Muses and Boozes

As a wannabe food writer and critic, I try to pay attention to professionals in the field to try to learn how to get better.  No remarks about a long way to go, please.  During my readings, I often come up with articles and reviews I like, recipes of interest, and some surprising things.  Since there isn’t much else going on, I thought I would pass a few of my more recent findings along.

 

Julia's Sauce

I was browsing around to see what I could find in the way of a recipe for Hollandaise made in a blender or food processor.  Yes, I know I am a classical guy, but making it the traditional way is hard, messy, time consuming, fraught with failure and so on.   I know that any of my chef friends will disagree, but they have made it hundreds of times and can do it easily.  What got me started was a recipe for food processor mayonnaise I found in a little cookbook devoted to chicken, as part of a chicken salad recipe.  I tried it, it was darned easy, and it turned out very good, plus you can regulate the taste and consistency to your liking.  So I thought (correctly) that there must be some out there for (cheater's) Hollandaise.  One which turned up in my google list was “Julia Child’s Easy Blender Hollandaise Sauce”.   What?  Julia Child the empress of classic French cooking?  Blender?? C’mon, man, this can’t be true!!.  Ah, but dear reader, dig out your copy of “Mastering the Art….”, look on page 81 and you will find “Hollandaise made in the Electric  Blender”.  There it is, right there.  It is quintessential Julia.  She starts out saying that it is a very quick method and cannot fail (if you add the melted butter in a small stream of droplets).  She adds that if you are used to the handmade variety, you might find this method lacking in quality which she speculates might be due to completed homogenization.  Concludes her opening paragraph by saying “But as the technique is well within the capabilities of an 8-year-old child it has much to recommend it”.  Sounds good enough for me..

Then she goes on to describe the actual preparation, and at one point when she talks about adding the butter to the (blended) egg yolks, lemon juice, and seasonings she advises: “you may need to protect yourself with a towel during this operation”.  Sounds like you might also need three hands at this point.  I tried the recipe (in a food processor not a blender) and was not terribly happy with the result.  Needs more work.   But, I am not going to let an 8 year old beat me!!

Robert the Writer(?)

In the latest edition (Issue 206) of Robert Parker’s “Wine Advocate”, he describes some of his latest culinary experiences.  He is given to doing this, and while interesting to read there is that proverbial snowball’s chance of my ever sharing them, let alone the astonishing wines they serve.  This meal was in Getaria, Spain at a fish restaurant called Kaia Kaipe, which he says “many people consider it to be one of the greatest fish and shellfish restaurants in the world”.  Wow.  Big statement!  He goes on to talk about the wonderful food including langoustines, which he calls the best he has ever had, and so forth.  But what got me was his attempts at describing the food.  Here he is, one of (if not the) best known wine critic and gourmands in the world, and he comes up with brilliant phrases like: “The preparation is perfect.  The fish are not over – or under – cooked and everything is bursting with flavor”.  Gee Robert, I think that 8 year old could have written that..(or even the Bottom Feeder).  Oh, besides the langoustines, he lauded the Pibales;  which you can look up yourselves (part of my culinary education outreach). 

 

Have a drink!

And for the last of the literary findings, I want to quote some things that were part of a column called “Tending the Bar” in the May 2013 issue of St. Louis Magazine written by Chris Hoel. Since he was a former sommelier at the French Laundry, I would take him as a fairly credible source.  Subtitle for the piece is “Five ways a restaurant can improve a major profit center”.  His point was to urge restaurateurs to consider cocktails and the bar with equal emphasis as the cuisine, given the “potential profit in all things liquid”.  He praised St. Louis restaurants “Taste” and “Blood and Sand” as doing it right.  I would like to quote the whole article (or go buy the magazine - maybe on line, I don't know) because his feelings about cocktails align completely with mine.  He must be a bottom feeder reader.  Some of his points:

 

• Begin with the basics – if a bar serves a sidecar, then it should be a classic sidecar with the correct ingredients and measurements.  If the bartender wants to interpret it differently, then he should call it “Mike’s Sidecar”….. AMEN!
• Use quality ingredients – quality should always be paramount.  Don’t cut corners: Use fresh juices, bottled mixers, and premium liquors.  ANOTHER!

And for my favorite one, I will use the full quote because I believe strongly in what he says: 

• Don't Shake up the Martini List: A classic martini consists of two parts vodka infused with juniper berries and other botanicals (otherwise known as Gin), and one part dry vermouth.  Its erroneous to call everything shaken and poured into a cocktail glass a martini.  A martini list should only include the following:  martini, perfect martini, dry martini, and extra-dry martini – all containing gin.  That Banana Split martini containing strawberry and banana puree mixed with vanilla vodka?  Call it what you want, but don’t call it a martini..

I love it.

Speaking of Martinis:

When we were in Providence, I think I mentioned we had dinner at a little bistro called Chez Pascal.  Both MFO and I were feeling pretty good about our individual accomplishments of the day, she with her “pPeserving Ephemera” workshop and my little venture down to Newport.  The first thing we looked at was the drink menu.  I think I may have also mentioned lately that “up” drinks are growing on me (a figure of speech).  So as I was perusing the “straight up” section of the drink list, an entry called “Clayburn Martini” caught my eye.  It was described as “plymouth gin, splash Lillet, twist”.  I was still feeling adventurous from my day, so I forsook my DMOTRWAT and ordered the Clayburn Martini.  Soon enough it arrived in a chilled classic martini glass, the liquids clear as a mountain stream, icy cold with a generous golden lemon peel floating in the liquid.  A beautiful thing.  My first sip (and nothing spilled mind you, a hazard of “up” drinks) may change my future drinking habits.  It was smooth, without that bite you sometimes get from gins.  A great drink (with a nod to Mr. Hoel above).  As we were leaving, MFO inquired about the genesis of the name.  She was told that a Mrs. Clayburn came to the bar one day, quoted the drink recipe and became a regular night after night.  She passed not so long ago and they honored her by immortalizing (at least in my mind) her drink.  Here’s to you Mrs. Clayburn! 

 

Mr. Mixologist

So naturally when I got back here to the digs, I decided to try re-create the drink and so recently went out and invested (fifty bucks!) for

I have not attempted to fabricate it yet, but a concern for me is that little word “splash” in the description of the drink.  I’m an engineer for heaven’s sake.  How much is a splash?  I did a little researching on “how much is a splash”, and if you want to amuse yourself, you can too.  Nothing definitive.. ½ Tsp; ½ Oz; cover the mouth with your thumb, tip the bottle; use a quick speed pour,  and so forth.  Not very helpful. I suppose the answer is “practice, practice, practice”.  Which doesn't seem like a bad task.  Reports to follow. and I will be

 

DFD(rinking experiments)