Nigella really does bite
PUSSSYKATT
----------------------------
'THREE cups dried beans," the recipe begins. "Five cloves of garlic, one
knee-high hosiery sock . . ." Clearly, this isn't your average cookbook. Nor is
Nigella Lawson - whose sock-and-pasta-and-beans recipe this is - your average
cook.
She's a lot sexier, for starters, and practically royalty (her dad was a Lord;
her late husband, a respected columnist for the London Times).
If you're wondering why her Style Network cooking show, "Nigella Bites," is so
popular, you need only watch her, in a tight red sweater, ecstatically squeeze
strings of mozzarella in carrozza into her wide-lipped mouth.
Which is why one hesitates to report that her new cookbook, "Nigella Bites"
(Hyperion, $35), does.
Described as a companion volume to the TV show - and broken up along the same
lines, with chapters devoted to things like "Comfort Food" and "TV Dinners"
(supper you can allegedly whip up in a jiffy) - it's won raves in Great
Britain, the land of fish and chips.
Last year, Lawson won the British Book Awards' "Author of the Year," which
makes things all the more puzzling.
Pretty to look at, perplexing to use, "Nigella Bites" may usher in a new genre:
the coffee-table cookbook.
In other words, look but don't eat. Even if you did have a hankering for things
like deep-fried candy bars with pineapple, as Lawson does, don't try making
them at home.
That said, we were so intrigued by the idea of pasta e fagiole a la knee-high -
Lawson contends you're more likely to have nylon in your drawer then
cheesecloth in your pantry - that we road-tested a few recipes. And we have the
burn marks to prove it.
My husband and I are no slouches in the cooking department. We haven't a spot
of training (unless you count my watching my grandmother making gravy and
lasagna), but we can read a recipe with the best of 'em, even improvising if
necessary.
And so, when we found ourselves searching fruitlessly for the dried cranberry
beans in Lawson's recipe, we knew enough to buy Great Northern beans instead,
since that's what other (better) cookbooks called for.
But nothing prepared us for the knee-high.
Lawson doesn't specify sock type or color, so I went with taupe sandalfoot. (My
husband and son vetoed using the ones in my lingerie drawer, so I bought
fresh.)
Following her directions, I stuffed the sock with a quartered onion and two
sprigs of rosemary, and pitched it into a pot with the beans, water and garlic.
Then I turned up the heat and watched it bob up and down like an amputated
limb. Yum!
The "Southern-style chicken" wasn't any more appetizing. Lawson marinates the
chicken in whole milk, rather than buttermilk, the way real Southern chefs do.
She calls it an "homage." I call it a horror, particularly when you poach the
chicken in the milk, as she does.
"The pan will look like a horrible, clumpy, curdy mess," Lawson writes, and
she's right.
What she doesn't say is how long it will take you to clean that clumpy mess,
since you'll probably need the pan for the next step: frying the chicken in the
solid vegetable shortening Lawson fancies - Pura, the one with the "gorgeously
garish wrapper."
Not to find Pura, we settled for Crisco, whose wrapper was less gorgeous than
alarming: "Shortening may cause fire if overheated. Damage or serious burns may
result."
We hauled out our fire extinguisher and started frying.
Since Lawson doesn't use a deep-fat thermometer - a self-proclaimed Domestic
Goddess, she fries by intuition alone - we didn't use one either. Instead, we
heated the oil until hot, but not smoking, then tossed in the chicken one piece
at a time.
Spatter, spatter, spatter. On the stovetop, the counter, our arms.
Two burned forearms later, our chicken was ready. "Better than KFC!" our son
Sam announced. Then he noticed the pot on the stove.
"Hey, what this sludge supposed to be?"
The soup course, son.
Fortunately, Sam had missed the chucking-out-of-the-stocking portion of our
evening (the sock had faded from taupe to off-white).
Still, the result - after we'd blended "a mugful" of the beans with tomato
paste and added it to the rest of the beans, then threw in the ditalini pasta
to cook, as directed - wasn't pretty. More like a globby, starchy mess.
Lawson had directed merely that we cover the beans "generously" with water, but
apparently we hadn't been generous enough. (Other recipes call for cooking the
pasta separately, and doing the beans in a dozen cups of water.)
We sampled it gingerly - noting a faint rosemary-nylon overtone - before
ladling it into the trash.
Granted, the fried chicken was tasty, and that rice pudding we'd made the night
before - "emergency rice pudding," Lawson calls it, since it takes only 35
minutes or so of constant stirring rather than hours of baking and chilling -
wasn't terrible.
It was more of a sweet risotto, actually, but pour enough heavy cream on top -
"the thicker and fattier the better," Lawson gushes - and it was edible enough.
("Next time," Sam directed, "lose the rice.")
