Anti-Fannie

aem' said:

Here's a quote from the historian Mark Kurlansky:

"Fannie Merritt Farmer, an enormously influential cookbook writer,
believed in extremely precise instructions and popularized the idea of
exact measurements for recipes, an illusion of science that has become
standard practice and, for more than 100 years, has left household
cooks saying, "What went wrong? I followed the recipe." She was the
most famous director of the Boston Cooking School, founded a generation
earlier to teach working-class women how to cook "scientifically."
Influenced by this school, freedom of choice has slowly been exorcised
from recipes, and experimenting is increasingly discouraged."

Now we know what the purpose of rfc is: to combat this evil legacy
from Fannie Farmer. We are the anti-Fannies. Except for baking.

Don't know about you, but my fannie is enormous. <G>

Carol
--
Coming at you live, from beautiful Lake Woebegon

Damsel in dis Dress said:

aem' said:

Here's a quote from the historian Mark Kurlansky:

"Fannie Merritt Farmer, an enormously influential cookbook writer,
believed in extremely precise instructions and popularized the idea

of

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

exact measurements for recipes, an illusion of science that has

become

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

standard practice and, for more than 100 years, has left household
cooks saying, "What went wrong? I followed the recipe." She was

the

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

most famous director of the Boston Cooking School, founded a

generation

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

earlier to teach working-class women how to cook "scientifically."
Influenced by this school, freedom of choice has slowly been

exorcised

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

from recipes, and experimenting is increasingly discouraged."

Now we know what the purpose of rfc is: to combat this evil legacy
from Fannie Farmer. We are the anti-Fannies. Except for baking.

Don't know about you, but my fannie is enormous. <G>

Hmm, that would be a Farmer Fannie... as in Tractor Butt. 😉

Sheldon

aem said:

Here's a quote from the historian Mark Kurlansky:

"Fannie Merritt Farmer, an enormously influential cookbook writer,
believed in extremely precise instructions and popularized the idea of
exact measurements for recipes, an illusion of science that has become
standard practice and, for more than 100 years, has left household
cooks saying, "What went wrong? I followed the recipe." She was the
most famous director of the Boston Cooking School, founded a generation
earlier to teach working-class women how to cook "scientifically."
Influenced by this school, freedom of choice has slowly been exorcised
from recipes, and experimenting is increasingly discouraged."

Now we know what the purpose of rfc is: to combat this evil legacy
from Fannie Farmer. We are the anti-Fannies. Except for baking.
-aem

Kudos from another anti-Fannie. Well except for where science really
does play a role.

Tonight's experimantal cooking...

Lemon Grass Chicken

(all measurements are just eyeballed)

1/2 c. water
2 T. lemongrass
1 T. nam pla
1/2 t. thai chili oil
2 T. lime juice
1 1/2 t. cilantro (dry)
clove garlic minced

3 thinly sliced checken breast halves were added to the above and are
marinating now.

I'm going to stir-fry the chicken with baby corn, mushrooms (variety
undetermined ATM), red bell pepper strips, scallion if I have it onion
otherwise, and maybe some bamboo shoots. add some liquid to the
marinade (wine, broth or water) boil, strain and thicken with
cornstarch. And serve over rice...thinking it's a brown rice night.

Shall see how it turns out. Time to get cracking on coconut pannacotta
for dessert.

Jessica

Sheldon' said:

Damsel in dis Dress said:

Don't know about you, but my fannie is enormous. <G>

Hmm, that would be a Farmer Fannie... as in Tractor Butt. 😉

Nope. Computer Butt.

Carol
--
Coming at you live, from beautiful Lake Woebegon

aem said:

Here's a quote from the historian Mark Kurlansky:

"Fannie Merritt Farmer, an enormously influential cookbook writer,
believed in extremely precise instructions and popularized the idea of
exact measurements for recipes

She was the

Quoted message said:

most famous director of the Boston Cooking School, founded a
generation earlier to teach working-class women how to cook
"scientifically."

Hate to argue with an historian, but I have a copy of the original [censored]
Farmer cookbook (obviously a reprint). The book states the school was to
teach women IMMIGRANTS to cook using ingredients which were not necessarily
native to their homeland. In that case, I would think the students would
need measurements in order to know how to prepare recipes using foodstuffs
foreign to them.

