"Bakewise" by Shirley Corriher

[pastrygirl]

If I hate the layout of a book, I won't buy it, even if the recipes might be good. Or if they use a lot of pink...how did pink come to be the designated color for pastry? I hate pink.

Anyway, I agree that layout, fonts, spacing, design, all that make a difference.

[Darienne]

Another very interesting article in NY Times, Dec 18, 08 about butter and baking cites the Corriher book and also adds Jennifer McLagan, Fat: An Appreciation of a Misunderstood Ingredient, With Recipes (Ten Speed Press) and also Anita Chu, Field Guide to Cookies (Quirk Books) .

[Anko]

I really love this book. So far, I've made the Pound Cake recipe and the Boston Cream Pie cake. I've made pound cakes from several different recipes, but this is my favorite. The texture is fine-grained, the cake is moist, and the flavor is intense of butter and vanilla and almond. The Boston Cream Pie had a lot of potential, but I overcooked the cake by possibly as much as 5-10 minutes, so it was pretty dry. Everyone said they enjoyed the cake, but it could have been so much better.

This is definitely not a standard recipe-after-recipe cookbook. But you soon realize how much time, effort, analysis, and testing Shirley put into each recipe. Each ingredient and extra step is there for a reason. And everything is thoroughly explained, including the unorthodox use of whipped cream and potato flour in the recipes above. I guess I've never been so confident baking from a book before, I feel like as long as I follow the directions carefully (like I didn't do with the cake), success is guaranteed.

[Lesley C]

Not necessarily.

I wasn't going to post anything but that last statement of Anko's had me worried as do the southern biscuits that I just made from the book that are salty, greasy and heavy. Perhaps, I'm thinking, self-rising flour in the U.S. is different than here in Canada? Or maybe I don't have that "touch of grace."

I see several problems with this book so far, first and foremost the laborious method of the recipes and the lack of visual reference points. Illustrations would also have helped. And the use of shortening and corn syrup is just off limits for so many of us bakers. And from a scientist like Ms. Corriher, I expect a serious paragraph on why bakers should be using a scale to measure. She provides metric measures, hooray!!!, now tell us the advantages of using a scale. There are many (interesting to note that it says the recipes were not tested using metric measures. Why? I used the metric measures, maybe that's why I had gummy biscuits?)

Also, the recipes are complicated complicated. I have little time or patience to bake like this any more, and I even worked as a pro pastry chef for a decade. People who worked on the book, not naming any names here, may indeed go nutso when they read any criticism, (again let me say the author is the loveliest of ladies) BUT for those of us who have worked with meringues, batters, creams and doughs for years, this book is far from a baker's bible. Pro bakers will find problems here as beginners will be discouraged by the length of the recipes.The 12-step pate a choux recipe alone is so unecessarily complicated...and why use release foil sprayed with nonstick cooking spray? Why not use parchment paper? Or better yet, a Silpat? In the roasted pecan chocolate chip cookie she admits the baking soda is "excessive and overleavens" but keeps it in there to make a "slightly darker cookie." What's so great about a darker cookie?

And then there are the recipes themselves. Take, for instance, the creme anglaise. Why not use a thermometer and cook it to 85C, strain immediately and cool over an ice bath as pastry chefs do? Looking for the answer, I see on page 328 that she claims creme anglaise turns to scrambled eggs at 82C. What? Then I go back to the anglaise recipe on page 331 and see that she uses 5 egg yolks for 1 1/2 cups of liquid (milk and cream). The standard recipe most pastry chefs use is 12 yolks for 4 cups of milk (I actually use 10 because 12 is too rich). By my calculation, she's

using about 14 yolks per litre of liquid and over 250g of sugar, which is very high. The whole thing is too rich. And why doesn't she add a note to tell us how long this sauce can be kept refrigerated -- a very important factor with this cream due to the egg content.

So much here left me scratching my head. Why so many egg yolks in the pastry cream? And why the backwards method when the classic works so well? Why bother with the steam for the pate a choux when you can achieve great results in a simple convection oven? Why the marshmallow in the whipped cream when gelatin is so much easier? Why the cream of tartare (I know she explains why but it's hardly essential)? Why chopping chocolate in the food processor when melting in the microwave? Why bother pouring the hot syrup into a glass cup when making Italian meringue (get used to pouring it in a stream from the pot; it's actually less dangerous than transferring it into a cup)? Why not put half your sugar in the milk when making creme anglaise and pastry cream to stop it from burning? Why list a recipe and then tell readers not to make it? Why why why???

