The patriarchy is really giving me a pass here.
hi heebie! and everyone! almost out of illness-work hole!
i think these problems can be sorted into a couple of different categories:
"They want to buy the freshest, healthiest food possible but have to stick to strict budgets. They want their kids and spouses to eat healthy and try new things, but also want to honor cultural culinary traditions, give their families pleasure, and avoid end-of-day conflicts over novel dishes. They can't afford to throw out their mistakes and order a salad or pad thai from Grubhub."
- strict budgets obviously would be solved by more money in people's pockets, by my preference via an organized labor force and reasonable social safety net. what increasingly interests me is thinking about whether/how much living in a coherent food culture (shared traditions with readily available products and widely available knowledge about how to prepare them, and deep agreement about how, when and with whom one eats) would address many of the other problems.
"They'd like to do efficient meal prep ahead of time, but often have little or no control over their work schedules; the free time they have is scattered throughout the day and can be hard to take advantage of."
- again, most of this is down as heebie says to fixing the political-economic hellscape we live in. but i again wonder, even if we threw a lot of money at these issues but the "solution" ends us with us further down the maw of the industrial ag-food industry, will we have gotten any closer to what these cooks say they want? also - the patriarchy should stand up a take a bow re: lack of support for meal prep, you bastards.
"They can't afford Blue Apron or the pre-prepped veggies from Whole Foods. ... They make meal plans, only to have them undercut by transportation hassles, SNAP card malfunctions, unexpected bills, and price fluctuations at the grocery store ... ."
- damn we make life so needlessly hard. but re: pre-prepped veggies, i leave you with this - https://www.instagram.com/p/BsqGfdmhpPj/ so calming ...
I liked the suggestion at the beginning of the article best. We need to return to the good old days with the main meal at the middle of the day followed by a 2-hour siesta.
The book sounds interesting; thank you for the recommendation.
Today's prominent food writers would never dream of telling families to eat dinner in the afternoon. They do not hesitate, however, to instruct us on the types of food we should buy (healthy, fresh, organic), the way it should be prepared and served (at home, from scratch, family style), and how harmful it would be--for our bodies, our families, and the planet--to deviate from this model.
That critique sounds familiar; I feel like the common explanation for that sort of prescriptiveness is a combination of marking class distinctions and that people respond to anxiety by seeking to control their immediate life/surroundings more strongly.
That is to say that there's a tension between two possible responses (1) to say that some of the instruction can and should just be ignored; that people can break the "rules" of food writers in all sorts of ways without causing any real harm (2) in this case the rules aren't arbitrary fashion and there are lots of reasons why people want to have more time and flexibility for meal preparation and are constrained from doing so by the demands and anxieties of contemporary life. That should be recognized as a criticism and warning sign about inequality.
When Michael Pollan, Mark Bittman, and Jamie Oliver preach their influential, well-compensated sermons about how you--yes, you!--can (and should) improve your family members' lives by buying healthier food and preparing it at home, they implicitly frame the quality of our dinners as something over which we all wield a considerable degree of control. If you aren't doing dinner right, it's because you aren't trying hard enough for your family: not shopping smartly enough, not doing the right prep work, not using the best recipes.
One of the notable things about cooking is that there's an awful lot which can improve the food quality and cooking experience which doesn't add much time or complexity to cooking once you've developed the skills, habits, patterns of thought and infrastructure. So there's some value in encouraging people to just get over the hump on some of those things (In my own life I can easily think of examples on both sides of that; for example, I tend to keep my spice selection well stocked and that makes it much easier to throw something together quickly and have it be tasty. At the same time I'm well aware that spending 30 minutes sharpening my knives would pay off in terms of ease and pleasure of food prep, but I never get to it, because there's always something else to do with those 30 minutes).
I like it. I like Pollan, et. al, but they understate how much work cooking is. There's a reason everyone is pretty happy to have someone else do the cooking, whether through takeout or pre-packaged goods.
Heck, I'd make cooking & food prep easier and more enjoyable if I just cleared off some of the piles of stuff sitting on my counter but, again, what I actually do is end up with a tiny area for food prep and just working within that.
So I don't think there's anything wrong with somebody having the message that straitening up my kitchen would be easy and a net improvement in my life, I'm just not necessarily going to take that advice.
Aren't cookbooks mostly aspirational? Like the classics of literature on the book case that no one has ever cracked open?
