Jump to content
  • Welcome to the eG Forums, a service of the eGullet Society for Culinary Arts & Letters. The Society is a 501(c)3 not-for-profit organization dedicated to the advancement of the culinary arts. These advertising-free forums are provided free of charge through donations from Society members. Anyone may read the forums, but to post you must create a free account.

The F Word!


Pweaver1984
 Share

Recommended Posts

Anyone know where I can buy these pestilential crayfish? they taste pretty good!

The branch of Wing Yip in Croydon has them fairly regularly, I guess other branches would as well. However, I believe they come from Turkey.

"Why would we want Children? What do they know about food?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thw Eel population has dramatically crashed (~90%) in the last decade or so and the native (white clawed) crayfish is declining rapidly due to the introduction of the American signal (red-clawed) crayfish. In regards to catching crayfish in the UK, I believe that the white clawed crayfish is protected? What were Ramsay et al catching?

That's very good. There was once a pudding made in the Thames valley which was a suet crust stuffed with the tails meat, with herbs et al, the shells were cooked until dry and powdered, then added to the suet crust. When I move back to Melbourne I will try this with yabbies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I recorded most of the shows, so I’m just catching up. Last week, when they featured crayfish, they also did a segment on farmed cod. Janice Street Porter strongly advocated that we all spend more to support sustainable fish ie farmed. But isn't there an issue with farmed fish? I understood that they actually consume considerably more fish than their own species in the wild, and the fish used to feed them are being stripped from the top layer of the ocean… so yet another ecological problem in the making? Am I wrong in this? Adam, you can possibly clarify.

Giles Coren did his “pimp my snack” bit with a large Jaffa Cake, which was quite funny. But apparently it tasted awful!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Adam. An interesting piece.

'I think fish farming has a future,' says Andrew Mallison, senior fish technologist at Marks & Spencer, 'but my personal view is that we should be trying to get wild, sustainable caught fish wherever possible and topping up with farmed.'

I think that this is more the direction we should be looking at. The impact of too much farming really worries me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I flicked on to cooking on the wild side or something last night only to see the fool bashing a baby tuna's head against the side of the boat trying to kill it. Didn't hit it hard enough, the fish slipped off the hook and back into the water bloodied and bruised.

Horriffic. Wish someone would've done the same to him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Last week they caught eels in the Thames. This week they caught a bunch of crayfish in local streams. Doesn't the US have this bounty of local food, free for the taking?!? Here in Colorado if you stand by a lake/stream with a fishing pole, you might catch something (not me -- I'm the worst fisherman). England is at a higher lattitude than most of the US -- I'm surprised they apparently have such an abundance and variety of wildlife. In the US, I think crayfish are found just in the southeast (Louisiana and surrounding areas).

Then in the latest episode, GR goes into his own backyard and finds a bunch of snails, which he collects and eats! And they were large and apparently choice! WTF? All the free good food over there!

The lastest episode was really good. I've never known a chef who wasn't a complete psycho that didn't suffer some remorse over the killing of animals for food.

Edited by johnsmith45678 (log)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I found the piece on Rose veal interesting, so much so I'm going to hunt some down next time I am in Waitrose.

Makes you stop and think when you realise the veal raised in the UK and sold as Rose veal is actually older by several months than lamb when slaughtered and most would not bat an eye lid at eating lamb.

All that and not a veal crate in sight.

Edited by Johnsonic (log)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have finally tired of this program and don't watch it anymore. Too much abuse of his crew and bandwagon issues.

Getting the country to cook - rubbish and too much like Jamies school dinner campaign, which was better and more worthy.

As for the meat issues, read Hugh's Meat book and all this is old news.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I flicked on to cooking on the wild side or something last night only to see the fool bashing a baby tuna's head against the side of the boat trying to kill it. Didn't hit it hard enough, the fish slipped off the hook and back into the water bloodied and bruised.

Horriffic. Wish someone would've done the same to him.

What does that have to do with The F Word?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have finally tired of this program and don't watch it anymore. Too much abuse of his crew and bandwagon issues.

