I'm at a loss for words.
Oct. 26th, 2006 06:09 pmI'm watching an episode of Sandra Lee's Semi-Homemade cooking.
Look, I'm not a cook. At all. Nor a baker. I hate cooking. I'm awful at it. So really, I'm not one to criticize a cooking show. Except that...holy cow. This show completely boggles my mind.
The host claims that she is saving time. She seems to rely upon buying store-bought food, and then adding an extra ingredient to make it appear that she's made the food from scratch.
I believe, however, that this show is entirely devoted to the illusion of making cooked food look as if you have made it from scratch. It's a very strange niche to explore. How many women really want to buy packages of dried gravy and pass it off as real gravy? Are there really that many women who are interested in such tomfoolery?
This show is filled with "widgets," booze, an obsession with creating "tablescapes," and a relationship with buttermilk which, quite frankly, frightens me.
Worse yet, when I try to give this show the benefit of the doubt, thinking, well, perhaps single mothers or those who don't have a lot of time would enjoy this show, I run into a logistics problem. You see, her "recipes" call for all sorts of canned goods, store-bought prepared foods, extra ingredients, and strange, single-purpose tools. The problem? It all seems more expensive and less tasty than just making it from scratch.
Seriously. I know nothing about cooking, but I watch Rachel Ray once in a blue moon, and she has 30 minute meals which look tasty and simple. She has a recipe today for a mushroom salad which does not, as far as I can tell, contain a single prepared food, yet looks quite yummy, and probably doesn't take that long.
Compare that with Sandra's meal today, which included a berry pie made with frozen berries, canned pie filling, premade pie crusts, and an insane "widget" whose only purpose is to fake a lattice top for pies.
Who is her audience? Vain middle-class women who want to somehow appear like wonderful cooks, and have the money to spend on all of these extra ingredients? It's bizarre.
This is all
gillieweed's fault for pointing out this insane phenomenon.
Look, I'm not a cook. At all. Nor a baker. I hate cooking. I'm awful at it. So really, I'm not one to criticize a cooking show. Except that...holy cow. This show completely boggles my mind.
The host claims that she is saving time. She seems to rely upon buying store-bought food, and then adding an extra ingredient to make it appear that she's made the food from scratch.
I believe, however, that this show is entirely devoted to the illusion of making cooked food look as if you have made it from scratch. It's a very strange niche to explore. How many women really want to buy packages of dried gravy and pass it off as real gravy? Are there really that many women who are interested in such tomfoolery?
This show is filled with "widgets," booze, an obsession with creating "tablescapes," and a relationship with buttermilk which, quite frankly, frightens me.
Worse yet, when I try to give this show the benefit of the doubt, thinking, well, perhaps single mothers or those who don't have a lot of time would enjoy this show, I run into a logistics problem. You see, her "recipes" call for all sorts of canned goods, store-bought prepared foods, extra ingredients, and strange, single-purpose tools. The problem? It all seems more expensive and less tasty than just making it from scratch.
Seriously. I know nothing about cooking, but I watch Rachel Ray once in a blue moon, and she has 30 minute meals which look tasty and simple. She has a recipe today for a mushroom salad which does not, as far as I can tell, contain a single prepared food, yet looks quite yummy, and probably doesn't take that long.
Compare that with Sandra's meal today, which included a berry pie made with frozen berries, canned pie filling, premade pie crusts, and an insane "widget" whose only purpose is to fake a lattice top for pies.
Who is her audience? Vain middle-class women who want to somehow appear like wonderful cooks, and have the money to spend on all of these extra ingredients? It's bizarre.
This is all
(no subject)
Date: 2006-10-27 02:13 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-10-27 02:15 am (UTC)Wow, you're going to make poor souls actually try to write fictional tablescapes? You are cruel! Yet hilarious.
*laughs and laughs*
(no subject)
Date: 2006-10-27 02:17 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-10-27 02:35 pm (UTC)LOL! Haven't you seen her on the FN Holiday "All-Star" speshuls!!!
Not to be missed! The last one they made Booby Flay cook with her and she almost flambéd him. Fortunately, her own contribution was minimal, consisting of (appropriately enough) dips. They didn't even let her set the table! One of the decorators from HGTV was brought in to do the honors, which AMAZED the bubble-headed RayRay because the woman was OMG! Pregnant! and it's just AMAZING that she can DO THAT in HER CONDITION. Yeah, whatever, Rachael. Yummo, right?
And of course she had her own Semi Hodown Holiday during which she tried to poison children and gave the "crafts" to do which involved threading fishhooks though gumdrops (ok, paperclips but still), making holiday "punch" out of cream, cream, booze and cream, and creating a holiday meal menu of booze, appetizers, dessert (a "christmas tree" made of macaroons and candy cherries that ended up looking like a boob-tree) and a prime rib roast rolled in packaged ranch dressing mix.
Ho Ho Ho!
(no subject)
Date: 2006-10-27 03:37 pm (UTC)rofl!! That would have been hilarious! We could have gotten rid of them both in one fell swoop.
Yeah, whatever, Rachael. Yummo, right?
I detest the word yummo and all who utter it in a serious manner just on principle.
And of course she had her own Semi Hodown Holiday during which she tried to poison children
I'm dying!! That's hilarious.
a prime rib roast rolled in packaged ranch dressing mix.
Yes, she did the same thing for her chicken fried steak! Beautiful steaks, dipped in packaged ranch dressing. Or maybe the gravy was made out of it. Whatever. It looked worse than Cracker Barrel food.