But as far as that "maximum flavor with minimum effort" the cookbook promises,
well, that certainly didn't take into account the scrubbing we had to give all
those pots and the kitchen.
I did get a spare knee-high out of it. Taupe sandalfoot stew, anyone?
* * *
WHAT'S WRONG WITH THE BOOK
NY POST/By BARBARA HOFFMAN
--------------------------
EVEN if you've watched Nigella Lawson cutting up on "Nigella Bites," her Style
Network cooking show, you may still be stymied by "Nigella Bites," the
cookbook. Here's what caused havoc at my house: * Lack of direction. Length of
cooking time, degree of heat and even quantities aren't always specified.
"Cover generously with water" is not helpful when you're making a soup of beans
and pasta. We covered, we simmered - we ended up with sludge.
* Tough-to-find ingredients. Not every supermarket stocks cranberry beans,
orange-flower water or halloumi cheese - and Nigella doesn't always suggest a
substitute.
* Waste. A recipe for rice pudding calls for 1/4 cup arborio rice and 23/4 cup
milk, nearly a cup more than needed. And it's always whole milk, too - never
the 1 or 2 percent you probably have in the fridge.
* Mess. Try dumping chicken in milk into your pan without a spill, dirtying two
pots for one rice pudding and frying anything in shortening. This is a cookbook
from someone used to having other people clean up her messes.
* Really bad ideas. The nylon stocking in the soup, a recipe for deep-fried
Mounds bars. I rest my case.
SEND EMAIL TO PUSSS...@aol.com
AGC FAQ and FUN STUFF
http://www.dreamwater.net/agc/mainpages/agcfaq.html
BLIND ITEM REHASH:
http://www.dreamwater.net/agc/blinditems/mainpage.html
Myname2use4now
her show once, and the camera bobbing was really distracting. I think she's
trying to come across as a sexy Martha Stewart, but she doesn't do a good job
at w/regard to the food. Personally when it comes to the female chef's, my
favorites are Sara Moulton and Rachel Ray (although it took me a while to get
used to RR's mannerisms, I like her now).
~~~Fortune favors the bold.~~~
Sponky
I have 2 of her books (including 'Nigella Bites') and series one of same
on tape, and have never had any trouble following the recipies or
instructions.
She goes more for the 'joy of cooking' than step by step instructions,
which makes for more peronalized cooking imho.
==============================
Sponky
Tina
instructions,
which makes for more peronalized cooking imho. >>
How does a person lose that joy of cooking feeling by having step-by-step
instructions included in a recipe?
As for the deep-fried Mounds bars - Ugh! Doesn't it already have enough fat in
it already? About as appetizing as the deep-fried Twinkies I heard they were
selling at our W. WA State Fair this year.
Sponky
> Sponky wrote:<< She goes more for the 'joy of cooking' than step by step
> instructions,
> which makes for more peronalized cooking imho. >>
>
> How does a person lose that joy of cooking feeling by having step-by-step
> instructions included in a recipe?
I mean she goes more for the feel, so you can adapt it to the way you
cook, at least thats how i have taken it.
> As for the deep-fried Mounds bars - Ugh! Doesn't it already have enough fat in
> it already? About as appetizing as the deep-fried Twinkies I heard they were
> selling at our W. WA State Fair this year.
Heh, well i wouldnt cook those. not quite my thing.
==============================
Sponky
Gillian White
> I'm not surprised, I've heard in the past that her books suck.
All very well saying 'you've heard' they suck - have you actually
looked at one? I've got 'How To Be A Domestic Goddess', and it's
bloody brilliant. I've lost count of how many times I've used the
recipes in it. The vast majority of them are cheap, quick and easy
enough for a child to cope with.
Gillian
Myname2use4now
>From: gillia...@mail.com (Gillian White)
>Date: 11/7/02 3:21 AM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <3037656c.0211...@posting.google.com>
Actually, yes I've taken a pretty good look at "domestic goddess" and I wasn't
that taken by it. Not that it means anything, it's a matter of taste. What I
meant by 'sucks' was that the reviews it got weren't very good in terms of
recipe instruction, the same was said for Martha Stewarts early books (as you
can imagine she threw a fit over it IIRC). If you found it to be a good book
and easy to use, then go for it. I was expressing my opinion.
~~~Fortune favors the bold.~~~
Sali Mali
> NY POST/By BARBARA HOFFMAN
> lines, with chapters devoted to things like "Comfort Food" and "TV Dinners"
> (supper you can allegedly whip up in a jiffy) - it's won raves in Great
> Britain, the land of fish and chips.
Oh here we go, could be have a bit more ignorant cultural
stereotyping, please?