Getting the country to cook - rubbish and too much like Jamies school dinner campaign, which was better and more worthy.

As for the meat issues, read Hugh's Meat book and all this is old news.

What "bandwagon" issues?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whilst I agree that the Jamie School Dinners thing, was probably a better "campaign", the reason our standards of eating in this country suck ass, is because when we have someone bringing attention to a problem, which I believe the family dining table IS, all we do is criticise.

Sure, Ramsay is doing it for attention, for a hook for his show or book. Of course, just like Jamie has done it to get viewer ratings. They aren't saints or martyrs, but what they are saying, is actually quite worthwhile of our support.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for the meat issues, read Hugh's Meat book and all this is old news.

True, but I'd venture to suggest that the audience for The F Word is wider / more diverse / different to that for Hugh's book, and in that respect the message was worth including.

I have to admit I preferred the first series - I'm not sure the "guest brigades" idea added much - if the idea was to prove how easy it was to cook the dishes I think it:

a. almost proved the opposite.

b. wasn't very realistic anyway - how many of us need to cook for 50 people at home?

I agree with kutsu that his campaign to get families to eat together is worthy of our support, and I'm not sure that improving meals in schools is any more worthy than improving family cohesion and cooking skills - after all we all eat far more meals at home than we ever do at school.

The cook-off against the guest has lost its appeal now that GR's started winning them. Given his "anti celebrity chef's cookbooks" campaign I'd like to see him have the balls to invite those chefs on to compete against him (respect is due BTW to those who sent his own books to him for shredding...)

Finally, I also never thought I'd miss Giles Coren, but he was so much better than Janet Screech Porter - whilst her issues were worthy of highlighting she's just so damn annoying as a presenter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Somehow this series lacked the energy of the first one. And I'm sick of GR swearing.

The kitchen brigade thing was very contrived. You could tell immediately what group and individuals were going to incur his wrath and who the winners would be. Invariably, the teams that did well, got to serve crowd pleasing dishes, so of course they were going to score higher. That said, I thought the doctors were great.

And listening to the diners describe their dishes was excrutiating. I'm sure that much of what they said was absolutely true, but I personally have heard enough about flavours blending, bending, being underwhelmed, overwhelmed, massacred or otherwise. It all sounded so self conscious. No wonder people are terrified of going into their kitchens. They'd need a degree in food criticism before they even picked up a knife. It just feels like it's all got too serious and competitive. If the objective was to get people back in their kitchens, I think he failed. GR is entertainment and from a cooking perspective, he appeals to a mid skills market. If you want to get people into the kitchen (because for many it's a case of the first time, and not "back in"), you need someone with more empathy. Someone like Hugh FW. And anyway, TV is not going to achieve this on its own. Cooking should be a compulsary subject in every school.

I thought the last episode went out with a bit of a whimper.

Edited by Corinna Dunne (log)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for the meat issues, read Hugh's Meat book and all this is old news.

I agree with kutsu that his campaign to get families to eat together is worthy of our support, and I'm not sure that improving meals in schools is any more worthy than improving family cohesion and cooking skills - after all we all eat far more meals at home than we ever do at school.

That part of the program comes across as quite half-hearted to me. I don't think people will see that piece and think 'Oh yeah...thats how its done, I'm going to try and cook that on sunday'.

I have enjoyed this program in the past despite the fact it teaches you next to nothing about food or how to cook.

In my opinion Delias How to Cook series was much more likely to get people cooking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really enjoyed the show -- all the locations, the guests, the food, the detailed explanation of prepping the main course, the animals, the swearing, the humor, and more.

How am I going to get my GR fix now that this and Hell's Kitchen are over...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really enjoyed the show -- all the locations, the guests, the food, the detailed explanation of prepping the main course, the animals, the swearing, the humor, and more.

