As I mentioned in last week's post, Lucky Peach was in my reading pile, and also happens to have some of the best food, cooking, culture writing out there. Irreverent, edgy, interesting, I don't think it will be too much longer before it starts pulling in major magazine writing awards. I've been on board since the beginning, when the rep for the publisher told our buyer all about it, so I have every issue. And though every issue has recipes, we've only cooked from it once before, a noodle recipe that happened to be, also, the only recipe that contained a basic error. Until we came across the innocuously named “Stewed Beef with Turnips,” by Danny Bowien, the chef of Mission Chinese Food, in the current Chinatown themed issue. (DO NOT FORGET ABOUT IT, Jake!)
As I mentioned in my post on tomatoes, one of the challenges with getting your food from a farm share is that it is real easy to get sick of certain foods. Climate, weather, bugs, deer, parasites, labor force, all of it can combine into years where you get a lot of one thing until you're sick of it. Never being a huge fan of turnips to begin with, Riss and I have been sick of them since about July. Not that I have anything against turnips, it's just well, really that says it all. And we still had a tongue in the freezer. When you come across a recipe that makes use of one of the biggest things in your freezer and one of the ingredients you're having a hard time getting rid of, well, I wouldn't go so far as to say you're spitting in the eye of god if you don't make it, but you're probably spitting in the eye of god if you don't make it. To further solidify our destiny, we had pretty much everything else for the recipe as well; pork bones left over from a roast, carrot, onion, bay leaves, ginger, cheese cloth, a big old pot. The only things we needed were short ribs--which gave us an excuse to walk up to the new locally owned, organic, pasture raised, grass-fed only butcher--kombu and tofu, which gave us an excuse to go to the Japanese market.
The recipe also lets me return to one of my “overarching food themes;” the most important ingredient is almost always time. This is a three-day recipe with a fair number of steps. It looks daunting, but most of it is just waiting. Season the meat with kosher salt and let it sit in the fridge over night. The next day, sear it, put it in a pot with the bones and some of the other ingredients, bring to a boil, and then simmer for three hours, (For the complete recipe, buy a copy of Lucky Peach. Seriously, it's an awesome magazine.) during which, if you're me, you can watch college football, scratch out a few sentences in a novel, read a book you're reviewing, read a galley you've been dying to get to, and read a history book you've been interested in since it came out in hardcover. Then add the turnips, simmer until fork tender, let the whole thing cool and put it in the fridge, again, over night.
According to Contemporary American Corporate Food Culture, this is a hassle. If you feel like Stewed Beef with Turnips, damnit the whole reason we fought the Cold War was so that you could eat it now. Time has somehow been equated with effort. But, most of the time, most of these time intensive dishes really only require you to let time pass, during which you can do whatever else you want. Most of the time when I'm making stock, smoking pork, or making this dish, I'm doing something other than cooking. You just have to get over the idea of eating the exact thing you want at the exact time you want it. Which, of course, has a socio-economic component to it. (Doesn't everything on this blog.) The massive carbon footprint of American eating comes from only eating what you want when you want. To eat a certain vegetable, out of season for your region, involves a massive economic structure, with a massive carbon footprint that combines commercial farming with commercial shipping. To only eat a certain cut of meat, creates this whole other economy, where shmillions more of an animal needs to be bred and slaughtered and something must be done with the rest of it that you don't want, in order for the rancher and butcher to make ends meet. The real mental/cultural breakdown here is that just about anything edible can be made delicious if you know how. And with the internet, you can find out how to make anything delicious. And, not every meal has to be delicious for you to survive. A decent tasting meal will get you through the day just as well.
But this was delicious. It's described as one of those restorative soups, and we ate it after this year's pick your own day at the farm share. It was restorative. Because the broth has a really clean, fatty flavor, you can augment pretty much at will. The recipe suggests a salty, fermented chili sauce which we didn't get to, but I ground up some of our radish kimchi and put it in and that was fantastic. You could easily add siracha or soy sauce. I also threw in some fresh mustard greens. Any fresh greens would do. You could definitely serve it with noodles too. Or extra tofu. And it's also a good starter dish for someone looking to eat a little more adventurously (or someone looking to trick someone else into eating more adventurously). Beef tongue tastes like really beefy beef, and if it's cooked in certain ways (including all the boiling it goes through in this dish), has this really nice, velvety texture. Throw in the cleanness of the broth and you have a dish that tastes very different from average American fair without being particularly challenging to the American pallet. My whole family, even my teenage brother, enjoyed it.
