I’ve never had a sweet tooth. When I was three, I somehow made the discovery that Pabst Blue Ribbon was far more to my liking than the cloying Hi-C that actually made my baby teeth feel like they were going to fly out of my head like tiny Chiclets. The family tale is that we’d be driving somewhere in our ’64 opalescent green Barracuda and I’d cry and demand that my father pull over someplace for a six pack because I was thirsty.

“Have you tried milk?” my grandmother asked.

“She won’t go near it,” my mother said. I still won’t. Raw. Fancy. Even if I know the name of the cow.

I never liked cookies, or donuts, or candy, or ice cream. My grandmother would pick me up after school and offer to take me to Baskin Robbins for an ice cream cone, and I wouldn’t hear of it: I wanted pizza. Or a few slices of ham from the gourmet shop on Austin Street. Or a grilled cheese from the lunch counter at McCrory’s, where my grandmother’s lady friend — a strawberry blonde, hair-netted Irish woman who my grandmother referred to as My Gentile Friend, and who I thought was named My Gentle Ben — worked.

But somehow, cake was different. It was still too sweet for me, and I didn’t — and don’t — like it, but it came with a sort of mystique that I was never quite able to put my finger on. Just the word — cake — has a kind of indescribable panache that makes one think of Mitteleuropa between the wars. If you were lucky enough to be stuck in Vienna and someone said the word “cake” to you, you might be in for something from Demel’s, like maybe Schwarzwalder Kirschtorte, or Sachertorte. If you were on Long Island, it might have been your Aunt Sadie’s apple cake, assuming you had an Aunt Sadie. And if you were in Brooklyn, it would have been a blackout cake from Ebinger’s, which people still swoon over after all these years since the place closed.

At some point when I was a kid, I took the concept of cake as a metaphor for having company in, and while I didn’t like cake, I did like our neighbors, especially a couple called Alan and Janice — he was an American prone to growing his sideburns long and wearing Nehru jackets, she was from London and looked like Petula Clark. When my parents and I walked our dog after dinner and ran into Alan and Janice walking their dog, my father often said why don’t you come up for coffee and cake? And they’d bring their dog back home, and a few minutes later our doorbell would ring, and my mother would be lifting a round coffee cake out of its white cardboard box, putting it on an antique footed cake plate and brewing a pot of Sanka. It seemed so pleasant a ritual that whenever my parents and I walked the dog and ran into other neighbors and they didn’t ask them in, I would.

I’d say, “Why don’t you come in for some coffee and cake?” while my parents fumbled around, looking hot and embarrassed that the invitation had just been extended by a four year old.

But it was clear to me, even then, that the possibility of cake, for whatever reason, offered some semblance of comfort in what could be an otherwise unruly world; the artist Maira Kalman — my absolute favorite — has written about this fact extensively, and in our hallway, we have one of her illustrations that I pulled out of a magazine a few years ago and framed. It’s a sort of still life of mundanity: a vase, a teacup, a bowl, a package wrapped in string. And it says,

Don’t talk to me about luxury. O.K, you can but forget it.  You must know that the only real luxury is TIME. Time and a cup of tea. And a pear or an apple. Maybe a little cake. That is enough.

And for some reason, a little bit of cake seems like enough. So a couple of weekends ago, when Susan went up to her mother’s on a Saturday night and I was alone, and things in the house were very quiet and I found myself feeling a bit punky about it all, I was compelled to make a cake, for the first time in my life. Not for me — it’s too sweet for me — but for Susan’s mother who, minute by minute, seems to be getting much older and forgetful of the fact that once, not too long ago, she mostly approved of the woman her daughter chose to make a life with.

When I arrived at Helen’s house with Molly Wizenberg’s appropriately-named The Winning Hearts and Minds cake, Helen gaped at it.

“It’s beautiful,” she said. “Where did you buy it?”

“I made it for you,” I told her.

“Go on—-”

“No really—”

“You don’t bake. And you hate cake,” she said.

It was like the geriatric version of Green Eggs and Ham.