>> WHAT'S WRONG WITH THE BOOK
> NY POST/By BARBARA HOFFMAN
> --------------------------
> EVEN if you've watched Nigella Lawson cutting up on "Nigella Bites," her Style
> Network cooking show, you may still be stymied by "Nigella Bites," the
> cookbook. Here's what caused havoc at my house: * Lack of direction. Length of
> cooking time, degree of heat and even quantities aren't always specified.
> "Cover generously with water" is not helpful when you're making a soup of beans
> and pasta. We covered, we simmered - we ended up with sludge.
>
> * Tough-to-find ingredients. Not every supermarket stocks cranberry beans,
> orange-flower water or halloumi cheese - and Nigella doesn't always suggest a
> substitute.
>
God, have some initiative. I don't even live in a real city and I
have no trouble finding those ingredients. Get off your ass and go
somewhere other than your nearest mega-mart. (And even most of those
carry some or most of this stuff, these days)
> * Waste. A recipe for rice pudding calls for 1/4 cup arborio rice and 23/4 cup
> milk, nearly a cup more than needed. And it's always whole milk, too - never
> the 1 or 2 percent you probably have in the fridge.
Well, use your freaking brain and substitute if you want. I always
use skim when recipes call for whole and it has always worked for me.
Also, you've got leftover rice, stick it in the fridge and eat it with
something else. What is people's problem?
It seems like the basic problem is that Nigella is assuming a common
sense far above what these reviewers possess.
> * Really bad ideas. The nylon stocking in the soup, a recipe for deep-fried
> Mounds bars. I rest my case.
>
God, you'd think these reviewers didn't have a brain between them.
I'm not Nigella's biggest fan, but I occasionally watch her show and
her recipes seem neither too difficult (well, unless you're comparing
them to bunging something in the microwave, then removing the film)
and very tasty. I've had a look at her books in the bookshop, and, as
someone who regularly cooks, haven't seen anything that seemed
perplexing or out of place.
TawnyNY
>looked at one? I've got 'How To Be A Domestic Goddess', and it's
>bloody brilliant. I've lost count of how many times I've used the
>recipes in it. The vast majority of them are cheap, quick and easy
>enough for a child to cope with.
I've tried watching this show because the food really looks so appetizing. I
cannot get past her long, straggly hair and wonder how many of her guests are
picking it out of their main course!
Tie up your dam hair Nigella!
Billie
>I've tried watching this show because the food really looks so appetizing. I
>cannot get past her long, straggly hair and wonder how many of her guests are
>picking it out of their main course!
>
>Tie up your dam hair Nigella!
I think she's fun, but I'm with you. I always want to tell her to quit licking
her fingers, and WASH YOUR HANDS AFTER HANDLING CHICKEN.
Billie...she's just to earthy for me wanting to eat anything she prepares.
"STUPIDITY IS NOT A HANDICAP. Park elsewhere!"
E Varden
.
.
.
>
> Well, use your freaking brain and substitute if you want. I always
> use skim when recipes call for whole and it has always worked for me.
> Also, you've got leftover rice, stick it in the fridge and eat it with
> something else. What is people's problem?
>
> It seems like the basic problem is that Nigella is assuming a common
> sense far above what these reviewers possess.
The reader of recipes should not be required to bring "common sense"
to faulty recipies.
Making the list of ingredients findable (or substitutable) and then
properly cookable is the task of the fricking author, and then of
the editor. Clearly, Nigella snuck this whimsical bit of nonsense
past the blue pencil of an editor, thereby rabbit-punching naive
buyers who, because "she has her own teevee show; this must be
good!" end up with a pot of slop and wasted ingredients and shaken
confidence.
One of the best French Chefs of the past century (and certainly the
best cook-book author ever), Julia Child, writes in a manner that
not only explains the processes involved in the recipe, but does so
in a manner that a fifteen-year-old could cook in the delightful
French style.
For shame, Nigella!
Although, come to think of it, who wants to cook/eat British? WAIT
WAIT: Jaime Oliver, and the Two Fat Ladies!
See? Brit-presented cooking can be a delight; recipes can be
accurate and learning about the joy of cooking (pun indended) can be
fostered.
Nigella is sloppy, and care-less about the needs of her audience.
Brit-based cookbooks have been done successfully before you, Nige,
which means even more shame on you for fobbing this seriously-flawed
tome onto eager learners.
> >
>
> God, you'd think these reviewers didn't have a brain between them.
> I'm not Nigella's biggest fan, but I occasionally watch her show and
> her recipes seem neither too difficult (well, unless you're comparing
> them to bunging something in the microwave, then removing the film)
> and very tasty. I've had a look at her books in the bookshop, and, as
> someone who regularly cooks, haven't seen anything that seemed
> perplexing or out of place.