And let's face it, you should never pass up a chance to take a picture with a beef tongue.
Thursday, November 29, 2012
Thursday, November 15, 2012
The Book Pile November 16, 2012
This, my friends, is a pile of books |
Bibliodeath, Fight Song, and Gun Machine: I've actually read all three of these, but I'm working on reviews for them, Bibliodeath for Bookslut and the other two for this blog. Gun Machine could be one of the best crime books of 2013, Fight Song is a noble entry into perhaps the most difficult genre of literature out there: Books About Average People with Average Problems, and Bibliodeath is another brilliant book by Andre Codrescu.
Notturno: I'm actually on a second read of this because I've pitched a review of it to The Rumpus. It's a book length prose poem that the author wrote on single-line long scraps of paper, while recovering from an injury and....BLINDFOLDED. Yep. Dude had an eye injury and to recover he needed to have both eyes completely bandaged for months. It's an amazing work, beyond the fete of its creation.
This is a pile of books going all Godzilla on Paris, the only city a pile of books would attack |
1493: I really liked Charles Mann's previous work 1491, a book that uses fairly recent archaeological data to speculate on the world of the western hemisphere before Columbus arrived. Mann concluded the region was much more populated and the societies much more sophisticated than they'd ever been given credit for. 1493, is a look at the effect of what's called the “Columbian Exchange,” the interchange of plants, animals, products, and diseases between the western hemisphere and the rest of the world. I must say, there is something uniquely satisfying about turning over the first few pages of a heavy book of history.
Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy: You'll be shocked to find out my benefits at the bookstore do not include stock options. But they do include free copies of books that come in too damaged to be sold as new books. I do my best to at least sample a wide range of genres so I'm not completely clueless if someone asks about one. Tinker Tailor Solider Spy is considered one of the great spy novels, by one of the great spy novelists and when I saw it damaged at the store, I saw an opportunity to close a reading gap. So far, I'm really enjoying it. There's a kind of chaos to its style, that I think successfully contributes to its atmosphere and to the thrill of reading it.
With the right filter, your pile of books can do anything. |
If on a winter's night a traveler: Book club. Your envy is justified.
Periodicals: Though they're hard to see, there are also three periodicals in the pile. I've had a subscription to Smithsonian for several years now. It might be the most underrated magazine around. History, cultural, food, politics, all well-written and informative. And Lucky Peach is one of the best anythings. A food magazine founded by David Chang, published by McSweeneys, with regular contributions from Anthony Bourdain and Harold McGee. And recipes. And Peter Meehan is slowly establishing himself as one of our best food writers. Almost certainly invisible in the pile is the very cool lit mag Cupboard. Cupboard comes out twice a year and consists of one fairly long creative work of fiction. They've done some very cool stuff, including a collection of short “stories,” by Jesse Ball. Totally different and always interesting.
2013 Guide to Literary Agents: I'm trying to find a literary agent.
Not Pictured: One by Blake Butler & Vanessa Place, Assembled by Christopher Higgs. This is on my tablet so obvious, it's not in the picture. This is an experiment in which the two authors write different sections of the story, one only allowed to write about “inside,” the other “outside,” and those sections are then assembled. I really liked Blake Bulter's There Is No Year and Christopher Higgs' The Complete Works of Marvin K. Mooney, so I'm pretty excited to see what they've come up with.
That's my pile, what's yours?
Thursday, November 8, 2012
Random Fall Sports Thoughts
The books I've been
reading to blog about recently aren't coming out until later in the
winter, I've got a whole big thing about election reform in the
works, but I think we can wait until we've all caught our breath a
bit (either from wailing in rage or smugly smirking when making eye
contact with other liberals, which takes a bit more oxygen than you
might assume), and well, I wrote about tomatoes two weeks ago.