I'm all for food chemistry helping us do things better, but so many of these suggestions and bold statements (roasting nuts improves flavour, butter enhances flavour) are all too obvious. I'm a fan of Ms. Corriher but this book misses the mark for me. I think she has a lot to give, but I also think she should have teamed up with a seasoned baker for best results, like Herve This does with Pierre Gagnaire.

[Anko]

Lesley,

You bring up many good points that I'll keep in consideration as I continue to try recipes from the book. I'll admit that my post may have been a little too "rah-rah" after just trying a couple recipes. Maybe the southern biscuits next

[prasantrin]

Not necessarily.

I wasn't going to post anything but that last statement of Anko's had me worried as do the southern biscuits that I just made from the book that are salty, greasy and heavy. Perhaps, I'm thinking, self-rising flour in the U.S. is different than here in Canada? Or maybe I don't have that "touch of grace."

←

FWIW, flour in the US is different from flour in Canada, period. That's probably one of the reasons you're not getting good results. If you head down to the US in the near future, I would suggest picking up some flour there (particularly whatever flours Shirley suggests using), and trying the recipes again. You'll probably see a difference in the final product.

[Chris Amirault]

I've been following this topic with great interest. My wife is the baker in the family, and I bought her this book for Christmas on pre-order many months ago. She's only just started cooking from it -- I can attest that the Cracked-Surface Cruncy Gingersnaps on 394 are outstanding -- but I have to say that I share a lot of the confusion Lesley cites in her post above. Things all just seem... off.

I think that the book wants to have it both ways in many different respects. A true novice baker, for example, benefits from the "butter is rich" information, whereas many of the tips would be over-the-top for that same baker. Take the popovers (260), a favorite in our house because you can make them quickly on a weekend morning. If you tell a novice that he needs to let the batter stand for over an hour, preheat a baking stone to 475F, and heat cream to add just prior to pouring the batter into the pans... well, he's not going to use that recipe for a quick morning treat. The attempt to be all things to all people comes off forced and sometimes weird as a result.

There are other odd things. Why make specific product requests (especially for items that have limited distribution, like Pillsbury bread or White Lily self-rising flour) without acceptable substitutes and indicating protein content and/or wheat type? Why not use important cooking terms when they're called for (say "macerate" when you're giving a tip about "tossing the peaches with sugar and allowing them to stand for 3 hours" [312])? Why stick "Best" or "Great" or "Super" in front of half of the recipes? Can't we just assume that you chose the best recipe you could find and leave it at that?

And why oh why the super-cutesyfied style? I know she's supposed to be a bubbly person, but calling a chapter on steam "Puff the Magic Leavener" and naming your cornbread "All-Time Favorite E-Z, Dee-licious Sour Cream Cornbread" misses the balance between charming and dumbed-down for me. This is especially true given that her predecessors (Beranbaum, Greenspan, heck, herself in Cookwise) find a warm tone that nudges the baker toward greater understanding without making them feel like they're in a 1960s kindergarten. Yeesh.

[Lesley C]

FWIW, flour in the US is different from flour in Canada, period.

As you seem so sure, could you be specific here, especially comparing self-raising flours?

Also, the recipe says "any self-raising flour". If White Lily is really the only option for success, she should have included a line like: "Do not even attempt this recipe is you don't have the White Lily Self-Raising flour." No problem with that.

If you head down to the US in the near future, I would suggest picking up some flour there (particularly whatever flours Shirley suggests using), and trying the recipes again. You'll probably see a difference in the final product.

Yeah, and maybe not. Has anyone else made the biscuits from the book? My biggest complaint with these was not their heavy texture but their overly salty flavour.

[maggiethecat]

Ms. Shirley knows a tonne, but I dislike her cookbooks with a passion, for reasons others have elucidated so eloquently before me. Confusing, badly laid out, a waste of time, special ingredients and flours. (I have to rely on the faulty memory of a dear Southern friend to get a bag of White Lily. )Faugh. There are many, many fine baking books out there-- this isn't one of them.

There, I said it.

Chris, I adore popovers and direct you to Peterson's "Cooking." I'd cooked mine from "Joy" for years, with good results, but his recipe and method are amazing.

Edited January 25, 2009 by maggiethecat (log)

[andiesenji]

Ms. Shirley knows a tonne, but I dislike her cookbooks with a passion, for reasons others have elucidated so eloquently before me. Confusing, badly laid out, a waste of time, special ingredients and flours. (I have to rely on the faulty memory of a dear Southern friend to get a bag of White Lily. )Faugh. There are many, many fine baking books out there-- this isn't one of them.

There, I said it.

