In re: The Bean as Main Character

Call to Order

BAILIFF: All rise.

In the Superior Court of Weeknight Dinner, Honorable Miriam Salt presiding, the matter before the court is In re: The Bean as Main Character.

JUDGE SALT: Be seated. Counsel, are we trying a legume or a reputation?

PROSECUTOR VALE: Both, Your Honor. The People will show that beans are economical, soft, and useful chiefly as support. They bulk up soups. They wait politely beside roast chicken. They are, at best, reliable character actors.

DEFENSE COUNSEL RAMIREZ: The defense rejects the slander. We intend to prove that beans possess texture, depth, and full dinner authority, and that much of the world has already rendered that verdict.

JUDGE SALT: Proceed.

The People v. Texture

PROSECUTOR VALE: The People call Dana Pritchard, home cook.

BAILIFF: Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you supper?

PRITCHARD: I do.

PROSECUTOR VALE: Ms. Pritchard, how do beans appear in your kitchen?

PRITCHARD: In chili, mostly. In salads. Sometimes with rice when the month runs long.

PROSECUTOR VALE: And the role they play?

PRITCHARD: Stretching things.

PROSECUTOR VALE: No further questions.

DEFENSE COUNSEL RAMIREZ: Ms. Pritchard, when you say “stretching things,” do you mean feeding people well?

PRITCHARD: I mean making dinner go farther.

DEFENSE COUNSEL RAMIREZ: And on weekends, do you order a dish called Ful Medames?

PRITCHARD: Objection. Relevance.

JUDGE SALT: You are the witness, Ms. Pritchard. Counsel, I will allow it.

PRITCHARD: Yes. I do.

DEFENSE COUNSEL RAMIREZ: A plate of mashed favas, olive oil, lemon, cumin, maybe eggs, maybe warm bread. Does it arrive as a side dish, cowering behind something more important?

PRITCHARD: No.

DEFENSE COUNSEL RAMIREZ: Does anyone at the table ask, “Fine, but where is the real dinner?”

PRITCHARD: No.

DEFENSE COUNSEL RAMIREZ: Thank you. No further questions.

A murmur moved through the gallery. The court reporter requested one speaker at a time.

PROSECUTOR VALE: The People call Trevor Bell, texture consultant.

JUDGE SALT: There is such a profession?

BELL: There is if you commit.

PROSECUTOR VALE: Mr. Bell, what is your concern with beans?

BELL: Monotony. Too soft, too beige, too often resigned to mush.

DEFENSE COUNSEL RAMIREZ: Permission to treat the witness as unfamiliar with dinner.

JUDGE SALT: Granted in spirit. Ask your question.

Exhibits A Through E

DEFENSE COUNSEL RAMIREZ: The defense calls Nabila Hassan, cook.

HASSAN: Good morning.

DEFENSE COUNSEL RAMIREZ: Ms. Hassan, what have you brought to court?

HASSAN: Exhibit A, Ful Medames, prepared from Dried Fava Beans. It is earthy, bright, rich with olive oil, and entirely capable of carrying breakfast, lunch, or a late dinner.

PROSECUTOR VALE: Objection. Counsel is romanticizing thrift.

JUDGE SALT: Overruled. Thrift and pleasure are not mutually exclusive. Continue.

DEFENSE COUNSEL RAMIREZ: The defense calls Eden Tesfaye.

TESFAYE: Exhibit B, Shiro Wot. Split chickpeas, yes, specifically Split Chickpeas, but also heat, aroma, and patience. With Berbere, onion, and time, the pot becomes velvety and forceful. Nobody meeting shiro at full strength mistakes it for filler.

BELL: It is still soft.

TESFAYE: So is custard, and you people seem to respect that.

JUDGE SALT: Let the record reflect that the witness made eye contact with the jury.

DEFENSE COUNSEL RAMIREZ: The defense calls Levan Kiknadze.

KIKNADZE: Exhibit C, Lobio, using Dried Kidney Beans. Beans can be intact, loose, smashed, herbal, sharp with onion, warm with spice. This is not monotony. This is range.

PROSECUTOR VALE: Objection to the word “range.”

JUDGE SALT: On what grounds?

PROSECUTOR VALE: It is persuasive.

JUDGE SALT: Overruled for exactly that reason.

DEFENSE COUNSEL RAMIREZ: The defense calls Asha Bedi.

BEDI: Exhibit D, Dal Makhani, built on Urad Dal and slow time. If the court wishes to understand dignity, let it consider what happens when lentils and beans are simmered until they become silk without losing their gravity.

PROSECUTOR VALE: Is it not commonly served with other dishes?

BEDI: Your Honor, so is steak.

A pause followed. Even the prosecutor chose not to disturb it.

DEFENSE COUNSEL RAMIREZ: Finally, the defense moves to enter Exhibit E, Gigantes Plaki, prepared with Butter Beans.

PROSECUTOR VALE: Canned?

DEFENSE COUNSEL RAMIREZ: Yes, and still worthy. The defense is not elitist. Butter beans baked with tomato until the edges catch and the centers stay creamy do not need a chaperone. They need a spoon.

JUDGE SALT: Exhibit E is admitted.

Closing Arguments and Verdict

PROSECUTOR VALE: Members of the jury, the defense has shown many admirable bean dishes. We concede that beans are useful, seasoned, and in the right company, even memorable. But usefulness is not stardom. A main character commands the plate.

DEFENSE COUNSEL RAMIREZ: Your Honor, that is precisely what the evidence established. The People keep arguing from old prejudice: frugal means lesser, soft means weak, common means forgettable. Yet every exhibit before this court demonstrates the opposite. Beans absorb flavor, yes, but they also generate it. They can be creamy, brothy, dense, smoky, bright, and austere. They welcome garnish without depending on it. Most important, entire culinary traditions have not treated them as backup. They have treated them as dinner.

JUDGE SALT: I have heard enough.

In the matter of In re: The Bean as Main Character, this court finds as follows:

1. The charge that beans are merely filler is unsupported by the evidence.
2. The court recognizes Ful Medames, Shiro Wot, Lobio, Dal Makhani, and Gigantes Plaki as persuasive precedent.
3. The phrase “just beans” is hereby remanded to the dustbin of lazy thinking.

Accordingly, the bean is adjudged a lawful center-of-the-plate dinner.

Sentence is immediate and nonnegotiable: set the table, warm the bread, and bring a bowl large enough to look the bean in the eye.

BAILIFF: All rise.