FoodBanter.com - View Single Post - Which of the following do you think would be best warm?

at Thu, 22 Apr 2004 19:37:57 GMT in
>, (Davida
Chazan) wrote :

>(Please NOTE: My correct e-mail address is in my Signature) On Wed, 21
>Apr 2004 22:45:26 -0000, during the rec.food.chocolate Community News
>Flash (Alex Rast) reported:
>
>>at Wed, 21 Apr 2004 09:29:48 GMT in
>,
>><(Davida
>>Chazan) wrote :
>>
>>>On Wed, 21 Apr 2004 07:17:08 -0000,
>>>(Alex Rast) wrote:
>>...
>>>>Speaking of which, I'm noticing, at least so far, a decided
>>>>preference for the lighter, less dense options when served warm. ...
>>>
>>>I'm thinking that the idea is that it should melt into your mouth
>>>rather than having too chewy a consistency. ...

>>Possibly, but that wouldn't explain the non-interest in the Chocolate
>>Decadence option, which will have by far the most melt-in-your-mouth
>>consistency (by virtue of highest chocolate content, and minimum egg
>>and flour content).
>
>Perhaps that can be blamed on your description - the consistency of a
>truffle sounds a tad on the chewy side to me.

Are you thinking of something different from what I am? A chocolate truffle
is simply pure ganache - chocolate and cream mixed together. It's really
hard to imagine anything chocolate that melts in the mouth quite so ideally
- good truffles have the texture and melt of butter. In fact, its luxurious
texture is one of the major things that makes it generally considered to be
the very best chocolate confection of all. *Any* truffle that was chewy in
even the slightest way I'd consider so poor as to throw it out.

>>It's worth noting that the brownies, served warm, aren't going to be
>>especially chewy. ...
>>- they're soft and moist.
>
>Remember too that many people automatically think that a brownie will
>have walnuts in it - that might be what's keeping them away from that
>option.

Well, I did specify that it would be my own recipe - which definitely does
not specify walnuts. I've never considered walnuts to be automatic in
brownies - some have them, some don't. It's a bit like raisins in cinnamon
rolls: same thing: some have them, some don't. I don't get the impression
many people think walnuts are default in brownies. Those that do I imagine
are people who prefer it that way. I'm with you - I'm not fond of walnuts
in brownies - tends to distract from the chocolate.

>>I agree that something with a decidedly chewy consistency wouldn't
>>really be particularly good warm - although Pane Alla Cioccolata fresh
>>out of the oven is really, really good. That's an exception, however.
>
>See, now, I've never cared for the combination of bread and chocolate.
>Don't know why, actually. I do make a yeast cake with a chocolate
>filling that's OK, but its not my favorite.

Actually, Pane Alla Cioccolata isn't bread with a chocolate filling. It's a
bread that's actually chocolate through and through. You make a yeast dough
with a fair whack of cocoa to substitute for some of the flour, and bake at
a somewhat lower temperature than a regular bread.

As for bread and chocolate as a combination, it can be good - such as, for
instance, chocolate spread on toast (you need to have a good brand, such as
Dilettante's Ephemere Bittersweet), but by and large I do agree that it
isn't as good as some other chocolate and... combinations could be.

OK, so my initial guess about why the early votes were swinging one way
seems to have been incorrect. From what you're saying, the problem is that
people are inserting their own added assumptions about the nature of the
items. This is an issue I wrestle with all the time. When asking for
someone's opinion, how do you forestall them interpolating their own
preconceived notions on the subject, if those preconceived notions deal
with contingencies that won't apply in your situation? In other words, how
do you solicit an honest opinion rather than a knee-jerk reaction? (to put
the question somewhat brutally)

--
Alex Rast

(remove d., .7, not, and .NOSPAM to reply)