French term (edited): marrons glacés

Nancy, in the UK I've only ever heard these called 'marrons glacés'.

I suppose you could call them 'candied chestnuts' if you wanted to explain what they are, but I honestly think they are only ever known by their FR name.

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 30 mins (2008-07-11 23:03:08 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

Seeing this question brought a wave of nostalgia over me. My Mum used to love these — it was probably one of the first French expressions I ever learnt, with a wonderfully evocative air of exoticism about it. In the 1930's, her first husband would always bring some back from her when he returned from his 'continental' travels. Personally, I've never liked the ghastly, sickly-sweet things — I much prefer them 'nature', gathered fresh from the surrounding woods and painstakingly prepared during long autumn 'veillées' round the fire.

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 34 mins (2008-07-11 23:07:19 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

To respond at greater length to David's comments: yes, I am certainly familiar with the idea of 'glazing' as being in essence some kind of coating — that much is certainly the same this side of the Pond.

My real quibble is simply the fact that 'marrons glacés' simply aren't like that — of all the examples I've personally encountered in over 40 years, not one has been really 'coated' as such — the whole point of them is that they are steeped in sugar solution for so long that they can no longer absorb any more; in that way, they very much resemble candied fruit etc.

I can't really imagine how they ever got to be called 'glacés' in FR, but perhaps originally they were made somewhat differently.

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 51 mins (2008-07-11 23:24:18 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

Then I think you'll have to say "marrons glacés [imported French candied chestnuts]" — or else include them in the section for 'hard-to-find ingredients'

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 57 mins (2008-07-11 23:30:35 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

Surely even North Amercian cooks can't be so stupid that they wouldn't say "Oh, what's that then?" and go and find out....

I look at a lot of US recipes on the internet, and am sometimes left scratching my head about certain of the ingredients — particularly ones that use proper names, like 'Graham crackers'

Surely, if anyone is serious about making the recipe, they will go to the trouble of finding out; and if not, then it won't matter too much if they are left slightly puzzled, as long as they've got the general idea. Just how far does one have to go wet-nursing people? Do we really need to explain that caviar is fish-eggs, or that foie-gras is the distended liver of force-fed poultry, or that champagne is fizzy white wine?

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 10 hrs (2008-07-12 09:26:47 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

I entirely take David M's point about the difference between helpful explanation and wet-nursing; but there can sometimes be a fine line between 'helpful' and 'drowning with information'.

But as I said at the outset, I believe the best course of action is to retain the FR name (since that is almost certainly what you would need to order if you wanted to get some, and what you would need to look up if you wanted to find out more about them), adding if necessary the concise description [candied chestnuts], if the style of the text permits, so that even uninfomed readers will at least have a vague notion of what sort of ingredient is involved.

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 14 hrs (2008-07-12 13:27:49 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

I'm sorry I seem to have upset some sensitive souls with my flippant remark about US cooks; it was an attempt at oblique humour, but I really should avoid trying to be witty late at night when I'm dog tired.

I was in fact only trying to say the reverse of what people seem to have read into it: I don't believe we should treat US cooks as being less resourceful than their overseas colleagues, and feel the need to patronize them with overly facile explanations, as others have also commented.

However, I repeat my original statement:

I advocate retaining the FR term, in conjunction with a brief explanation where feasible.