To cook or to overcook?

[DaveFaris]

I've pretty much refused to cook tuna steaks for my wife anymore. Last time I tried, she sent me back out to the grill to cook them more because they were still red on the inside. "But they're supposed to be," I said. "Then I won't eat it," she said.

So I ended up cooking the thing until it was cooked through, this $30 piece of sushi quality tuna. It was dry, and had little flavor, but it was cooked all the way through.

So now my wife asks me why I won't cook her tuna any more.

So I guess it comes down to, how hard to you stick with the recipe? If a diner prefers his filet to be cooked to a char, as a cook, who are you to stop him?

[guajolote]

Buy $15 worth of tuna and eat it.

Open $.89 can of tuna and give it to wife.

[JAZ]

Tough question. My ex-fiance used to insist on scrambled eggs cooked to the consistency of little egg pellets, and so I used to cook my eggs the way I wanted, remove them and continue to cook his until they resembed egg-colored Grape Nuts. But eggs are not sushi grade tuna, and I think I would feel differently being asked to mistreat something like that. Maybe you could buy salmon instead?

[macrosan]

I agree with the JAZ method. Most "preferred rare" dishes can be cooked both ways; I do exactly the same as JAZ with eggs (fried, scrambled or omelette) which my wife prefers cooked more than I do. One pan, two different times to put into or take out of the pan, two happy diners

I do exactly the same with chops or steaks on the BBQ. I can't see why grilled tuna would be a problem.

As far as the principle goes, I'm with the group that says you should try some gentle persuasion on people to at least try the rare option. But if they insist on charred food, then so be it.

[Nick]

Try marinating the tuna in Tamari (soy) and grated ginger for a few hours before cooking on the grill. Before cooking the other side, throw some cherry chips (I use sawdust) on the charcoal and spray it with water to keep in from flaming (or soak the chips). Then cook the second side with the cover down to smoke and cook at the same time. If she doesn't like it this way, give up - again.

I also like raw tuna (particularly the napes) dipped in the same thing as the marinade of Tamari and ginger.

[elyse]

Buy $15 worth of tuna and eat it.

Open $.89 can of tuna and give it to wife.

I agree. No sense in incinerating cash.

[JAZ]

I agree with the JAZ method. Most "preferred rare" dishes can be cooked both ways; I do exactly the same as JAZ with eggs (fried, scrambled or omelette) which my wife prefers cooked more than I do. One pan, two different times to put into or take out of the pan, two happy diners  

I do exactly the same with chops or steaks on the BBQ. I can't see why grilled tuna would be a problem.

As far as the principle goes, I'm with the group that says you should try some gentle persuasion on people to at least try the rare option. But if they insist on charred food, then so be it.

Just to keep the record straight, I did say that I do that with eggs. I'm unsure about what to do with sushi grade tuna, just as I would be with a high quality steak. I would hate to spend that kind of money on something and cook it to a point where I feel it's ruined, regardless of how someone wants it.

That's why I suggested switching to something else -- salmon, in this instance.

[Matt Seeber]

as a cook, who are you to stop him?

i agree, as a cook - what do i care how you prefer to eat your fish?

in regards to the quality of the fish in it's raw state - why can't someone have a piece of high quality fish cooked well done, if that's the way he / she wants it? i happen to like my tuna cooked rare, but if i so happened to like it well done, i would still like it of the same quality as my dining partners eating it raw.

as far as a restaurant situation - if your money is green, i'll cook your darn fish any ole' way you like! and i'll do it with a nice piece of fish.

[Jinmyo]

In a professional context, give them what they want and make it the best damn over-cooked tuna they've ever had.

But friends don't let friends eat over-cooked food.

[col klink]

But friends don't let friends eat over-cooked food.

