The problem with this one is that the English translation (at least the one I had before I tossed it) is an abomination - it's ''adapted for American kitchen''. It's not that there are errors, no, it's not about that at all. It's that it's a completely different book, with different recipes, Americanised. Apparently some American editor thought he was better than Pellaprat and took liberties he should not have taken. A similar problem with La Cuisine by Raymond Oliver. It completely baffles me why they do this, but those editors have zero respect.The Great Book of French Cuisine by Henri Paul Pellaprat
I suppose someone should have mentioned Escoffier. Certainly a classic French cookbook and the chapters have plenty of useful information.
But I have found the dishes to be dated and rigid and while the individual techniques and general knowledge are worth knowing, to focus on creating a particular numbered recipe does not really equip anyone to deal with cooking in a more spontaneous, creative or generally useful way when the end goal is simply to "be able to cook"
Which to me means being able to prepare a great meal with whatever you find on hand. If I can't find cockscombs or don't have truffles on hand, should I starve? if I don't have fresh oysters, is the dish called Norman sole completely ruined, despite my cooking the fish perfectly?
Perhaps an uptated. version is needed, with modern terminology for measurements and an ingredient list more in line with modern tastes.
I totally agree with everything. If someone came to my house and asked to borrow it, I wouldn't miss it one bit if they never brought it back.I have owned the Escoffier Guide Culinaire and personally haven't found it useful other than for historical reference or curiosity. A few years ago I parted with it and haven't missed it ever since. Even for a global reference, I prefer the Larousse Gastronomique.