(Probably six weeks too late to be useful, but well, it's out on the
Internet. Just bookmark it.) So my post this week is a slew of
random sports thoughts from the past couple months.
The Biggest Loser in
the NHL Lockout is Your Boston Bruins
Think about the
state of Boston sports in early October. The Reds Sox were, well,
you know. The Celtics hadn't started playing and the scab referees
were sowing chaos all over the NFL. If the NHL season had started on
time, the Bruins would have been the most popular team in New
England. Not only would they have been the only professional team
actually playing an actual version of their sport, but their season
was packed with story lines. How would Tukka Rask handle being the
official number one goalie? Would Tyler Sequin compete for the
scoring title? What would Nathan Horton's capacity be? Would Doug
Hamilton make an impact? Would Patrice Bergeron finally, finally, be
recognized as an elite NHL player? And this before any games are
played. Unless something went horribly wrong, the Bruins would make
the playoffs, mostly likely winning their division again, and, if
they stayed healthy, their young stars continued to improve, and
their veteran stars (Krejci, Lucic, Bergeron, Chara) played liked
stars, would be legitimate Stanley Cup contenders. All hockey fans
are the losers in this stupid, stupid lockout, but if there is one
organization that lost a major opportunity, it is our own Boston
Bruins.
How Did the Sox Get
Farrell So Easily?
When the Red Sox
first showed some interest in John Farrell, last year, the Toronto
Blue Jays demanded Clay Bucholtz in exchange for a meeting; Jays get
Bucholtz, Sox get a conversation. I think everyone; fan, player,
coach, owner, wanted John Farrell to come back and manage the Sox
once Tito was run out of town, it was just a matter of when. At the
beginning of the season, before Armageddon hit, I would have assumed
Valentine would stay his two years (which would have lined up with
the end of Farrell's contract) and unless he won a World Series, be
politely replaced. So when the bubonic plague swept through the
second half of the Sox season and Valentine was fired, the Jays must
have known the Sox were desperate for Farrell. This is not a knock
on Mike Aviles, I'm just shocked the Jays would settle on one player.
Maybe they know something the Sox don't. Maybe it was just that
they knew they weren't going to keep Farrell after the end of his
contract and figured they'd get that part of their club settled
quickly and easily. Who knows what they're reasoning is, but the Sox
have to feel a lot better about their resources this off season since
they had to spend so little on Farrell.
Ortiz and Ellsbury
I like the Ortiz
contract. Well, I don't like any professional sports contracts, but
when you take the real world absurdity of all professional sports out
of the picture, I like the Ortiz contract. Are the Sox probably
overpaying him? Well, they're not really paying for the next two
years. There was some strong evidence last year that Ortiz could be
worth something like that, but there was also some strong evidence
that he is one tweaked knee away from uselessness. This contract
pays Ortiz for his career and all but guarantees he'll retire in a
Red Sox uniform, so we can all begin fantasizing about Tek coaching
pitchers and Papi coaching hitters. In terms of Ellsbury and trade
rumors and the occasional absence thereof, what we can know for sure
is that nobody in the league has much confidence in his durability,
but in a very weird way. He is just so talented, that his trade and
contract value is massive, except that, for some reason, he keeps get
season ending injuries. The economics of trades make it almost
impossible to accurately evaluate a trade involving him. If he stays
with the Sox through the off-season and if he extends his contract
with them, his stability here might come as much from this impossible
value calculus as it does from his value as a player.
A Tale of Four Teams
I work on Sundays,
so I don't get to see many Pats games over the season. Usually, I use
NFL Game Center to keep track of what's happening, and even though
the display is only color coded lines across a field, if you have a
good sense of what football looks like, you can get a lot out of that
data. It's not complete, but there's enough information to draw some
conclusions. The Patriots seem to field four different teams. First
is the front seven on defense which, lead by Vince Wilfork (Pro-Bowl
at this point), are ranked 7th in rushing defense and have
forced 7 fumbles (2nd), have only given up 3 rushing touchdowns, and
only one run of more than 20 yards. They've also come up with huge
plays, like Wilfork forcing the fumble against the Cardinals and the
sack/fumble of Sanchez in over time. Then there's the secondary.