“I do bake. And I don’t hate cake. It’s just too sweet for me. But it doesn’t matter, since it’s for you.”

“You’re sure you didn’t buy it?”

I sliced her a piece, and one for Susan, and the smallest sliver for me, like it was a sacrament that might — just for a few minutes — make things okay again.

Because cake seems to have that effect on people.

The Winning Hearts and Minds Cake

(from A Homemade Life, by Molly Wizenberg)

Even for a non-cake lover like me, this was irresistible: dense, chocolatey, and almost brownie-like in consistency. Molly swears that it’s actually improved by freezing, and then thawing for 24 hours. When I told Susan that, she said, “Right. Assuming you don’t eat it while it’s still warm.”

Makes 6 to 8 servings

7 ounces bittersweet chocolate, finely chopped

1 – 3/4 sticks unsalted butter, cut into half inch cubes (I used Plugra)

1 cup plus 2 tablespoons granulated sugar

5 large eggs

1 tablespoon unbleached flour

Lightly sweetened whipped cream, for serving

Preheat the oven to 375 degrees F and butter an 8-inch round cake pan. Line the bottom of the pan with a round of parchment paper, and butter it as well.

Place the chocolate and butter together in a medium saucepan set over very low heat (or a double boiler), and melt, stirring, until smooth (or alternatively use a microwave set on high for 30 seconds, but we don’t have one). When the mixture is smooth, add the sugar, stirring well to incorporate.

Set the batter aside to cool for 5 minutes. Then add the eggs one by one, stirring well after each addition. Add the flour and stir to mix well.

Pour the batter into the prepared pan, and bake for about 25 minutes, or until the top is lightly crackled, the edges are puffed, and the center of the cake looks set.

Remove the cake from the oven to a cooling rack, and let it cool in the pan for 15 minutes. Carefully turn it out of the pan and then flip it onto a serving plate, so that the crackly side faces up.

Cool completely before serving, preferably with lightly sweetened whipped cream.

So The New Yorker showed up last night and on page 53 is a cartoon showing two Zen Buddhist monks, one wearing a fake arrow through his head and a funny nose and glasses. He says to the other monk, who is serious and dour, “Tell me the truth — have I ever made tea come out of your nose?”

I sent it along to many of my friends, with the predictable, self-congratulatory guffawing that one might expect would accompany an out of context New Yorker cartoon. Still, I couldn’t stop reading it and re-reading it and laughing myself silly in a slightly hysterical manner.

“Isn’t this funny–?” I wrote to my friends, several of whom are devout Buddhists with serious practices. “I mean, isn’t this really funny?”

Mostly they agreed, but when I wouldn’t just let it go and get on with my day, they got worried, and frankly, so did I. But for some reason, it hit home, and not because I’m a Buddhist in the way that so many of us claim to be: the sorta-kinda-urban-trendy-Buddhist-until-someone-cuts-me-off-in-traffic-and-then-they’re-an-asshole way, no matter how many Made in China Tibetan trinkets we buy from Anthropologie.

Anyway, I realized that over the last few weeks, I’ve been caught up in a culinary swirl of what Jim Harrison, in The Raw and the Cooked, called a “sump of neuroticism.” The food world has absolutely always been a fount of indiscrete in-fighting and cat-calling and judgement-passing, way back to the days when Julia Child and M.F.K. Fisher supposedly got a colleague dumped from a high-profile Time-Life project because they didn’t like him. And, as I wrote in a recent post, it was Nika Hazelton who said, back in a 1968, Nora Ephron-authored New York Magazine article called Critics in the World of the Rising Souffle that ours “is a world of self-generating hysteria.” Indeed. And it doesn’t seem to be ending anytime soon.

In the last few weeks, there have been public battles over the validity of the locavore movement, and what, exactly, the word itself means: some say that you’re not a true locavore unless you only eat food that’s grown in your relatively immediate vicinity (10 miles? 20 miles? 50 miles?), which is fine, assuming you live in California. Others insist they’re locavores, except when they eat Prosciutto di Parma, or Thai fish sauce, or Burgundian Epoisses. It’s like me saying I’m a vegetarian, except for the small porcine fixation that drags me into the gutter every once in a while.

