instead of doing it all at once. The product will be better, guaranteed. This applies to cooking too.

Also, I'd call myself a "minimalist" when it comes to cooking, but I still take the long way around on things. I wouldn't want to be minimalist in my effort.

[Chris Amirault]

Bittman seems to conflate cooking and "getting food on the table." To wit:

None of this surprises me or seems unnatural. But neither does it seem unnatural to deny the inevitable, which is wrestling once-difficult (or time-consuming) traditional dishes into the present so I can still enjoy their essence.

Every year I long for the week I can devote to making New Year's cassoulet, an experience that involves a lot more than slapping beans and sausage onto plates. The cassoulet is pretty damned good, but the time I devote to cooking it is just as delicious.

Edited October 20, 2010 by Chris Amirault
spacing (log)

[mkayahara]

If you love the results, that's what counts.

That sums it up for me. If the old way is better, do it the old way. If you find a new way (quicker, easier, more streamlined, more accessible, etc.) that gives you equal or better results, go for it.

Of course, Bittman seems to (tacitly) admit that the quick-method preserved lemons aren't as good as the traditional method. I think Jenni nailed it when she said:

Or is he saying that he doesn't want to wait for the lemons to be ready? In which case, it's just lack of patience, and I would really encourage him to get some...they are worth waiting for!

Also:

It doesn't surprise me that "The Minimalist" believes these are "basic tenets of real cooking in the contemporary world"

It doesn't surprise me, either, that eGulleters would be more committed than the general population to doing things right for the sake of doing them right. And I'm sure I'm at least as guilty as the rest of you guys!

[Chris Amirault]

To be clear: I'm certainly not above shortcuts. But finding efficient shortcuts isn't the only criterion one uses to decide how and what one cooks.

[Nikki Rose]

I forgot to mention how disheartening it was to read this bit in the article:

"With some of these dishes, shortcuts are virtually impossible: If you want to make real croissants, you start with real puff pastry."

Ugh.

[Tri2Cook]

If he admits the shortcut version isn't as good but is better than not having it at all, I disagree... but that's exactly the excuse a large percentage of the population is looking for. He's telling the majority "them" what they want to hear.

I just don't subscribe to traditional = right, non-traditional = wrong. I feel that it's the end result that determines right or wrong, not the process of achieving that result. If the traditional process is the only way to achieve the traditional result, then that's the way to do it (assuming you're going for the completely traditional result, but that's a different subject). Writing off a different way of doing something without tasting the result because it isn't traditional just feels extremely limiting to me.

[Chris Amirault]

If the traditional process is the only way to achieve the traditional result, then that's the way to do it (assuming you're going for the completely traditional result, but that's a different subject).

But part of doing something using the traditional process is to learn what the traditional process is all about, and it's not just about what ends up on the table. You gain access to all sorts of nuances of method, time, experience -- of cooking as a mode of being, not merely producing -- that would otherwise be lost.

[Tri2Cook]

But part of doing something using the traditional process is to learn what the traditional process is all about, and it's not just about what ends up on the table. You gain access to all sorts of nuances of method, time, experience -- of cooking as a mode of being, not merely producing -- that would otherwise be lost.

Agreed. You have to start with the traditional method if you aspire to the traditional result. I'm talking more about using other processes and techniques to achieve that goal once you are completely familiar with what that goal is and how it was originally achieved. Making a classic dish with untraditional methods that tastes as good as the original isn't likely to work if you don't know how to make it the traditional way and what it is supposed to taste like.

I also agree that, for the person doing the cooking, it is about more than just what ends up on the table. For the diner, it typically is not.

[andiesenji]

I'm on the side of doing it the traditional way at least once, before attempting a short-cut version because I want to know what it tastes like (and looks like) when it is done the "old-fashioned" way.

Sometimes the "new" or rapid method works okay. For instance, I have good results candying small amounts of citrus peel in the microwave.

However, some things just take time. Preserved lemons, done the traditional way take a certain amount of time to reach the desired flavor and texture. Unless you have a time warp apparatus or have a way to speed up time, you simply have to wait.

Same with certain cooking processes. A braise takes time. You can't rush it without having the meat become something other than desired.

Onion confit, ditto.