8: I live 8.1; on Saturday, I was making bread, so I cleaned the rolling dishwasher top, where I work. Making the effort revealed how long it'd been since I cleaned the sides, etc... so I spent 15 minutes with Ajax cleaning everything.
Then I floured the top and kneaded my dough, besmirching my freshly cleaned surface. So next time I want to do something on the dishwasher top, I have to start with a cleaning again.
Aren't cookbooks mostly aspirational?
Reading this review of Chrissy Teigen's cookbook, made me think that there are only a couple of ways to sell a cookbook (1) that it will show some easy tips/ideas which can be incorporated into the daily routine, (2) that it provides an emotional entry point*, (3) that it provides instructions for how to perform specific recipes (or techniques) more precisely and correctly than the typical home cook would do, (4) that the cookbook shows a beautiful fantasy-land which might not every show up in ones kitchen.
I'm not sure which of those sell the best (but I'd guess it's not #3).
* as the review says of Chrissy Teigen, "The whole thing is dripping with energy and enthusiasm and, most of all, joy. Do not discount the value of joy. It's far too rare in food writing, and I know professionals who could learn a thing or two about joy from Teigen."
9: Bittman's How to Cook everything is practical, including discussions of required kitchen equipment, improvising substitutions, short little text boxes about knife sharpening, what's meant by a mince vs a dice (and how to achieve it), how flour hydrates, etc. The veggie chapter is organized by vegetable, with the first recipe usually a simple baked, roasted, or boiled (whatever the veggie is).
I absolutely know the recipe books you're talking about though. Sometimes, though, those glossy pictures do inspire you to try something complicated.
Sometimes, though, those glossy pictures do inspire you to try something complicated.
"And, by "you", I don't mean peep."
10: The inside of the dishwasher cleans itself. Why not kneed the dough in there?
You don't have to knead with your knees, Mobes.
This reminds me of the Yottam Ottolenghi recipe column in The Guardian, which recently included some "super cheap" recipes for students. Every recipe had twenty steps (some multi-day) and about fifty ingredients. Lol wtf.
And oh look, I forgot to finish the post title. Tra-la-la.
Let them bake cake.
Kids must be cooking more. They keep talking about "hot boxing."
12: Controversial take -- his recipes aren't all that good. They're fine as skeletons of dishes, but IME bland if prepared as directed.
Ok, I just got a canned response for a donation I made to the food bank at the beginning of the year:
Thank you so much for your contribution to help establish a well-nourished community. Your recent donation of $X.00 helped [Local] County Food Bank serve clients like Richard, one of the ~9,527 [Local] County residents who rely on us for help every month.
Richard and his wife have 4 kids. He was working in the technology industry, making a decent living when the contract ended, and he was out of work. His wife didn't have a job, since his income had covered everything. Bills piled up, and they needed a little help. His wife discovered the food bank, and they were able to get a little relief. Their 16 year old son got his first job at a local restaurant to try and help the family out. Their 14 year old daughter helped with the cooking and babysitting the younger children. All hands were on deck while the parents tried to find another job. "Going from that much [previous income was ~$10,000/month] down to zero...put the brakes on everything." Money saved from buying groceries can be used to "actually pay rent and car insurance, and things like that."
OK, this is really ham-fisted. First, median household income is $30K in Heebieville, and there is no tech industry, so you're telling an average donor that you would like them to help Richard, a wealthy commuter to Austin earning over 100K but at the completely predictable break between contracts?
More specifically to me, Jammies also lost his job in the tech industry last year, has four kids, and did not come anywhere close to 10K/month, even if you combined our two incomes.
Granted, we have mine and he's in school for a new job and we're fine, and I would not hesitate to go to the food bank if we needed it. I'm just saying the Richard Face on Poverty wasn't well-drawn.
there is a fabulous orange sauce recipe in the second ottolenghi book, and a great clementine cake in i can't remember which BUT i've found most of his recipes don't work as written when cooked by me (and i've cooked soooooo much from many many many different recipes) plus the tremendously annoying ingredient lists oh my god - batshit long *and* defensive. basically i refuse to read the guardian column.
as a life-long no californian whose most personal, "this is the food of home" world includes lots and lots of foods contributed by many different immigrant communities, even i find ottolenghi's magpie-ness irritating to my last nerve.
Bittman should have a recipe for ham fists.
there are only a couple of ways to sell a cookbook ... (4) that the cookbook shows a beautiful fantasy-land which might not every show up in ones kitchen.