Just where did the complaints come from? Thin air? (How about
people who *don't* regularly cook -- by that I mean don't often do
more than "heat up" stuff?)
I applaud your understanding of the Osbourn family dynamic(s)
[previous posting], but it is clear you don't know/care what the
purpose of a cookbook is. It's a "how-to" manual, not "this is
sorta what I do, maybe; oops! -- who cares..." That you might be
able to correct the faults in a recipe or substitute appropriate
ingredients puts you in a small percentile of potential buyers.
The rest are let down by Nigella.
Feh
Pe
Sali Mali
> Sali Mali wrote:
> .
> .
> .
> >
> > Well, use your freaking brain and substitute if you want. I always
> > use skim when recipes call for whole and it has always worked for me.
> > Also, you've got leftover rice, stick it in the fridge and eat it with
> > something else. What is people's problem?
> >
> > It seems like the basic problem is that Nigella is assuming a common
> > sense far above what these reviewers possess.
>
> The reader of recipes should not be required to bring "common sense"
> to faulty recipies.
Since WHEN????? Most cookbooks for serious cooks bring far, far less
explanaion than someone like Nigella gives. Only those aimed at
beginners really lay out things in painful detail.
>
> Making the list of ingredients findable (or substitutable) and then
> properly cookable is the task of the fricking author, and then of
> the editor. Clearly, Nigella snuck this whimsical bit of nonsense
> past the blue pencil of an editor, thereby rabbit-punching naive
> buyers who, because "she has her own teevee show; this must be
> good!" end up with a pot of slop and wasted ingredients and shaken
> confidence.
Crap. Thousands of people up till the 2 dodos who did the reviews
seem to be able to follow the books. There's demand for Lawson to do
more. So where does the problem really lie? And anyway, anyone who
doesn't have the basic sense to look over a cookbook before buying it
to SEE what the style and types of ingredients required are don't
deserve to have things made easier for them. That, any cook I know
will tell you, is basic.
> One of the best French Chefs of the past century (and certainly the
> best cook-book author ever), Julia Child, writes in a manner that
> not only explains the processes involved in the recipe, but does so
> in a manner that a fifteen-year-old could cook in the delightful
> French style.
And I wager that she could probably do the same with most, if not all,
of Lawson's stuff. Maybe the simple problem is that the books were
originally written for a British public, with UK measurements, etc.,
and when the US version came out, a lot was simply not converted. In
which case, shame on the publishers, not Nigella.
> I applaud your understanding of the Osbourn family dynamic(s)
> [previous posting], but it is clear you don't know/care what the
> purpose of a cookbook is. It's a "how-to" manual, not "this is
> sorta what I do, maybe; oops! -- who cares..." That you might be
> able to correct the faults in a recipe or substitute appropriate
> ingredients puts you in a small percentile of potential buyers.
Well, thanks for the Osbournes aside, as someone who spends a lot of
time in the kitchen, I'd say I DO know my way around cookbooks. You
have to acknowledge that different cookbooks are aimed at people with
different levels of experience in the kitchen. I've opened a few of
my mother's and found myself utterly unable to follow a single one
because they assumed far more technique than I possessed. That
doesn't make them "bad", it just makes them not for me.
Maybe the problem with some people is that they are very rigid in
their approach, liking to have everything spelled out in precise
amounts, whereas Lawson has SPECIFICALLY indicated that her way of
doing things is more loose and "as you feel," which is the way many
prefer to cook.
E Varden
>
.
.
.
>
> Maybe the problem with some people is that they are very rigid in
> their approach, liking to have everything spelled out in precise
> amounts, whereas Lawson has SPECIFICALLY indicated that her way of
> doing things is more loose and "as you feel," which is the way many
> prefer to cook.
You still are a cookery-snob.. Nigella's book was not aimed at the
already-talented. Even if, it contains egregious errors.
Cooking by "feel" and "intuition" is a talent that can be learned.
There is a cookbook using this method and the author guides the
neophyte through what a teaspoon of salt looks like in the hollow of
your hand and when to add herbs/spices into the cooking process.
This is a talent learned, not innately there.
"Loose" and "as you feel" is fine for the already knowledgeable.
Her book was not marketed to the cogniscenti, god dammit. Therefore
her inability to communicate the fact that you can have too little
water, but not too much water when cooking beans demonstrates her
casual arrogance.
She's an intellectual cook-snob.
People follow her clumsy suggestions and get slop.
You are blaming the reader?
====================================
I repeat: you don't know from the purpose of cookery books.
Nigella's book was not written for you (though with a caveat
"ingredients are strange, cooking instructons and quantities are
totally whimsical. I know you will be able to figure this out and
have a nice nosh, you understand I can't be bothered, darling" it
should have been.)
Pe