modom (palindrome guy) wrote:
> On 9 Jan 2009 17:16:54 GMT, "Default User" >
> wrote:
>
>> modom (palindrome guy) wrote:
>>
>>> On 8 Jan 2009 21:06:05 GMT, "Default User" >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Tracy wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I am not a fan of "Joy of Cooking". I hate that it references
>>>>> other recipes in order to make another recipe. For a soup recipe
>>>>> it'll
>>> say >> something like, first make the stock on page blank then make
>>> the >> whatever on page blank and so on and so forth. Drives me
>>> crazy.
>>>>
>>>> So you want EVERY recipe for soup or stew that uses their beef
>>>> stock to include the entire stock recipe as well?
>>>>
>>> I have to vote with Tracy on this one. There have been times when
>>> I've used JoC and found myself with book marks in four different
>>> places. I was only cooking one dish.
>>
>> So what would happen if they pasted all the repeats of recipes in?
>> Either the book swells by some large amount, or recipes get removed.
>>
> I take your point, and see its merit. But can you see what I meant?
> Some kind of solution seems possible, a compromise perhaps.

The majority of cookbooks I use hardly ever have to reference
other recipes in the book, they just give the recipe. I have quite
a number of cookbooks, and just flipping through them, only three
of them rely so much on having layers of recipes to complete a
dish. It's just not a style I appreciate, to each their own.

nancy