Slow and funny.

[hannah]

Last night I made gado-gado from The Moosewood Cookbook, and I can't stop wondering if it'd be within the bounds of the guiding philosophies of said cookbook to adapt the recipe for meat inclusion. Because the recipe calls for two tablespoons of butter, and I have that much leftover schmaltz, so adapting it to have chicken instead of tofu for protein would be simple, and delicious.

Would that violate the entire base of ethics upon which the recipe was originally created? Or would that simply be pragmatic of me, to take advantage of what I have in the fridge, as the cookbook's recipe is simply one of thousands of methods of making the dish to begin with?

As for news from today, I finished up a large project for my job, which means, barring any finicky things tomorrow, I should be done with it for the year. A fringe benefit of working for an academic organization: no work whatsoever for August and December. Of course, the time's probably just going to go to farmer's markets, baking, job hunting and writing. But it'll be nice to know the time doesn't have to go to something else first.

Comments

[kass]

Pragmatic, I think. Also, mmmm, gado-gado. Om nom nom.

[missmollyetc]

Personally, I'd add the schmaltz and the chicken, and forget the cookbook's philosophies altogether. ::grins:: I always feel like food is best when it is utterly and pragmatically serving the needs and tastes of the people who eat it.

[camwyn]

I'm pretty sure it'd be better to use what you have than to let what you have go to waste and go out of your way to spend more.

[brewsternorth]

As a veggie myself, I'm fully for the pragmatism of it - goodness knows I've looked at non-veggie cookbooks with an eye to adapting them for dietary preferences and available ingredients. :)

[blackmare]

Oh, by all means, adapt it.

My little Southern self doesn't even know what gado-gado is, but it sounds good.