What Are Your Recipe Preferences?

[Carrot Top]

Imagine you are seeking a recipe.

For anything. The specifics of the exact thing you wish to cook is not the point at the moment.

You start looking in books, speaking to friends, or searching on eGullet.

Finally you have a variety of recipes in front of you, all for the exact same final product.

Let us assume that all are in a good basic form to start off with. They are all clear, all set up in a way that can be easily read and understood.

But then the differences start. There are some recipes in front of you that go beyond the others in certain ways.

Instead of just answering your original question that was basically for a list of informational items and exact things to do, these recipes have some additonal information. The information might have to do with the sort of pan to use. The information might have to do with the variety of fruit used and how it may affect the final product. The information may be that a certain sort of knife will make an easier and finer job of it.

These recipes include information that expands upon what you originally asked for.

Which recipe would you prefer to receive or use?

The one that is blunt and unadorned, useful and clear yet with nothing beyond the original point?

Or the recipe that adds more information on one or on a variety of the things that are involved in the process of final creation?

Which would be more useful to you?

Why?

Edited September 20, 2005 by Carrot Top (log)

[tejon]

I am always drawn to recipes that have something more: notes at the end, variations, commentary at the start about the dish and how wonderful it is or how it was conceived. My very non-scientific reason for this preference is the feeling that someone cared about this particular recipe enough to add something more. Additional bits also spark interest when there is no picture or other identifying information. But at the core, recipes with a little something extra are like orphans with accompanying notes to take good care of them - I feel like I have been entrusted with something a little extra special, even if that is all in my own mind.

Edited September 20, 2005 by tejon (log)

[kitchenmage]

Which recipe would you prefer to receive or use?

The one that is blunt and unadorned, useful and clear yet with nothing beyond the original point?

Or the recipe that adds more information on one or on a variety of the things that are involved in the process of final creation?

Which would be more useful to you?

Why?

←

Oh this one is easy. Give me more useful data, some science, an option or two, tell me why certain things matters, and why others don't. A particularly amusing story might not be amiss if it adds to my understanding of what I am doing. I am a geek at heart and simply hate it when people ration out information one bit at a time, as if withholding data makes them more...something...than the rest of us. I once worked at a namelessCorporation where many questions were answered with, "You don't need to know that to do your job." Well, you know what? If I didn't need to know, I wouldn't have walked over here and asked, and if you tell me I can do my job better. (but I digress)

I learned to cook from a succession of people who generously shared their knowledge and have tried to do the same myself. Understanding aids in generalizing--if you tell someone to use a particular technique or ingredient in one context, that's all they learn; if you tell them what is added/changed by doing so, they just might be able to figure out another way to incorporate their new trick into another dish. This is a huge difference, not to mention the start of many a great cook.

Concrete example: I own several Cook's Illustrated "Best..." cookbooks and while I seldom use the recipes--in fact, I believe I've made one thing once--I do read the process of creating the recipes a bit. I've found that it's often almost as good as watching over someone's shoulder as they experiment and gives me a base from which to do my own experimentation.

OTOH, make sure that all the basics are covered, and the recipe actually works when prepared by someone other than the author before you start adding extras. There's nothing more frustrating that recipes where something just can't work and it would have been obvious if someone had bothered to try even once. Oven temperatures that leave cake either dry or raw, for example, aren't as rare as they should be. Cookbooks need "technical editors" who actually prepare everything in the book exactly as written; I cherish the ones that clearly have been and get frustrated as @^$!* with the ones that haven't.

[TPO]

For me, if a recipe is very long I may not look at it closely enough to see that it is full of information vs. full of long, complicated instructions. So I tend to look for something in between blunt and really long.

When a recipe uses an unusual ingredient that typical people might not have on hand, I like knowing if it is necessary and what it brings to the recipe. That way I can decide if it is worth making a special trip to purchase it.

When fruits and vegetables are part of the recipe, I like suggestions for variations. That way I might be able to use something that is in season and would bring more flavor to the recipe.