On the flipside, Ruth Reichl is now topping the masthead of a digitized luxury foods magazine/catalog featuring the work of some well-known writers and journalists (myself among them) side-by-side with click-and-purchase items like white asparagus and ramps and pastured beef from the other side of the country for sums that would make Cartier blush. The press ranted and shouted, even as those complaining likely eat those very foods at high-end restaurants for those very prices, without ever batting an eyelash or thinking twice about it. Beauty really is in the eye of the beholder.

The politics of food is always relative: Not long ago, I was at a cocktail party and walked headlong into an award-winning food politics expert who was nibbling on a previously frozen pig in a blanket while drinking a longneck Bud. Recently, I spent an hour or so watching a panel discussion between Alice Waters, Duff Goldman, and Anthony Bourdain that made my hair go straight up, until, silly me, I realized that Alice and Anthony were basically saying the same thing, albeit differently (very differently): That food is — and should be — important to each of us. That it’s a deeply personal thing. That it’s important to make good choices ethically and culturally and environmentally. But that it’s also about pure pleasure and great flavor and authenticity: if it wasn’t, Alice wouldn’t have opened Chez Panisse for the reasons she did, back in 1971, after falling in love with France.

But, to mangle Bourdain’s message, there are a whole lot of people out there whose idea of a great meal is the $1.99 dinner at Popeye’s because great is also a relative term: for them, great means it’s filling and it’s what they can afford. Our society, comprised of haves and have-mores (as George Bush II once so sensitively called them), has created a food system designed to really only feed rich people (like you and me) high quality, expensive, pristine, lush, organic, well-made, thoughtful products.  I don’t have to like Popeyes. I don’t have to eat Popeyes. But should I really pass judgement on the working mother of four who can’t possibly feed her children dinner any other way? I can’t. Would it be better to let them go to sleep hungry? Do I want to see her making better, smarter, healthier choices? Absolutely. The question is, Does she have any?

The key — and we all know this — is to make that high quality, pristine, lush food — the healthy, delicious, unprocessed stuff, unfettered by the likes of Monsanto — available to the masses, and then, to get the masses to eat it … assuming they even know how to cook it, and that’s an even bigger issue. The fact that the average person in this country doesn’t know how to cook themselves a beet, or a piece of fish, is a very serious bit of business. If we don’t rant and rave about that fact with the same kind of fervor that we attach to organics and locavorism, we’re sunk like the Titanic.

All of this said, and given the politicizing-by-necessity, and the factions, and the throw-downs; given the accusations and frequency of hyperbolic bullying and one-upsmanship (“You’re not a locavore; I’m a locavore because absolutely everything I eat is produced three miles away, whether it’s good or it’s dreck”); given the vast qualitative impasse between those that have and those that don’t; given all that, it’s very easy to get so serious that we wind up stumbling around in the dark. We forget what’s also important, and we lose the delicious lightness that makes food  — whether it’s a hotdog at my local drive-in (not organic, pretty definitely not pastured) or a plate of fried chicken at The Old Country Store in Lorman, Mississippi or the oysters and pearls at The French Laundrypleasurable in that almost corporeal way that found the mayor of repressed Lansquenet-sous-Tannes, in the movie Chocolat, rolling around in the window of the chocolaterie, passed out amidst the sweetness of life.

Food is a serious subject; it’s fraught, from almost every angle. But unless we haul ourselves back from the brink a little bit and balance politics with the lessons of culinary pleasure, we’ll find ourselves like the monks in the New Yorker cartoon: at risk of losing our humanity. And if we do, everything we eat — organic, local, high-end, low-end, conventional, processed — will be exactly the same: fuel.

 

 

 

indiebound

 

©2009, ©2010, Poor Man's Feast. All rights reserved. To reprint any content herein, including recipes and photography, please contact rights@poormansfeast.com