A question about theoretical knowledge vs. experimentation

[dpcalder]

How important is practical experimentation if I am going to write a book about things that have never been cooked before? Here's my situation and the reason for my question: I want to write about replacing certain parts of conventional Western dishes with more exotic foods from other cultures. So I will be writing about food combinations which are likely unpopular, if not unprecedented because of their strangeness.

 

The problem is that I will likely never have hands-on access to the kinds of foods that I want to use. What I'm wondering is if it's possible to have sufficient theoretical knoweldge of the chemistry/biology of the foodstuffs in question to be able to knowledgeably write about what sorts of combinations are most likely to be healthiest and tastiest, how the certain foods ought to or ought to not be combined, prepared, cooked, in order to have a palatable or healthy meal.

 

Is something like this feasible without actual experimentation? Can theoretical knoweldge, even relatively exhaustive theoretical knoweldge, of the biology or chemistry of the kinds of foods I want to use, replace hands-on practical experimentation, or will I not be taken seriously in the food science and culinary arts world unless I've actually prepared the meals I'm writing about?

[Hassouni]

Honestly, I would not write a recommendation for something without personally having tried it. If you want to go ahead with your plan as described above, you might want to consider making a note in the book about it being hypothetical, supported by theory, but untested. At the same time, I think potential customers will want something proven.

[jayt90]

Most publishers will demand testing.  You could self publish, or blog. If you choose that course, establish a forum here, and present your theories for home cooks to test.

[Tri2Cook]

Based on some of the recipes I've seen, I suspect quite a lot of cooking books have been written without actual testing. But you're asking people to try things that you're claiming either haven't been done or, at least, are unlikely to have been done. In my opinion, that insists upon actual testing no matter how extensive your theoretical knowledge. I mean, there are chefs out there with an incredible amount of theoretical and practical knowledge and not a single one of them would put something on their menu without testing it first. I just don't think "trust me, I haven't done this but I'm absolutely sure it's great" really cuts it. I guess it comes down to your goal. Are you doing it because you believe in what you're writing or do you just want to write a book and think you've found a unique angle? If it's the latter, nobody really has any way of knowing if the recipes have been tested unless you tell them.

[dcarch]

I think the book will be extremely popular, if it were written by one of those famous, well established chefs/cooks.

 

Get yourself very famous first in the food world.

 

 

dcarch

[btbyrd]

Theory is no substitute for practical experience. I can't imagine writing a book where I hadn't made each recipe at least twice. You can't cook a priori.
 

I'm also unsure as to the target market of your book. If you, the author, has such great difficulty sourcing the ingredients that you can't even prepare the meals before writing the book... how can you expect your readers to be able to make the recipes?  Sounds sort of like you're saying: "Season your dishes with unobtanium for taste and health!". Except you won't have any idea how the dishes will actually taste. And neither will your readers.

Edited April 20, 2014 by btbyrd (log)

[dpcalder]

Based on some of the recipes I've seen, I suspect quite a lot of cooking books have been written without actual testing. But you're asking people to try things that you're claiming either haven't been done or, at least, are unlikely to have been done. In my opinion, that insists upon actual testing no matter how extensive your theoretical knowledge. I mean, there are chefs out there with an incredible amount of theoretical and practical knowledge and not a single one of them would put something on their menu without testing it first. I just don't think "trust me, I haven't done this but I'm absolutely sure it's great" really cuts it. I guess it comes down to your goal. Are you doing it because you believe in what you're writing or do you just want to write a book and think you've found a unique angle? If it's the latter, nobody really has any way of knowing if the recipes have been tested unless you tell them.

 

My goal is more or less to be an apologist for foods consumed by traditional cultures which have been shown to have a great deal of nutritional value but which are not widely known in the Western world. I want to argue that we can get all of our nutrients from replacing certain of our more conventional foods with these foods, and I want to create unique twists on conventional meals that combine our own conventional foods with foods from other cultures on the grounds that they are easy to grow and a lot cheaper, so that if these foods became more widely available in the West, we'd be able to more cheaply and efficiently produce these foods.

