The Heresy of Modifying a Traditional Recipe

The Late Night Gourmet

The Late Night Gourmet

Home kook
Staff member
Joined
30 Mar 2017
Local time
3:21 PM
Messages
5,575
Location
Detroit, USA
Website
absolute0cooking.com
I think it's fair to say that we, as home cooks, often modify recipes when we make them. It's also fair to say that we sometimes take traditional recipes and modify those. Often, only the purists will know what's different, and mostly people don't care, as long as it tastes good.

But, the New York Times Cooking chef didn't realize she was triggering an international incident when she dared to present a Carbonara recipe with....tomatoes.

Carbonara has just four ingredients — egg, pork jowl, pecorino cheese, and pasta — and tomatoes are not among them. Chef Kay Chun "maybe had no idea the culinary third rail she was about to touch," writes Barbie Latza Nadeau in the Daily Beast. Reaction ranged from the comical ("the worst thing to happen to Italy since Super Mario tennis") to the official, with the Italian farmers' association Coldiretti calling this the "tip of the iceberg" in the "falsification" of Italian recipes.

Chun did mention early in her article that adding tomatoes wasn't traditional, but that alone was not sufficient to placate a whole country of offended purists.

Wow. I think tomatoes in a carbonara sounds like an excellent idea. When I saw reports of outrage, I thought the chef might have decided to use American cheese in place of parmigiano reggiano. That probably would have (and should have) resulted in a declaration of war. But, this?

I'm curious to hear what people think about all this, not just this one deviation from the recipe, but deviations from traditional recipes in general.
 
Modifying certain traditional foods seems to be sacrilege. Carbonara is one, and paella is another. Jaime Oliver got in hot water by putting chorizo in paella.

I'm not sure if I would like tomatoes in Carbonara, but I wouldn't get offended. Chorizo in paella sounds good, to me, even if it is not traditional.

As a home cook, I can get away with changing traditional recipes. If someone complains, I can just say, "Okay, don't eat it," and take their plate away. :laugh:

CD
 
She would have been fine if she didn't call it a carbonara. Personally, I am not picky about changing recipes and calling them whatever I like, but I understand some people are very strict about keep recipes faith to the original one (which recipe is THE original is often difficult to find, but that's another story...)
 
I have less than zero respect for tradition, and if someone tried to bust my chops for putting tomatoes in carbonara, I'd say, "Well, here's the address to the closest Italian restaurant, go enjoy your 'authentic' carbonara there, if it bothers you so much." 😒

I've ranted about this before, so I won't rehash it here. If I want to put bananas in gnocchi and call it carbonara, that's what I'm going to do, and if some purists get their knickers in a twist...well, all the better, AFAIC. :laugh:
 
TastyReuben said:
I have less than zero respect for tradition, and if someone tried to bust my chops for putting tomatoes in carbonara, I'd say, "Well, here's the address to the closest Italian restaurant, go enjoy your 'authentic' carbonara there, if it bothers you so much." 😒

I've ranted about this before, so I won't rehash it here. If I want to put bananas in gnocchi and call it carbonara, that's what I'm going to do, and if some purists get their knickers in a twist...well, all the better, AFAIC. :laugh:
Click to expand...

If you served me bananas in gnocchi and called it carbonara, I'd think you were delusional. I may not say anything, but I'd think it. Actually, I'd have the excuse of being allergic to bananas for not eating it. Forget tradition, that sounds awful.

On topic, if someone strays a little off traditional, I consider it "artistic license." But, changes can reach a point where I think you need to change the name. If someone were to present me with a bowl of pasta with chicken as the meat, and no eggs, and call it carbonara, my internal BS flag would go up. It may be a very good dish, but don't call it carbonara.

Chef Chun could have called her dish, "Pasta Carbonara with Tomatoes," and gotten away with that, IMO. I think Jaime Oliver could have been fine if he called his dish "paella with chorizo."