Quoted message said:

Now we know what the purpose of rfc is: to combat this evil legacy
from Fannie Farmer. We are the anti-Fannies. Except for baking.
-aem

Having said that, I rarely measure anything. A newbie cook would probably
need to. As you grow more comfortable, eyeballing measurements, what types
of types of herbs or spices to use with what, etc., just becomes second
nature. It probably did to those students, too, once the acclaimated
themselves to the brave new world 🙂

Jill

jmcquown said:

Hate to argue with an historian, but I have a copy of the original
[censored] Farmer cookbook (obviously a reprint). The book states the
school was to teach women IMMIGRANTS to cook using ingredients which
were not necessarily native to their homeland. In that case, I would
think the students would need measurements in order to know how to
prepare recipes using foodstuffs foreign to them.

You make a good point, but do you remember the site someone posted that
has electronic archives of really old American cookbooks? In browsing
through some of them I was struck by how many recipes offered quite
vague quantities/measurements. I think his point that Fannie was a
major advocate for striving for "scientific" measurements is valid. As
is his implied point that such precision is a false, illusory path to
good cooking. There has never been a measurement as good as your taste
buds. -aem

http://digital.lib.msu.edu/projects/cookbooks/html/browse.html

aem said:

jmcquown said:

Hate to argue with an historian, but I have a copy of the original
[censored] Farmer cookbook (obviously a reprint). The book states the
school was to teach women IMMIGRANTS to cook using ingredients which
were not necessarily native to their homeland. In that case, I would
think the students would need measurements in order to know how to
prepare recipes using foodstuffs foreign to them.

You make a good point, but do you remember the site someone posted
that has electronic archives of really old American cookbooks? In
browsing through some of them I was struck by how many recipes
offered quite vague quantities/measurements. I think his point that
Fannie was a major advocate for striving for "scientific"
measurements is valid. As is his implied point that such precision
is a false, illusory path to good cooking. There has never been a
measurement as good as your taste buds. -aem

http://digital.lib.msu.edu/projects/cookbooks/html/browse.html

Yep, I remember that (Leila, I think it was). And in fact I also own
reprints of some of the cookbooks mentioned in these archives. The
Settlement Cookbook and The Virginia Housewife, for example. I love to read
old "receipts" because some of them are purely funny. But I still don't
think Fannie Farmer was evil <G> simply because she thought recipes needed
measurements for newbie cooks.

Jill

jmcquown said:

jmcquown wrote: [snip]
I love to read old "receipts" because some of them are purely funny.
But I still don't think Fannie Farmer was evil <G> simply because she
thought recipes needed measurements for newbie cooks.

I'm sure Fannie was a wonderful person. I said her *legacy*, meaning
the illusion that cooking was a matter of following a precisely
measured recipe, was evil. Put it this way, knowledgeable spectators
at many tennis matches can tell who is going to win a match by simply
noticing which catches the ball earlier with her/his groundstrokes. In
the same way, if you peek in the kitchen and see the cook frequently
tasting as she/he goes along, odds are it will be good food. If they
never taste, they aren't cooks. At best, they're chemists. -aem

aem said:

jmcquown said:

jmcquown wrote: [snip]
I love to read old "receipts" because some of them are purely funny.
But I still don't think Fannie Farmer was evil <G> simply because she
thought recipes needed measurements for newbie cooks.

I'm sure Fannie was a wonderful person. I said her *legacy*, meaning
the illusion that cooking was a matter of following a precisely
measured recipe, was evil. Put it this way, knowledgeable spectators
at many tennis matches can tell who is going to win a match by simply
noticing which catches the ball earlier with her/his groundstrokes.
In the same way, if you peek in the kitchen and see the cook
frequently tasting as she/he goes along, odds are it will be good
food. If they never taste, they aren't cooks. At best, they're
chemists. -aem

Oh don't get me wrong; I agree with you! As previously mentioned, I rarely
measure anything. But still, at some point it must have appeared to be
necessary at the Boston Cooking School. No one said everyone for the next
100 years had to carve it in stone 😉

Jill

On Sun 03 Apr 2005 07:26:09p, jmcquown wrote in rec.food.cooking:

Quoted message said:

aem said:

jmcquown said:

jmcquown wrote: [snip]
I love to read old "receipts" because some of them are purely funny.
But I still don't think Fannie Farmer was evil <G> simply because she
thought recipes needed measurements for newbie cooks.

