cakewalk

No, it's a "novel in monthly installments with recipes." Note that part at the end about recipes. If the reader is not intended to cook the food in these recipes, it's kind of a sham, isn't it? I believe Ms. Esquivel is delighted when people try to cook from the book. Clearly she's no cookbook author, however, and thus the recipes will always offer some ambiguities or other challenges. This is part of the book's charm, I think. The fact that it isn't a traditional cookbook is obvious. That's partly why I find the disclaimer strange. What, will someone who fails to recreate the Christmas Rolls sue for the damage to his or her psyche? For the lost evening? Today's chapter is accompanied by a recipe for... wedding cake. I am not making wedding cake today. But this cake is so weird I think I might try it later. It calls for 300 grams (10.6 oz. or about 2 and a half cups) of flour and SEVENTEEN eggs. This is for a cake to serve 18 people. It also contains grated lime peel. And there's an apricot filling, and a fondant icing that contains lime juice. The flour/egg ratio is not a typo. It is discussed in the text. But it is kind of crazy, right? I'm trying and failing to picture what this cake would taste like. A fritatta? A custard? I figure the NY Times printed a disclaimer because they don't want people writing, calling, and/or e-mailing them if they try the recipes and they don't come out good. They may well be inundated. I find it strange that the Times should call it a ,""novel in monthly installments with recipes." Does the author call it a novel with recipes? I mean, it's a novel. The recipes are part of the novel. The point is trying to figure out how the recipes fit into the novel (if they do at all), not really how the recipes will turn out. (Not that one shouldn't try them, but I don't think that's their main point.) It's not just that it isn't a "traditional" cookbook. It isn't a cookbook at all. It's a novel. It's fiction. The Times is just covering it's bases. (As newspapers are wont to do. ) Anyway, I think I'm just a bit peeved that they're printing this book because I never liked it . I think they could have made a much better choice, especially after starting off with a book as wonderful as Gatsby. But in truth, even though I never liked it, I was always curious about how those recipes might come out. So I wish you luck with them, and I do look forward to reading about how they turn out.

Well, um, it's not a cookbook, is it?

I bought an asparagus steamer a few years ago because it was on sale (at Lechter's when they were closing; remember Lechter's?) and I thought it was kind of cool looking. It is definitely a single-use item. However, I love it. Stick the asparagus in, cook until it turns that lovely perfect green, then just lift out the basket with the asparagus and run it under cold water, and voila! perfect asparagus, every time. And I don't have to think about which pot I'll cook the asparagus in when every other pot has something else in it. So, no, I don't have a thousand other uses for it. However, I love it for making asparagus. Also, the pot is tall and thin so it doesn't interfere with other short squat pots on the stove. I say your daughter should go for it. (And I apologize to you, because I know this isn't what you wanted to hear, but I have to maintain my unpopularity. ) I think it's a great gadget. But in truth, if it hadn't been on sale I never would have bought it.

I have to beg to differ with you on this ... I do buy kosher chickens and do have to wash them off ... and, on occasion, with the kosher turkeys, pluck the pinfeathers left on the wings and legs ... My father was a kosher butcher, and he always insisted that all meat be rinsed off before it was cooked. So I still do it now, out of habit, but I also can't see the point of it. Ovens are pretty fierce at 450 degrees.

Beautifully and eloquently stated. Now can you please pass that pint of Ben and Jerry's? Don't bother with a bowl, I've got a spoon.

Interesting. Where is your family from? Chicken is pretty standard for Ashkenazi (Eastern European) Jews. We always had boiled chicken because my mother always made chicken soup. When we (the kids) got older, we rebelled, and my mother started making roast chicken as well. Much, much better. Then of course we all grew up and left home. (But in truth, even after I left I usually went home for Friday nights.) As you can see by the recipes on this thread, the boiled chicken dinner has really spread its wings.

Great! Products that pester you as you walk by! I want that! Maybe they'll get the boxes to do a little song and dance. Like in the kiddie cereal commercials. Cool.