Think about this... If you had never had pasta carbonara, and ate Chef Chun's version, with no indication from her that she added tomatoes, what happens when you have a traditional carbonara? Do you think, "where's the tomatoes?" How many Americans grew up eating "goulash," and think it has ground beef and elbow macaroni in it? But, call it American Goulash, and it's clear that this is an American dish. When you get served a traditional Hungarian goulash, you know it is something different. There is a difference between being traditional, and being honest.

So, going back to the bananas and gnocchi, if you call it carbonara, your'e not just breaking from tradition, your'e being dishonest, IMO.

CD
 
Last edited:
caseydog said:
If you served me bananas in gnocchi and called it carbonara, I'd think you were delusional. I may not say anything, but I'd think it. Actually, I'd have the excuse of being allergic to bananas for not eating it. Forget tradition, that sounds awful.

On topic, if someone strays a little off traditional, I consider it "artistic license." But, changes can reach a point where I think you need to change the name. If someone were to present me with a bowl of pasta with chicken as the meat, and no eggs, and call it carbonara, my internal BS flag would go up. It may be a very good dish, but don't call it carbonara.

Chef Chun could have called her dish, "Pasta Carbonara with Tomatoes," and gotten away with that, IMO. I think Jaime Oliver could have been fine if he called his dish "paella with chorizo."

Think about this... If you had never had pasta carbonara, and ate Chef Chun's version, with no indication from her that she added tomatoes, what happens when you have a traditional carbonara? Do you think, "where's the tomatoes?" How many Americans grew up eating "goulash," and think it has ground beef and elbow macaroni in it? But, call it American Goulash, and it's clear that this is an American dish. When you get served a traditional Hungarian goulash, you know it is something different. There is a difference between being traditional, and being honest.

CD
Click to expand...

This is a honest clever reply. Nothing else to add
 
caseydog said:
Chef Chun could have called her dish, "Pasta Carbonara with Tomatoes," and gotten away with that, IMO. I think Jaime Oliver could have been fine if he called his dish "paella with chorizo."
Click to expand...

Yes...this is really the point of all this. I recall seeing countless cooking competitions where a contestant served a dish to the judges and called it something - say Hungarian Goulash - and the judges downgraded them if they, say, used ground beef. I used to think this was overly harsh, especially since the critique would often be, "It's delicious, but it's just not a Hungarian goulash."

But, I have come to accept that people are really territorial with their dishes. Carbonara is really clear-cut, but some things aren't. Philly Cheesesteak is an example of this.

I honestly get more annoyed when I see Authentic in the recipe title than I do if the recipe contains a different ingredient. But, I do crack up when I drive by a restaurant that puts Authentic on the name. There's a Mexican restaurant near my house that has Authentic Mexican Restaurant on their sign, and they're straight-up average when it comes to Americanized Mexican food. And, no, I wouldn't call them "authentic". I always think a restaurant is trying too hard when they have to tell you it's authentic. "American cheese on the nachos? It must be authentic because it says so on the sign!"
 
Last edited:
The Late Night Gourmet said:
Yes...this is really the point of all this. I recall seeing countless cooking competitions where a contestant served a dish to the judges and called it something - say Hungarian Goulash - and the judges downgraded them if they, say, used ground beef. I used to think this was overly harsh, especially since the critique would often be, "It's delicious, but it's just not a Hungarian goulash."

But, I have come to accept that people are really territorial with their dishes. Carbonara is really clear-cut, but some things aren't. Philly Cheesesteak is an example of this.

I honestly get more annoyed when I see people say Authentic in the recipe title than I do if the recipe contains a different ingredient. But, I do crack up when I drive by a restaurant that puts Authentic on the name (there's a Mexican restaurant near my house that has Authentic Mexican Restaurant on their sign, and they're straight-up average when it comes to Americanized Mexican food. And, no, I wouldn't call them "authentic".
Click to expand...