Maybe they still haven't quite figured out the bend-don't-break pass
defense. Maybe they're still too young to handle NFL style offenses.
Maybe Patrick Cheung, talented as he is, doesn't have the ability to
lead the team needs from him. Maybe, they just don't have Super Bowl
caliber talent. Whatever it is, the Patriots are way down at 28th
in passing defense giving up an average of 8 yards a passing play and
281.1 passing yards per game, with a 65.8% completion rate good for
6th worst in the league. Aqib Talib (when he can play and
more on him later) might be a piece in the puzzle kind of player,
providing just enough raw talent in the secondary for the scheme to
come together and the pass defense to radically improve. But even if
he only moderately improves the secondary, that might be enough for
another ring.
The offense seems to
be just as divided. There's the no-huddle offense (NFL Game Center
indicates when a play is no-huddle) which is, in standard Patriots
fashion, tearing defenses apart and there's the huddle offense which
seems to stall out, usually on really important drives. Maybe Josh
McDaniels doesn't have a complete grasp on the talent at his
disposal. Maybe the no-huddle just keeps defenses off their feet.
Maybe the players execute the no-huddle plays better. But, of
course, you can't run the no-huddle all game. At least one sports
writer thought they looked worn out by the end of the Denver game.
(Of course, by then they'd already scored 31 points.) One of the
problems the Patriots have had over the last few years is managing
the clock; keeping the ball in situations when it's best to slow the
game down. Having an actual running game (which, man, is that pretty
sweet) will help, but they still need to be able to huddle, walk up
to the line while the clock ticks away, take a breath, and execute
enough plays to sustain drives. Without at least being mediocre that
this, it's hard to see them winning another Super Bowl this year, no
matter how well the rest of the season goes.
On Aqib Talib
I don't know if
he'll be the missing piece that makes the Patriots defense
championship caliber, but, he won't tear the team apart. The big
risk of volatile players is that their behavior will lead to team
wide conflicts, but that hasn't happened with the Patriots. Whether
the high-risk player has worked out or not, none of them have brought
the team down with them. This probably part of why they were able to
get Talib for basically nothing. The Bucs were done with him, other
teams didn't want to risk it, and the Pats knew he'd either improve
their secondary or he wouldn't. Another reason why Bellicheck should
be talked about as an all time great.
The Big Gap in My
Sports Fall
Finally, a major
part of my sports Fall will be missing this year. For the past eight
years, the Lewiston Maineacs, a Quebec Major Junior Hockey Team,
played the Friday after Thanksgiving, so I was always in town to see
it. The whole fam would go and then I would go out with my friends
afterward. High quality hockey with a dose of hometown nostalgia.
Alas, for a whole host of reasons, the Maineacs were dissolved (right
before they were due for a playoff run) and the arena hasn't found a
replacement for them. The AHL Portland Pirates will play a few games
there over the winter, but not on this particular night. I think
Lewiston is a great fit for a junior team, and, assuming the overall
economy begins to improve and Lewiston hockey fans have learned a
little about the cycles of Junior Hockey, a team, maybe from Eastern
Junior Hockey League (which already has a team in Portland), should
be successful.
Thursday, November 1, 2012
Sisyphus, the Mountain and the Boulder: On the Life of David Foster Wallace
Biographies of
writers are strange beasts. A biography of an athlete tells the life
story of a person who then goes on to do something you can actually
narrate. The story of an athlete's life leads to athletic actions;
in a warrior's life to fighting, sometimes with explosions and stuff;
in a leader's life to a momentous decision. But with a writer, their
life all leads to a moment when they sit down alone and write. The
most important aspect of what a writer does, the reader of the
biography can go and experience directly by reading the book that
made said writer interesting in the first place. “Writer sits down
at the desk and cranks out a good grand of words,” generally
doesn't make for good reading. This challenge is intensified when
writing about David Foster Wallace. Unlike some well biographied
writers who either did interestingly-narratable things in addition to
their writing, or had such things happen around them, the story of
David Foster Wallace happened almost entirely in his brain. Whether
it was his brilliance or his depression, the conflict, the action,
the point of the life was interior rather than exterior. To call
Every Love Story is a Ghost Story an intellectual biography is almost
redundant; no other biography of David Foster Wallace is possible.