I also like suggestions for what to serve with the recipe. Sometimes it is obvious, but sometimes the recipe writer knows something I don't know about what will side dishes, bread, sauces, etc. will best complement that recipe.

[ruthcooks]

My answer would depend upon the type of additional information offered. I love "chatty" cookbooks, with a strong author voice. Tell me where you got the recipe, why you like it, what it looks/tastes like, what you serve with it, and why I should try THIS potato salad rather than one of the 500 other recipes for potato salad that I already have. Funny stories are always welcome.

BUT, if your idea of additional information involves the history of grain from the Peloponnesian Wars on, or grocery lists, time schedules, hints about low fat cooking, or lists of equipment needed, then I say, "Cut to the chase!

Books for beginning cooks should be so identified and have a different set of rules, allowing for cluelessness in the kitchen.

[tejon]

My answer would depend upon the type of additional information offered.  I love "chatty" cookbooks, with a strong author voice.  Tell me where you got the recipe, why you like it, what it looks/tastes like, what you serve with it, and why I should try THIS potato salad rather than one of the 500 other recipes for potato salad that I already have.  Funny stories are always welcome.

←

This kind of information is what I love most and really look for in a recipe. I am far more likely to buy a cookbook (or try a recipe) with anecdotes or praise for each of the dishes.

[purplewiz]

It depends on the recipe and why I'm looking for it.

There are some times when I'm searching out recipes that I really don't even want a whole recipe, I just want a proportion (like for gelatin to liquid in the recent panna cotta experiments). In that case, blunt is better.

But if I'm trying something new to me, I'd much prefer some elaboration, especially as to WHY things are done the way they are, and what role each of the ingredients play. This is important because I am a recipe tweaker, and the more nerd knobs you give me to play with, the happier I am. It's also because I'm allergic to bell peppers, and if I know what they're doing in the recipe, I can almost always substitute something else to fill that space.

I generally like reading the second kind more if I'm just doing some recreational recipe browsing, because I find them more inspiring.

Marcia.

[chefpeon]

As a professional, I'm a bit different. I already know the "why's".....when I search out a recipe,

I just want the "what's"! Generally, I just want ingredients, general proportions, and method.

My favorite format for recipes is this:

ingredient

ingredient

ingredient

Do this with ingredients.

ingredient

ingredient

Add these to above ingredients

ingredient

ingredient

ingredient'

Saute.

Combine all ingredients....

Sorta like that.

Often I will re-write recipes out of cookbooks for work-use. It's really hard to weed through all the "too much info" instructions to get to the jist of the thing. Time is of the essence at the

job, so basically I just need a "flash card" to get me going.

'Course, my basic recipe scribbles can backfire on me. I just recently got a new assistant.

Gave him one of the recipes I had written down, so he could make what we needed that afternoon. He's no foodie....just a dude off the street basically, and because I didn't have

all those tiny steps that I take for granted written down verbatim, he had no idea to do them.

He didn't know he had to scrape down the mixer bowl. So I come in the next morning to

one WEIRD lookin' cookie dough!!!!

[MarketStEl]

One of the things that make Joy of Cooking such a durable volume is the presence of the authors' voice in the form of anecdotes and narrative. I've not read Stand Facing the Stove, and I fear that if I did, I'd lose some of my affection for the book, but the sometimes-diversionary tidbits ("'Ruling a large nation,' a Chinese proverb says, 'is like cooking a small fish.'") I find entertaining, and sometimes they add to my appreciation of a dish.

I'm am amateur, not a professional, and even after all these years, I'm not always comfortable when winging it or taking a recipe in a different direction. Having some of the information about what happens when... or why you should... helps me become more confident when I shift from "classical" to "jazz" cooking.

[Pam R]

There's nothing more frustrating that recipes where something just can't work and it would have been obvious if someone had bothered to try even once. Oven temperatures that leave cake either dry or raw, for example, aren't as rare as they should be. Cookbooks need "technical editors" who actually prepare everything in the book exactly as written; I cherish the ones that clearly have been and get frustrated as @^$!* with the ones that haven't.

