Trial & error. And voila... a batch of scones!

Those who know me know that I adore anything with greater than 1/2 a stick of butter per helping (but, no, I still cannot tolerate Paula Deen. AT ALL. She makes me want to take a drill to my ears to stop the infernal noise of her voice. And ice picks to my eyes to prevent them from ever seeing one of her creations in any stage of prep.). ANYWAY, for those that want it, here is the recipe that B, my mum & I have settled on as the household favorite. Taken from the Tartine cookbook & epicurious.com, with some random additions & adaptations:

BUTTERMILK SCONES (makes as many scones as you put your mind to, but approximately 12 large ones)
4 3/4 cups all-purpose flour
3/4 cup dried currants
1 tbsp. baking powder (I have mis-read this before & put in 1 tsp... they still came out pretty good)
3/4 tsp. baking soda
1/2 cup sugar (I use whatever fine grained sugar I have at hand, but not muscavado)
1/2 tsp. of salt (the original recipes call for 1 1/4 tsp. salt, but it doesn't do it for me... depending on how altered my state is, I can sometimes taste it, which sucks for a scone)
1 cup cold, unsalted butter (Can't stress this enough. COLD. I freeze a few sticks of butter simply for this reason)
1 1/2 cups buttermilk (you will need more than this. This is what the original Tartine recipe calls for, but I have ALWAYS ended up needing more... just add more little by little until the mixture is wet & somewhat sticky).
Grated zest of 1 lemon/lime/orange
Chocolate chips/chunks, according to taste
Coarse brown sugar to sprinkle on top

1. Preheat the oven to 400 degrees F and line a baking sheet with parchment paper (or the like).
2. Pour hot water into a small bowl and pour the currants inside, allowing them to plump up (about 10 minutes). Once they've softened and plumped, drain the currants.
3. Put the flour, baking soda, baking powder, salt & sugar into a food processor bowl.
4. Cut the butter into 1 inch cubes and add them to the dry ingredients in the bowl. Pulse the processor to combine, without breaking down the butter too much (you want the mixture to be coarse, with visible pea-sized pieces of butter).
5. Put the dry mixture into a (regular mixing) bowl, and pour in the buttermilk, lemon zest, currants & chocolate. Mix well (use your hands, as it's the best way to tell when it's time to stop adding liquid).
6. Dust a large cutting board, or the kitchen counter, with flour and place the dough onto it, shaping it into a long rectangle or round shape, depending on how you want to shape your scones. Cut into equal sized portions.
7. Sprinkle with coarse brown sugar.
8. Bake the scones for approximately 25 to 35 minutes (until the surface is lightly browned).
9. Pig out & enjoy subsequent food coma.

The Hesitant Baker

I have recently laid my hands on the 2 most essential things a fledgling baker is wont to crave:

- Solid recipes, preferably with tons of pictures to keep the motivation up
- Guinea pig, of the human variety, with a sturdy gastro-intestinal tract.

I won't add "stand mixer" to the list because I've owned that for ages, and ladled out nothing but dust from it, on occasion.

So far, the following things have been attempted, but FAR from perfected:

- Irish brown bread
- Irish soda bread (yes, they are different. According to Avoca cafe, anyway)
- Scones (recipes from Avoca AND Tartine... I prefer Tartine's, but only marginally!)
- Banana bread (Avoca recipe is my favorite)
- Several variations of chocolate cookies. The whole wheat-oatmeal ones from 101cookbooks.com is the reigning favorite at home, but it's a fickle audience. The recipe from David Lebowitz is pick 2, but it's looking like it may be the long-term favorite. Once I PERFECT a chocolate chip recipe, as infuriating a task as it seems, I'm passing it down the generations. I don't even care if the generations did not emerge from my loins... someone's getting the damn thing, whether they like it or not!

Baking has breathed new life into my desire to eat & live healthy. I urge anyone wishing to be on that quest to devote themselves to baking for a bit. Contrary to what may seem like common sense, the "lighter & fluffier" the product, the higher the chances that the ingredients are anything but. For instance, let's take the unassuming scone. Looks non-oily, flaky/crumbly & innocent, right? WRONG!! A COPIOUS quantity of butter makes its way into every batch... in fact, the recipe calls for making sure the butter is plenty, cold, not over-mixed, and left as pea size pieces to maximize the flaky texture. Yup, pea size pieces. Pea. Sized. Pieces (as in, plural). Now I don't care where you live, and the size of the peas you get there... pea sized pieces of butter are NOT small enough in ANY country to make me feel good about the union of them & my ass. Enough said. Now back to making a batch, and living vicariously by watching B eat them, and perhaps nibbling the edges. THANK GOD for the 2% spandex in these jeans.

Of reviews & reviewers...

So… I was reading some online reviews for restaurants & bars just the other day, with some wildly misplaced faith in the power of the collective experience & intellect, to ascertain whether the new restaurant we were heading to was any good. By the end of 10 mins, I knew little to nothing about the food at the hot new restaurant. It did, however, occur to me that there should be a method for capturing (and publishing) reviewer demographics. Just so one can put the reviews in perspective, y'know, and go straight to the correct section (informative, entertaining, bizarre & demented... you catch my drift) instead of trying to sift through reviews that begin with "OMG, this was the worst dinner EVER. Broke my stiletto heel on the pavement right outside, and the homeless did NOTHING to help me. I'm like, WTF?!... blah blah" to find out whether the gnocchi was fluffy enough. I have concluded that MOST reviews for eating or drinking establishments don’t even purport to address anything related to the wares offered by the business. As an example, most restaurant reviews are about the date that brought them there, the dishiness quotient of the server, the fact that the neighboring table was too loud or having a much better time than the reviewer, etc etc. Anyway, I digress. I'm thinking that the demographics should be slotted according to criteria more apt & contemporary than the usual yawn-inducing age/education/salary ones, as these review sites have proven that none of those can guarantee a brain or the ability to put it to use. Perhaps some options such as these?
- I'm a generally malcontent cow...check out my other reviews for a real dose of bile. Nothing could make me happy. When I'm not writing these reviews, I am seething about why nobody will date me.
- I like to put down "I work in this industry" in my reviews to gain credibility, but what I really mean is that I'm the ONLY ONE who works in this industry. The rest of the lazy fucks are just out to get my overtime pay. Which I would achieve in just the time it takes me to turn one order around
- I have daddy issues and/or will do ANYTHING for the attention I was denied in my childhood/youth. This needlessly slutty review for a gelato shop is just the tip of the iceberg
- Wait, this ISN'T a dating site? Really? So I shouldn't mention that I am single, fabulous, and hint at my amazing sexual vigor in every post?
- Nobody caters to me in this new city, esp. not the merchants. I want my mommy!!