Wayne Boatwright wrote:

> On Wed 25 Jun 2008 10:33:03p, hahabogus told us...
>
> > Wayne Boatwright > wrote in
> > 6.120:
> >
> >> On Wed 25 Jun 2008 10:22:26p, hahabogus told us...
> >>
> >>> Christine Dabney > wrote in
> >>> :
> >>>
> >>>> On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 14:09:41 GMT, hahabogus >
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>That's like that cookbook artistic bread in 5 minutes....same recipe
> >>>>>repeated and repeated, sure the one recipe is a keeper but to sell a
> >>>>>cookbook of the same recipe repeated over and over (slight
> >>>>>variations) seems almost as shamefull as buying it.
> >>>>
> >>>> Do you have the book?
> >>>>
> >>>> I haven't noticed that to be the case, especially in the enriched
> >>>> breads.
> >>>>
> >>>> Christine
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Yes I have the book the same bread recipe is on almost every other
> >>> page.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Maybe your pages ares stuck together.
> >>
> >
> > could be but all the recipes for the different breads look very similar.
> >
>
> I can't really offer an opinion, since I haven't read the book. Surely,
> though, there must be something different about the various recipes.
>


It's variations on the same basic recipe but the book has been invaluable
for noobie bakers like me who can initially be daunted by bread baking, call
it "Baking Bread For Dummies". In reading reviews at Amazon, etc. I notice
that more experienced bakers can be fairly critical of it. To me it's a
springboard to more advanced techniques and baking books, if I'd ever care
to go there. As it is, it's all I need for the present...and so money well
invested.


===> Just ordered two more copies for friends...

--
Best
Greg

On Fri 27 Jun 2008 02:14:30p, Gregory Morrow told us...

>
> Wayne Boatwright wrote:
>
>> On Wed 25 Jun 2008 10:33:03p, hahabogus told us...
>>
>> > Wayne Boatwright > wrote in
>> > 6.120:
>> >
>> >> On Wed 25 Jun 2008 10:22:26p, hahabogus told us...
>> >>
>> >>> Christine Dabney > wrote in
>> >>> :
>> >>>
>> >>>> On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 14:09:41 GMT, hahabogus >
>> >>>> wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>>That's like that cookbook artistic bread in 5 minutes....same
>> >>>>>recipe repeated and repeated, sure the one recipe is a keeper but
>> >>>>>to sell a cookbook of the same recipe repeated over and over
>> >>>>>(slight variations) seems almost as shamefull as buying it.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Do you have the book?
>> >>>>
>> >>>> I haven't noticed that to be the case, especially in the enriched
>> >>>> breads.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Christine
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>> Yes I have the book the same bread recipe is on almost every other
>> >>> page.
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >> Maybe your pages ares stuck together.
>> >>
>> >
>> > could be but all the recipes for the different breads look very
>> > similar.
>> >
>>
>> I can't really offer an opinion, since I haven't read the book.
>> Surely, though, there must be something different about the various
>> recipes.
>>
>
>
> It's variations on the same basic recipe but the book has been
> invaluable for noobie bakers like me who can initially be daunted by
> bread baking, call it "Baking Bread For Dummies". In reading reviews at
> Amazon, etc. I notice that more experienced bakers can be fairly
> critical of it. To me it's a springboard to more advanced techniques
> and baking books, if I'd ever care to go there. As it is, it's all I
> need for the present...and so money well invested.
>
>
> ===> Just ordered two more copies for friends...
>

So it's a good basic reference. I may just pick up a copy.

--
Wayne Boatwright
-------------------------------------------
Friday, 06(VI)/27(XXVII)/08(MMVIII)
-------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------
Falls don't kill people. It's the
deceleration trauma.
-------------------------------------------

On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 00:25:24 GMT, Wayne Boatwright
> wrote:

>So it's a good basic reference. I may just pick up a copy.

If you want the basic recipe, it's on the internet and you can YouTube
it.


