A Bucket of Steamers

[balmagowry]

Typically it's only in a case like fried clams, where all the bits may be camouflaged in batter and somewhat unrecognizable, that you might discover that you're eating a plate of nothing but rims.

Ahhh, now I get it. Thanks, balmagowry! Whenever I come across any talk of fried clams on Holly Moore's Website, I've noticed that he mentions whether the restaurant/shack includes the clam belly in the fried clams. I thought that the belly was some extra, tasty bit I had never eaten. But now I see why you might be annoyed if your there are no bellies in your fried clams.

My pleasure.

Actually, there's something to be said for the variety of "fried clam" made only from surf-clam rims. I kind of like them - the chewy texture, the flavor, the robustness. But technically, of course, they are not fried clams, nor are they much like them - texture and flavor are quite different - so for me at any rate the real objection to them is on Truth-in-Advertising grounds, if you see what I mean. I can see where there might not be much of a market for Fried Surf-Clam Rims, but I'm sure they could come up with a cutesy euphemistic name (like Sea-Legs for fake crab meat?) that would sell. There are practical and monetary advantages to using rims instead of whole steamers; but there's no excuse for passing one off as the other - no matter how gullible the public may be!

[cakes]

I have to disagree. They are fried clams, they just don't have the bellies. You would not say that roast pork is not roast pork because it does not include the whole pig including the guts would you?

All I remember seeing on menus are fried clam strips and fried clams w/bellies but I would not claim false advertisement if they called both fried clams.

Cakes

[balmagowry]

I have to disagree.  They are fried clams, they just don't have the bellies.  You would not say that roast pork is not roast pork because it does not include the whole pig including the guts would you?

All I remember seeing on menus are fried clam strips and fried clams w/bellies but I would not claim false advertisement if they called both fried clams.

Nope, sorry - on semantic grounds I simply can't agree. "Pork" is not syntactically parallel with "clams." "Clams," the plural of the common noun "clam," refers to a group of objects, each of which is a single clam. Nowhere does that term allow for the possibility that any individual item in the group to which it refers is anything other, or less, than a clam. "Pork" is a different case entirely - it is a generic noun which has no plural and which can (and does) correctly refer to any edible portion of a pig. If the menu says "fried clam strips," great. If the menu says, "a plate of fried clam," it gets points for both accuracy and originality, because it has had the linguistic guts to use "clam" as a generic. But if the menu says "fried clams," then by hell every individual item on that plate had better be a CLAM - not a half-clam or a half-assed clam or a portion of a clam or even a clam and a half. 1 clam, not .8765 clam.

Mind you, it doesn't have to be a soft-shell clam - unless the menu says it is. Technically "fried clams" could mean fried quahogs or fried razors or fried surf-clams or, heaven help us, fried sand-gapers (though I don't know quite how you'd fit more than one of those on a plate). But some sort of a clam - the clam, the whole clam, and nothing but the clam ('cept of course the batter...) - it must be.

[balmagowry]

Thread Convergence Alert!

For further proof that clams don't give a damn about corn meal, and for some great pictures and insights into the farming of mercenaria mercenaria, look at this thread.

[loper]

...if the menu says "fried clams," then by hell every individual item on that plate had better be a CLAM - not a half-clam or a half-assed clam or a portion of a clam or even a clam and a half. 1 clam, not .8765 clam.

I tried a whole fried clam once - wasn't so good. I recommend you get them out of their shells first.

[balmagowry]

...if the menu says "fried clams," then by hell every individual item on that plate had better be a CLAM - not a half-clam or a half-assed clam or a portion of a clam or even a clam and a half. 1 clam, not .8765 clam.

I tried a whole fried clam once - wasn't so good. I recommend you get them out of their shells first.

Wow - I never thought of that. Y'mean - they aren't supposed to CRUNCH like that?

Go figure. The things you learn....

[Fat Guy]

So... we await the results of your chowder-making efforts.  I've never used the Ducasse/Psaltis Mix trick of using pureed clams in the broth for extra flavor, but I am anxious to try it the next time I do a chowder.

I'd be concerned about how it would affect the consistency. Despite the many creamy bisque-like concoctions which are often perpetrated in its name, a true chowder is a poor fisherman's dish, and as such should have a thin thin broth, slightly milky and intensely clammy. Seems to me that the real problem with the puree idea is that it would cloud and thicken the broth to an unacceptably un-chowder-esque degree.

