Unless you see the cook reach in the water and grab out the fish, there’s no garauntee the “fresh fish” in an ocean side restaurant is any fresher than the “fresh fish” bought in, say, a Chicago eatery thousands of miles from the ocean. Likely, both guys bought the fish at the same time from the same broker, the only difference being that the fish in Chicago spent about two hours on an airplane before arriving at your table, rather than in the cooler of your ocean-side restaurant.
Now, the further you get from an airfreight cargo hub the more likely your seafood is to be less than perfectly fresh, this is true, but the stance you can only get truly fresh fish on the beach ignores the realities of modern transportation and reeks of food snobbery.
[facial tic]
Um, ‘trendy’? I mean, it’s about as traditional a Japanese food as you can get, I don’t see how you can call it ‘trendy’ by any means, as much as you can call a sandwich a fad.
[/facial tic]
As other posters have pointed out, the thing that all
types of sushi have in common is vinegared rice. Many
types of sushi have no raw fish in them at all.
I have lived in Japan for 8 years and have eaten a lot
of sushi. I have never gotten food poisoning or
parasites from the raw fish (not that I know of, knock
on wood).
Even when raw fish sushi is not that great, it’s
almost never slimy or rotten. Rather, the bad stuff
will not have as much body, not as much spring to the
tooth, not as much fresh flavor. Another form of
not-so-great sushi is half-frozen stuff–a lot of
cheap maguro (tuna) is like this.
I am definitely not a maguro fan–the big tuna are
endangered anyway, and it just doesn’t taste that
great. But maguro is the archetypal sushi–I bet it
turns a lot of people off.
Here are some good non-raw-fish sushi, some of which
have been mentioned above:
I’ve resigned myself to the fact that I’m a middle-aged suburbanite - when I was younger, I was really into being trendy, but now I can’t be bothered. But I have always been timid about trying new foods and have had a few less-than-pleasant food moments. Oysters, for example (comedian Frank Skinner said they’re like “licking phlegm off a turtle” and I wholeheartedly agree).
Sushi appeals to me visually and theoretically, but I think a few of my seafood experiences have made me nervous about it. I liked the California roll, I figured out how much wasabi I can handle in one bite and I love the pickled ginger (which was not, by the way, pink). So I’m feeling bolder about all this, and knowing there’s a couple of non-raw-fish choices makes it even better.
Now my question is, how can you tell what is and isn’t raw fish? Sushi, maki, sashimi - are the names indicative of what’s inside?
Sashimi–always means raw fish slices without the rice. But there is also gyu-sashi (raw beef), reba-sashi (raw liver), tori-sashi (raw chicken), ba-sashi (raw horse meat!). Don’t worry, some of these I wouldn’t want myself. But ba-sashi is surprisingly good!
“Sashi” means stick, as with a knife, and “mi” means body or meat. You keep the sashi part when talking about non-fish slices.
BTW, I once made gari (pickled ginger) from scratch (just toss ginger slices with some sugar in rice vinegar), and it did indeed turn pink. A nice, light pink.
PS–I know what you mean about sushi seeming trendy. When I hear about Americans going out of their way to get it, I think they’re nuts. The really, really good stuff (not necessarily the expensive stuff) is OK once in a while here in Old Japan, but I would never go out of my way to get it in the US.
Oh yes, tamago (egg omelette) is another uncooked option.
No. Sushi, as has been previously mentioned refers to any dish made with vinegared rice. Sashimi is slices of raw fish, seafood or sometimes meat. “Maki” just means a “roll” in Japanese; spring rolls are called “haru maki” for instance.
A “nigiri” is a ball of rice, hence, a nigiri-zushi is sushi consisting of a small ball of rice with something resting on top. Nigiri and maki are by far the two most common forms of sushi in the west but there are plenty more.
A “gunkan”, meaning “warship” is sort of like a nigiri but with seaweed wrapped around the ball of rice to hold less consistent toppings such as roe, urchins, natto and various salads. Here are two urchin gunkan in front of some nigiri.
An “oshi-zushi” is made by placing a layer of rice and the toppings in a rectangular mold, “pressing” them and cutting them into cite-size cakes like this.
“Chirashi-zushi” doesn’t look like what most people imagine when they think “sushi”. Vinegared rice is served in a bowl with various toppings. One serving is a complete meal. A pic.
A “bo-zushi” (stick sushi) is made by rolling the rice in the shape of a stick and wrapping the fish (like mackarel) around it so it has more or less its original shape.
There’s ha-zushi which is a bit like a nigiri, but wrapped in a leaf (usually parsimon or magnolia).
Then there’s funa-zushi, which is essentially fish and rice fermented for about a year. It doesn’t look, or taste, like any other type of sushi. As a matter of fact, in doesn’t taste much like anything else in this world.
Aw nuts. Thanks for all that anyway (boy, some of this stuff is so pretty!) but now I’m all nervous again about the raw thing. So basically I should just question the server at the restaurant on that score?
