From Wash. Post food section: Cakey Vs. Fudgy
 

Here's a link to an article from today's Washington Post food section:

Cakey Vs. Fudgy
Light, airy and crumbly? Or dense, moist and intensely chocolate? Which is
the better brownie? No contest.
By Candy Sagon
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, October 8, 2003; Page F01
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2003Oct7.html


And there was a sidebar with some interesting brownie-baking tips:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2003Oct7.html


I'm having trouble accessing these links right now....don't know whether
it's my super-slow dial-up, or whether there are just too many folks reading
about Arnold this morning.

Enjoy!
Chris

From Wash. Post food section: Cakey Vs. Fudgy
 

On Wed, 8 Oct 2003 08:55:07 -0400, "Chris and Bob Neidecker"
> wrote:

>Here's a link to an article from today's Washington Post food section:
>
>Cakey Vs. Fudgy
>Light, airy and crumbly? Or dense, moist and intensely chocolate? Which is
>the better brownie? No contest.
>By Candy Sagon
>Washington Post Staff Writer
>Wednesday, October 8, 2003; Page F01
>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2003Oct7.html
>

OK, I disagree. I don't like fudgy brownies. Brownies shouldn't be
cake, nor should they be fudgy. And "gooey"??? Yech. Double yech.
Brownies are somewhere in between cake and non-leavened something,
and must have leavening. Asserting that they shouldn't, as the author
doesn, just tells me that the cook has tried and failed to make proper
brownies, and insisting that one must leave out the leavening is
sneaky sour grapes.

Whenever I see a recipe touted as the "densest, fudgiest, richest
brownies you've had" I know it's not for me :> If I want candy, I'll
eat candy.

Sue(tm)
Lead me not into temptation... I can find it myself!