I'm sure Fannie was a wonderful person. I said her *legacy*, meaning
the illusion that cooking was a matter of following a precisely
measured recipe, was evil. Put it this way, knowledgeable spectators
at many tennis matches can tell who is going to win a match by simply
noticing which catches the ball earlier with her/his groundstrokes.
In the same way, if you peek in the kitchen and see the cook
frequently tasting as she/he goes along, odds are it will be good
food. If they never taste, they aren't cooks. At best, they're
chemists. -aem

Oh don't get me wrong; I agree with you! As previously mentioned, I
rarely measure anything. But still, at some point it must have appeared
to be necessary at the Boston Cooking School. No one said everyone for
the next 100 years had to carve it in stone 😉

Jill

Beginning cooks often need to follow prescribed recipes until they
discover their own tastes and preferences and understand the balance of
flavors that yield delicious food. It's not something that most people
are born with.

Baking, OTOH, is chemistry, pure and simple, particularly baked goods like
cakes. Without the proper formula of flour, fat, sugar, eggs, leavening,
etc., a failure is almost assured. When one becomes competent with the
essentials, modifications are more easily made with successful results.

--
Wayne Boatwright
____________________________________________

Give me a smart idiot over a stupid genius any day.
Sam Goldwyn, 1882-1974

On Sun 03 Apr 2005 09:25:06p, K. Reece wrote in rec.food.cooking:

Quoted message said:

"Wayne Boatwright" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Baking, OTOH, is chemistry, pure and simple, particularly baked goods
like cakes. Without the proper formula of flour, fat, sugar, eggs,
leavening, etc., a failure is almost assured. When one becomes
competent with the essentials, modifications are more easily made with
successful results.

--
Wayne Boatwright

So then, how did they make cake before Fannie Farmer came along with her
precise measurements? And if a cake has to be an exact formula, why are
there so many variations? There are probably thousands and thousands of
different cake recipes all with different ratios of flour, fat, sugar,
eggs, leavening, etc.

Kathy

There are people who do nothing but develop workable recipes and, beyond
certain known relational formulae, new recipes are achieved through
experimentation and pushing the boundaries. Some ingredients obviously
interchange easily, others not. Yes, there are thousands upon thousands of
different cake recipes with different ratios of ingredients. Few were
achieved by accident. I don't care to screw around with a recipe to the
extent that 5 out of 6 attempts end up in the garbage. I've cooked and
baked long enough to know most of the time what the limits of change can be
and still have successful results.

--
Wayne Boatwright
____________________________________________

Give me a smart idiot over a stupid genius any day.
Sam Goldwyn, 1882-1974

"Wayne Boatwright" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Baking, OTOH, is chemistry, pure and simple, particularly baked goods like
cakes. Without the proper formula of flour, fat, sugar, eggs, leavening,
etc., a failure is almost assured. When one becomes competent with the
essentials, modifications are more easily made with successful results.

--
Wayne Boatwright

So then, how did they make cake before Fannie Farmer came along with her
precise measurements? And if a cake has to be an exact formula, why are
there so many variations? There are probably thousands and thousands of
different cake recipes all with different ratios of flour, fat, sugar, eggs,
leavening, etc.

Kathy

"aem" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Here's a quote from the historian Mark Kurlansky:

"Fannie Merritt Farmer, an enormously influential
cookbook writer, believed in extremely precise
instructions and popularized the idea of exact
measurements for recipes, an illusion of science
that has become standard practice and, for more
than 100 years, has left household cooks saying,
"What went wrong? I followed the recipe." She
was the most famous director of the Boston Cooking
School, founded a generation earlier to teach working-
class women how to cook "scientifically." Influenced
by this school, freedom of choice has slowly been
exorcised from recipes, and experimenting is increasingly
discouraged."

Well, then he never bothered to read the 1909 edition of _The Boston
Cooking-School Cook Book_, which I have in front of me just now. Yes, she
believed in measurements -- and cooking is easier for the average person as
a result. But the main focus of *this* book is *nutrition*. From the
Preface:

"With the progress of knowledge the needs of the human body have not been
forgotten. During the last decade much time has been given by scientists to
the study of foods and their dietetic value, and it is a subject which
rightfully should demand much consideration from all. I certainly feel that
the time is not far distant when a knowledge of the principles of diet will
be an essential part of one's education. Then mankind will live to eat,
will be able to do better mental and physical work, and disease will be less
frequent.

"At the earnest solicitation of educators, pupils, and friends, I have been
urged to prepare this book, and I trust it may be a help to many who need
its aid. It is my wish that it may not only be looked upon as a compilation
of tried and tested recipes, but that it may awaken an interest through its
condensed scientific knowledge which will lead to deeper thought and broader
study of what we eat."

