To those of you raised in or living in the American south, grits is (are?, okay, I'm going with plural from here on out, correct me Hoke or Robin if I'm wrong) pretty common food. You can get them with your breakfast in any coffee shop, however gummy and watery-flavored they might be on a short-order hot line. But to most of us not raised in the south, who have to spend $30 to have 5 lbs. of raw stone-ground product shipped to us (yes, that IS what I spent) because it's not a standard pantry item wherever it is we live and IF it exists at all it's only in the form of Quaker Instant, which is the same as nonexistent as far as this thread is concerned, grits are a precious, exotic food.
The first time I ever had grits was with breakfast, at The Court of Two Sisters in New Orleans. I was 19 and had travelled there by myself. The grits didn't come with the fruit plate I ordered, but I saw them included in other dishes and begged for a small bowl so I could taste this famous southern staple. And I loved them. About 20 years later, at Magnolia in Charleston, South Carolina, I had them in their version of the classic Shrimp and Grits. I swooned over that. More recently, a new restaurant in Bellingham whose chef/owner cooked under Emeril at the Commander's Palace in New Orleans, put Shrimp and Grits on his menu as an appie which I've ordered every single time I've eaten there. That's it. All the rest of the grits I've eaten in my life, I made myself.
But, no doubt because of the initial connection, I pretty much only serve them with special breakfasts, a side dish for ham steak and red eye gravy wherein the fond left in the pan from frying a pair of ham steaks in butter is deglazed with some of last night's red wine and a bit of coffee from my cup, and then mounted with more cold butter. A garnish of fresh chives or green onions is mandatory. And until I got this last batch from Anson Mills, my source was a comparatively speaking more processed version I used to buy in Southern California--it was all I could get. And which, though not instant, it, er
they, cooked faster with less liquid than this lovely stone-ground stuff does. For the ham breakfast, I have always preferred a non-creamy grit, using chicken broth cut with a bit of water for more flavor but not too much.
Which means that now that we have really cool grits here at Chez J, I'm kind of starting over but in typical-Jenise fashion I did not look at recipes but felt my way through it, starting with the same 4:1 ratio I use for stone-ground polenta. And I cooked them until they seemed done, about 20-25 minutes. But they were a bit too wet, so the next time I made them: 3:1. And that was just about perfect.
So the other day when I decided to make shrimp and grits, I sat down to look at my one book on Southern Cooking, the delightful love story of sorts in which a young white writer, Scott Peacock, documented the cooking of an elderly black woman, Edna Lewis. If you have not read it, you must. So deep was their bond that he ended up moving into her home and caring for her in her last days. And to my shock, I found that he, she, THEY reccomend 6:1 at about an hour and fifteen. So just now I compared the various recipes on Epicurious.com and found the times and amounts all over the place, none less than 4:1 and 45 minutes, except for one calling for yellow corn meal and 15 minutes. They probably just used Alber's. We can disregard that.
So clearly what I'm making is different from the accepted standard. Though I would defy you to look at a picture of what I made Sunday night and tell me you wouldn't eat that. (I can't provide the picture because, though I took one, in editing it I inadvertently deleted it.) The look, on the plate, matches what was served me in that game-changing meal at Magnolia around ten years or so ago, a thick and creamy puddle about 3/4" thick, too creamy to sit up like a mashed potato but sturdy enough to support four large shrimp without oozing to the edges of the plate.
Obviously, the longer they cook the more liquid they need, so the shorter timeline pretty much explains the lower liquid to grit ratio I have arrived at. So, are mine undercooked? My tongue says no. And my husband the southern boy who used to hate grits because all he knew were those flavorless coffee shop versions says no. They're cooked, not crunchy, but what you might call textureful, like a proper risotto or pasta cooked al dente. I might compare this result to the difference between cooking rice with only one cup of water (what I do) where the American standard is two--and the desired result is the so called "fluffy" which is, to my tastes, mushy and dilute in flavor.
So there, that's kind of what I know about grits. I love them. I cook them wrong and I'm unrepentant. Do feel free to inform me, however, what it is I'm missing by not cooking them wetter and longer. I'm all ears.