I have to say that this semester was quite a disappointment despite the enormous amount of work that I have to do for it. Firstly, a subject on algorithms was so tame despite having a history for giving really challenging assignments that I figured I shouldn't have done it at all. There were other subjects in the past that demonstrated higher level algorithms than this subject taught. I can't really blamed the lecturer for making this move to make it brain-dead easy because the students in the class were really immature and irresponsible that left the lecturer with no choice but to dumb it down lest he was willing to fail more than 60% of the class. Waste of time #1. Secondly, a subject on secure electronic commerce (you know, the stuff that enables you to shop online without worrying your bank account hacked) is also remarkably tame. I took this subject on the advice of a friend who did the subject previously saying that there is a ton of stuff to learn over another subject I was considering. The assignments again barely put up a challenge and to be honest, I don't think I learned that much from it. Waste of time #2. And finally, a subject on mobile and wireless computing. While I realize that it is highly beneficial in this era where mobile devices are going to overtake desktop computers, there is very little emphasis on relatively up-to-date technology. Have I learned anything? Yes, but I say just minimally relevant. Waste of time #2.5.
But what is done, is done. Now on to the next hard thing, to get a job and some legal paper that says I can work.
In other news, Masterchef season is back and everyone's getting stoked about food once again. Contestants this time aren't as colourful as the previous seasons but the show kinda makes up for it in the things the contestants have to do. Somewhat related to food, I saw an episode where Gordon Ramsay toured South East Asia to learn more about styles and techniques used in these countries. So when he paid a visit to Malaysia, I'm naturally curious about what he thinks about Malaysian food. Because it's Gordon Ramsay, the following videos are probably NSFW. Plus hilarity ensues. And those reading this from Facebook, you really shouldn't be reading stuff here, embedded stuff doesn't show on Notes. Click "View Original Post" at the bottom to come to the blog and stay there.
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Rarely do I hear American or European chefs mention anything about Malaysian food. They can be very knowledgeable about Thai, Vietnamese, Chinese and Indian food but nothing registers on Malaysian food. The only comment I've heard about Malaysian food from a Westerner is Gary Mehigan from Masterchef. He seems to have some idea about what Malaysian food is about but even then I suspect that he doesn't really know the whole picture yet.
While this episode is funny on several levels, there's something I think many people will overlook. Mainly because of his hilarious attempt at pronouncing Malay phrases. His approach to something completely foreign got me thinking. And you know what that means...long analyses to come.
Watching the episode, you can see how Gordon struggles to come to terms with the idea of Malaysian food. Chefs, more specifically Western chefs, are trained to be precise with their measurements to maintain balance of flavours in their food. So when faced with the idea that most cooking in Malaysian households pride themselves to cook as they go, or a term used in the episode "agak-agak" (roughly translated, roughly), people get lost. At this point I finally understood why my dad and my Penang relatives never really have recipes for their awesome nyonya dishes whereas we younger generation are so obsessed by having a recipe. It is of course all to do with the convenience and the apparent fail-safe notion of a recipe because we want results , we want them now and we want them good. And with the big boom in cooking shows and reality cooking competitions, the importance of having a recipe has skyrocketed in value. Today, when you cook a dish that is fantastic the first thing friends do is ask for the recipe.
I'm not saying that recipes are bad but I think the over-dependence of recipes is bad. Recipes are a bit like the user manual that come with a computer, they tell you what to do with your computer but there is so much that you can do with it that is not listed in the manual. And of course, there are techniques that can be highly useful but not emphasized in the manual because of the nature of a manual. Likewise with cooking and recipes, there is so much more to just reading the instructions that you can do with food to create new and interesting dishes. So how should we approach cooking then if the idea is not on recipes?
For Gordon it is a bit of an advantage for him being trained as a chef but let me spell it out for you. Taste. Texture. Technique. Taste is oh so important and one that we all can quickly identify as a big part of liking a dish and of course criticize. The balance of sweet, sour, salty, umami, bitter, spicy, tartness etc is key for a delicious dish. But the lesser know thing to take with is knowledge of flavour pairings, what goes well with what. That I think is an underrated skill to have and as important, if not more, to have than a refined taste especially when you are doing the cooking. That is of course hard to get it right and requires lots of experience since there is a combinatorial explosion of possibilities of pairings but there are some things that can help reduce the possibilities down a bit with some taste fundamentals.
Texture. Crunchy, silky smooth, creamy, melt-in-your-mouth, firm, juicy, hot, cold, "bite". Vocabulary to describe textures when eating something. Again I think it is one of those underrated skills to have. It is one of those things that you subconsciously knew when munching on that kangkong belachan. Without the dried shrimp or the fried shallots added to it, you knew that something was missing. Even if you manage to encapsulate the flavours of the dried shrimp and fried shallots in the dish without actually using the actual items, you'd still think that something is missing. Something crunchy is needed, something of a firmer texture is needed. Well trained chefs have always had the need to think about textures just as important as the taste itself. That doesn't mean that simple cooks like us can't think about it as well.
Technique. The toolbox for realizing the taste and textures of a dish. Everyone using a recipe will definitely encounter a technique to preparing a dish as stated in the step by step manual. But, yet again the lesser known skill under this umbrella is how and why do they work. You can think of technique as the scientist in the room, together with the art critic (taste) and the fashion designer (texture). If you don't understand how a technique works and why, you'd only know how to use it under one or two circumstances. That is if everything works. Knowing how and why it doesn't work is just as useful as how and why it does work. That is a broader and encompassing thing to have rather than following the technique steps on a recipe.
These three things combined well will almost always create a spectacular dish. Of course easier said then done, but at least there is a plan. While there is still merit in being very precise about your measurements (like in molecular gastronomy, if you are not precise, you are screwed), it is not useful to stick to that all the time. Ultimately, that's how Gordon started to understand Malaysian food, going back to the three T's mentioned above. That allowed him the freedom to modify dishes he encountered earlier and to refine it into something a bit better while still keeping true to the intended flavours. He may not be an expert in Malaysian cooking now (one, he is not an aunty) at least he has a broader view than just satay, laksa and rendang.
To the Asians reading this, you might say what is the big deal. How can a foreigner possibly replicate our kind of food? Why the hell is this post so damn long? I'd say it is a big deal because I think we have been approaching food in the wrong direction, at least in cooking. We forget that cooking is one of those science meets art discipline, that it needs both to succeed. We also forget that cooking is never about the recipes but the food. So, the next time you are cooking to a recipe, relax a little. Cook with your eyes and your taste. You'll learn flavour pairings very fast whether you succeed or not. Unless your recipe demanded the use of liquid nitrogen or 63.7 degree eggs.
The second question, don't you think that is being ignorant? You might say that Western style cooking is easy, simple (this is what my mother would say) which is why we can cook theirs, but ours...oh no, we've got a lot of spices, complex flavours, ridiculous techniques etc. Plus lots of our food are very cultural or historical, they can never get our food. First, for every dish you claim to be complex I can give you a traditional "Western" dish that is equally complex that has been around for just as long and equally cultural and historical in its origins. Argument invalidated. Using the three T's above, you can reconstruct just about any dish on planet Earth so just about anyone can replicate our so-called complex dishes. It may take awhile for them to get the cultural aspect of food but that is just a minor setback and nothing too high for them. The same can be said for us in the other direction.
Posts