AIHMHB, I once saw a comparison of cooking shows and porn: they're both trying to replicate a touch/taste-heavy experience using only sights and sounds, and so they have to keep commenting on and explaining about the other senses "Oh, this is so hot to my fingers!" and "Oh, this tastes salty!" and so on. I think there were a lot more points of comparison.
I guess that explains why I changed the channel quickly wherever somebody came into the room while I was watching "Everyday Italian."
24: The people at the food bank know what they're doing. They don't want you to think your donation went to feed some strapping young welfare queen buck.
Yeah...I figured. "With this small investment in Richard, he'll be back on his feet and paying more than you in property taxes in no time!" (It still grates.)
Temporary Assistance to Nerdy Families should help.
You've been on a particularly strong roll lately, Moby.
12: Heh, I think that's one of the cookbooks I use the most. We have at least a dozen cookbooks, even more magazines we've saved for recipes, and a binder of recipes we've printed out. In actual practice, probably fewer than 20 recipes account for 95 percent of the cooking I do, and that's counting recipes so simple that I just do them from memory. Like, I don't need a recipe to boil corn. I'd get rid of some cookbooks in the next house-cleaning effort, but (a) Cassandane has hoarding tendencies and (b) a lot of them were gifts so it would be rude.
32: I'm stuck on a problem and engaging in avoidant behavior.
Don't boil corn if you have access to a grill.
It's February and corn is on the menu for tonight. What should I do? Trick question, mentioning the month is a red herring, it's in the 50s out there right now. But the fact that it gets dark by 6 is annoying - we have lights, but it's still a pain to grill well after dark. Also, I already have oven-based plans for the main course, it would be a waste of time and charcoal to fire up the grill just for corn.
You could just lightly oil the corn and either fry it in a super hot pan, rotating it every few minutes, or roast it over an open flame. The second technique sometimes yields better results but it's too attention-consuming. (Although I haven't done it since before Christmas, when I acquired a kitchen blow torch, which I think would speed the process.)
Anyway, making my own Shake and Bake was a success. It took like five minutes longer and saved $3 or so.
37: Strip the corn, wrap each ear in a damp paper towel, and put it in the microwave. 3 minutes for one ear, additional time for additional ears. The ears get steamed without losing as many nutrients to the water as boiling. Just be careful of your fingers when pulling it out. Unwrap each ear direct to the plate, and butter immediately.
the Richard Face on Poverty wasn't well-drawn
At least he'll get to walk out of the food bank with a box labeled Poor Richard's Alms & Snacks.
I like microwaved corn-on-the-cob but I don't think you should strip it before cooking. Steam in the husks, serve it in a teatowel because it's hot, strip everything down from the tassel end and est it thus. The silk comes right off.
I'm much bigger than a house elf. I don't think the tea towel would be appropriate.
I bet inappropriate house elf clothing features very prominently in Harry Potter fan fiction.
The Food Programmer on Radio 4 had an episode about pressure cookers and slow cookers. They profiled a woman (blogger maybe) who used a slow cooker because It allowed her to stretch her budget.
47: there's only one way to find out for sure.
12: the glossy pictures sometimes do inspire me to cook complicated things, but I'm in the most favorable, easiest cooking position ever since I'm a full time housewife and have access to most all of the tasty veggies in the world. I don't understand how parents who work late and then pick up their youngest from day care even cook anything and I am filled with admiration. my mom and step-father often dealt with this by having teenaged me cook, which was annoying at the time when my step-father wasn't working, but hey, I can cook now. it's also true that despite knowing how to cook a million things I fall back on a few recipes (partly because girl x and I are on a strict low-FODMAP diet which has worked wonders for our health but is a huge pain). when I really feel sick and like I can't cook I bake chicken breasts with herbs, either bake potato wedges or make brown rice/quinoa, and stir fry flowering chye sim. not very impressive but whatever, people are fed.
re: 48
We use an Instant Pot. Not really as a slow cooker -- no chance we are organised enough in the morning to prep food. But it means when I get home from work, I can make a decent bolognese sauce in 20 minutes, using the pressure cooker.
23 is right about Bittman. My charitable interpretation is that his recipes are assuming excellent, flavorful, fresh, seasonal, etc. ingredients, such that the things themselves are tasty, but they are desperately underseasoned if any of that isn't true - that is to say, if you're any remotely ordinary Western shopper.