Houzz Logo Print
plllog

Confused by TV and 'net recipes

3 months ago
last modified: 3 months ago

I often have the TV on to some kind of cooking show because there's usually something I can learn, it doesn't matter if one is distracted and missing parts, and they're about nourishment, or at least gustatory pleasure, rather than murder-entertainment, grotesquerie or grown-ups shouting like fishwives. Two recent recipes they were "teaching" however have me feeling like the world has tilted something extra. Two things I've been eating all my life: paella and churros.

I tried looking them up online. I kept trying to find real, Spanish (i.e., from Spain, but I'd be fine if they were written in Spanish). I kept finding ones that were more of the went to Spain and came home with a hankering, or ones that were really from Spain but how granny, who was not going to the bother of doing it "right" makes a one pot meal.


I don't know if the way I learned to make "paella" is "right", but I didn't find one like it and I don't know if I'm "wrong" or just bad at search. Most of the better ones had the cook doing the meats first, but just removing to the walls of the pan, away from the heat, rather than reserving out of the pan, then broth added and the rice put in to simmer. I learned to toast the rice in the pan dry, with a tiny bit of oil, then add the liquid with seasoning and herbs, when that's not quite cooked but most of the liquid is absorbed, add in the cooked meat and sofrito, and tomato, plus olives and other veg. If cooking the meat on the spot, naturally, do that, reserve and use the drippings for the rice, even for the sofrito first and then toast the rice. It's not the exact order that's the thing. It's the major components being cooked separately and not boiled in the rice liquid. So I'm confused...


So then there were the churros. Maybe it's an East Coast thing? Because when I did my image lookup, most looked like the churros I've always known. It's a kind of ancient thing (basically fried choux paste), but the ones on TV looked more like zeppole, though that's an enriched pastry dough, and often smooth (though as often ridged). They were fat ridged logs, pale gold in color. (Zeppole come in rings, balls and beignet-like too.) Churros, are about an inch in diameter, usually with sharp ridges like a cog, rather than soft like corduroy, and a true brown. Like cream puffs, they should be crisp and hollow. I learned to make choux puffs that were tender and still eggy inside for mid-century stuffed appetizers, and I didn't learn crisp and dry inside (cream puffs) until much later, but churros are supposed to be chrunchy on biting. Not shattery like a potato chip, but firm rather than gooshy. That's why they're almost always covered in cinnamon sugar, and inventiveness leans toward chili or other flavoring, not goop. The ones on TV were supposed to be made even more soggy covered with frosting. Dipping in sauce or fudge or whatnot is normal. Leaving it to get soggy with sauce on it is not.

So I find these things mystifying. I'm no expert! But usually when I see TV chefs do it differently, I get the reason why., and it might be an improvement This time, I'm stumped.

Comments (12)