--
I never worry about diets. The only carrots that interest me are the number of carats in a diamond.

Mae West

On Fri 27 Jun 2008 06:20:54p, sf told us...

> On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 00:25:24 GMT, Wayne Boatwright
> > wrote:
>
>>So it's a good basic reference. I may just pick up a copy.
>
> If you want the basic recipe, it's on the internet and you can YouTube
> it.
>
>
Thanks, I'll take a look. I've got a fair number of bread books as it is,
but I'm intresting in trying this.


--
Wayne Boatwright
-------------------------------------------
Friday, 06(VI)/27(XXVII)/08(MMVIII)
-------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------
Indifference is the only sure defense.
--Jody Powell
-------------------------------------------

"Gregory Morrow" > wrote in
m:

>
> Wayne Boatwright wrote:
>
>> On Wed 25 Jun 2008 10:33:03p, hahabogus told us...
>>
>> > Wayne Boatwright > wrote in
>> > 6.120:
>> >
>> >> On Wed 25 Jun 2008 10:22:26p, hahabogus told us...
>> >>
>> >>> Christine Dabney > wrote in
>> >>> :
>> >>>
>> >>>> On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 14:09:41 GMT, hahabogus >
>> >>>> wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>>That's like that cookbook artistic bread in 5 minutes....same
>> >>>>>recipe repeated and repeated, sure the one recipe is a keeper
>> >>>>>but to sell a cookbook of the same recipe repeated over and over
>> >>>>>(slight variations) seems almost as shamefull as buying it.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Do you have the book?
>> >>>>
>> >>>> I haven't noticed that to be the case, especially in the
>> >>>> enriched breads.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Christine
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>> Yes I have the book the same bread recipe is on almost every
>> >>> other page.
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >> Maybe your pages ares stuck together.
>> >>
>> >
>> > could be but all the recipes for the different breads look very
>> > similar.
>> >
>>
>> I can't really offer an opinion, since I haven't read the book.
>> Surely, though, there must be something different about the various
>> recipes.
>>
>
>
> It's variations on the same basic recipe but the book has been
> invaluable for noobie bakers like me who can initially be daunted by
> bread baking, call it "Baking Bread For Dummies". In reading reviews
> at Amazon, etc. I notice that more experienced bakers can be fairly
> critical of it. To me it's a springboard to more advanced techniques
> and baking books, if I'd ever care to go there. As it is, it's all I
> need for the present...and so money well invested.
>
>
> ===> Just ordered two more copies for friends...
>

I never said it wasn't a instructional book, I said I didn't like it. It
has 2 hundred and 40 odd pages and 8 chapters...the first four don't say
anything other than stuff like my grandmother liked to eat rye bread for
dessert, (like I care about somebody else's grannie who I'll never meet).
The next chapter the first mention of a recipe goes on and on with AFAIC
far too much detail. I believe the basic bread recipe and the other 2
master recipes are good solid recipes but the writing style isn't one I'd
buy again. I wouldn't recommend it to somebody as a good read.

I feel the info was streched into more pages...many more pages than
required. Too full of filler IMO.

I'd recommend a Nigella Lawson book or a Pat Wells cookbook, even a Jamie
whatshisname (naked boy) book or even the barefooted Contessa...but not
this book.

Just like I wouldn't recommended JOC due to the turn to page 67 for this
and then 123 for that and for something else pages 80 or 192...If I
wanted exercise in page turning I wouldn't have bought a cookbook.

--

The house of the burning beet-Alan

hahabogus wrote:
[snip]
> Just like I wouldn't recommended JOC due to the turn to page 67 for this
> and then 123 for that and for something else pages 80 or 192...If I
> wanted exercise in page turning I wouldn't have bought a cookbook.
>
Strangely enough, that doesn't condemn JoC for me, and I do hate
it when books do that. Maybe I just avoided those recipes?!

--
Jean B.

