Matt and Ted's Excellent Adventure

[bloviatrix]

In today's Times Matt Lee and Ted Lee apply molecular gastronomy to home cooking.

New Wave Cooking: Do Try This at Home

But life gets dull without a challenge, so we decided to stir some risk and ambition into our routine, composing a spring dinner inspired by the new wave chefs, the ones turning culinary tradition on its head from suburban Barcelona to the Lower East Side of New York.[snip]

[/snip]We wanted to rifle through the chefs' high-concept tool bags for any techniques or tools that amateur cooks might take home. An encounter earlier this year with a bright red pixie dust at the Manhattan restaurant WD-50 had encouraged us: the powder had a fruity, exotic and deliciously intense pepper flavor. It was in fact a common bell pepper, Wylie Dufresne, WD-50's chef, revealed, dehydrated in a simple device you can buy on eBay for less than the price of a fancy cocktail, and then pulverized in a coffee grinder. If we could learn to tease sophisticated flavors from everyday sources, the exercise would be worth the risk.

Edit: to add link

Edited April 28, 2004 by bloviatrix (log)

[Gifted Gourmet]

The description of the "gelled martini cubes" had me in hysterics! and the concept of a sea urchin napoleon made me consider some of this culinary exploration at home as a real possibility ... it allayed my inner fears of experimenting ....

Thanks, bloviatrix, for this piece!!

[Liz Johnson]

And thanks for the title you gave this thread. Hysterical.

[Louisa Chu]

OK - help me with my market research please! How many people are really interested in learning more about how to do these kinds of techniques at home? How do you think you'll work them into your own repertoire? What other tricks do you want to learn how to do?

[mongo_jones]

i would like to learn how to make an omlette do the quadruple somersault when i flip it.

[Louisa Chu]

i would like to learn how to make an omlette do the quadruple somersault when i flip it.

Ah, I see - a student with special needs already.

[Fat Guy]

Here's what I'd like to know:

Oxtail foam is no dinner, however, and we still needed a first course, so we called José Andrés, a Spanish-born chef who trained with Mr. Adrià at El Bulli, for some grounding. Online, we had seen a photo of the deconstructed New England clam chowder he serves at his six-seat Minibar in Washington, a shrine to avant-garde cooking. "It's simple," he told us, launching into the inspiration for his chowder. "I was tired of muddy, overcooked chowders. I wanted to create a clam chowder that had more of the pristine flavor of the sea."

So, they saw a photo online, they called Jose Andres, and they got quotes and inspiration for their article. But where did they see that photo online? Could it have been Vengroff's photo here on eGullet? Or maybe Ellen's? http://forums.egullet.org/index.php?showtopic=26554 Or perhaps the Lee brothers found it somewhere else. In any event, why not say where? Just as "I saw in print" would be an inadequate and inappropriate credit to the New York Times, "We saw online" fails to give credit in any meaningful way. Indeed, it implies that the online world is some sort of undifferentiated place where you can get ideas and credit them to "online." That's not the case. Somebody -- either on eGullet or on another Web site -- invested time, money, bandwidth, and effort into bringing those photos to the Lees, and that somebody deserved a better credit.

[slkinsey]

I thought the clam chowder recipe idea sounded very interesting. Would like to try something like it (with a few tweaks like using some pureed clams a la Psaltis/Ducasse) for a party sometime soon.

[jackal10]

OK - help me with my market research please! How many people are really interested in learning more about how to do these kinds of techniques at home? How do you think you'll work them into your own repertoire? What other tricks do you want to learn how to do?

ME!!

Lou: some dispatches and hints from the gastronomic front-line would be great!

I thought the article excellent. I'm inspired to try some more dehydrations..

[Steve Klc]

"it implies that the online world is some sort of undifferentiated place where you can get ideas and credit them to "online."

Unfortunately, that's how too many "real" writers like the Lees presumably view the internet, Steve; they either 1) aren't that intellectually and ethically honest, 2) are lazy, 3) are poorly edited--or some combination of all three.

I'm thankful for the editors and writers of the other two leading Food sections of note, the Washington Post and the LA Times: when they've seen or read something of interest on eGullet--they credit eGullet and credit its writers specifically. To them, it's no big deal--be it the Bayless imbroglio, the Adria book/CD-ROM, pioneering online cooking instruction like the eGCI, et al--eGullet and its members are just another valuable source of information, expertise, stories and ideas.