Chris, I adore popovers and direct you to Peterson's "Cooking."  I'd cooked mine from "Joy" for years, with good results, but his recipe and method are amazing.

←

Just so you don't go to all the trouble of getting your friend to send you White Lily flour, it is not the same as it was. The company was purchased by Smuckers and the production moved to the midwest

NY Times article re White Lily flour

Instead of self-rising flour, try using pastry flour (not cake flour) and adding your own salt and baking powder.

Self-rising flour already has salt in it, for most recipes do not add more.

[gfron1]

Self-rising flour already has salt in it, for most recipes do not add more.

←

I didn't know that. You learn something new every day!

[zoramargolis]

I see several problems with this book so far, first and foremost the laborious method of the recipes

I liked *Cookwise*, but the very first time I used one of the recipes in *Bakewise* was disastrous. I made the rustic pear tart with frangipane. The recipe called for "four or five cut-up pears" without suggesting a total cup amount of fruit. Then pears were to be macerated in brown sugar for three hours in a colander. OK, I had other things to do. But then the accumulated juices were to be reduced "to a syrup" and then a slurry of 1 tablespoon of tapioca starch in 3 tablespoons of water was to be added and brought to a boil, at which time the mixture was supposed to thin out again. Then Grand Marnier added and poured over the fruit. I thought I was about to learn a new method for thickening a fruit pie, rather than either tossing the fruit with tapioca starch or cornstarch, or putting a mixture of flour and sugar onto the crust before adding the fruit. The syrup-starch mixture turned to heavy-duty glue and never thinned out again, despite coming back to a boil, and had to be discarded. Perhaps I had extra heavy-duty tapioca starch... The recipe called for a LOT of almond-hazelnut frangipane to be put in the base of the crust, and the five cut-up pears ended up being way too much filling for the suggested diameter of the rolled-out crust dough. I managed to bake it in a pie dish instead, and it tasted good. But sheesh, what a pain! After reading Lesley C's very specific criticisms and this experience, I will read the recipes much more critically before using this book again.

[prasantrin]

As you seem so sure, could you be specific here, especially comparing self-raising flours?

Also, the recipe says "any self-raising flour". If White Lily is really the only option for success, she should have included a line like: "Do not even attempt this recipe is you don't have the White Lily Self-Raising flour." No problem with that.

If you head down to the US in the near future, I would suggest picking up some flour there (particularly whatever flours Shirley suggests using), and trying the recipes again. You'll probably see a difference in the final product.

Yeah, and maybe not. Has anyone else made the biscuits from the book? My biggest complaint with these was not their heavy texture but their overly salty flavour.

←

The flours are milled from different types of wheat, and in general, the Canadian flours have higher protein levels.

For example, Gold Medal unbleached all-purpose flour is 10.5% protein (according to Cook's Illustrated) and Robin Hood unbleached ap flour is about 12%. The higher the protein content, the more gluten formed, the tougher (or less tender, depending on how you look at it) your baked goods will be.

There may also be differences in ash content, etc. but I haven't found any of that kind of info on North American sites (except King Arthur).

And remember, she wrote the book in the US for an American audience, tested with American products. So when the recipe says "any self-raising flour", it really means "any self-raising flour in the US".

I do remember hearing, however, that White Lily gives the best result for those biscuits. You can still get good biscuits using other types of flour with similar protein contents, but not as good as with White Lily, so I heard.

Back to American vs Canadian flour differences, I vaguely remember reading that some US companies were using stronger wheats for their flour more recently, so the protein contents of those flours would be more in line with Canadian flours.

[prasantrin]

A new question. . .

When Cookwise came out, I thought it was considered to be first a reference book (like Harold McGee's book), and second a cookbook. People bought the book for the information provided, and the recipes were just a bonus.

It seems like people are looking at Bakewise first as a cookbook, and then as a reference book.

If those who are having problems with the book were to just read it rather than bake from it, would you consider the book to be more valuable?

[Chris Amirault]

It's an interesting thought, but I think that many of the problems we've raised here would still be an issue read either way.

[prasantrin]

It's an interesting thought, but I think that many of the problems we've raised here would still be an issue read either way.

←

True, but it seems people are focussing on the recipes rather than the non-recipe content. With the exception Lesley's comments, I've not heard much dialogue about how the book may or may not have fallen short regarding the science of baking. If the goal of the book is to provide information rather than recipes (I don't know that it is, but I suspect it may be so), then I wish I could hear a little more about that before I buy it. I probably won't be able to pick it up until summer, though, so I can buy it and leave it in Canada, rather than haul it back when I leave Japan.