Jean B. wrote:
> hahabogus wrote:
> [snip]
>> Just like I wouldn't recommended JOC due to the turn to page 67 for
>> this and then 123 for that and for something else pages 80 or
>> 192...If I wanted exercise in page turning I wouldn't have bought a
>> cookbook.
>>
> Strangely enough, that doesn't condemn JoC for me, and I do hate it when
> books do that. Maybe I just avoided those recipes?!
>

Yet that also teaches you how you can vary the recipe and how to build
the dish to your own specifications yet still with guidance. If you want
one element you go to page x, but if you want another go to page y, and
that is a "cooking lesson" unto itself isn't it?

On Sat 28 Jun 2008 09:00:55a, Jean B. told us...

> hahabogus wrote:
> [snip]
>> Just like I wouldn't recommended JOC due to the turn to page 67 for this
>> and then 123 for that and for something else pages 80 or 192...If I
>> wanted exercise in page turning I wouldn't have bought a cookbook.
>>
> Strangely enough, that doesn't condemn JoC for me, and I do hate
> it when books do that. Maybe I just avoided those recipes?!
>

Doesn't bother me a bit. What does bother me is when someone posts a
recipe with that type of reference in it and doesn't includes the referred
to recipe. Like, where the hell do I go for it now?

--
Wayne Boatwright
-------------------------------------------
Saturday, 06(VI)/28(XXVIII)/08(MMVIII)
-------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------
By God, for a moment there it all made
sense . . . .
-------------------------------------------

Goomba > wrote in
:

> Jean B. wrote:
>> hahabogus wrote:
>> [snip]
>>> Just like I wouldn't recommended JOC due to the turn to page 67 for
>>> this and then 123 for that and for something else pages 80 or
>>> 192...If I wanted exercise in page turning I wouldn't have bought a
>>> cookbook.
>>>
>> Strangely enough, that doesn't condemn JoC for me, and I do hate it
>> when books do that. Maybe I just avoided those recipes?!
>>
>
> Yet that also teaches you how you can vary the recipe and how to build
> the dish to your own specifications yet still with guidance. If you
> want one element you go to page x, but if you want another go to page
> y, and that is a "cooking lesson" unto itself isn't it?

Actually let's use a lemon merangue pie...go to page such and such for a
pastry crust recipe (this will refer you to other pages as well), go to
page such and such for a lemon curd recipe( options for other pages as
well) and go to page such and such for merangue (again references to
other pages). While the recipes in JOC are good it's format sucks. I
enjoy reading recipes...not turning and re-turning pages. By the time you
find all the different bits the recipe doesn't seem as much as a good
idea anymore as you had to turn to differing pages 3 or 4 times and it is
starting to look too complicated...not the pie but the recipe.

I'm not knocking the book, I am explaining why I wouldn't consider it or
recommend it. The JOC has fine recipes...but the layout is not to my
taste. When cooking I really don't want to be turning to diferent
sections of the cookbook every 2 minutes...makes me lose my train of
thought and gets gunk/stains on the cookbook.

--

The house of the burning beet-Alan

Wayne Boatwright > wrote in
6.120:

> Doesn't bother me a bit. What does bother me is when someone posts a
> recipe with that type of reference in it and doesn't includes the
> referred to recipe. Like, where the hell do I go for it now?
>

all the more power to you...It really ****es me off.

--

The house of the burning beet-Alan

On Sat 28 Jun 2008 10:37:34p, hahabogus told us...

