Pollan Redux

It’s been a while since I’ve posted here.  Busy with some traveling and with a musical event.  Both kept me from reading much in the last month.  But truth be told, it also had to do with what I was trying to read.  I’ve been a Michael Pollan fan from the beginning.  Botany of Desire is a fascinating book, and Omnivore’s Dilemma is a classic.  In Defense of Food less good because it doesn’t break new ground but summarizes and condenses much of the earlier material into a book that smacks of Dr. Oz and self-help.  While I agree with much that Pollan writes, I don’t find it particularly rewarding to read.

[Igor Stravinsky was once asked why he published so many revised editions of The Rite of Spring.  He answered at the blackboard, saying ‘because my name is [I]gor [S]travinsky’, and he drew on the blackboard a superimposed I and S ($).]

Even more so with Pollan’s latest, Cooked.  For someone who’s been at the forefront of the food movement for years, the book is remarkably stale.  Has he really never cooked seriously in his past?  If so, why did we take is writing so seriously?  I’m just an average cook, but I know a good deal about roasting, braising, baking bread, etc.  I’ve done all of it more or less seriously for a long time, and I do have a basic understanding of the theory and science involved.  I don’t need Michael Pollan for that.  But that’s what he tries to do in Cooked, and I remain bored and disappointed by the book, so much so that I couldn’t even finish it.

Who exactly is he writing for?  I think most foodies already understand this stuff.  We don’t need to be told what barbeque is, what a braise is, or why and how bread rises.  And if we have little interest in cooking we’re not going to read the book.  If we’re not already sympathetic with the lefty food movement, we’re not going to read the book either.  Are there really a significant number of left-leaning folks interested in food who know about Pollan but need a basic introduction to cooking?  Feels like a Michael Moore documentary to me.  If you already agree with his point of view you nod your head but learn little. If you don’t you’ll be offended by the shallow insider winkiness of the argument, and you’ll be convinced that he’s another one of those Berkeley nuts.  Who watches MSNBC anyway?  Only the liberals (like me) that seek reinforcement for the liberal brand and who want to feel part of a group of like-minded folks.

The book is full of logical contradictions and circular paths of reasoning that will astound and infuriate an outsider.  Most insiders will just nod and accept it as party line.  When push comes to shove this just isn’t a serious book.  It’s fluffy left-wing foodie porn/propaganda, and I don’t think it will do anyone much good.  Except of course for Michael Pollan, who is busy promoting and building the Pollan brand into an empire.

It hurts to be harsh with someone on my own team.  Michael, I think you’ve let us down here.  You raise our spirits in the intrasquad pre-season games, but when it comes to confronting the real opposition you don’t have the guts for rigorous argument, genuine introspection, and baffling complexity.  To parody a fun Penny Marshall movie from the early 90’s, I think you’ve developed ‘A Team of Your Own’.

Thinking in the Kitchen

Michael Ruhlman’s books have long occupied a special place in my collection of cookbooks and books about food.   Ever since ‘The Making of a Chef’, Ruhlman has opened my eyes to the value of concentration and discipline in working in the kitchen.  ‘Twenty’ is his latest contribution.  It’s not a book for everyone, but it is a distillation of Ruhlman’s approach to the kitchen:  “Think before all else.” 

Ruhlman attempts to condense basic cooking principles into twenty basic concepts.  Some are ingredients, some are approaches, some are techniques.  I don’t think you could get a single authority to agree that these are the twenty that really matter, but Ruhlman’s choices are fascinating.  Number One is “Thinking”.  He insists that having a well considered concept of what you’re trying to accomplish in the kitchen is THE most important tool of all in the kitchen.  It’s better than following a recipe, better than spontaneous improvisation.  For me thinking is one of the joys of cooking.  As I’ve said elsewhere here, figuring out what to make is almost more enjoyable for me than actually preparing it.  What do I want to create?  How can I accomplish it?  If things aren’t working out correctly, how can I make corrections?  Or maybe I just have to adjust my thinking to what’s really happening.