I'm not going to
review Every Love Story is a Ghost Story in my usual manner because,
unlike nearly every other genre, it's hard to know how good a
biography is when there's only one. You can say if it's well-written
or not, but you can't know how well the story is captured until
someone else tries to capture it. Instead, I'm going to share the
thoughts I had in response. (Which is a review in a way, of course,
as a bad book would have left me thinking very little at all.)
There is one writer
who I've read and who's life story I am familiar with who is a very,
very close analog, and for entirely forgivable reasons, this writer
was not mentioned once in the entire book. Though the British
post-modern writer B.S. Johnson was older than Wallace, they both
grappled with virtually the same questions and the same problems.
Johnson was essentially a direct heir of Beckett in the way Wallace
saw himself as an heir to Pynchon and DeLillo and, just as with
Wallace, Johnson saw as his greatest challenge, finding a way to tell
the truth about the world in a meaningful way. If there was any
major difference it was that Johnson was able to make a few more
experiments before mental illness combined with circumstance drove
him to suicide. He wrote darkly comic novels that played with
structure, form, and voice, building on the freedom of narrative
forged by Joyce and Beckett and going so far as to write a beautiful,
heartbreaking, moving story about a close friend dying of cancer that
is composed of individual unbound chapters that can be read in any
order. (If you've never read him, start with his brutally funny
Christie-Malry's Own Double Entry.) He experimented with television.
He struggled to find a way to make a living while writing, including
trying to forge a publishing contract that worked almost like a
traditional salary. He was occasionally the darling of the literary
media. And one day, he drew himself a bath, drank a bottle of red
wine and slit his wrists in the tub. I wonder where Wallace would
have gone with The Pale King if he'd read The Unfortunates, the book
of individually bound chapters. What might have happened if
Wallace's brain of Wittgenstein and Taylor, infinity and tennis,
Pynchon and DeLillo had he realized you could be sincere in any order
of event and actually break the binding of your story into a work
unlike anything anyone had written or read before.
The most interesting
and difficult aspect of Every Love Story for me was the conservative
turn Wallace took in his aesthetics before writing Infinite Jest, It
wasn't that he sought emotional connection with the reader or to
transcend the irony of the era for a productive sincerity, but that
he saw those goals as primary and mutually exclusive with cleverness,
intellectual athletics, and irony, essentially agreeing
wholeheartedly with his friend Jonathan Franzen's absurd, reactionary
idea of the “contract writer,” a concept susceptible to the kind
of obsessive recursive thinking at the root of so much of Wallace's
own anxiety; is your writing only concerned with meeting a contract
with the reader or are you writing so it seems likes your only
concerned with meeting a contract with the reader, which is way more
dishonest than writing in service to your own ideas in the first
place, but, I digress. One of the repeating phrases of this era in
Wallace's life was “Make the head beat like the heart,” but
somehow he didn't seem to understand the broad implications of the
image. But that is the magic behind great works of fiction; they are
independent of their root philosophies, they contain more, extend
beyond, have conversations with strangers, have substance that frees
the reader to think about other things than what is written, and
allows the reader to appreciate aspects of the work the original
author might despise or disagree with. He did not seem to truly
understand the potential of making the head beat like the heart, but,
in Infinite Jest, he met that potential nonetheless.
Did Michiko Kakutani
ever like something that took a risk or ever like the risky aspect of
a book she was generally positive about? I bring it up, because she
apparently really liked the biography of David Foster Wallace and yet
she only shows up in the book in quotes of negative reviews of
Wallace's work, reviews that, in my humble opinion, reflected her
unwillingness to put a shred of her own fucking effort into
understanding the book and not any kind of obtuseness or
intractability of Wallace's work itself. Sure, it doesn't lend
itself to review deadlines, but we need (or at least I love) books
that need more than one reading to understand.