> Goomba > wrote in
> :
>
>> Jean B. wrote:
>>> hahabogus wrote:
>>> [snip]
>>>> Just like I wouldn't recommended JOC due to the turn to page 67 for
>>>> this and then 123 for that and for something else pages 80 or
>>>> 192...If I wanted exercise in page turning I wouldn't have bought a
>>>> cookbook.
>>>>
>>> Strangely enough, that doesn't condemn JoC for me, and I do hate it
>>> when books do that. Maybe I just avoided those recipes?!
>>>
>>
>> Yet that also teaches you how you can vary the recipe and how to build
>> the dish to your own specifications yet still with guidance. If you
>> want one element you go to page x, but if you want another go to page
>> y, and that is a "cooking lesson" unto itself isn't it?
>
> Actually let's use a lemon merangue pie...go to page such and such for a
> pastry crust recipe (this will refer you to other pages as well), go to
> page such and such for a lemon curd recipe( options for other pages as
> well) and go to page such and such for merangue (again references to
> other pages). While the recipes in JOC are good it's format sucks. I
> enjoy reading recipes...not turning and re-turning pages. By the time you
> find all the different bits the recipe doesn't seem as much as a good
> idea anymore as you had to turn to differing pages 3 or 4 times and it is
> starting to look too complicated...not the pie but the recipe.
>
> I'm not knocking the book, I am explaining why I wouldn't consider it or
> recommend it. The JOC has fine recipes...but the layout is not to my
> taste. When cooking I really don't want to be turning to diferent
> sections of the cookbook every 2 minutes...makes me lose my train of
> thought and gets gunk/stains on the cookbook.
>

The construction of JOC doesn't bother me one whit, nor do other layouts of
other books. I take each on their own merits.

--
Wayne Boatwright
-------------------------------------------
Saturday, 06(VI)/28(XXVIII)/08(MMVIII)
-------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------
Remember, Charlie Chaplin was a mime too...
-------------------------------------------

hahabogus wrote:
> Goomba > wrote in
> :
>
>> Jean B. wrote:
>>> hahabogus wrote:
>>> [snip]
>>>> Just like I wouldn't recommended JOC due to the turn to page 67 for
>>>> this and then 123 for that and for something else pages 80 or
>>>> 192...If I wanted exercise in page turning I wouldn't have bought a
>>>> cookbook.
>>>>
>>> Strangely enough, that doesn't condemn JoC for me, and I do hate it
>>> when books do that. Maybe I just avoided those recipes?!
>>>
>> Yet that also teaches you how you can vary the recipe and how to build
>> the dish to your own specifications yet still with guidance. If you
>> want one element you go to page x, but if you want another go to page
>> y, and that is a "cooking lesson" unto itself isn't it?
>
> Actually let's use a lemon merangue pie...go to page such and such for a
> pastry crust recipe (this will refer you to other pages as well), go to
> page such and such for a lemon curd recipe( options for other pages as
> well) and go to page such and such for merangue (again references to
> other pages). While the recipes in JOC are good it's format sucks. I
> enjoy reading recipes...not turning and re-turning pages. By the time you
> find all the different bits the recipe doesn't seem as much as a good
> idea anymore as you had to turn to differing pages 3 or 4 times and it is
> starting to look too complicated...not the pie but the recipe.
>
> I'm not knocking the book, I am explaining why I wouldn't consider it or
> recommend it. The JOC has fine recipes...but the layout is not to my
> taste. When cooking I really don't want to be turning to diferent
> sections of the cookbook every 2 minutes...makes me lose my train of
> thought and gets gunk/stains on the cookbook.
>
Yes, it's a matter of taste, and I agree. I like to be able to
evaluate and envision the whole recipe when I look at it, and that
is greatly hindered by the turn to page thus and so approach.

--
Jean B.

