Brooke D'Sousa

          Cooking today isn’t what it was when our parents and grandparents were learning the skills they would one day use to feed their families. It has grown from necessity into phenomenon with the rise in popularity of televised cooking shows and bake-off competitions. The techniques used to create some of these dishes were previously reserved for the professionals, but home cooks have risen through the ranks due to the ubiquity of food related media, and the growing ease of access to ingredients and required appliances. While amateurs are thrilled with their newfound skills, and dishes that have come to rival those of fine dining establishments, high-end chefs are continually looking for new ways to set themselves apart as professionals. The article “Incredible Edibles: The Mad Genius of Modernist Cuisine”, written by John Lanchester, discusses the publication of a book that in Lanchester’s opinion, successfully draws a clear line in the sand between home cooks and professional chefs.

 

          “Incredible Edibles: The Mad Genius of Modernist Cuisine” was published March 21, 2011 in The New Yorker magazine. Lanchester begins by introducing the man who, along with a team of chefs, penned five books that make up the series “Modernist Cuisine: The Art and Science of Cooking”, which Lanchester describes as “pharaonic” due to the “scale and ambition of the project.” He provides the reader with a quick but comprehensive background into the professional culinary world, and the evolution of techniques and ideals that have helped define these gastronomic practitioners. Lanchester’s descriptions of the various cooking techniques are quite textbook, giving the impression he considers his audience to have an elevated interest in the culinary arts, but realizes they’re still largely unfamiliar with the specifics and require more extensive explanations. He writes quite eloquently and mixes factual information and personal experiences in a way that drives home the revelation that home cooks are now out of their league in this brave new world of modernist cuisine.

​

          Quite early in the article, Lanchester recalls the story of one chef who created a palate cleansing precursor to the main entre by mixing lime juice, egg white, green tea and vodka, and dropping it into liquid nitrogen, which then turned it into a frozen meringue. The use of this example begins the separation between personal kitchens and professional establishments, as the resources necessary to create such techniques are not readily available to the everyday cook. These inventions lead to the coined term “molecular gastronomy”, which Lanchester and other chefs came to dislike because “it is alienating and makes what they do sound like scientific party tricks.” There is also the connotation that “all cooking is molecular", bridging the gap they would prefer to widen.

​

          The need for a new term was satisfied when “Modernist Cuisine” was published, as Lanchester points out that modernism, as it relates to the arts historically, created a fissure between advanced artists and everyone else, thus making it the most appropriate designation. Lanchester goes on to gush about the depth of the work with statements such as “thrillingly thorough” and “truly gorgeous photography” while mentioning the inclusion of culinary basics, and hundreds of pages of original material about classic cooking. But he is also quick to point out the price tag of six hundred and twenty-five dollars, transitioning the reader back into the reality that this book is not for them. The article in its entirety has the feel of a formal book review, but the author, understanding that this book isn’t for everyone, is really just throwing the reader a proverbial bone by sharing some of the knowledge befitting the audience. An example 3 of this is when he contributes the wisdom by “Modernist Cuisine” authors in regards to the best way to cook a steak (contrary to popular opinion), which is to flip it every fifteen seconds for a quicker, more even cook.

​

          Throughout the article, Lanchester persuades the reader by appealing to kairos, ethos, pathos, and logos. The author appeals to kairos with the timeliness of the article, as it comes just two weeks after the publication of the book “Modernist Cuisine: The Art and Science of Cooking.” He asserts ethos when he writes, “I speak with feeling, because I’ve spent quite a bit of time over the years doing mad-scientist experiments of a budding modernist type, and inflicting the results on my family.” In other words he is saying he is like the reader, having an interest in advanced techniques that he experiments with in his home kitchen. This lends credibility to his assessment that modernist cuisine is for pros only.

 

          Lanchester’s appeal to pathos can be found when he describes his attempt at reversespherical mozzarella balls. He chronicles his experiment and relays the results byway of his son’s reaction, which was that “the reconstructed reverse-spherical mozzarella had the texture of snot.” His attempt ended with a run for take-out. By sharing the story of his own family’s disappointment he further reinforces how high the bar has been set by renowned chefs.

         

          An appeal to logos was seen earlier when Lanchester mentions the cost of the book. It is less likely that a home cook would be willing to pay upwards of six hundred dollars for a book that its authors liken to a major reference piece or a college textbook. Another example that describes logos is when he comments on a recipe that was included for barbecue where the suggested equipment is anything but ordinary. The list of equipment included “a smoker, a sousvide bath, a centrifuge, a rotary evaporator, and liquid nitrogen.” This seems to say, in a very overt way, that unless you have these items just lying around, do not attempt this at home.

 

          The article effectively concludes by reminding the reader that while they have been left behind with the advent of modernist cuisine, they shouldn’t feel bad about it. This is reinforced when he writes, “the dance between the cook and the eater goes on longest at home, which is why we grow up loving a food from our first and most sustained encounter with it: nothing will ever beat your mom’s chicken, or meatloaf, or whatever it was.” He also takes a moment to point out the positive, in that we can anticipate tasting all sorts of new things that have yet to exist thanks to modernist cuisine. “Incredible Edibles: The Mad Genius of Modernist Cuisine” opened my eyes and my mind to the possibilities brought forth by true culinary professionals. I’m a new believer in the idea that home cooks may be able to elevate their game, but there really isn’t any competition between them and expert chefs.

 

 

Works Cited

 

Lanchester, J. (2011, March 21). Incredible Edibles: The Mad Genius of Modernist Cuisine. Retrieved from http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2011/03/21/incredible-edibles