> Also i dislike the idea of throwing together distinguished
> spirits, just for the hell of it. If I'm actively questioning the
> choices in my own recipes and those of others and constantly trying
> to think of ways to imrpove them or making them work better - I find
> it hard to be encouraged by stupendously putting together random
> ingredients.
And I would say this is a misconception on your part, as bad as judging a team
by its fans.
Several anti-posters have called the recipe random or brutish.
It may be true that the very first version was thrown together by chance or
serindipity, but that doesn't mean the actual result was bad.
Your preconceptions or your pallette may tell you combining 5 different taste
profiles in one result is always a bad idea, but I actually love the way that
real balance is produced from chaos.
Make a LIIT without the rum, and you have a worse drink - the gin comes
through too much. Without the gin, it's too sweet overall. Make it witout the
triple sec and it's a bit bland. I find it lacks a certain zing without the
tequila, but I won't raise that debate again.
THUS, all those ingredients have a reason for being there. Possibly it was
one time the result of randomy throwing everything together to get drunk
quick, but we know that 98% of those recipes do not catch on. This one did,
and its staying power DOES say something about its inherant worth as a recipe,
beyond even the social history and drinking habits we've identified here.
Who's to say it wasn't actually the result of a calculating mixologist
experimenting again and again to find what would happen if this was put with
this and this .. and this? We've all done it, and most often failed. The LIIT
is a fluke, but worthy of veneration just because of that!
.dan.