I'm no rabbi, but my understanding is that you can (some will say must) eat meat on Shabbat. It's the rest of the nine days where no meat is allowed. (I guess there are some people who eat meat on weekdays.) As far as I know, chicken is also not allowed. But fish is. I hope that clears everything up.

You gotta keep your hands on the wheel!!

Twizzlers. Strawberry twizzlers, that huge package sold in most gas station pit stops. An ode to strawberry twizzlers. One package takes you all the way through to wherever you're going.

Tea and toast with jam. Tea and toast with jam. Ginger ale, maybe 7-Up. Tea and toast with jam. To this day, I associate tea with sickness. My co-workers know that if they see me drinking tea, it means I don't feel well. Not that the tea helps, of course. (We're talking Lipton tea, of course, since nothing else existed in my house, or the rest of the world as far as my parents were concerned.) Jewish, Jewish, Jewish! And no chicken soup. My mother made zoup mit luckschen every Friday. If I got sick on a Wednesday -- tea and toast with jam!

I never understood why the Royale closed. I find it hard to believe that it was for lack of enough business. They were packed every time I went in there, whether it was before a holiday or just a regular weekday. I know I eventually stopped going so often because the staff became very rude, and the owners (or the owner's sons, those idiots who always sat behind the cash register) were arrogant as hell. The Royale had become a very unpleasant place to go in to, so I had a lot of mixed feelings when they closed. I don't really know how to explain the loss of the neighborhood bakery, I suppose it's part of the whole sociological trend of how neighborhoods and stores have changed altogether, going from small and special to huge and all-inclusive. The bakery was always so special but at the same time so simple. I used to love to go there for the rye breads and eat the ends as I walked home. I've never ever had a chocolate babka like the ones they made at our neighborhood bakery. Now it's all "artisinal" but then it was just a matter of course, every neighborhood had at least one bakery.

I recently bought a Lodge 12-inch cast iron. I like it, but it's too big for a lot of things so maybe I'll try the 6.5-inch Wagner. (Although I'm looking forward to making corn bread in the large skillet.) I got it mostly because someone told me it's good for increasing iron levels (they keep sending me home at the blood donor place.) The prices are very good, now I wonder what postage and handling will amount to? Cast iron weighs a ton.

That's why it was later revised to, "piece of cake"

Union Square greenmarket this morning: Tomatoes zuccini basil peaches apricots cherries bread red onions lettuces kirbys It's definitely summertime. They had squash blossoms that looked beautiful. I've never done anything with squash blossoms before, so I didn't buy them, just looked longingly. If they have them next week, I will buy some and try them out.

I guess since I live in the neighborhood I'm more interested in their potential as a neighborhood place that I can drop into for a meal or a snack, and not as a place to order lunch from during work hours. (I know, I'm selfish.) And since this neighborhood is quite residential, I imagine a lot of other people are looking to see how they function in that regard as well. Anyway, on my way up to the subway earlier I noticed they have a "temporary hours" sign on their window, and in the meantime they're open until 9 pm on weekdays and they're open on Saturdays til 6 pm (didn't have the time to stop in since I was on my way to the Union Square greenmarket, where I bought ... oops, wrong thread.) The place is huge, with half of it being the food part and the other half having small tables and chairs, and also a huge black leather couch and some nice easy chairs. It does actually look very inviting. (" ... but not in the living room!.") But it is very empty. Well it's early times yet. I am looking forward to seeing if they know what to do with a vegetable beside slap it on a piece of yukky bread and call it a sandwich. Yes, I guess we all are being quite negative. I don't know why. But I do hope it's successful (although I thought it was an independent place; is it not a chain just because their other branches haven't opened yet, even though they're planning to?)

