(no subject)

[charlottezweb]

In keeping with all the cooking conversations going on, my sister and I were chatting about my cooking ability or lack thereof.

Me: We had omelets with asparagus, goat cheese and mushrooms for breakfast.
Her: so does that mean acey cooked?

Me: (actually, I make a better omelet)
Her: yes, i know.
I'm guessing you don't think of omelettes as cooking.

Me: right
not really ingrediants
Her: because you can do it.
start counting up the things you can cook -- i think you'll be surprised.

Me: honestly, i don;t really consider anything with a recipe cooking
it's just following directions

So what do ya'all think? Does it count as cooking, in the sense of being a cook or telling people that you can cook, if you never just put ingrediants together?

Comments

[snippy]

Well, they do call it a cook book. That means you're cooking. Does not being able to knit unless you're following a pattern mean you can't knit? Surely that's not the case.

You may not be a creative cook, but you are nevertheless a cook.

[velochicdunord.livejournal.com]

I consider myself a good cook. I didn't start to "freeform" until I started hanging out with snigglers, because it didn't occur to me that you could put things together by taste alone.

My mom, trained as a dietitican, fed us young 'uns creatively and well, but sometimes the textures were a little.... off. That's not surprising, as this was the seventies and it was the early days of allergen cooking!

Spurred by the sniggler spark, I invested in a few ingredients dictionaries (books that describe different kinds of food materials) and technique books. The technique and food science books have increased my confidence in "freeforming". My cooking has become more creative. But I still usually start with a recipe, cook it a couple of times and then start experimenting with variations to suit my tastes, available ingredients and inclinations.

[velochicdunord.livejournal.com]

So yes, what you do is "cooking". It's preparing tasty food from scratch.

[dr-brat.livejournal.com]

My mother always said that if you can read and follow directions, you can cook, so to me the definition of cooking has always been following a recipe. That's how I cook, anyway. I do occasionally just throw things together, but that's stuff that I grew up watching Mom make rather than much of anything new.

I say you can cook.

[prairierabbit.livejournal.com]

Interesting. I thought that that *was* the definitition of "being a cook"--finding and following recipes in an organized way.

I've always thought I wasn't really a cook since I don't like to find and follow recipes. Throw things together, based on some reasonable basic knowledge? Sure! But while I *can* follow a recipe, I don't really like that process. Finding new recipes isn't something I do--I tend to prefer to go to the fridge and the cupboard and make food. (But I'm also good at omelettes! MMMMMmmmmMMM!)

[bethzebra.livejournal.com]

I definitely think it counts. There's usually a fair amount of knowledge involved in following recipes - at least many of the non-cooks I know seem to regard my ability to make cookies and brownies as akin to magic, and all it involves is following directions.

[eleanor.livejournal.com]

There are degrees of cooking skills, from people who nuke conveninece food to people who prepare multi-course dinner parties without help. I would maintain that being able to follow a recipe and understand what you're doing, on a basic level, is cooking. Omlettes, which require no recipe, fall under the heading of cooking.

[lcohen]

maybe the distinction you're drawing is really the difference between cooking and being a chef?

i do improvise, but when i'm cooking for my folks, for example, i always start from a recipe. and i usually make it the first time from the recipe and then i start having ideas about ways to change it. sometimes they work, sometimes they don't work as well.

i think what you do is cook ;-) .

[hkbear.livejournal.com]

I think the inability to cook would be more an inability to even follow a recipe with success. I actually know people like this. They complete all the steps required and still end in disaster. And even people trained as chefs have the occasional failure.

If you can follow a recipe with a good result, you're cooking.
If you randomly throw stuff together with a good result, you're cooking.

I think the "He/She can cook" is more subjective. When I say that about someone it really means they're a really good cook, creatively and with good technique. It's a matter of degrees in my opinion.
When I say "He/She can't cook" it more along the lines that, while they may have a few things come off well, it's not generally someone's food I want to eat. Case in point, the former Mrs. Shiflet.

[elissaann.livejournal.com]

Preparing food with or without a recipe, it's still cooking.

Reading music or improvising, it's still singing.

[lorres.livejournal.com]

Hm...after reading all this I think you're actually asking about being a *good* cook.

I think you're a good cook if it tastes good in the end, no matter if you follow a recipe or if you just throw things together. And maybe even more accurately, if people like to eat what you cook, you're a good cook.

Making it appealing is definitely a skill. So if they're snorking it down and you did more than warm it up, you're cooking.

[epi-lj.livejournal.com]

I think following recipes counts as cooking, for sure. I prefer 'winging it', myself, but that's a weird family attention deficit thing more than anything else. I think that someone who finds good recipes and executed them well is a great cook.

[pfunque.livejournal.com]

See- you're getting jiggy with the omletes. That is how the improvisation begins. Next you'll be making casseroles.

[charlottezweb.livejournal.com]

I told (threatened?) A that I would make him veggie delite casserole. Mmmmmmm!

I was just thinking about you today. Will call you this week. :)