 

I just want to be able to knowledgeably say stuff like "we normally combine such and such two foods, but we can replace this one food article with that of another, although we might want to alter the preparation in such and such a way to make them compatible, or we might want to prepare this new food in such and such a way to make it compatible with the more conventional one."

 

Because I don't have access to these materials, I will require recourse almost entirely to theoretical knowledge rather than practical experience, but my aim is precisely to popularize such foods to contribute to their becoming more readily available. I will acknowledge in my writing that it's purely theoretical and might require adjustment should these foods become more popular, of course. But I want to be able to attain such as precision as possible with theoretical knowledge. Right now I'm wondering about the extent and the nature of the limitations I might run into with purely theoretical knowledge.

[Anna N]

Theoretical knowledge isn't all it's cracked up to be. Theoretically bees cannot possibly fly but I have lots of honey to cook with. If theoretical knowledge was all it claims to be we wouldn't need exhaustive animal and human studies to test the safety of food additives. Sorry but I think theories need testing in the real world. YMMV.

[dpcalder]

Theory is no substitute for practical experience. I can't imagine writing a book where I hadn't made each recipe at least twice. You can't cook a priori.

 

I'm also unsure as to the target market of your book. If you, the author, has such great difficulty sourcing the ingredients that you can't even prepare the meals before writing the book... how can you expect your readers to be able to make the recipes?  Sounds sort of like you're saying: "Season your dishes with unobtanium for taste and health!". Except you won't have any idea how the dishes will actually taste. And neither will your readers.

That's what I'm worried about. Is there any way I can obtain theoretical knowledge through biology and chemistry of how the meal will taste, or is this purely a subjective and experiential issue?

[Edward J]

Two questions..

 

1) What's it taste like?

2) What kind of texture does it leave in my mouth?

 

Answer those and you can write the book

[Lisa Shock]

The problem I see is that many foods have little quirks that are really specific, for example, ginger will coagulate milk into a custard if cooked at a precise temperature. If you wrote a recipe for a drink that involved milk and infusing ginger in it by heating then cooling, your reader would be surprised to no longer have a drink.

 

You'll also get flavor interactions that you don't expect. I mean, I have thought of things that on paper sounded tasty but turned out to be oddly flavored, bland, and oddly textured. Other times, I have come up with combinations which exceeded the sum of their parts. (butter & teriyaki sauce)

[thayes1c]

That's what I'm worried about. Is there any way I can obtain theoretical knowledge through biology and chemistry of how the meal will taste, or is this purely a subjective and experiential issue?

Do you enjoy food or find it to be nothing more than a source of fuel, and a burdensome source at that? It sounds like you are not overly familiar with cooking and are approaching your cookbook as some kind of engineering problem. It would be far easier to source, make and taste your recipes than to "obtain theoretical knowledge" about taste. Your readers will thank you for your efforts, if your premise doesn't produce the grimoire of dreadful recipes I am imagining it will.

[Tri2Cook]

Right now I'm wondering about the extent and the nature of the limitations I might run into with purely theoretical knowledge.

 

The nature of the limitations is pretty much covered by the fact that you would be unable to answer...

 

1) What's it taste like?

2) What kind of texture does it leave in my mouth?

The extent could be minor or it could be huge. What you know in theory may allow you to make many untested connections that work out perfectly. It may also allow you to create some untested horrid messes that will be discovered when those who buy the book try the recipes. I guess the extent to which that is a limitation depends upon how much it matters to you that the people who buy the book are happy with it.

Disclaimer: I'm not questioning your knowledge or your motives, just expressing my opinions regarding the questions you're asking.

 

[chefmd]

What ingredients do you have difficulties sourcing?  Just curious.  World wide ethnic foods are now available in all major cities now.  May be eGullet members can help you source those ingredients...

[William Colsher]

You might take a look at www.foodpairing.com

Consider too, as chefmd suggests, that many formerly "ethnic" foods are readily available and those that are not would essentially be irrelevant to your purpose.

[gfweb]

At the moment you have an interesting concept....probably enough for an article in a food magazine if you have actually made a few dishes as a proof of concept. That certainly ought to be do-able and might attract a publisher.

[janeer]

No.