Almost every sushi place I’ve ever been to has paper menus where you check off the pieces you want with a little pencil, so the sushi chef can make everyone’s plates. Each piece is identified by what goes in it, so it should be no surprise if something is raw (the norm) or cooked (it’ll tell you). You can just check off a few rolls or pieces that have the most appealing ingredients. Also, most restaurants also have posters or pictures on the tables of the more popular sushi rolls and pieces, so you can get an idea of what they’ll look like.
If it’s the whole “raw” thing that you just can’t get past, start with something like seared ahi. It’s a very mild fish, and the ginger sauce is spicy but not so spicy it overpowers the flavor of the fish.
This too shall pass. You promised to try it; you’re stuck buddy boy.
True and granted. The transportation costs do add to the final bill, though, and fresh fish is highly perishable. Many places settle for using frozen fish. (Some are a bit twonky about eking out that little extra time after the fish really isn’t all that fresh any more, too.) Not all, of course, but quite a few, IME. The taste just isn’t the same–and I eat frozen fish frequently and love it. My freezer’s stuffed with it, in fact. But since sushi isn’t cooked the quality of the fish really stands out.
I didn’t mean to come off as negative or snobbish. While sushi is a very traditional food in Japan it’s a fairly recent discovery for much of the US. Some places that do it don’t do it all that well, IMO. I have no idea what restaurant LifeOnWry is using so I just wanted to offer some comfort if she can’t really get into the sushi experience, nothing more.
LifeOnWry allow me to throw in another vote for unagi. It’s one of the best things I’ve ever eaten and believe I know eating. I’m bad with remembering the names of various sushi (heck, I don’t even know my cell phone number) but I also like the scallop that’s wrapped (I think) in salmon skin, the asparagus tempura thing and all the shrimp ones I’ve ever eaten. The only sushi I haven’t liked are squid and octopus. It’s a texture thing. The flavor was good but they were squishy/crunchy/gooey all rolled into one.
One of my local places has “Caterpillar” sushi which I’ve been thinking about ordering…is this just a euphemism for something else, of is this really the wiggly grubby leaf-munching caterpillar?
True. If you want really fresh seafood in Chicago you can get it, but you will pay for the privilege. Is it worth it? Only the diner can decide. But there are many restaurants in the area that are quite vocal about flying the fish in daily.
I also seem to recall that there are areas of the country that require fish intended to be sushi to be frozen at a particular temperature for a particular length of time in order to kill (or at least reduce) parasites. Would that affect flavor or texture? Possibly - freezing must be done properly in any case or it will affect the food and it may well be that in the case of sushi this does cause a flavor/texture difference… but the alternative in those locales is no sushi at all. This strikes me much as the folks who insist pasturized milk is “ruined” and “burnt” and otherwise “not milk”. Is this a difference most people would note, or not? Senistivity to subtle flavors is not evenly distributed in the population, after all. It may be there really are people who would never notice, some who would always notice, and most won’t notice unless it’s pointed out under ideal conditions.
Me, either. Natto is a very alien flavor to the average American… and many people are as leery of eating stuff with tentacles (even cooked) as they are of eating raw fish. Which is not to say either is bad, just as much or even more outside the mainstream US diet as nigiri and sashimi
Around here they call those “dragon rolls”
Yes.
Please do ask. As I said, the staff in sushi eateries are well aware that many people have either an aversion to or are hesistant about the raw fish angle. They will be happy to steer you to the choices you are most likely to enjoy.
As you noted, the food is also visualy appealing. Part of the art of sushi is proper visual presentation. The food is supposed to be a visual as well as a gustatory work of art. Feel free to gush about how lovely it all looks, how precisely and beautifully arranged, the colors, etc. It takes many years to become a sushi chef in the Japanese tradition, they work very hard at learning their craft, and enjoy customer appreciation.
[QUOTE=Broomstick]
True. If you want really fresh seafood in Chicago you can get it, but you will pay for the privilege. Is it worth it? Only the diner can decide. But there are many restaurants in the area that are quite vocal about flying the fish in daily.
I also seem to recall that there are areas of the country that require fish intended to be sushi to be frozen at a particular temperature for a particular length of time in order to kill (or at least reduce) parasites. Would that affect flavor or texture? Possibly - freezing must be done properly in any case or it will affect the food and it may well be that in the case of sushi this does cause a flavor/texture difference… but the alternative in those locales is no sushi at all. This strikes me much as the folks who insist pasturized milk is “ruined” and “burnt” and otherwise “not milk”. Is this a difference most people would note, or not? Senistivity to subtle flavors is not evenly distributed in the population, after all. It may be there really are people who would never notice, some who would always notice, and most won’t notice unless it’s pointed out under ideal conditions.
[QUOTE]
Eh, AFAIK, freezing causes ice crystals to form in the cells, and causes the cells to burst. This causes the flesh to become “mushy” or “slimy”, and it will definitely not be as firm. If you’re cooking it, it’s not such a big deal, but for eating it raw, it should be very noticable.