"Jean B." schrieb :
> hahabogus wrote:
>> Goomba wrote :
>>
>>> Jean B. wrote:
>>>> hahabogus wrote:
>>>> [snip]
>>>>> Just like I wouldn't recommended JOC due to the turn to page 67 for this
>>>>> and then 123 for that and for something else pages 80 or 192...If I
>>>>> wanted exercise in page turning I wouldn't have bought a cookbook.
>>>>>
>>>> Strangely enough, that doesn't condemn JoC for me, and I do hate it
>>>> when books do that. Maybe I just avoided those recipes?!
>>>>
>>> Yet that also teaches you how you can vary the recipe and how to build
>>> the dish to your own specifications yet still with guidance. If you
>>> want one element you go to page x, but if you want another go to page
>>> y, and that is a "cooking lesson" unto itself isn't it?
>>
>> Actually let's use a lemon merangue pie...go to page such and such for a
>> pastry crust recipe (this will refer you to other pages as well), go to page
>> such and such for a lemon curd recipe( options for other pages as well) and
>> go to page such and such for merangue (again references to other pages).
>> While the recipes in JOC are good it's format sucks. I enjoy reading
>> recipes...not turning and re-turning pages. By the time you find all the
>> different bits the recipe doesn't seem as much as a good idea anymore as you
>> had to turn to differing pages 3 or 4 times and it is starting to look too
>> complicated...not the pie but the recipe.
>>
>> I'm not knocking the book, I am explaining why I wouldn't consider it or
>> recommend it. The JOC has fine recipes...but the layout is not to my taste.
>> When cooking I really don't want to be turning to diferent sections of the
>> cookbook every 2 minutes...makes me lose my train of thought and gets
>> gunk/stains on the cookbook.
>>
> Yes, it's a matter of taste, and I agree. I like to be able to evaluate and
> envision the whole recipe when I look at it, and that is greatly hindered by
> the turn to page thus and so approach.
>
Yes and no.
There are some base recipes.
If a recipe for a dish states :
"Use two tbsp. mayonnese (p. 90) and 3 tbsp. Russian mayonnese (p.94)"
I'm not bothered at all, because I know how to prepare them.
It's a help for newbies.
And it's nice that they won't have to look in the index to find the recipes.

Cheers,

Michael Kuettner

On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 15:48:46 +0200, "Michael Kuettner"
> wrote:

>
>"Jean B." schrieb :
>> hahabogus wrote:
>>> Goomba wrote :
>>>
>>>> Jean B. wrote:
>>>>> hahabogus wrote:
>>>>> [snip]
>>>>>> Just like I wouldn't recommended JOC due to the turn to page 67 for this
>>>>>> and then 123 for that and for something else pages 80 or 192...If I
>>>>>> wanted exercise in page turning I wouldn't have bought a cookbook.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Strangely enough, that doesn't condemn JoC for me, and I do hate it
>>>>> when books do that. Maybe I just avoided those recipes?!
>>>>>
>>>> Yet that also teaches you how you can vary the recipe and how to build
>>>> the dish to your own specifications yet still with guidance. If you
>>>> want one element you go to page x, but if you want another go to page
>>>> y, and that is a "cooking lesson" unto itself isn't it?
>>>
>>> Actually let's use a lemon merangue pie...go to page such and such for a
>>> pastry crust recipe (this will refer you to other pages as well), go to page
>>> such and such for a lemon curd recipe( options for other pages as well) and
>>> go to page such and such for merangue (again references to other pages).
>>> While the recipes in JOC are good it's format sucks. I enjoy reading
>>> recipes...not turning and re-turning pages. By the time you find all the
>>> different bits the recipe doesn't seem as much as a good idea anymore as you
>>> had to turn to differing pages 3 or 4 times and it is starting to look too
>>> complicated...not the pie but the recipe.
>>>
>>> I'm not knocking the book, I am explaining why I wouldn't consider it or
>>> recommend it. The JOC has fine recipes...but the layout is not to my taste.
>>> When cooking I really don't want to be turning to diferent sections of the
>>> cookbook every 2 minutes...makes me lose my train of thought and gets
>>> gunk/stains on the cookbook.
>>>
>> Yes, it's a matter of taste, and I agree. I like to be able to evaluate and
>> envision the whole recipe when I look at it, and that is greatly hindered by
>> the turn to page thus and so approach.
>>
>Yes and no.
>There are some base recipes.
>If a recipe for a dish states :
>"Use two tbsp. mayonnese (p. 90) and 3 tbsp. Russian mayonnese (p.94)"
>I'm not bothered at all, because I know how to prepare them.
>It's a help for newbies.
>And it's nice that they won't have to look in the index to find the recipes.
>
>Cheers,
>
>Michael Kuettner
>

that's my feeling as well. i mean, you're supposed to read the whole
recipe before you start, right? you don't expect to see the recipe
for crust repeated with every pie recipe.