←

While I completely agree with you, I just want to point out that no two ovens (and other equipment) are the same. I've baked in 9 ovens this year - and they all did different things to the same recipe. Not to mention that living in different locations and climates will also do wonky things to recipes.. and the weather is an issue..

My answer would depend upon the type of additional information offered.  I love "chatty" cookbooks, with a strong author voice. 

It can be hard to be chatty

I HATE recipes that continue on the backside of the page it starts on. Either fit the whole thing on one page, or lay it out so that it starts on the left side and ends on the right - not on the back.

I like clear ingredient lists and simple instructions without any superfluous stuff in the recipe itself. I like reading extra tidbits - but not in the middle of the recipe.

Edited September 21, 2005 by Pam R (log)

[transfattyacid]

My favorite format for recipes is this:

ingredient

ingredient

ingredient

Do this with ingredients.

ingredient

ingredient

Add these to above ingredients

ingredient

ingredient

ingredient'

Saute.

Combine all ingredients....

←

Same here, for work that is, with my own shorthand/slang in there for good measure/confusions sake .

i like a list of weights and measures and then one word , ie anglaise , sugar batter . puree, reduce or whisk like %#@! .

Pitty the fool who finds my book lying around.

For reading i love the way Elizabeth David wrote , a paragraph or two in discriptive, charming prose . Thats inspirational ( to be converted to the above for work ).

please dont turn in your grave Mrs david.

[britcook]

I like clear ingredient lists and simple instructions without any superfluous stuff in the recipe itself.  I like reading extra tidbits - but not in the middle of the recipe.

←

I go for that too. Put the source, reasons, derivation before the recipe and the hints, tips and alternatives after it.

[chile_peppa]

Often I will re-write recipes out of cookbooks for work-use. It's really hard to weed through all the "too much info" instructions to get to the jist of the thing.

←

If I am reading a cookbook for pleasure, backchatter is interesting, but when I am trying to cook from a recipe, I want clean, straightforward writing. I am, among other things, a technical editor and writer, and like chefpeon, I rewrite to suit myself when a recipe makes it out of the book into my database. And yes, there is too much sloppy editing and writing out there in published works. It's a shame for a novice cook to encounter a poor cookbook and then feel as if it's their failure rather than the fault of the wretched book.

For an interesting take on formatting recipes, take a look at Cooking for Engineers.

[Nentony]

"Finally you have a variety of recipes in front of you, all for the exact same final product."

Actually, this is what often happens to me, then I wind up cooking a recipe that doesn't strictly match any of them, but takes something from several. But to answer the question, they can write a Russian novel about the recipe and I'll read it. As to the recipe itself I want it clear and unadorned.

Tony

[greenwich st]

There's a thread somewhere here about cookbooks one doesn't ever actually cook from, and I remember that a few people said that the recipes from The Zuni Cafe Cookbook were a turn-off in terms of actually inspiring their execution. And I agree -- that's an exemple of too-muchness. The recipes seemed really inspired but poorly conveyed somehow. I think some of it has to do with the way the recipes are spooled out -- just too diffuse or daunting, though I haven't quite analyzed it. Now, a book like the Molly Stevens' Braising Book actually gives more detailed, longer recipes, generally and yet it's so user-friendly that it's inspired an ongoing cook-off thread here. Maybe it's mainly a question of lay-out -- the Stevens recipes are very "bulleted" -- broken out in a way that seems to compell action.

[srhcb]

I've found the usefulness of the recipes to be in direct inverse proportion to the amount of space in the book devoted to color photos

SB ("Cooking With Julia & Jacques" excepted)

[jglazer75]

I agree with all the "too much info" stuff. I look for the most basic recipe I can find. I may incorporate "options" from the other recipes, or add my own, but for the recipe give me major ingredients, the amounts, and what to do with them. That's it, I'll take it from there. If I need to know more, I'll go find more information, but certainly with the recipes that I use in the kitchen, I don't want the extra info getting in the way of me figuring out what I need to do next.

edit: I will add that I do like color photos of the thing I am making so I can see what it's supposed to look like. Often, the way the recipe reads, my impression of the assembling process is at odds with my mental image of what the thing is supposed to look like.

