Maccarune, sautame 'ncanna!
Cathy:
I don't have anything that could really be called a counter opinion, just some minor notes and comments.
Cathy2 wrote:First off, I don't like angle hair pasta. It just cooks too fast. It tends to be sticky because it cooks too fast. I just don't like the stuff.
On (likely) too many occasions I have made snide comments about restaurateurs' fascination (and I guess a large segment of the restaurant-going population's fascination) with angel hair. Obviously the short cooking time would conceivably make it convenient in ways that other, slower cooking pasta is not, but it's so hard to get angel hair out and dressed and into the mouth before
al dente is just a distant memory, that it is to my mind generally not worth the effort. So I guess I agree, though I would add that angel hair and cappelini are fine in brothy dishes where the
al dente factor is less important. I like spaghettini (Neapolitan 'vermicelli') or fedelini for dishes where thin strands are appropriate.
To cook spaghetti, or any other pasta shape, I drop it into salted water at a rolling boil. I don't pay any homage to the time on the box. Once a suitable amount of time has passed, I guess we're talking experience here...
Experience is, of course the best tool, but the times on the packages of good Italian companies are quite reliable, insofar as if they say 10 minutes, that shape will cook to one's taste consistently in 9 or 10 or 11 minutes. Cheaper Italian brands probably don't control the quality of the wheat enough to be as consistent. I don't eat American pasta.
If I can see a white center in the middle, then it continues to cook. If the white is almost gone, then I keep close attention. Once the white has disapeered, then I ring the curtain down and remove the spaghetti. There is still bite to this spaghetti but not a crunchy bite --- I have decided this is my definition of al dente because I have never been quite certain what al dente means to the rest of the world; or is that Antonius???
My understanding is that
al dente gives some resistence. In southern Italy, especially Naples, pasta is eaten more
al dente than elsewhere in Italy and that texture would probably strike lots of people outside Italy as undercooked; it's not crunchy still -- that would be barbarous -- but it's just "very al dente". I like Neapolitan style but for, say, Greek pasta dishes, I do as the Greeks do and 'overcook' a bit.
I will keep a cup of liquid if I am going to sauce the spaghetti in a pot. The cup of liquid thins the sauce, which is not a biggie because the liquid continues to be absorbed by the spaghetti and the right texture returns.
The method I grew up with is to use a good size pan (I have a steel Dutch oven) to make the sauce in and one which is large enough to receive all of the pasta; the two cook together usually only very briefly but enough to allow for a little absorbtion of sauce by pasta; if the whole thing is too tight, than a little cooking water is added to restore. I think that's the same as what you're saying, no?
On the rare occasions I make fresh pasta, I have to keep an eye on cooking because it is fast.
Generally speaking you're absolutely right, but I usually make home-made pasta with semolina and no eggs; some of the shapes I make can actually take frighteningly long times to cook, especially if they have dried out a lot. At some point I realised that this is precisely why some of the earliest Neapolitan cookbooks (from the Renaissance) talk about cooking the pasta for
un' ora, presumably not litterally an hour but that likely just means 'a long time', i.e., perhaps a half hour. Note too that the best brands of Sicilian anelli need some 20-25 minutes to get to
al dente.
Ok, Antonius -- I'll sit back and wait for your (counter) opinion.
Eccola!
Ciao,
A
Alle Nerven exzitiert von dem gewürzten Wein -- Anwandlung von Todesahndungen -- Doppeltgänger --
- aus dem Tagebuch E.T.A. Hoffmanns, 6. Januar 1804.
________
Na sir is na seachain an cath.