And the first chapter is devoted to the discussion of food and nutrition, to
wit: how food is classified (organic/inorganic); correct proportions,
including a discussion of how age, sex, occupation, climate and season
should dictate the diet of a healthy person; and discussions about
carbohydrates, proteins, fats, etc.

On measurements, she says: "Correct measurements are absolutely necessary to
insure the best results. Good judgment, with experience, has taught some to
measure by sight; but the majority need definite guides." A fair enough
assessment, particularly for the average cook.

I don't think it's fair to blame FMF for the failure of other cookbook
authors to offer less than stellar recipes, nor of the failure of parents
and/or schools to teach kids to cook. Not everyone can cook without
guidance; certainly newbie cooks can use good reference tools, and a good
recipe is just that. Many people aren't of a mind to experiment wildly with
their evening's dinner (and risk wasting money if the results are inedible),
but *most* people I know, anyway, will eventually start tweaking things to
their liking, even if it's such a simple change as using thyme instead of
tarragon.

Right, off my soapbox and off to make some coffee. Hope this makes some
sense, as I'm really pre-coffee.
-j

jmcquown said:

Hate to argue with an historian, but I have a copy of the original [censored]
Farmer cookbook (obviously a reprint). The book states the school was to
teach women IMMIGRANTS to cook using ingredients which were not

necessarily

Quoted message said:

native to their homeland. In that case, I would think the students would
need measurements in order to know how to prepare recipes using foodstuffs
foreign to them.

Yup. Here in Chicago cookery was one of the main things taught at Jane
Adam's Hull House settlement. Along with hygiene, child care, etc.

A lot of these immigrant women came from places where even a cookstove would
have been a rarity, hence the need for some "precision" in the cooking
process...

--
Best
Greg

K. Reece said:

"Wayne Boatwright" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Baking, OTOH, is chemistry, pure and simple, particularly baked
goods like cakes. Without the proper formula of flour, fat, sugar,
eggs, leavening, etc., a failure is almost assured. When one becomes
competent with the essentials, modifications are more easily made
with successful results.

--
Wayne Boatwright

So then, how did they make cake before Fannie Farmer came along with
her precise measurements? And if a cake has to be an exact formula,
why are there so many variations? There are probably thousands and
thousands of different cake recipes all with different ratios of
flour, fat, sugar, eggs, leavening, etc.

Kathy

OTOH, would you know how to bake (anything) in a wood or coal burning oven?
You don't have a dial to set to say "350F" - you can't really regulate the
heat. My great-aunt Ada *never* replaced her big wood burning stove with a
modern stove and she made wonderful pies that came out perfectly. Guess it
was just practice over all those years; she could just use her hand to
figure out if the temp was right. I couldn't do that.

Jill

On Mon 04 Apr 2005 08:23:44a, jmcquown wrote in rec.food.cooking:

Quoted message said:

K. Reece said:

"Wayne Boatwright" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Baking, OTOH, is chemistry, pure and simple, particularly baked
goods like cakes. Without the proper formula of flour, fat, sugar,
eggs, leavening, etc., a failure is almost assured. When one becomes
competent with the essentials, modifications are more easily made
with successful results.

--
Wayne Boatwright

So then, how did they make cake before Fannie Farmer came along with
her precise measurements? And if a cake has to be an exact formula,
why are there so many variations? There are probably thousands and
thousands of different cake recipes all with different ratios of
flour, fat, sugar, eggs, leavening, etc.

Kathy

OTOH, would you know how to bake (anything) in a wood or coal burning
oven? You don't have a dial to set to say "350F" - you can't really
regulate the heat. My great-aunt Ada *never* replaced her big wood
burning stove with a modern stove and she made wonderful pies that came
out perfectly. Guess it was just practice over all those years; she
could just use her hand to figure out if the temp was right. I couldn't
do that.

Jill

We have the "luxury" of precision equipment in almost every facet of home
cooking today that virtually did not exist in the kitchens of our
ancestors. Probably most people who cooked well back then got an early
sart at their mother's knee, then continued through practice to hone their
skills.

Both my grandmothers had wood burning cookstoves and produced wonderful
food and baked goods using them. I know that I couldn't bake on one of
those. The stove on my dad's mother had a small dial-type thermometer
mounted on the outside of the main oven door. I remember asking my
grandmother why she never paid attention to the numbers on the termometer.
She said it was never right, and she just stuck her hand into the front
of the oven to test for temperature.