Yeah, no kidding. If your beloved likes the fish overdone, by lower grades of fish because once it's overdone, there isn't a difference between them. This is absolutely no reason to ruin an expensive, beautiful piece of fish if they don't know how to appreciate it. Although your wife will probably be able to tell the difference between cheap tuna and canned! However, if your fish is really sushi grade, then you should be eating it raw! Well, maybe seared on the outside, but raw none the less.

For a professional setting, I'm with Seeber. Cash can be exchanged for goods and services and if they want it charred to briquets, let 'em have it.

[gknl]

Did she eat the tuna?

Did she enjoy the tuna?

If yes, she did, then what difference does it make that you don't like it the same way?

The whole point is buying something that's enjoyable. So how is it wasted or ruined if they enjoyed eating it? I could see your point if you cooked it the way she wanted it and then she didn't eat it because it was dry or whatever. I'm assuming she did enjoy it because she's asking you why you don't make it anymore.

Is it that hard to put her piece on first so that you both can eat it the way you prefer it?

[JAZ]

Did she eat the tuna? 

Did she enjoy the tuna? 

If yes, she did, then what difference does it make that you don't like it the same way?

I think you're oversimplifying the problem. Yes, of course you want to accommodate the tastes of the people you're cooking for. But mistreating a high quality and expensive ingredient is a difficult thing to do, and I think Dave has a valid point of view.

Let's up the ante a little. If you'd bought, say, a couple of Wagu rib eye steaks, and your guest asked to you bread hers and fry it, then top it with cream of mushroom soup and simmer it for 45 minutes or so, could you honestly say you'd do that? If not, why not?

Just something to think about.

[Jinmyo]

Fry beluga caviar.

[gknl]

Did she eat the tuna? 

Did she enjoy the tuna? 

If yes, she did, then what difference does it make that you don't like it the same way?  

I think you're oversimplifying the problem. Yes, of course you want to accommodate the tastes of the people you're cooking for. But mistreating a high quality and expensive ingredient is a difficult thing to do, and I think Dave has a valid point of view.

Let's up the ante a little. If you'd bought, say, a couple of Wagu rib eye steaks, and your guest asked to you bread hers and fry it, then top it with cream of mushroom soup and simmer it for 45 minutes or so, could you honestly say you'd do that? If not, why not?

Just something to think about.

It's just food. You're not eating that portion anyway. If that person refused to eat it and threw it away, that's one thing, but if they ate it and enjoyed it, why do they have to eat it like you do for their enjoyment to be valid?

I wouldn't be able to cook the steak in that manner because I don't keep cream of mushroom soup in the house. Nice try at a straw man though. Even if I had it, I probably wouldn't be too excited about cooking two separate dishes. But I would definitely cook the steak to her preferred doneness regardless of how I think it should be eaten. It's going in her mouth, not mine.

Let me ask you this, since we're playing rhetorical games: how little do you have to spend on something before you feel as though you can let someone else eat it way he or she prefers? What's the monetary cut off and why?

I can't believe respecting someone else's taste is oversimplifying.

[Jinmyo]

Grant, to cook a $30 portion as if it were a $2.50 portion would mean I'd give them a $5 portion.

[Dave the Cook]

Grant, to cook a $30 portion as if it were a $2.50 portion would mean I'd give them a $5 portion.

Assuming we're talking about a restaurant situation, you may be giving them a $5 portion, but it's a $5 potion for which they've agreed to pay $30.

How hard should you argue with them?

[awbrig]

Tell her if you eat your tuna you'll eat her tuna.

Edited February 7, 2003 by awbrig (log)

[JAZ]

It's just food.  You're not eating that portion anyway.  If that person refused to eat it and threw it away, that's one thing, but if they ate it and enjoyed it, why do they have to eat it like you do for their enjoyment to be valid? 

I wouldn't be able to cook the steak in that manner because I don't keep cream of mushroom soup in the house.  Nice try at a straw man though.  Even if I had it, I probably wouldn't be too excited about cooking two separate dishes.  But I would definitely cook the steak to her preferred doneness regardless of how I think it should be eaten.  It's going in her mouth, not mine. 