There's a difference between thickening chowder with soup base and other crap on the one hand, and with pureed clams on the other hand. In the former instance, one is changing texture at the expense of the great flavor of the original dish. In the latter case, one is improving upon the original "peasant" dish -- which is what chefs are supposed to do. I should add, we are currently all talking about New England-style clam chowder.

[balmagowry]

There's a difference between thickening chowder with soup base and other crap on the one hand, and with pureed clams on the other hand. In the former instance, one is changing texture at the expense of the great flavor of the original dish. In the latter case, one is improving upon the original "peasant" dish -- which is what chefs are supposed to do.

Fair enough - I guess that makes sense. Though... I dunno - at what point does it change so much that it ceases to be chowdah at all? Thing is, if you go to a restaurant and order chowdah, then chowdah should be what you get - no? All too often it isn't - as in the thick creamy types I mentioned up-thread. They're often delicious, and marvelously warming and comforting on a chill winter's day. But that don't make them chowdah! In my mind this is analogous to Disney's take on Mary Poppins - probably a perfectly fine little saccharine movie musical, but it had about as much to do with the real Mary Poppins as it did with the Texas Chainsaw Massacre. My feeling is, hell, go ahead and make the movie, do whatever you want with the plot and the characters, and sell it for all you're worth - but for pity's sake - for audience's sake - call it something else. Similarly with chowdah - when you've improved it beyond recognition, give it a name that reflects the change.

Never mind, just me on my hobby-horse. I know it ain't gonna happen. But a girl can dream....

I should add, we are currently all talking about New England-style clam chowder.

Ah yes. Speaking of whether or not to call it chowdah. Hang on, I gotta put on my Kevlar jumpsuit before saying this, but... according to the same principle as above, there is no other kind. Now before everyone's bowels get in an uproar! I have nothing against the Manhattan version, nothing whatsoever - personally I like the other better, but that's just my own taste. But as long as I'm being quixotic then let me BE quixotic: I say there is simply no justification for giving that red soup the name chowdah. Or even chowder. By what defining standards is it a chowder? None that I know of. Manhattan Clam Soup - fine. Manhattan Tomato Soup With Clams And Other Stuff In It - fine. But as long as I have breath there will always be one lone small voice crying in the wilderness: No-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o... it is NOT chowder!

[Fat Guy]

Without diving into the whole question of authenticity and evolution of dishes, I'll say that the Rhode Islanders probably have the best claim to a pure chowder. The version in a relatively clear broth, with no milk or tomatoes, in my opinion offers the most direct clam experience. It's worth bearing in mind, however, that the word chowder comes from the French chaudiere, which I believe just refers to the big pot in which fishermen make stews and has nothing to do with clams. And I've got no problem with corn chowder either; I'm able to intuit what that means without too much trouble. Ultimately I think you're barking up the wrong tree by resisting the label "New England clam chowder" because the only region in which "chowder" by definition equals "New England clam chowder" is New England. In the rest of the English-speaking world, the term is susceptible to a variety of meanings and the geographical designations are helpful. Plus this is one of the few legitimate long-standing European-style regional dish rivlaries we have here in the US -- we should milk it, as it were, for all it's worth.

[Adam Balic]

The version in a relatively clear broth, with no milk or tomatoes, in my opinion offers the most direct clam experience. It's worth bearing in mind, however, that the word chowder comes from the French chaudiere, which I believe just refers to the big pot in which fishermen make stews and has nothing to do with clams.

It now means "Boiler" as in the thing that makes produces hot water.

What a pity that US English didn't develop the term "Chowder Chicken".

So what are the exact ingredients in New England Clam Chowder (or "East Coast White Bivalve Pottage" if it will save arguement).

[Fat Guy]

So what are the exact ingredients in New England Clam Chowder

"Queequeg," said I, "do you think that we can make out a supper for us both on one clam?" However, a warm savory steam from the kitchen served to belie the apparently cheerless prospect before us. But when that smoking chowder came in, the mystery was delightfully explained. Oh sweet friends! Hearken to me. It was made of small juicy clams, scarcely bigger than hazel nuts, mixed with pounded ship biscuit, and salted pork cut up into little flakes; the whole poached with butter, and plentifully seasoned with pepper and salt.