but it is true that the j.o.c.'s layout was something of a revolution.
doesn't mrs. beeton's or the like just say 'make a crust with lard'?

your pal,
blake




** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

"blake murphy" schrieb :
> On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 15:48:46 +0200, "Michael Kuettner" wrote:
>
>>
>>"Jean B." schrieb :
<snip>
>>> Yes, it's a matter of taste, and I agree. I like to be able to evaluate and
>>> envision the whole recipe when I look at it, and that is greatly hindered by
>>> the turn to page thus and so approach.
>>>
>>Yes and no.
>>There are some base recipes.
>>If a recipe for a dish states :
>>"Use two tbsp. mayonnese (p. 90) and 3 tbsp. Russian mayonnese (p.94)"
>>I'm not bothered at all, because I know how to prepare them.
>>It's a help for newbies.
>>And it's nice that they won't have to look in the index to find the recipes.
>>
>
> that's my feeling as well. i mean, you're supposed to read the whole
> recipe before you start, right?
Exactly.

> you don't expect to see the recipe
> for crust repeated with every pie recipe.
>
Yes.
Add to that, that the classical Other Australian Kitchen is more
<ahem>"complicated" than the USAn one, I'm used to books stating
"brown sauce (p.94)" etc.

> but it is true that the j.o.c.'s layout was something of a revolution.
> doesn't mrs. beeton's or the like just say 'make a crust with lard'?
>
Could you expand a little one the revolution of JOC for a furrinener ?
Re : Mrs. Beeton : Yes, I know books like that. In those days making
crust or yeast dough was taken as a given.

Cheers,

Michael Kuettner

"blake murphy" schrieb :
> On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 15:48:46 +0200, "Michael Kuettner" wrote:
>
>>
>>"Jean B." schrieb :
<snip>
>>> Yes, it's a matter of taste, and I agree. I like to be able to evaluate and
>>> envision the whole recipe when I look at it, and that is greatly hindered by
>>> the turn to page thus and so approach.
>>>
>>Yes and no.
>>There are some base recipes.
>>If a recipe for a dish states :
>>"Use two tbsp. mayonnese (p. 90) and 3 tbsp. Russian mayonnese (p.94)"
>>I'm not bothered at all, because I know how to prepare them.
>>It's a help for newbies.
>>And it's nice that they won't have to look in the index to find the recipes.
>>
>
> that's my feeling as well. i mean, you're supposed to read the whole
> recipe before you start, right?
Exactly.

> you don't expect to see the recipe
> for crust repeated with every pie recipe.
>
Yes.
Add to that, that the classical Other Australian Kitchen is more
<ahem>"complicated" than the USAn one, I'm used to books stating
"brown sauce (p.94)" etc.

> but it is true that the j.o.c.'s layout was something of a revolution.
> doesn't mrs. beeton's or the like just say 'make a crust with lard'?
>
Could you expand a little one the revolution of JOC for a furrinener ?
Re : Mrs. Beeton : Yes, I know books like that. In those days making
crust or yeast dough was taken as a given.

Cheers,

Michael Kuettner

On Sun 29 Jun 2008 05:40:31a, Jean B. told us...