It's typical that that dish was just discovered by the Times. Two years ago, in one of our casual on-the-curve eG discussions of Adria, I happened to write this:

"Adria's effect and impact is more liberating and universal than Bras and all the other geniuses, though he doesn't go so far as to state it.  (I don't want to put words in his mouth.)  Ferran can conceive and execute a revelatory dish out of canned, creamed corn that "works" or "translates" anywhere.  He nods politely when other elite chefs wax poetic about the absolute fundamental importance of the best possible ingredients at all times to reveal their art.  When Jose Andres serves a refined, pristine, intellectually stimulating deconstructed clam chowder on a flat plate as he did for a Beard dinner or an FCI demonstration in NYC or as a guest of Rick and Gale in Chicago--and it is so lick-your-plate-clean delicious as well as "interesting"--those in attendance are given a glimpse of Adria's universal and eminently translatable significance which is slowly being felt, slowly being realized."

I think Jose and I gave that demo at FCI 3, maybe 4 years ago. The Washington Post Food section wrote about that dish in 1999, I think. Too bad the Lee brothers don't get out, or online, more often.

Otherwise, this is a very nice article: it draws attention to an incredibly significant chef in Andres, my friend who has already won a Beard best chef award, someone those "in the know" have known about for years; it will likely accelerate supposed "trends" we at eG are already up to speed on; and it will attract younger readers because it will seem topical to them, with just the right mix of apparent sophistication, wit and buzz. More on these "food centric dudes," who seem like nice guys but who should have known better as far as crediting eG:

http://www.smithsonianmag.si.edu/smithsoni...peoplefile.html

[tan319]

Loved the article, a lot of fun.

Slowly gaining steam...

[Fat Guy]

Not that eGullet has ever been credited or even mentioned in passing in the New York Times dining section. This just happens to be a glaring omission because we were most likely (though not definitely) the source and because we are so dominant in avant-garde cuisine coverage (as we explained in a recent NewsGullet mailing that goes to many New York Times writers). All three times eGullet has appeared in the Times it has been in situations where the dining editor, Sam Sifton, was not involved, such as the Magazine and the New Jersey section. The pattern at this point is so flagrant it gives rise to a very strong suspicion that Sam Sifton is maintaining a de facto ban on eGullet mentions. Which I guess is understandable, given how often we level criticism at the Times dining section here. Still, we are also a tremendous asset in terms of new media relevance for the Times dining section at a time when it is weak and struggling, a gutted shell of its former self: we offer Stan's digest, we bring Times dining section writers on here for Q&A, and of course we know many of them lurk here (as they do on Chowhound and other Web sites that they also fail to credit often enough -- though at least Chowhound, as a lightweight non-threat, gets the occasional mention). For our part, we'll just keep being the adults here, giving plenty of exposure to the Times dining section and expecting none in return, because we're on the way up and they're on the way down, so we feel a little bad for them. We'll keep pointing out their embarrassing flaws, their Johnny-come-lately coverage, and their weak use of sources whenever we need to. And when they do good work, we'll applaud them and wish they could get it together to produce high-quality food writing every week in every article. Hey, we're optimists.

From the New York Times code of ethics:

31. Staff members compete zealously but deal with competitors

openly and honestly. We do not invent obstacles to hamstring

their efforts. When we use facts reported by another publication,

we attribute them.

http://www.nytco.com/pdf/nyt-coe-3.pdf

[inventolux]

"it implies that the online world is some sort of undifferentiated place where you can get ideas and credit them to "online."

Unfortunately, that's how too many "real" writers like the Lees presumably view the internet, Steve; they either 1) aren't that intellectually and ethically honest, 2) are lazy, 3) are poorly edited--or some combination of all three.

Journalists not ethically honest? This is nuts. Has anyone else heard about this?

[robyn]

I am older than most of you people - and I have been on line since 1988. Particularly active in the late 80's-90's writing on message boards dealing with financial matters (when the press was fascinated by that type of activity).

I've been interviewed by major financial publications - I've been quoted in major financial publications - sometimes I've been interviewed without attribution (at my request - I was an unnamed source for a few financial reporters) - and sometimes what I said was just paraphrased without attribution or my consent. Comes with the territory when you're writing on a message board and you're not copyrighting what you're writing. Never bothered me. I wasn't trying to make a living writing my messages - and the people I dealt with usually returned my favors in various ways that I found acceptable (could be anything from discussing a matter I was interested in with me to buying me lunch). Some reporters were dorks - they never returned favors. And a few of those dorks have gone on to bigger and better things. Such is life.

