Like you, I’m both a science person and culinary person (the kind of folks born with big wooden spoons in their mouths), and I often have a mixed set of emotions with regards to CI. I love it for it’s organization and it’s rigorous experimental style (as well as for it’s “mystery kitchen tool” section). That said, I find Mr. Kimball to represent a lot of qualities I hate about professional cooking experts, including a pervasive attitude of “my way is the best way” as well as the idea that somehow New England is far superior to everyone else. I’ve had great success with many of the CI recipes (and I use my New Best Recipe on a fairly reguar basis), but I also am the kind of person who has never stuck to a recipe in her life. So I guess I’ve never had a bland CI recipe, because if it looked like a bland recipe, I would change it.

This, I think, places me firmly on the side of “people that CI isn’t really meant for,” a side I suspect you’re on as well. Quite simply, and without trying to sound arrogant, I know too much about cooking and have spent too much time doing my own experiments to fit my own palate to really be the right audience. I can and do use the magazine for ideas, new approaches to guidelines, etc… I read several other magazines for the same reasons (heck, I use most cookbooks that way). It also keeps me from being too abstract for most of my friends, who wouldn’t want to make their own puff pastry just because it might be fun. But there are people that CI is really a good fit for - people who are trying to experiment, but have a really small comfort zone. They need to push the boundaries a little more slowly, and need to do so in a way that will produce consistent results, and usually for as little cost as possible. CI is definitely for them.

CI does fall very flat on non-European ethnic cuisine. Oddly enough, I find that other magazines over-”exotify” the same cuisines (I would suggest “Gourmet” in this category, as much as I love reading it)…. a solid working middle ground is often hard to come by. While I’ve found great magazines with a solid middle ground in Italian cuisine, there is no equivalent periodical (that I’ve found) for Asian cuisines (with the exception of Japanese - alas, the magazine is in Japanese, so a bit hard to follow).

So, yeah, I guess my point is that we’re the wrong audience for CI, and should really only ever use it as “grazing” material for our own experiments, rather than solid guides. For it’s given audience, however (especially those who have small comfort zones), I would argue that it’s a very useful source. The pervasive problems of “Orientalism” are an entirely different issue, but are definitely present at more levels than simply calling a shiitake “exotic.” Its disheartening, since I truly believe that the way to create understanding is through the sharing of food.

For the record, I really do understand why some people may feel uncomfortable going into Asian markets. I used to lead tours to a local supermarket sized Asian grocery store in Maryland, after all–tours for white suburbanites who wanted to buy authentic ingredients, but who were too intimidated to walk into an Asian store and pick out what they wanted and needed without a little push from someone knowledgable. So, I do get it.

The truth be told, while I dislike the Asian recipes presented in CI–for reasons I have already stated, what upsets me more is the -way- in which they are presented and written about. The overuse of the term “exotic” is not only redundant and lazy, it is objectionable because it presents Asian food as an inscrutable “other”–which, if one is not aware, how Asian -people- have been presented by Western society for generations. This sort of xenophobic, Western-centric behavior is unacceptable to me, and -that- is what grated on me worse than the idea that someone would even think to use dill pickles instead of Sichuan preserved vegetable in a dish.

I do want to point out, however, that as Persimmon, an Asian-American woman pointed out–there are plenty of simple Chinese recipes that -can- be made with grocery store ingredients–it just seems that CI’s writers and editors do not know that or care to present those recipes. Plenty of Asian-Americans also lived until recently in places which did not have Asian markets, so they had to adapt their native cuisines to what was available in local grocery stores. This has been happening for generations, but instead of CI investigating these recipes, they present recipes which cannot authentically be made with grocery store ingredients, and then have the audacity to say they are just as good as recipes made with the authentic ingredients.

Also–there is the issue that many fresh ingredients can be frozen for future use. Fresh galangal, lemongrass and lime leaves can be frozen with little loss of quality. I find that if I travel to a “big city” where these ingredients are available, I stock up, stick them in the freezer when I go home, and then can make authentic tom kha gai, which indeed does taste better than what one can get in many Thai restaurants, or at least just as good–anytime I want, without having to take a trip to the Asian market here in town.

I like the suggestion that one commenter posted: give an authentic version of the recipe, and then give an adapted one–that way readers who do and do not have access to a local Asian market are served. This also shows respect for Asian cultures, and, in my opinion, would make for a more interesting article.

Once again, I want to thank everyone who contributed to this discussion–it has been interesting reading the comments, especially the ones who disagree with me. While I still hold to my position on the issue, I do also recognize that there are those who value CI’s recipes.

FWIW–I am more fond of the Asian recipes presented in Fine Cooking–I also find the writing style to be much more respectful and engaging. Also, that magazine contains in-depth photo illustration of difficult techniques, and the writers tend to be professional chefs and cookbook writers, and thus, I tend to trust their experiences and authority more than those of the authors of CI’s articles.

My 2 cents.