Perhaps the most
personal, autobiographical image Wallace ever wrote, was of the
contortionist, the young man who committed himself to touching every
part of his body with his lips. Add a level of manic intensity and
speed up the iterations of effort, and you have, what I suspect, is
the most accurate image of Wallace's mind. Another version of this
kind of self-flagellation occurs in The Pale King in a character who
sweats a lot, who is then anxious about sweating a lot, whose anxiety
increases the likelihood of an attack of perspiration and then who
sculpts his entire life around managing and coping with these
attacks. Other stories talked more directly about mental illness,
but these images I think were portraits of his brain.
If there is any new
tragedy revealed by Every Love Story, it's that Wallace was never
able to transfer the lessons of recovery, that were so vital to both
his survival and his progression from the author of Broom of the System and Girl With Curious Hair to the author of Infinite Jest, to
coping with his mental illness. There is a limit, of course, to
thinking your way out of dangerous neuro-chemicals, but given that
addiction is usually treated as a mental illness and given Wallace's
exploration into Buddhism, mediation and Zen, one has to wonder if a
recovery mantra like “Your best thinking got you here,” might
have saved Wallace from the recursive thoughts that seemed to cripple
every aspect of his life. Of course, this might be less a limitation
of Wallace's imagination and more a limitation of the culture of
treatment at the time. I'm told by someone in the profession that it
is only very recently that the fields of addiction recovery and
psychological therapy are beginning to share their ideas and
techniques.
The Pale King and
the forthcoming essays collection will not be the end of Wallace's
published work. He was a prolific letter writer and we will see a
“selected” and a “complete” collection of his letters at some
point. Pay attention to that moment, even if you don't plan on
reading them, because it is quite likely that the collection of
Wallace's letters will be one of, if not the, last major collection
of letters ever published unless something drastic happens in our
culture.
We should understand
Wallace's suicide as a death deferred. Many times over his life he
almost didn't climb back out of the hole he fell in. It is a miracle
he survived his time in Cambridge, and the fact that he lived long
enough to write Infinite Jest, is a gift we should appreciate as
such. (So go read it.)
I'd like to circle
back to my introduction with a quote from Jonathan Coe's Like a Fiery Elephant, his biography of the previously mentioned B.S Johnson, and
one of the best literary biographies I've ever read. One bit of
context for the quote, Johnson made graphs of his days' writing
outputs. Emphasis in original.
And here we come up against the chief problem with literary biography: the thing that makes me, essentially, mistrust the genre...Take 17 August 1965, for instance. Johnson got involved in no literary bust-ups that day, wrote no fiery letters for me to quote. He did not go out and get hilariously drunk with a fellow author, to provide me a spiky anecdotal. He did not have a secret tryst with a beautiful journalist, leading to a torrid but eminently disclosable affair. (He was not, you will have gathered by now, the sort of person who had affairs.) No, he sat at his desk for six and a quarter hours, and wrote 1,700 words of Trawl. Boring, or what? But this is what writers do. Not only is it what they do, but it is what they do best, it is when they are happiest, it is when they are most themselves. If they did not do it, none of the other, superficial, gossipy stuff that fills up books like this would matter in the slightest. It is the essence of the thing. But this is the one thing I cannot write about, that I cannot make interesting. It shows up the whole process I am engaged upon for the potentially dishonest enterprise that it is...
All I can say is this. I know—from my own experience of writing—that 17 August, 1965 would have been a great day in B.S. Johnson's life. At the end of those six and a quarter hours, he would have felt exhilarated. He would have felt a degree and a quality of satisfaction that he felt in his short life only very rarely.” (p194-5)
Perhaps the greatest
tragedy of Wallace's life is that he never had a day like 17 August
1965, even when he had a day like that. Doubt. Anxiety.
Depression. Arrogance. Intelligence. It all swirled, coiled, and
combined into a state of being that needed to be surmounted, for
Wallace to simply go on. His life was Sisyphean, except that he was
Sisyphus, the mountain, and the boulder.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)