I've just finished a very happy-tasting dish of tofu, mushrooms, and
bean-sprouts sauté'd in a combination of mustard-oil and `mongolian
fire oil', and I'm remembering a conversation that I had with a
coworker about her plans to make `spicy fresh spring rolls'....
The recipe had called for a combination of chili-sauce and hot
mustard, and she had no hot mustard; her plan was to substitute some
Sriracha chili-sauce for the hot mustard, explaining that she `just
wanted something with a spicy kick to it'.
I had a certain difficulty comprehending that idea, though--because
chili-sauce and `hot' mustard don't actually taste anything like each
other, and the capsaicin
`burn' (at the point of contact) and the
AITC `burn' (in
the sinuses) are just completely different sensations. There's no
way that one can be used to create an experience equivalent to that of
the other. It's like substituting a pumpernickel bagel for a chocolate
doughnut--as fond as I am of both pumpernickel bagels and chocolate
doughnuts..., I would still think, if I were biting into the former
when expecting the latter, that I was biting into the worst-tasting
chocolate doughnut I'd ever had.
And there's the crux of my misunderstanding: what wasn't apparent to
me was that she didn't actually want to create an equivalent
experience--she actually didn't like the `mustard burn', and would
have preferred a modified version of the recipe that lacked that
sensation and gave her more of another sensation that she did like.
But it got me thinking: if I needed to pick something that was
similar to hot mustard--that did provide a similar experience--what
would I pick? And I think that I might pick... mint. A good strong
dose of (the right) mint, while it does provide some elements very
different from mustard, also provides a sort of `surprised' nasal
sensation that does bear a certain similarity to the `wasabi rush'.
Or is it just me?
[Reply]
|