mogul@Shasta.ARPA (03/06/85)
> The Joy of Cooking has a lot of useful information in it, but I have to > agree with somebody's characterization of it (I forget who) that it was > "too white bread". Another example of what is wrong with JofC is the > absolutely awful cheesecake recipe. There are three different cheesecake > recipes in JofC, and all of them are to cheesecake what velveeta is to > cheese. I'll add my praise of JofC as a useful reference, but it pays to apply some common sense when using the recipes. For example, I make "Brownies Cockaigne" fairly often, and get good results. One day, one of my housemates decided to make a batch, and read the recipe out of my 2-volume paperbound edition. (For some reason, I had always used an older, hardbound edition.) Unfortunately, a minor typographical error had crept in, and she blindly followed the recipe. The effects of 2.5 cups of butter on a single batch of brownies are left to the reader's imagination.
eac@drutx.UUCP (CveticEA) (03/09/85)
I have found that any cooking out of a cookbook requires some adjustment for personal taste. For example, in Joy the recipe for Beef Bourgonion (sp?) calls for a substantial amount of salt pork, and does not require removing any of the fat. The result, if the recipe is stricly followed, is a half inch of grease on top of the stew. There is a note that says butter can be substituted but you won't achieve the same "subtle" flavor. I see nothing subtle about a half inch of grease. I use a small amount of butter! Besides all of this, I wouldn't part with my Joy of Cooking book. I have had many more successes with it than failures and I never let a recipe interfere with my own taste and judgement. Betsy Cvetic ihnp4!drutx!eac
gary@rochester.UUCP (Gary Cottrell) (03/09/85)
In article <3590@Shasta.ARPA> mogul@Shasta.ARPA writes: >I'll add my praise of JofC as a useful reference, but it pays to >apply some common sense when using the recipes. > >For example, I make "Brownies Cockaigne" fairly often, and get >good results. One day, one of my housemates decided to make a >batch, and read the recipe out of my 2-volume paperbound edition. >(For some reason, I had always used an older, hardbound edition.) >Unfortunately, a minor typographical error had crept in, and she >blindly followed the recipe. > >The effects of 2.5 cups of butter on a single batch of brownies >are left to the reader's imagination. My friend Diane Litman made the recipe this way, and I loved it! Us milkfat cravers really like that particular typo! (It helps to keep them refridgerated; they don't "run" as much that way! gary cottrell
mogul@Shasta.ARPA (03/15/85)
> I have found that any cooking out of a cookbook requires some adjustment > for personal taste. For example, in Joy the recipe for Beef Bourgonion > (sp?) calls for a substantial amount of salt pork, and does not require > removing any of the fat. The result, if the recipe is stricly followed, is > a half inch of grease on top of the stew. There is a note that says butter > can be substituted but you won't achieve the same "subtle" flavor. I see > nothing subtle about a half inch of grease. I use a small amount of > butter! The recipe in "Mastering the Art of French Cooking" has you skim the fat off the top of the sauce after everything has cooked for a while. Curiously, though, the other two recipes that I found (James Beard and Craig Claiborne) use even more fat, and do not call for skimming. So it's probably a matter of taste, rather than error. The kind of fat varies, too: Julia Child specifies bacon, if I recall correctly.