Hmmm… his swearing is just old hat now. Perhaps he’s angling for a cameo role as a coq au vin sucker in Deadwood. I just think that the series worked much better when it went out before the watershed. And I take back what I said about him not being the right person to get people back in the kitchen. He’s well able to do it, if he would just leave the angry, swearing caricature behind. Yelling at ordinary people trying to cook in his professional kitchen is missing the point completely.

The first series had all the ingredients for family viewing; a magazine style with something for everyone, and my 6 year old loved it. If they are going to exclude younger viewers by going out after the watershed, they are missing an opportunity and I question whether this chimes with GR's "back in the kitchen" mission statement. When I was a kid, I loved to sit up and watch the few cooking programmes that were on with my mother. It was a special moment shared and it made me feel grown-up. My 6 year old loved Gordon, his kids, Hugh and the animals. But this time round, I couldn’t let her watch them. A minority audience yes… but a very important one I would have thought. And that really annoyed me.

It may not sound like it, but I’m a big GR fan. There are few people who can be equally great as a chef, restaurateur and TV personality, and he’s got passion, which makes him compelling viewing. Just not for a 6 year old this time round.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I was a kid, I loved to sit up and watch the few cooking programmes that were on with my mother.

When I was a kid, I'd watch pretty much anything with a bit of cursing in it. The Singing Detective, that documentary about Tourettes, most viewer phone-ins on Going Live ... all classic bike-shed telly thanks in the main to industrial language.

If because of Sweary Walnuts we end up with a generation of uncouth youths who consider cooking classic French as a glamorous career choice, I'll have no reason to complain.

Incidentally, I watched the current series for the first time last week: not bad. The bit about pressed belly of pork was about the most informative, and most restaurant-level complex, bit of instructional cooking I've ever seen on TV. Can't believe anyone could prefer Delia's mewling, simpering, two-and-a-quarter-flat-tablespoons-of-puritan-shame style of presentation. Having said that, I can live without the other stuff -- the spear fishing, celeb interviewing, sprog wrangling, etc -- as it looks too fake and contrived.

Generally, I'd much prefer the Keith Floyd approach to these things: get someone who's genuinely enthusiastic about what they do, point a camera at them and see what happens. However, I can also understand why TV producers prefer to take a more controlled approach (particularly if they've worked with Keith Floyd).

Edited by naebody (log)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really enjoyed the show -- all the locations, the guests, the food, the detailed explanation of prepping the main course, the animals, the swearing, the humor, and more.

Hmmm… his swearing is just old hat now. Perhaps he’s angling for a cameo role as a coq au vin sucker in Deadwood. I just think that the series worked much better when it went out before the watershed. And I take back what I said about him not being the right person to get people back in the kitchen. He’s well able to do it, if he would just leave the angry, swearing caricature behind. Yelling at ordinary people trying to cook in his professional kitchen is missing the point completely.

The first series had all the ingredients for family viewing; a magazine style with something for everyone, and my 6 year old loved it. If they are going to exclude younger viewers by going out after the watershed, they are missing an opportunity and I question whether this chimes with GR's "back in the kitchen" mission statement. When I was a kid, I loved to sit up and watch the few cooking programmes that were on with my mother. It was a special moment shared and it made me feel grown-up. My 6 year old loved Gordon, his kids, Hugh and the animals. But this time round, I couldn’t let her watch them. A minority audience yes… but a very important one I would have thought. And that really annoyed me.

It may not sound like it, but I’m a big GR fan. There are few people who can be equally great as a chef, restaurateur and TV personality, and he’s got passion, which makes him compelling viewing. Just not for a 6 year old this time round.

Blech, if you want kid-safe cooking shows there are a plethora of others on. Cooks swear. Cooks yell. That's how it is, any show that depicts it otherwise is phony. And most kitchens I've worked in weren't "safe" places for children.

I don't know what you mean by "watershed."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course chefs swear. I've no problem with real life. And I love the inside a restaurant angle. My view about wishing that it was kid friendly is a personal one. It just seemed that the show lost nothing by running before the watershood in the first series (which is basically kid zone, after 9pm swearing is allowed).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...