Interesting. I live down the street and have watched them set up for the past few weeks, wondering when they would open and what kind of place it would be. It never occurred to me that Starwich was a chain, I never heard of it before (but given what's been going on in the neighborhood, and in the entire city, I certainly should have guessed.) I spoke with someone in there the other day, and she said their hours (for now) are early morning until about 6 pm. She said no weeekends. I thought to myself, so who do you expect your customers to be? Most people are at work during the hours you'll be open. But I just took the menu and said thank you. (The menu is still scrunched up in my bag.) The place looks very nice, all sleek and clean and modern. They have a huge screen up above the counter where you can watch the chefs work. (The woman I spoke with stressed that they have a chef, not just a person who makes sandwiches.) I think the screen looks cool, but in truth if they didn't have smoked glass counters, we'd be able to watch them make the sandwiches through the glass just like in every other place. If they are open tomorrow (Saturday, so they probably won't be; how silly), I will give them a try. I'll see how well they do with a veggie order.

Well, um, aktcherly, it's: the proof of the pudding is in the eating. But continue anyway, you're on quite a roll. William Safire once wrote an entire column on the misuse of the phrase, "you can't have your cake and eat it too." Which he said is silly, because that's exactly what we do all the time: we have our cake, and then we eat it. He said the phrase is actually, "you can't eat your cake and have it too." Unless you throw it back up, I guess. But then you wouldn't really be able to call it cake, would you? Bedtime.

What do you do with chocolate peppermint? I love the way it smells, but I'm at a loss re: how to use it.

Pistachios. Almonds. Cashews. No, macademias. No, Brazil nuts. Wait ... Oh I love nuts of all sorts. I am always amazed at how different and unique each type of nut tastes. I don't know why that should amaze me, I don't expect a peach to taste like an apple (and it doesn't, and I'm never amazed by that fact.) But somehow I am always amazed that different types of nuts taste absolutely nothing like one another, each type has a flavor all its own. It somehow reaffirms my faith, although I'm not sure in what.

I don't think that has anything to do with the fact that MacDonald's *deliberately* misled consumers.

I think some people like to be offended, because it allows them to be indignant. So often they will create the offense themselves. I've heard two different "offensive origins" for the word "gyp." One, that it is offensive to Gypsies; the other, that it is offensive to Egyptians. Take your pick. (Although in truth, I do think this word was intentionally offensive.) I think the "offense" of the word mulatto was in its implications: interracial sex, which was illegal at one time. The child was stigmatized because of the illegal behavior of his parents. (Very biblical, if you ask me.) Not unlike the term "illegitimate baby," which also implied the, if not illegal, then "immoral" action of the parents. How on earth can a baby be "illegimitate"? I can't quite believe that the MooLatte thing was intentional. But I guess in the long run, the intentionality becomes secondary. The words we use are important. I also think DQ should scrap the name (but keep the product! I want to try it.)

You seem to be saying that it's the consumer's fault for believing what the producer says about his product, and the producer has no responsibility to tell the truth. The consumer somehow deserves to be penalized for his gullibility. That just doesn't sit right with me.

Pardon me for asking, and I know someone will probably get angry with me, but if it's important to your religious beliefs that you practice strict vegetarianism, why would you eat at McDonald's? Well no one's angry, but a lot of vegetarians didn't just go "eat at MacDonald's." They ate only specific things at MacDonald's, because they were told that those things were suitable for vegetarians. But what they were told was not true.

Juanito -- the author of that article even hangs out on eGullet sometimes. But he's friends with Fat Guy, so I dunno. Fat Guy -- screw consensus and authoritative sources. Stop being such a lawyer. We're having fun with our food memories. Now you're gonna bring us to court over it? And ask for proof? If your blueberry bagel tastes delicious, enjoy it. But I wish you'd find another name for it, 'cause it ain't a bagel. So there! (Aside: I have a friend who used to refer to lasagne as Jewish noodle kugel. Instead of lasagne noodles, use egg noodles; instead of tomato sauce, an egg or two; instead of ricotta, cottage cheese; instead of peppers and onions, throw in a few raisins. And then you bake. Voila: lasagne, just a little different. Extrapolate.)