Authentic is a tricky word. If you make that claim, you better be able to back it up with some evidence.

Living in Texas, there is a difference between Chili, and Authentic Texas Chili. If you call your chili "Authentic Texas Chili," and it has kidney beans in it, that's not authentic. Cincinnati chili is served on spaghetti. Fine. Call it what it is, "Cincinnati Chili." Nothing wrong with that. It's "authentic" Cincinnati Chili."

CD
 
I just don't get caught up in names, for the most part. Serve me elbow macaroni and hamburger and call it goulash, fine, I'll eat it and say it's good. Serve me the goulash I get at the local Donauschwaben society and call it goulash, fine, I'll eat it and say it's good. I just don't care about names.

caseydog said:
Think about this... If you had never had pasta carbonara, and ate Chef Chun's version, with no indication from her that she added tomatoes, what happens when you have a traditional carbonara? Do you think, "where's the tomatoes?"
Click to expand...
I might think, "Hey, when I get this at home, it has tomatoes, and this one doesn't." but the big difference is that I wouldn't go on to think, "...and therefore, one of these is wrong." I might be disappointed, I might be ecstatic, but I wouldn't think that someone messed up.
 
caseydog said:
Authentic is a tricky word. If you make that claim, you better be able to back it up with some evidence.

Living in Texas, there is a difference between Chili, and Authentic Texas Chili. If you call your chili "Authentic Texas Chili," and it has kidney beans in it, that's not authentic. Cincinnati chili is served on spaghetti. Fine. Call it what it is, "Cincinnati Chili." Nothing wrong with that. It's "authentic" Cincinnati Chili."

CD
Click to expand...
But is that all that makes Texas chili "authentic," the absence of beans? Is that all that makes Cincinnati chili "authentic," serving it over spaghetti?

Of course not. I can tell you there are hundreds of local recipes for "authentic" Cincinnati chili, and Skyline will tell you it's theirs, and Price Hill Chili will tell you it's theirs, and Blue Ash Chili will tell you it's theirs, and Gramma Ina who lives down the road from me will tell you they're al wrong and it's hers.

If I make a chili and leave out the beans, but I make it with SPAM, is it "authentic" Texas chili? Probably not, but for some people, even changing from this pepper to that pepper, or adding in/omitting something else, and they'll tell you it's not authentic. Who's the keeper of what's authentic?

That's what makes "authentic" a completely pointless, useless word that, if I believed in censorship, would be totally eliminated from culinary discussions.

And now I'm ranting again... :laugh:
 
TastyReuben said:
I just don't get caught up in names, for the most part. Serve me elbow macaroni and hamburger and call it goulash, fine, I'll eat it and say it's good. Serve me the goulash I get at the local Donauschwaben society and call it goulash, fine, I'll eat it and say it's good. I just don't care about names.


I might think, "Hey, when I get this at home, it has tomatoes, and this one doesn't." but the big difference is that I wouldn't go on to think, "...and therefore, one of these is wrong." I might be disappointed, I might be ecstatic, but I wouldn't think that someone messed up.
Click to expand...

I think you missed my point. It is not about "messing up." It is about being honest.

I love cajun food. If a vegan wants to make gumbo with tofu, I'm okay with that. Call it what it is, Tofu Gumbo, or Vegan gumbo. But, it needs to, at least, use traditional cajun/creole seasonings -- and the trinity, of course -- if you want to call it gumbo. Otherwise, it is tofu soup.

CD
 
She had some bad luck. I guess every cook knows how to deal in this discussion, because it is a common topic in the kitchen. There is always an authentic, original way of one of those dishes and then the cook has to combine it with his own knowledge and create something you would like to eat. Recipes are important for recreating good meals and every guest who knows this meal should get what he imagines, but this is not controllable, not our Goal and could end in eternal boredom, because we can't have these nice discussions about our food.
Stay healthy
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom