What category, pray tell–fried pastries? Because ask anyone to compare, say, a yeast beignet and a choux beignet, and then compare a choux beignet to a cherry fried pie, and see.
You’re acting ridiculous and are motivated by ignorance of how language works.
I disagree. One is sturdy and chewy, not particularly tender, not hollow, and dry in the same way a common doughnut is dry. It holds its shape when bitten into. It is without any distinctive flavor of its own, like glazed donuts are without any distinctive flavor of their own.
The other is a fragile, tender hollow ball, the lining of which is so moist it is nearly wet, and which tastes very clearly of the eggs that dominate the ingredients. When bitten into, it collapses.
In my opinion, thats as different as it gets when you have two fried wheat doughs.
And my analogy was poor because prime rib and hamburger are actually more alike; the major difference is just texture, since both are the identical ingredient of beef muscle.
Oh, and recipe searches are a poor way of determining what this country is serving as beignets. I had no encounter with the yeast variety until I was nearly 50 years old.
Then is there an alternate name for the fried choux paste version? ISTM that in a perfect world, someone should be able to order that kind without having to submit a treatise on the history of the beignet in order to establish what it is she wants to eat.
To be fair to Guin, I also thought that nearly two hours was a pretty long time to be in the loo, and I was about to start looking up GI specialists in the L.A. area, so I could suggest one to you.
Even if they don’t go according to the OP’s expectations, threads the get to page 2 are, by definition, successful.
Yeah. Here’s what you do: “Hey, are your beignets made from choux paste? Great, I’ll have five,” or whatever. Jesus Christ on a popsicle stick, that takes like five seconds (ten if the wait staff doesn’t know what “choux” is, and you have to say, “Never mind, actually, could I have a hot dog instead?”)
Look, I’ve had a similar experience. When I was younger and roadtripping, I got a craving for maple syrup, so I went to a pancake restaurant outside of Yellowstone and asked the waitress, “Do you have maple syrup for the pancakes?” When she told me yes, I ordered some, and was given Log Cabin syrup with them. I complained, and the waitress glared at me and said, “Nobody has actual maple syrup around here.”
So I gave a shitty tip, because it was like 90% her fault. If you think “maple syrup” just means “pancake syrup,” then that’s an insane question for a customer to ask at a pancake restaurant, and you should try to clarify the request.
But it was 10% my fault. So I went on the Internet and complained, trying to get the entire rest of the goddamned world to stop using “maple syrup” to refer to Log Cabin syrup.
Oh, wait, no I didn’t. Next time I wanted maple syrup, I said, “Hey, with your pancakes, do you have any real actual maple syrup, not like Log Cabin?” When I found a restaurant that said yes, I ordered pancakes and got delicious maple syrup.
The thing is, I know how to communicate. I know how language works. It does no good to think that common parlance is built by experts, to think that people can be scolded into speaking a particular way. Rather, a competent speaker of a language pays attention to how other speakers use and understand words and adapts accordingly.
That’s my reference for authenticity: Disney.
Pretty much.
The OP doesn’t say that I find myself showered with yeast risen beignets and I am lost as to how to prevent it. I can handle that just fine.
Contrary to the personal experience and belief of some of our participants, choux beignets are not some rare, obscure fossil that can only be special-ordered, they are widely available and in my experience are the dominant type. But this thread demonstrates that there are different expectations about what you will get when you order one.
As demonstrated by the quotes I gave a few posts ago, people are widely confused and ignorant. They are taking their ignorance and confusion and spreading it around on travel and food blogs.
We are here fighting ignorance every day. This is a little bit of ignorance fought.
You say that in a manner that suggests it is self-evident that Disney is a poor reference, that Disney has a reputation for doing a sloppy job.
Is that your observation and opinion? You’re entitled to it, but I don’t think it’s widely shared.
According to the author of this page:
Whether the attention to detail described here can be extended to the detail of what represents “the quintessential” NOLA beignet, I don’t know, as I said that’s up to the NOLA foodie community. But I offered the information because Disney was a big fan of the city and he decided on the choux version when recreating it, suggesting that choux beignets are served in New Orleans a little more than some people think.
Gah! The primary ignorance is yours, with your bizarrely-held thought that there’s one correct meaning of a word that according to your own multiple cites has multiple meanings.
Again: if you’re too, uh, refined to eat a risen biscuit, or a turnover that wasn’t actually turned over, or a cake that’s not beaten for at least fifteen minutes to create a sponge, or a beignet made with yeast, that’s on you. You’re welcome to your own dietary peculiarities. But when you say that beignets made with yeast aren’t beignets and are corruption of the language, you’re being ridiculous.
If you consider it ridiculous to prefer the precise over the ambiguous, the specific to the general, then I am.
It seems to me that there are many different recipes for beignets. In fact, while some are made of classic choux dough and some are many from yeast dough, the majority of the recipes I find are actually an uncooked batter leavened with baking powder. The OP’s own cites make it clear that the term beignet is commonly used to refer to all of these. In fact, just for fun, I looked up some chain donut restaurants in Paris on Yelp and found that the reviewers (who I assume are French since their reviews were in French) seemed to use the terms donut and beignet interchangeably. Certainly the pictures of beignets for sale in Paris are not universally of the choux type.
I would say that a beignet, in common parlance, is most akin to a doughnut. Certainly, there are different types of doughnuts, some with cake-like batters and some with yeast batters and most people concede that these are all doughnuts.
However, more important is that I have been racking my brain to figure out why the OP’s insistence on a certain definition of the word “beignet” seemed so familiar and so maddening and I have found it. Come with me beyond the looking glass.
No it isn’t. It is a very good indicator of what is being served and eaten in this country, as are menu listings. If you care to claim that the French variety are more commonly served in the US (they aren’t), then feel free to make your case. You have failed this far, and your ridiculous descriptions above are so desperate they aren’t worth responding to.
I’m talking about her attempt to set some sort of inane standard for a word that doesn’t mean what she wants it to, even according to her own cites. I don’t give a damn how long the thread is, but I suspect you probably already knew that.
I have made more of a case than anyone else in the thread, seeing as how I am the only one to have cited anything at all. When you show some support for your sweeping declarations of what the whole nation is doing, I will consider it and take it from there.
FYI, using Bing because the google doesn’t give me totals for some reason, probably mobile issue, beignet+choux = 362,000 results, beignet+yeast = 133,000 results.
That’s a terrible summary of your position. It’s not that you prefer the precise over the ambiguous. It’s that you seem to think language is precise, not ambiguous, to the extent that words have only one definition. Your insistence on condemning one definition of a word as “corrupt”, because you can’t cope with the idea of a word having multiple definitions, is what’s ridiculous.
Language is a phenomenally flexible tool, and one of its many functions is to achieve precision. Natural languages like ENglish don’t achieve precision through the use of individual words in isolation, however. If you prefer precision, you’ll need to use multiple words to do so. It has nothing to do with what you prefer and everything to do with how language actually works.
Unfortunately, your cites disagree with you. The very first one you put up conflicted with your assertion that beignets made with yeast aren’t beignets. I have demonstrated that beignet recipes on English speaking sites blow the French version out of the water, in terms of popularity.
And your search is ridiculous. The first search is of two French words, which would return an enormous amount of hits from French websites. Also, there are a lot of beignet recipes that use baking powder instead of yeast. You could try the search term “beignet egg” or “beignet recipe egg”, but the number of menus that contain beignets and eggs for breakfast are going to corrupt the search. My search is much more indicative of what people are eating and cooking. None of your cites even touch upon the relative popularity of the two versions in this country.
Surely what you’re talking about was labeled a French cruller? In these parts ordering a cruller and ordering a French Cruller would get you two very different baked goods.