Sticky pages and broken spines, all signs of a good – and well used – cookbook.

Monday, September 20, 2010

Hello, Fall. Come here often?

New York Times CookbookFinally summer is behind us, and this one turned out to be a long, hot summer, the hottest on record in Baltimore. I hate hot weather (“hate” is a strong word; but so is “loathe”) not just because it keeps me out of my much-too-hot, much-too-little-air-conditioned kitchen but then I’m forced – forced! – to make bad food decisions daily.

I knew it was fall when I made tomato sauce last Thursday night for dinner, which became the basis for lasagna on Saturday night (and you know what? If you’ve got the sauce, lasagna comes together pretty easily.). The weekend was capped off with a pot of chili on Sunday.  For all three meals I turned to a trusted resource:  The New York Times Cook Book.

Each of these recipes in my copy has been flagged with a sticky note or a scrap of paper so I can find it easily. Each one has notes about changes (for the chili I substitute a mix of ground turkey and turkey sausage in place of the ground beef), and my copy of the book in general is worn out. The spine is broken, the cover is torn and the food stains are like a treasure map across the pages to the most-used recipes in the book.

When I make biscuits from scratch, it’s from a recipe in this cook book (page 640). Once for New Years I made a kind of beef Wellington (beef topped with creamed spinach and wrapped in puff pastry). I almost bought prepared creamed spinach at the super market, but instead I used the NY Times’ recipe (page 422,) and creamed spinach has been a favorite ever since. So has John Harper’s Banana Nut Bread (page 649) and scones (page 644).

More than just about any other cook book I own, there are notes I’ve written throughout, not because the recipes need improving, but because many of these are comfort foods  that offer the chance to personalize them.  

One page shy of 800 The NY Times Cook Book is primarily – if not solely – a collection of recipes. There are no instructions on techniques, no pictures or illustrations, and the cover itself looks like old wallpaper. This classic is true to its mission: to provide well-written and flavorful recipes that cover any home cook’s needs, from breakfast to dinner and dessert, from week night meals to meals for entertaining.

It was originally published in 1962, a year after Julia Child’s Mastering the Art of French Cooking. If Julia was trying to elevate the American home cook’s taste level and abilities, The New York Times Cook Book was encouraging American housewives to step away from the tin cans and box mixes and truly become home cooks again. The 1990 update by Craig Claiborne – admittedly the only edition I’ve cooked from – has updated about 40 percent of the recipes (after all in 1962 who’d heard of pesto or quiche lorraine in the U.S.? ).

The recipes are clearly laid out for ease of use, and each step of the instructions is numbered to make them easier to follow. Titles are straight forward (honestly, “John Harper’s Banana Nut Bread” is about as exotic as the titles get) so you know exactly what recipe you’re looking at. (Pet peeve: recipe titles that don’t really tell you much about the food; and I have the same pet peeve for restaurant menus.)

It’s not the kind of book you’d give as a gift – except maybe to someone who’s moving into their first house – but give a copy to yourself. The New York Times Cook Book – at least my copy – is well worn from many uses and I wouldn’t want to be without it.

The New York Times Cook Book, Revised Edition, by Craig Claiborne
(Harper & Row, 1990)

1 comment:

  1. Visuals are also a must for me when it comes to cookbooks. Well, at least the names are pretty straightforward, you dont have to imagine much visualise how the final product should look like!

    ReplyDelete