Anyway - if you're not happy with your relationships with the press in general - or parts of the press in particular - it's not as if you're totally at their mercy. You can be proactive in dealing with them to get whatever it is you happen to be looking for (won't work 100% of the time - but it will work more often than not). Robyn

[jackal10]

I am older than most of you people - and I have been on line since 1988

Err... I got my first email identifier in 1965, as part of the CTSS project. I was a summer intern at the MIT AI lab, and the stuff was being developed...happy days.

CTSS was the"Compatible Time Sharing System", and one of the first to develop an email system, and led on to many modern operating systems. The hackers (in the correct and polite sense) in the AI lab developed ITS (the Incompatible Timesharing System), that went on to be developed by DEC, and at least some of the ideas still live in Linux and Emacs...

Give these guys a break. I thought it was a fantastic article, witty, some original ideas and well researched, with a good feeling for the food. It inspired me to take dehydration more seriously.

Can we get back to talking about the food please?

Edited May 4, 2004 by jackal10 (log)

[amytraverso]

For our part, we'll just keep being the adults here, giving plenty of exposure to the Times dining section and expecting none in return, because we're on the way up and they're on the way down, so we feel a little bad for them. We'll keep pointing out their embarrassing flaws, their Johnny-come-lately coverage, and their weak use of sources whenever we need to. And when they do good work, we'll applaud them and wish they could get it together to produce high-quality food writing every week in every article. Hey, we're optimists.

From the New York Times code of ethics:

31. Staff members compete zealously but deal with competitors

openly and honestly. We do not invent obstacles to hamstring

their efforts. When we use facts reported by another publication,

we attribute them.

http://www.nytco.com/pdf/nyt-coe-3.pdf

Was this meant to sound tongue-in-cheek?

[Dave the Cook]

For our part, we'll just keep being the adults here, giving plenty of exposure to the Times dining section and expecting none in return, because we're on the way up and they're on the way down, so we feel a little bad for them. We'll keep pointing out their embarrassing flaws, their Johnny-come-lately coverage, and their weak use of sources whenever we need to. And when they do good work, we'll applaud them and wish they could get it together to produce high-quality food writing every week in every article. Hey, we're optimists.

From the New York Times code of ethics:

31. Staff members compete zealously but deal with competitors

openly and honestly. We do not invent obstacles to hamstring

their efforts. When we use facts reported by another publication,

we attribute them.

http://www.nytco.com/pdf/nyt-coe-3.pdf

Was this meant to sound tongue-in-cheek?

I won't presume to speak for Steven, but I'm having trouble finding the humor you seem to think is in his post. That is, unless you find the Times' duplicitous attitude towards eGullet, or Steven's deft explication of it, amusing.

[mags]

Ummmm, you might want to check out the correction in tomorrow's (May 6) Times. Perhaps somebody there is a lurker here.

[bloviatrix]

Veddy, veddy interesting.

[Jason Perlow]

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/05/dining/05DCXN.html

Much Appreciated.

[Jason Perlow]

Comes with the territory when you're writing on a message board and you're not copyrighting what you're writing.

All material on eGullet is copyrighted.

[srhcb]

they either 1) aren't that intellectually and ethically honest, 2) are lazy, 3) are poorly edited--or some combination of all three.

Pick Me! Three for three!

[amytraverso]

I won't presume to speak for Steven, but I'm having trouble finding the humor you seem to think is in his post. That is, unless you find the Times' duplicitous attitude towards eGullet, or Steven's deft explication of it, amusing.

I guess I just don't see the need for seeing this as such a bitter competition between the eGulleters and the "real" (not my quotes) journalists. I'm glad the Times gave credit where credit is due, but I don't understand why everyone is so darn gleeful around here anytime a NYT writer makes a mistake. As if everyone here is convinced of their own flawless performance should they be given the opportunity...

[bloviatrix]

Amy, it's not that people are gleeful. It's just that when a newpaper such as the NY Times holds itself out to be the "paper of record" you hold them to a higher a standard.

[cdh]

Amy, it's not that people are gleeful.  It's just that when a newpaper such as the NY Times holds itself out to be the "paper of record" you hold them to a higher a standard.

Fundamental misconception... NYT openly disavows "newspaper of record" title, and just did so the other week.

See this article: Paper of Record? No Way, No Reason, No Thanks.

Edited May 6, 2004 by cdh (log)