Marie Antoinette's pastry slave ([info]mark356) wrote,
Settle a dispute my sister and her POSSLQ were having with me. After seeing the ads for the new giant M&Ms, my sister and her POSSLQ had an idea for super-giant M&Ms: just like a normal M&M is chocolate inside crispy candy, possibly with a peanut or something inside, a super-giant M&M would be a fist-sized doughnut hole inside chocolate inside crispy candy. To make it, you would make the doughnut, then after they're done and cool you'd dip them in tempered melted chocolate, then after that's cool and hard dip them again on the other side, because normal M&M's have chocolate on both sides, then when that chocolate has hardened again, since you probably don't have the carnauba wax you need to make an authentic M&M coating, dip them in colored confectioner's sugar glaze. (Actually, my sister called me with the instructions to make them for her ASAP!)

Now, my position on desserts in general is that although I love elaborate desserts (and this one isn't even that elaborate), if you're going to spend a lot of time or energy on something, you don't spend it making the thing look the most elegant; you spend it making the dessert itself as impressive as possible. If I were going to spend all afternoon making the best cake I could, I'd probably spend my time making a terrific real buttercream frosting (so-called "buttercream frosting" made with confectioner's sugar cannot compare) and making a filling myself on top of the stove. I wouldn't waste my time carefully constructing solid chocolate sidewalls and chocolate curls and ruffles to place on top. This position as it applies to the dessert in question is that even though it would be a nice dessert, it's just too much effort to carefully dip the doughnut holes in chocolate, dip them again after they cool into melted chocolate, dip those into melted chocolate again, then dip that into carefully colored glaze. If you want chocolate on doughnut with glaze on top, just dip them once in chocolate, and just drizzle the glaze on top! This dessert would taste good, but it would be lots and lots of effort to make, and most of that effort would have nothing to do with the flavor.

So I beg you, Flist, resolve the question:

Poll #555594 Giant M&Ms: yay or nay?
Open to: All, detailed results viewable to: All, participants: 15

Would you be for the kind of pastry my sister and her POSSLQ were advocating?

View Answers
Yay!
3 (20.0%)
Nay!
2 (13.3%)
Only if someone else makes them.
6 (40.0%)
POSSLQ! *snicker*
0 (0.0%)

  • Post a new comment

    Error

    Your IP address will be recorded 

  • 4 comments

[info]isilya

August 20 2005, 07:57:00 UTC 6 years ago

In my opinion, pure chocolate isn't a good topping for dessert: it sets hard and instead of having a soft, luscious mouth feel like ganache, you end up with something that cracks and crunches.

On the other hand, having just made lemon meringue layer cake -- I do feel like presentation, especially for a party, is important. You want something to look glorious as well as taste glorious.

Chocolate decoration is not my thing, but toffee shards are: and I love meringue for the burgeoning, bulging, golden buff bronze celebratory feel it brings.

I had always rather decorate with fresh fruit than with artifice, though.

[info]ksmeg

August 20 2005, 13:24:52 UTC 6 years ago

As much as I am generally for anything that is chocolate, and would probably eat this thing it if were presented to me, I have to say that my first reaction is that it would be rather difficult to eat with anything approaching dignity. I mean, it'd be a little too big for one bit, you'd have to bite into it. But then you've got this hard outer shell to get through, and then crumbs. And you'd have to pick it up with your fingers, so if you didn't eat it quickly, you'd get chocolate smudges all over your fingers.

Maybe if you made it with a small enough donut bit that it would be bite-size, but that seems like it would be less desserty and more sugary-snacky.

[info]flamesea

August 20 2005, 18:15:05 UTC 6 years ago

it sounds like a take on an inside out cream puff, only w/ the addition of crispy candy. i'd be interested in seeing it.
what the hell does POSSLQ stand for? i know who, but what does it stand for?

[info]mark356

August 20 2005, 18:41:08 UTC 6 years ago

POSSLQ- "Person of Opposite Sex Sharing Living Quarters". It was invented by the Census Beureau a couple of decades ago, when the rate of such people increased dramatically. I'm using it here because I love the acronym, and also because I don't think that any other word would be as accurate.
Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Facebook Twitter More login options
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…