--
Wayne Boatwright
____________________________________________

Give me a smart idiot over a stupid genius any day.
Sam Goldwyn, 1882-1974

jacqui{JB} said:

[snip]
I don't think it's fair to blame FMF for the failure of other
cookbook authors to offer less than stellar recipes, nor of the
failure of parents and/or schools to teach kids to cook. [snip more]

Quoted message said:

Right, off my soapbox and off to make some coffee. Hope this makes
some sense, as I'm really pre-coffee.
-j

Oh gosh, I obviously have misled you. Sorry. Although "Cod" is
historical, it is done with a very light, amusing touch. There are cod
recipes and entertaining quotations about cod throughout history at the
end of every chapter, in addition to the recipes section at the end,
where the Fannie citation is given. In context, the author clearly
does not mean to attack Fannie, he's just poking gentle fun at the
contrast between her "scientific" approach and the very vague recipes
he's included elsewhere in the book. One of them goes back to 1375!

And when I called this "Anti-Fannie" I also didn't mean any serious
criticism. I was just trying to coin an amusing phrase while patting
rfc on the back for its displays of imagination and creativity.

End of anti-soapbox. -aem

aem said:

jacqui{JB} said:

[snip]
I don't think it's fair to blame FMF for the failure of other
cookbook authors to offer less than stellar recipes, nor of the
failure of parents and/or schools to teach kids to cook. [snip more]

Quoted message said:

Right, off my soapbox and off to make some coffee. Hope this makes
some sense, as I'm really pre-coffee.
-j

Oh gosh, I obviously have misled you. Sorry. Although "Cod" is
historical, it is done with a very light, amusing touch. There are
cod recipes and entertaining quotations about cod throughout history
at the end of every chapter, in addition to the recipes section at
the end, where the Fannie citation is given. In context, the author
clearly does not mean to attack Fannie, he's just poking gentle fun
at the contrast between her "scientific" approach and the very vague
recipes he's included elsewhere in the book. One of them goes back
to 1375!

And when I called this "Anti-Fannie" I also didn't mean any serious
criticism. I was just trying to coin an amusing phrase while patting
rfc on the back for its displays of imagination and creativity.

End of anti-soapbox. -aem

Oh, we knew that, aem, we were just having fun with ya! It's a good thread
IMHO! Beats the heck out of yakking about Terry Shiavo or the Pope 🙂

Jill

Wayne Boatwright said:

On Mon 04 Apr 2005 08:23:44a, jmcquown wrote in rec.food.cooking:

Quoted message said:

K. Reece said:

"Wayne Boatwright" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

> Baking, OTOH, is chemistry, pure and simple, particularly baked
> goods like cakes. Without the proper formula of flour, fat, sugar,
> eggs, leavening, etc., a failure is almost assured. When one
> becomes competent with the essentials, modifications are more
> easily made with successful results.
>
> --
> Wayne Boatwright

So then, how did they make cake before Fannie Farmer came along with
her precise measurements? And if a cake has to be an exact formula,
why are there so many variations? There are probably thousands and
thousands of different cake recipes all with different ratios of
flour, fat, sugar, eggs, leavening, etc.

Kathy

OTOH, would you know how to bake (anything) in a wood or coal burning
oven? You don't have a dial to set to say "350F" - you can't really
regulate the heat. My great-aunt Ada *never* replaced her big wood
burning stove with a modern stove and she made wonderful pies that
came out perfectly. Guess it was just practice over all those
years; she could just use her hand to figure out if the temp was
right. I couldn't do that.

Jill

We have the "luxury" of precision equipment in almost every facet of
home cooking today that virtually did not exist in the kitchens of our
ancestors. Probably most people who cooked well back then got an
early sart at their mother's knee, then continued through practice to
hone their skills.

Exactly. Of course, it was "expected" of women of that era.

Quoted message said:

Both my grandmothers had wood burning cookstoves and produced
wonderful food and baked goods using them. I know that I couldn't
bake on one of those. The stove on my dad's mother had a small
dial-type thermometer mounted on the outside of the main oven door.
I remember asking my grandmother why she never paid attention to the
numbers on the termometer. She said it was never right, and she just
stuck her hand into the front of the oven to test for temperature.

My great-aunt did exactly that. I don't know how old she was when I saw her
last; she was my dad's aunt and he's now 80. She must have been close to
that age when I saw her back in 1971 and she was still cranking out pies on
that old cast iron wood stove by "feel". I couldn't begin to tell you how
she measured ingredients but I doubt seriously if she had anything really
measured (except perhaps by weight for flour and lard). Amazing, isn't it?

Jill