[gfweb]

Maybe.

[paulraphael]

Old question ... rationalism vs. empiricism.

 

I don't think a theoretical book is fundamentally a problem if it's presented as such. The question becomes: is there a market for this book? I don't have any idea. Publishers would probably have plenty of opinions.

[menuinprogress]

I think knowledge is a great source of potential recipe ideas. Without carrying out the actual cooking experiments, however, you have just that - potential recipe ideas.

[Mjx]

. . . .

 

Because I don't have access to these materials, I will require recourse almost entirely to theoretical knowledge rather than practical experience, but my aim is precisely to popularize such foods to contribute to their becoming more readily available. I will acknowledge in my writing that it's purely theoretical and might require adjustment should these foods become more popular, of course. But I want to be able to attain such as precision as possible with theoretical knowledge. Right now I'm wondering about the extent and the nature of the limitations I might run into with purely theoretical knowledge.

 

If you, who have enough of an interest in this subject to write a book about, do not have access to the materials in question, what leads you to conclude that others will? If your reason for failing to test is inability to access materials, I doubt potential buyers will feel you have enough credibility for them to be willing to pay for something you've written.

 

You're extremely vague about the sorts of exotic foods you're interested in presenting, so there's no way of knowing what sorts of ingredients you have in mind.

If they're challenging (e.g. insects, for Westerners), or more or less exclusive to a region, you're going to need to bring much more to the table than that you believe this is a good idea; you'll need to explain in practical terms why this ingredient is worth pursuing, and how you successfully did so.

 

Also consider that, in some cases, increasing the popularity of regional delicacies can compromise their existence (e.g. Salep), and showing some sensitivity regarding this issue will be crucial to making your enthusiasm come across as such, rather than as potentially exploitive.

[nickrey]

Firstly, I'd question the ethics of writing a cookbook about things you've never cooked.

 

Secondly, even if we set this aside, the question remains that if you can't gain access to the foods, how is your potential cookbook market going to have access to them?

 

Write about things you know and have experience with.

 

Let me say that again and in bold. Write about things you know and have experience with. Period.

Edited April 21, 2014 by nickrey (log)

[ChrisTaylor]

What nickrey said. I mean, are these things truly and utterly impossible to access or merely difficult? I'm assuming the latter, if your intent is for someone--perhaps the sort of especially committed person that cooks from books that regularly call for hard-to-find ingredients, such as The Big Fat Fat Duck Cookbook--at some point to prepare these dishes. If the end user can maybe, with a lot of effort and some expense, find the ingredients then it's reasonable to expect that you, as the author, should be prepared to do the same. I mean, look ... I've eaten a lot of game meat. I've tracked down and eaten some things that, while legal in Australia, aren't exactly something butchers place in their display cases. And you know what? As much as I love game meat--be it kangaroo or warthog--there are a variety of reasons why mostly people eat pork and beef and lamb and goat and chicken. These animals are all much easier to domesticate, to be sure, than most things sold as game, but the reasons why beef, pork, et al are more popular go beyond that. 

 

My point is (and I know I've come at this in a roundabout way) that how do you know--as someone that has no experience with these exotic ingredients--that the exotic alternative is superior to the intensively-farmed, readily available version? I'm not meaning to be all-out dismissive of tradition here, but eating in a way that people have eaten for tens of thousands of years? What's the point unless it tastes good? By and large, traditional foodstuffs aren't something that were prepared because they tasted great. They were consumed out of necessity.

[paulraphael]

Firstly, I'd question the ethics of writing a cookbook about things you've never cooked.

 

I didn't see him calling it a cookbook. This alone is an important difference.

 

Some thoughts on that truism, "Write about things you know and have experience with. Period"... whether you put it in bold or not, I think it's a dubious proposition. Some of the most important writing has been on topics the author had no experience with. Theoretical physics, rationalist philophy, and virtually all history, to name some of the more obvious examples. 

 

What's the fundamental problem with illuminating ideas and raising questions for future exploration? It may not be as practical as cookbook, but it sounds at least as interesting. 

[paulraphael]

Question for the OP: who do you imagine the book is for, and how do you imagine they'll use it?