[Adam Balic]

OK, apart form the poncy type over garnished with Physeter catodon var. "Alba", what about potato (I assume potato replaces ships biscuit now?)

[Fat Guy]

The hardtack has been replaced by oyster crackers, which are pretty much universally served with chowders in the US today.

There are actually quite a few variants of New England clam chowder, but the most basic recipes tend to include clams (duh), salt-pork or bacon, diced onion, celery and potatoes, scalded milk, butter, flour, salt and pepper. The aromatics are cooked in the pork fat, the butter is added and thickened with the flour, and then the rest of the ingredients go in and cook until the potatoes are tender.

[Adam Balic]

Oyster crackers? What be these, matey? Are they served along side te chowder or cooked in it or crumbled in it at the diners discression?

What would be a good UK substitute? Bath biscuit, Matzo, Carr's water biscuits?

[Fat Guy]

I'm going to need to study up on UK cracker/biscuit terminology before I can figure this out, but yes they're typically served alongside the chowder these days because they're not hard enough to withstand actual cooking. There are some traditional brands like Westminster that can sit in the soup for awhile and still maintain some texture, but the standard-issue ones are light and get added at the last minute. They're not crumbled, though -- oyster crackers are smaller than bite-size so they get added whole by the fistful.

[slkinsey]

The reigning expert on chowder these days is probably Jasper White, and I recommend his book 50 Chowders : One Pot Meals - Clam, Corn, & Beyond.

I would point out a few things about chowder: 1. there is really no definitive version or list of ingredients for chowder. 2. it is only supposed that "chowder" may be related to or derived from the French word "chaudiere," and this supposition is based mainly on the seeming similarity between the words. Another equally likely candidate would be the 16th Century English word "jowter," meaning "fishmonger." 3. another possibility is that chowders have no European derivation at all, and were first prepared by Native Americans (usually supposed to be the Micmac, either with or without the use of European iron vooking vessels).

[Adam Balic]

Actually the Melville description sounds more like a very thick stew, rather then the modern chowder.

[Fat Guy]

The similarity between the two words both spoken and in definition, combined with the heavy French-language influence in Maine, Vermont, New Brunswick, etc., would seem to make "chaudiere" the leading candidate. Merriam-Webster says "French chaudière, kettle, contents of a kettle, from Late Latin caldaria."

[Adam Balic]

The similarity between the two words both spoken and in definition, combined with the heavy French-language influence in Maine, Vermont, New Brunswick, etc., would seem to make "chaudiere" the leading candidate. Merriam-Webster says "French chaudière, kettle, contents of a kettle, from Late Latin caldaria."

Earliest records of North American Chowder suggest it developed in Newfoundland first, from the Breton Frenchies. When did Newfoundland become part of Canada (?).

chaudière => caldaria=> cauldron. So chowder could be like pottage, terrine and tagine in the respect of being named after the cooking vessel.

One point though. The Chowder => chaudière theory doesn't have to be all or nothing. 'Jowter/chowter/chowder' is a Cornish/Devonish word for fish trader. It is quite an old word (1500's at least) and at this time the Cornish would have spoken Cornish, this being very similar to Breton (them being practically the same people and all). One can imagine quite strong links between Cornwall and Brittany families, especially fishing families, maybe they even fished on the same boats.

So I haven't a real problem with some contribution from the Cornish connection to the development of the word 'Chowder'. Plus if chaudière was originally a French word spread by Breton fishermen, would not these people be speaking Breton, not French? So the French language connection in New England may not have mattered very much, especially in light of a Newfoundland origin.

Edited March 23, 2004 by Adam Balic (log)

[Fat Guy]

When did Newfoundland become part of Canada (?).

Post-WWII, I think.

[slkinsey]

When did Newfoundland become part of Canada (?).

Post-WWII, I think.

July 22, 1948 was when they voted to join Canada.

[Marlene]

When did Newfoundland become part of Canada (?).

Newfoundland joined Canada in 1949 Canada and Confederation

[Adam Balic]

So who was the boss of them pre-1948?

[Marlene]

Everything you wanted to know about Newfoundland and more Newfoundland and it's history

[slkinsey]

So who was the boss of them pre-1948?

More importantly, perhaps, why are there so many "Newfie" jokes?