I don’t know about the sauce, but Grandpa Bodoni was a commercial fisherman (except during Prohibition, when he was a rumrunner), and would take his sons out fishing with him when he could. And yes, they all got tired of seafood at the end of each trip.
I know the thread is a zombie, but for what it’s worth “marinara” in Australia means a seafood sauce. Those of us who travel also know that it doesn’t mean that in the US.
Language is odd, m’kay?
Is it just me or is this something that’s caught on in the US about 20 years ago? I don’t remember ever hearing about anything but seafood marinara up until then.
[quote=“Akatsukami, post:5, topic:54166”]
No, it’s because the fishermen who consumed it were working fishermen who:
[list=1]
[li]sold their catch to rich SOBs and therefore had no seafood left for themselves[/li][li]had to go out and get more seafood to sell to the rich SOBs, and therefore didn’t time to wait for a subtle, complex sauce[/li][/QUOTE]
You mean puttanseca doesn’t actually contain prostitutes, and marinara doesn’t actually contain seamen? :eek:
This is the explanation I’ve always heard; that fishermen sold their catch, and made the sauce without seafood in it.
As for marinara being a non-seafood sauce in America and Southern Italy, I think it’s important to note that it’s a non-seafood sauce in Southern Italy. Adding America to the sentence makes it a bit of a loaded statement. If they make it that way in Southern Italy, then it’s legitimately authentic. But…
As noted, in most places marinara sauce contains seafood. What we call marinara sauce here is, again, as noted, Neapolitan sauce. Marinara sauce may have been invented my Neapolitan sailors, so confusion is understandable.
Me? I want parts of deceased quadrupeds in or with my sauce.
Nah, it’s the prostitutes that contain semen.
However, vermicelli is actually made from little worms.
Naples is in Southern Italy, and it’s a seafood sauce there.
It’s a seafood sauce in Puglia, which is Southern Italy.
I sometimes think that certain cuisines from very specific areas of Italy, such as Naples or Palermo, have over time been transported to America through immigration and taken on a much bigger life of their own, so the names no longer relate to what is found in most parts of Italy outside the odd village. Nothing wrong or inauthentic about the food, just the natural development of names and cuisines.
For example, I had never heard of alfredo sauce until I joined this board, even though wiki tells me it was apparently invented by a restauranteur in Rome. It was popular with American tourists who took it home and made it famous in the US, whereas the name would draw puzzles in most of Italy. It’s still authentic, just that Italians would call it something different.
I worded that poorly. ISTM that Naples is in the northern part of Southern Italy, as opposed to between the heel and the instep. They’re definitely more in Southern Italy than San Franciscans are in Northern California.
Yeah, I’ve met a few. But we’re mostly pleasant.
I remember the great Pasta Jay’s controversy. I think they still put anchovies in their marinara, though they don’t claim it’s vegetarian anymore.
As an aside, we don’t usually eat there, since we typically don’t go out for pasta, but they do a pretty nice job with banquet catering. We had them do the food for my son’s bar mitzvah party a couple of years ago. Fourteen bucks a head for 2 kinds of pasta (meatless, but not veg, as above), salad, and crusty rolls. Good food and a lot cheaper than typical catering.
No offence, but that explanation defies all logic. After deducting for expenses, one fish, among a days catch, is virtually free, if a fisherman were to consume it. But instead we are supposed to believe that they sell all their fish and then (presumably) buy something else for dinner? :dubious:
If you were at sea for months, eating daily such delectable fare as fish omelets, fish tacos, and fish boiled in fish sauce, you’d probably want to eat something else, too.
My father’s father loved butterfish, and would bring that sort of fish home to be cooked in preference to just about any other sort of fish. I don’t think that he was out to sea for months, though. I got the impression that he was out for days and possibly a week or two at a time.
My father loved chicken fried steak.
For sure :p, but that kind of supports my argument that yea-olde fishermen ate fish just like they do today.
However, before refrigeration fishermen generally didn’t go to sea for longer than a night, so back on land lots of other foods were available. I’m just saying the small-scale professional fishermen around where I live eat fish for breakfast everyday when they come in after a nights fishing. They take some of the catch and put it on the habachi and that’s breakfast.
Yeah, I don’t buy it either. In the area of Southern Italy I frequent – Puglia – meat is a very small part of the local cuisine, as traditionally it would have been prohibitively expensive. Fish and vegetables are the staples and I can’t believe fishermen were the only locals who didn’t partake. You eat what you can catch and grow, not what you have to buy.