Upon reviewing this topic, I did notice that rickster brought up the same point--looking at the book as a reference book with some recipes, rather than as a true cookbook.

Edited January 26, 2009 by prasantrin (log)

[Chris Amirault]

I'm not sure I understand the distinction. It is, after all, a reference about cooking, and thus the cooking material should be informative and clear. The examples here indicate that it is not consistently either. The notion of a cooking reference with recipes you don't really use doesn't make much sense to me, particularly when they concern baking, which really does demand results to enable you to understand the information. You can tell me all you want about the effect of X on crumb or aroma, but until that product is in my fingers, nose, and mouth I won't really understand what you mean.

I keep thinking about Larousse in this discussion. Most of the baking recipes in that tome are extremely imprecise, seeking to capture the overall conception and execution of the dish without detail. Bakewise gets measurements down to the gram (and in some cases the fraction of a gram), which is consistent with the notion that the devil is in the baking details and suggests that the recipes are themselves key sources of important information. (That's particularly true if you're not supposed to cook with them.) It seems to me that the book doesn't do a very good job of helping the reader pry loose that information.

I just reread my and Lesley's criticism above and I think it stands regardless of the recipe issue. Her point about scales is an excellent one: any baking reference seeking to teach the reader key concepts would dispense with the spoon-and-level malarkey that prevents home bakers from understanding why their product isn't up to snuff, tell the reader to buy a scale, and then use only weight measurements. I also think that this is a symptom of the attempt to be all things to all people that you find throughout the book.

Avoiding fundamental facts like that to make us feel more comfortable with our old, bad habits is not something a reference should do. Science isn't magic, and cutesy frames that suggest as much (see Puff the Magic Leavener) don't help. Instead, I'd have liked a lot more charts and diagrams a la McGee showing what happens when you bake.

[JTravel]

On the subject of flours.....I scored a great deal on 50 lbs. of pastry flour from the Star of the West Mill west of Rochester. It was on the "after auction-auction"of our local PBS station. I had never used pastry flour before but I have enjoyed using it. I bagged it in big zipper bags, let it spend a few days in the freezer, and stored it in a big tub in cool basement. All the family's Christmas cookies came from it, along with a lot of quick breads. Made me feel so rich with such a storehouse of good stuff. IF I'm getting low by April I'll bid again.

I just got the book from the library, agree on the confusing layout. Why do SO many recipes start in middle of page? Why the wacky names? Reading it seems like a JOB. Love the lady, don't like the book, won't buy it.

I will put my pastry flour on the case and try the biscuits, not self rising but I can fix that. Hopefully this is a good use for it.

[HungryC]

Even if you ignore the recipes and use CookWise strictly as a reference book, it is sorely lacking in organization. I found myself re-writing the chapters as I went through the book to eliminate repetition. I can't say I've found something in CookWise that isn't found in other cooking science references in my library.

[Chris Amirault]

You know, I had real high hopes for this book, being a baking dumb-ass and all, as I know many Society members did. Cookwise is just a fantastic book for so many of the reasons that this one is lousy. It begs the question: what the heck happened??

[HungryC]

My first impression of the book: the book either went through multiple (disinterested) editors or simply had no real editor at all! By all accounts, the ms was long overdue b/c of Ms. Corriher's unfortunate health problems. Maybe it was rushed into print to take advantage of the Christmas season?

[JTravel]

My first impression of the book:  the book either went through multiple (disinterested) editors or simply had no real editor at all!  By all accounts, the ms was long overdue b/c of Ms. Corriher's unfortunate health problems.  Maybe it was rushed into print to take advantage of the Christmas season?

←

My thoughts exactly, I kept thinking "this needs a red pencil"! Awfully in need of a tough editor.

[prasantrin]

Even if you ignore the recipes and use CookWise strictly as a reference book, it is sorely lacking in organization.  I found myself re-writing the chapters as I went through the book to eliminate repetition.  I can't say I've found something in CookWise that isn't found in other cooking science references in my library.

←

May I ask in what way the organization is lacking? I'm not asking to be a pain, but I'm asking because of personal interest. When I finally get the opportunity to browse through the book, I'll know what to look out for, then see if I agree or disagree.

[baroness]

My thoughts exactly, I kept thinking "this needs a red pencil"!  Awfully in need of a tough editor.

←

For Future Reference: Editors traditionally use blue pencils! One of the reasons was that in the (now old-school) technology that required photography as part of making printing plates, certain shades of blue were not detected in black-and-white photography. The blue directions and notes didn't need to be removed prematurely.

[Reignking]

Despite the criticisms here, Shirley won the James Beard Award for Best Baking Cookbook.