One of the comments on the TWD (Tuesdays with Dorie for those of you new here) brownies entries from one of the many visitors there was that those Rum Raisin brownies were good, but Ina’s were better…Oooh. Them’s fighting words. And Rachel, she who bakes, swears by Ina’s..and we’ve discussed them before. We almost always get around to how her husband won’t eat them because of the THREE CUPS of walnuts in them..Being a brownie purist, I can empathize, Mike.

So I decided to make Barefoot Contessa’s Outrageous Brownies without three cups of walnuts. But first can we just take a moment to discuss the number of people the Contessa’s recipes feed? Gazillions. And Ina, gorgeous as she is, is not a rail. Dorie’s recipes feed, say, 12. 12 Madeleines. That’s all. Dorie? A rail. A gorgeous rail, but…a skinny baker. Who wants 12 madeleines? (Me. All twelve of ’em.) If you’ve got a single teen in the house, four go to him (hi, Ian!)…Dorie’s brownies. 16: that’s 16 2×2-inch squares. Ina’s Outrageous brownies? A half-sheet tray full….
Just an observation I’ve had to make.

Back to the brownies. Lots of butter, some unsweetened chocolate. Coffee. Did I say butter? Then you add extra chocolate chips. Chocolate, chocolate and more chocolate…Then she says cut them into three by three squares. No thanks. I couldn’t eat all of a 2×2 square–
but not because they weren’t good. Heh. And not because I didn’t try. These are Outrageous. I will def. add these to my mix…

I packed a bag and froze them for Rachel (she was in Costa Rica playing in the sun, poor girl) and marked them with a “Don’t Eat!!” They survived, and she got them yesterday. Mike, my fellow brownie purist, gave them pretty high marks, I hear. I think Rachel missed the walnuts.