Normally around this time of year I start thinking about progress on the "Six Delicious Years" of pies from Ken's awesome book, as well as planning new any interesting creations for the new year.
However, this year I think it's important to begin with a recipe that will not be posted on this blog: "Pie for all."
In a previous post I suggested that I'd make a pie that all people, regardless of food allergy, food philosophy or food restriction could share. I thought I was onto something with a diabetic-friendly apple pie in a vegan sorghum crust, and then I discovered the concept of fructose intolerance. Meanwhile, stricter interpretations of "locavore" and "Kosher" create incompatible restrictions for anything but a purpose-built farm. And, committed to pie-making as I am, No.
Also, that generally unoffensive apple pie would probably be very bland. With the ingredient list determined by what it cannot have, it's likely that the filling would include only apples, cinnamon and cornstarch. Because any allergy or rule gets a veto, no one's personal interests or taste could make much a stamp. Stifling creativity and accepting a "good-enough" pie is very much opposed to the goals of this baking blogger.
I think I've found the deeper lesson in all of this: hospitality is a deeply personal thing, and my "pie for all" plan is impersonal by design. Rather than asking what a guest wants and needs, my hope was to eliminate consideration of the specific guest in favor of a generic "one size fits all" dessert. Instead, discussing likes, dislikes and restrictions should be viewed as an important part of the process itself. A tasty dessert should be an end in itself, but a means of facilitating engagement and discussion. This process need not, and should not, have to wait until the pie leaves the oven.
There is, perhaps, a larger lesson in all this. Any attempt to make a "universal" rule is bound to fall into either blandness or get caught up in incompatible restrictions from various quarters. Consider the UN Anti-Blasphemy Resolution, to a Western audience such ideas are patently ridiculous, such ideas are throwbacks to the days before the Enlightenment made us aware that mixing church and state is bad for both. But to countries that base their legitimacy on a particular faith, blasphemy is no less a threat than corruption and authoritarian movements are to Western democracies. Personally, I fall on the Western side of this debate, but the larger point is that one rule is not sufficient for the entire world.