Edited September 21, 2005 by jglazer75 (log)

[Chris Amirault]

For an interesting take on formatting recipes, take a look at Cooking for Engineers.

←

Wow. I love those diagrams! This is my new favorite recipe format!

As for prose, I love good food writing, but, like several others up thread, I distinguish reading food writing from using recipes to cook; I don't seek readerly pleasure from recipes when I'm trying to make dinner (though I do snicker at Anthony Bourdain's little in-recipe jokes).

[SuzySushi]

For an interesting take on formatting recipes, take a look at Cooking for Engineers.

←

Whoa!!! I love the format!

Like you, when I'm reading a cookbook for entertainment (cookbooks are my bedtime reading), I enjoy a strong personal voice or a lot of additional information. For cooking, I prefer a straightforward list of ingredients*, then directions (*footnoted if there's anything so exotic that I need to shop at an unusual source).

Personally, I've never liked The Joy of Cooking because the ingredients list is interrupted. Nothing like starting in on a recipe only to find out I don't have enough of some basic ingredient that's been listed in two separate places.

[goldie]

I like a complete list of ingredients (specified if something is divided) followed by clear, numbered or bulleted steps. One of my pet peeves is when authors (usually of community cookbooks and the like) use incorrect terminology. In the margin or at the beginning of the recipe comments are interesting. I like variations but they need to be clearly notated in the index. If there are difficult to find ingredients or complex techniques in need of explanation, those should be referenced at the bottom of the recipe.

Out of curiosity, why do you ask?

[chile_peppa]

One of the things that make Joy of Cooking such a durable volume is the presence of the authors' voice in the form of anecdotes and narrative. I've not read Stand Facing the Stove, and I fear that if I did, I'd lose some of my affection for the book, but the sometimes-diversionary tidbits.

Personally, I've never liked The Joy of Cooking because the ingredients list is interrupted. Nothing like starting in on a recipe only to find out I don't have enough of some basic ingredient that's been listed in two separate places.

←

Interesting perspectives on "Joy of Cooking." This was one of my early inspirations, having discovered it in the public library when I was a child. It was one of the two cookbooks I took to college with me. (Marion Rombauer Becker was an alumna!) I loved the stories, and the idea of the special dishes from the Land of Cockaigne. But I outgrew it as I learned more about cooking, though I still use it as a reference from time to time. I recently read "Stand Facing the Stove," and I won't spoil it for you, but the author contends that the major innovation Irma Rombauer introduced was the way she formatted her recipes.

[yeah, I'm an editor]

Edited September 21, 2005 by chile_peppa (log)

[BarbaraY]

Pretty much the same here. Give me a list with quantities and preliminary prep.

1/2 cup onion, diced suits me better than finding that I need to dice the onion after I'm half done.

One of my books (can't think which) has some stir-fry recipes that do this and, as anyone who has ever stir-fried knows, everything has to be ready to go before starting.

I like Rick Bayless' books with variations and notes in the side column.

[MelissaH]

I don't care so much how the recipe is written, because I almost always rewrite it myself before making it. I'm not willing to bring one of my precious cookbooks into my kitchen, partly because I have so little workspace that I don't want to use it for laying a book down, and partly because I'm not always the neatest in the kitchen while I'm at work there. So I look at the recipe, read it over several times, and then "pre-lab" it to make myself a procedure. I include the details where I want them, sometimes I change the order of things, and I say as much about a step as I need for myself. Someone else looking at my scribbles would be hard-pressed to figure out what I mean, but it usually makes sense to me...and if I'm the one cooking then I'm the only one that really matters. If I do something enough, I'll put my pre-labbed version into the computer so I can just zap out copies as needed, but for me, rewriting the procedure helps me keep straight in my mind exactly what needs to be done, especially if it's not something I've made a zillion times before. By the time I'm familiar enough with it, I generally know the recipe well enough that I don't need to write down anything but maybe an ingredient list.

When I'm writing up a recipe for someone else, I often write up a somewhat bare bones version, with an ingredient list with quantities and any prep first and then directions afterward, but I'll liberally footnote the directions to add my thoughts. That way, my readers can read or ignore at their preference.

