Too much of a good thing is wonderful.
November 10th, 2008
There are many signs that a recipe is totally infallible. Among the best of these is the following: it calls for three times as much sugar as flour, and it calls for four times as much chocolate as sugar (which, for the mathematically inclined, does in fact mean twelve times as much chocolate as flour).
Also, I didn’t have any walnuts, so naturally I substituted in more chocolate.
There is, of course, no such thing as too much chocolate. But this comes wonderfully close.
I recommend against eating these cookies for breakfast (with eggnog) if you intend to bike to work immediately after.
Eggnog! I miss eggnog. I haven’t seen it in Holland.
Comment by An Expatriate — November 10, 2008 @ 1:56 pm
careful, beef might try to prove that there’s an upper bound to the chocolate to flour ratio given that cookieness is maintained.
Comment by rice — November 10, 2008 @ 5:00 pm
I think if either of you wants to take a stab at making cookies even more absurdly chocolately than this, that attempt can only make the world a better place. Fair warning though, these already stretch the limit of the cookie form — for instance I thought I was going to skip the refrigeration of the dough step, but it turned out the dough was more like batter without it…
Comment by pepper — November 11, 2008 @ 12:09 am
mmmm….pancookies…
Comment by rice — November 11, 2008 @ 7:42 am
this time the proof would rely on the empirical, rather than strange voodoo symbols. i guess i should start stocking up on flour and chocolate now. this is going to be a very expensive post… alas, how does one define “cookieness”?
Comment by beef — November 12, 2008 @ 2:35 pm