Admittedly we’re in very personal territory here.  Like how we dress, how we write, how we travel, how we go about any activity in life, how we cook is a direct reflection of who we are.  It just so happens that for me Ruhlman is a kindred spirit.  I find it fascinating to think about water as an ingredient.  In what ways do we use it?  What are the properties of water that allow us to use it in those ways?  Why is it better than other substances in many cases?  Why doesn’t it work well in others?

Salt.  It’s crucial to all Western cooking.  Why?  How does it work?  What do we use it for?  Why?

Ruhlman’s collaborations with Thomas Keller are also interesting, but Keller takes basic principles far beyond where we mortals can venture.  I have managed to incorporate a few simple Keller techniques into my special-occasion cooking, but most of it is beyond me.  It sounds good on paper, but I just don’t have the time, energy, and devotion to find out if it would really work for me.  ‘Twenty’, on the other hand, is approachable.  Take it or leave it.  There are plenty of recipes that illustrate the basic concepts.  I’ve tried a couple so far.  One was a total failure, but the shortcomings were mine.  The other was simple and a big success.

But what I most appreciate is the encouragement to be who I am:  a guy who likes to think about food, about cooking, and about eating.

Kitchen Thoughts

I’ve been doing some serious cooking for at least ten years.  I don’t bake very much, but I do cook quite a bit.  While my interests in the kitchen have taken several different turns over the years, I tend to steer towards the classics (often French), or at least dishes that grow out of traditional recipes.

Obviously I’m not alone in discovering cooking as a hobby in recent years.  Interest in food (especially high-end food) has ‘mushroomed’ in this country.  Some of it probably grew out of the affluence of the tech boom.  Some was just a reaction to the all-too-common boring home-cooked meals that we grew up with in the 50’s and 60’s.  And now we have the local/organic food movement that provides us with high-quality ingredients.  How great is that?

While I’ve had almost no formal training in the kitchen, I have experienced cooking with lots of friends and family, and I’m fascinated by the different approaches that people bring to it.  Some treat cooking like a chemistry experiment: every ingredient is carefully measured and the recipe is honored as if it were holy scripture.  I started out that way, but that all changed for me when I discovered the simple sauté.  No measuring, just choose your protein, think a little about the flavor profile you’re looking for, and start cooking.  I was quickly amazed by what can happen without much of a plan.

I’ve worked with some cooks who really don’t know what they’re going to end up when all is said and done.  They have a very vague idea of what they want when they start.  They’ve done some shopping.  In executing the dish, the dish changes significantly a few times along the way.   For those who like to work this way and are good at it, the results are both unpredictable and surprisingly good.

After all, those enshrined published recipes were developed by somebody.  And usually the recipe is just a snapshot in time of an ever-evolving dish.  If it were published a few years earlier or later it would be quite different.

For me the process of developing the menu is just as enjoyable (maybe more so) than the actual cooking.  Usually it starts with an idea for one dish, that one dish that I’ve made before but want to alter somehow, or a dish or ingredient that’s new to me that I want to try.  Then it’s a long fun process of figuring out what goes with what.  What sides, appetizers, dessert, drinks, etc.  Flavors, colors, textures all have to work together.  I often map it out on paper over and over.  Some of those dishes are specific recipes, some just general concepts.  Things change many times before I even do the shopping.  If I’m lucky, the menu I settle on is balanced, has some kind of unifying theme, and includes enough variety to keep the diner interested, pleased, and maybe even surprised here and there.  Virtual cooking, I guess.  I could almost stop there and be satisfied.

Then there’s the execution.  That’s lots of work, which can be a problem by itself.  Sometimes the concepts I’ve settled on are perfect but require more work than I can comfortably get done by myself in the allotted time.  Sometimes the opposite will happen, and I’ll be inspired to add a course at the last minute.

I wonder what these different approaches say about the cook?  What am I trying to accomplish when I cook?  Sometimes it’s just plain sustenance, sometimes fun, sometimes an experiment, sometimes a performance, sometimes I’m just keeping myself occupied during a crisis.  I love that it can be whatever I need it to be at the time.

How lucky are we that we live in a time and place in which procuring something we need to stay alive can be fulfilling in so many other ways?  The trick is in knowing what approach is appropriate for a particular occasion given my state of mind at the time.  Have I ever screwed that up any number of times!  But when I get it right, I have a good time in the kitchen and my guests enjoy themselves in the dining room.