Let me ask you this, since we're playing rhetorical games:  how little do you have to spend on something before you feel as though you can let someone else eat it  way he or she prefers? What's the monetary cut off and why? 

I can't believe respecting someone else's taste is oversimplifying. 

I don't think you're oversimplifying because you're "respecting someone else's taste." I was merely stating that I could understand Dave's reluctance to cook a high quality ingredient in a way that he believes ruins it. I do think the refusal to even recognize that his reluctance might be understandable is oversimplifying.

You'll notice, if you read what I wrote, that I never actually said what I'd do, or gave him advice as to what he should do. I said I understand the desire to accommodate one's guests' tastes. I also said that I understand the other side. Period.

My example was merely something to think about, which is precisely what I said at the end of my post. It wasn't a rhetorical game; nor was it a straw man.

But please accept my apologies, since it seems to have upset you so.

[Jinmyo]

Grant, to cook a $30 portion as if it were a $2.50 portion would mean I'd give them a $5 portion.

Assuming we're talking about a restaurant situation, you may be giving them a $5 portion, but it's a $5 potion for which they've agreed to pay $30.

How hard should you argue with them?

In a resto situation, I wouldn't argue.

But I would with friends or family. Having raised kids, I don't care that much about inane preferences.

[scubadoo97]

My wife likes her steaks well done. I always try to make seperate steaks to accommodate her wishes. So cut that tuna into two servings and cook the way you like.

[Matt Seeber]

mistreating a high quality and expensive ingredient

"mistreating" is subjective. in your mind it's mistreating the tuna, but not in the mind of the person eating it well done

[Matt Seeber]

jin has a good point - distinguishing between paying patrons and house guests. i agree with her.

[tommy]

last night i went out to dinner with my 79 year-old mother-in-law (no changing her at this point!). she wanted what i assume was long roasted crispy duck. the menu at this restaurant said "crispy duck." i've seen this description many times before, and it's often just a leg (crispy) and a breast (served rare/med-rare and not crispy). i made sure i asked the waiter which it was. he said it had a separate breast. my mother-in-law, of course, said, "oh, well make that part well done." she doesn't like breast just i as don't. of course, this led to a near-flavorless and tough piece of duck breast. and, of course, she complained about the dish to us and said that some other restaurant makes it much better. well, i couldn't explain to her that that other restaurant cooks theirs in a completely different manner, as it's a different dish. there was no explaining.

i deal with this whenever she orders "crispy duck."

my father likes well-done steak. he gets it as tough as "shoe leathuh," as my grandmother used to say. but he likes it that way. he knows what he likes, he knows what to expect, and he enjoys the shit out of it. nothin wrong with that in my book.

Edited February 9, 2003 by tommy (log)

[elyse]

In a restaurant situation, the chef is not paying out of pocket without recompense. If a customer wants to eat a high quality piece of flesh after it has lost it's quality in the cooking process, the chef is losing nothing from the transaction but respect.

At home, what is the difference in buying two different cuts of flesh, if the person consuming it can not tell the difference between a burned piece of lesser quality flesh, and a burned one of higher quality? You should not withhold the meal, but buy two levels of quality. And if "it's just food," then it'll still be just food if it's a cheaper piece. But you'll have "just more money" in your pocket.

There are some things that I spend too much money on, but certain things would be wasted in certain applications. Would I give caviar to the cats? They would enjoy it, and DAMN I love my cats. They also enjoy Iams. I opt for Iams. And I would never buy filet mignon to grind into hamburgers. It just doesn't make sense.

[=Mark]

mistreating a high quality and expensive ingredient

"mistreating" is subjective. in your mind it's mistreating the tuna, but not in the mind of the person eating it well done

Exactly. One could also argue that from the tuna's perspective even being served raw is being mistreated...