MelissaH

[Carrot Top]

I like a complete list of ingredients (specified if something is divided) followed by clear, numbered or bulleted steps.  One of my pet peeves is when authors (usually of community cookbooks and the like) use incorrect terminology.  In the margin or at the beginning of the recipe comments are interesting.  I like variations but they need to be clearly notated in the index.  If there are difficult  to find ingredients or complex techniques in need of explanation, those should be referenced at the bottom of the recipe.

Out of curiosity, why do you ask?

←

I've been enjoying reading the responses so much that for a moment I really could not remember why it was I asked.

Thinking back on it now, my asking the question sprung from reading a discussion in another thread where the person posted a question about "how to make something" and there were several responses.

Some of the responses were direct but required linking to a recipe.

Other responses went further afield in discussing the subject. Instead of "just" speaking to the specific demand of the person posting the question, other parts were brought up that could have (if one were to look at the question in a global or expansive sense) an effect on this thing he was requesting a recipe for.

Several of these sorts of posts were submitted and the person who asked the original question seemed to get angry with the extra information being given and he summarily asked everyone to "get back on track" or some such words.

That brought to mind the question of how many people were interested in cooking, and in learning about cooking, only in a straight-line pattern. . .as opposed to those who were interesting in learning it in a way that had "more to it".

I was just curious to see what people would say, about recipes, as these are our maps, in general, to many new ways of cooking. Not many people today learn from their mothers or next-door neighbors.

When I was first a chef, I cooked from recipes and taught cooks one-on-one hands-on what it was we were going to do. That worked okay one-on-one.

But when I became an executive chef and had many cooks to whom I was required to give direction, this one-on-one did not work as well, particularly in the beginning, for there were too many new things being made and too many cooks and too much production required and too many hours of meals shall I go on? As I tell my kids, now, I am not an octopus. Only two hands.

So I had to learn to write a recipe and write it so that nobody could misunderstand it. Each step had to be defined, but defined in such a way that the recipe would be very quick and very easy to read (for someone that knew how to cook). It was a wonderful and demanding experience and it taught me a lot about how different cooks look at the process of cooking.

These standardized recipes were needed because the guests expected to get what it was that they knew they were getting. There was to be no inconsistency, unless that 'inconsistency' was a planned one, either by us developing a new recipe or by them requesting something specific and personal.

For myself, finally, I do prefer Elizabeth David to anyone on earth as far as writing recipes goes. But her format certainly would not work in all situations.

So. That's why I ask.

Just curious, as usual.

Edited September 21, 2005 by Carrot Top (log)

[MarketStEl]

One of the things that make Joy of Cooking such a durable volume is the presence of the authors' voice in the form of anecdotes and narrative.[...]

Personally, I've never liked The Joy of Cooking because the ingredients list is interrupted. [...]

←

Interesting perspectives on "Joy of Cooking." This was one of my early inspirations, having discovered it in the public library when I was a child. It was one of the two cookbooks I took to college with me. (Marion Rombauer Becker was an alumna!) I loved the stories, and the idea of the special dishes from the Land of Cockaigne. But I outgrew it as I learned more about cooking, though I still use it as a reference from time to time. I recently read "Stand Facing the Stove," and I won't spoil it for you, but the author contends that the major innovation Irma Rombauer introduced was the way she formatted her recipes.

[yeah, I'm an editor]

←

As am I, though I'm a writer first and foremost. (However, I find I'm not a good editor of my own writing.)

Having taken a look at "Cooking for Engineers" and its innovative--and incredibly easy to understand--recipe format, I don't see why that style couldn't be adapted to any cookbook. It would have the added advantage of being "detachable" from any accompanying text. Those who wanted just the basics could simply refer to the table, while those who love a good story could read the text ahead of or following it as well.

(Actually, I would make one modification to the CforE format: I would put the instructions in the bottom portion of each tab, so that they would also read horizontally. I think that some might find having to repeatedly read text rotated 90 degrees clockwise disorienting.)