> hahabogus wrote:
>> Goomba > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> Jean B. wrote:
>>>> hahabogus wrote:
>>>> [snip]
>>>>> Just like I wouldn't recommended JOC due to the turn to page 67 for
>>>>> this and then 123 for that and for something else pages 80 or
>>>>> 192...If I wanted exercise in page turning I wouldn't have bought a
>>>>> cookbook.
>>>>>
>>>> Strangely enough, that doesn't condemn JoC for me, and I do hate it
>>>> when books do that. Maybe I just avoided those recipes?!
>>>>
>>> Yet that also teaches you how you can vary the recipe and how to build
>>> the dish to your own specifications yet still with guidance. If you
>>> want one element you go to page x, but if you want another go to page
y,
>>> and that is a "cooking lesson" unto itself isn't it?
>>
>> Actually let's use a lemon merangue pie...go to page such and such for a
>> pastry crust recipe (this will refer you to other pages as well), go to
>> page such and such for a lemon curd recipe( options for other pages as
>> well) and go to page such and such for merangue (again references to
>> other pages). While the recipes in JOC are good it's format sucks. I
>> enjoy reading recipes...not turning and re-turning pages. By the time
you
>> find all the different bits the recipe doesn't seem as much as a good
>> idea anymore as you had to turn to differing pages 3 or 4 times and it
is
>> starting to look too complicated...not the pie but the recipe.
>>
>> I'm not knocking the book, I am explaining why I wouldn't consider it or
>> recommend it. The JOC has fine recipes...but the layout is not to my
>> taste. When cooking I really don't want to be turning to diferent
>> sections of the cookbook every 2 minutes...makes me lose my train of
>> thought and gets gunk/stains on the cookbook.
>>
> Yes, it's a matter of taste, and I agree. I like to be able to
> evaluate and envision the whole recipe when I look at it, and that
> is greatly hindered by the turn to page thus and so approach.
>

*Most* cookbooks, not just JOC, do not necessarily give you all component
parts of a completed item; e.g., Lemon Meringue Pie, where the pie filling
is one recipe, the crust is a second recipe, and the meringue is a third
recipe. I have seen few cookbooks where all three components are listed
together as a unit. I'm quite used to that approach, and it's definitely
no big effin' deal to me. If I like the recipes a cookbook contains, I
rarely care about the format.

Interestingly, a cookbook that seems to be almost uiversally popular is The
Betty Crocker Cookbook. For some reason I can't quite define, i detest it.
I never bought it, but have immediately given away copies I've been gifted
with.

--
Wayne Boatwright
-------------------------------------------
Sunday, 06(VI)/29(XXIX)/08(MMVIII)
-------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------
What's blue and square? An orange in
disguise...
-------------------------------------------

Wayne Boatwright > wrote in
6.120:

> Interestingly, a cookbook that seems to be almost uiversally popular
> is The Betty Crocker Cookbook. For some reason I can't quite define,
> i detest it. I never bought it, but have immediately given away
> copies I've been gifted with.
>
>

See! My dislike of a certain formats is valid. Proved by your apparent
dislike of MRS. Crocker. JOC, Artisan bread, Ben and Jerry's icecream
Cookbook and some other format styles are not to my liking. This doesn't
mean they are bad cookbooks...just not to my taste. Being normal, I
rarely buy or use stuff I dislike.

Maybe my dislike as a child for those style of books with multiple
endings....where if you think Sally should shoot the horse turn to page
97 or if you think Sally should shoot the dog turn to page 52; plays a
bit part.

--

The house of the burning beet-Alan

On Sun 29 Jun 2008 10:40:38a, hahabogus told us...

> Wayne Boatwright > wrote in
> 6.120:
>
>> Interestingly, a cookbook that seems to be almost uiversally popular
>> is The Betty Crocker Cookbook. For some reason I can't quite define,
>> i detest it. I never bought it, but have immediately given away
>> copies I've been gifted with.
>>
>>
>
> See! My dislike of a certain formats is valid. Proved by your apparent
> dislike of MRS. Crocker. JOC, Artisan bread, Ben and Jerry's icecream
> Cookbook and some other format styles are not to my liking. This doesn't
> mean they are bad cookbooks...just not to my taste. Being normal, I
> rarely buy or use stuff I dislike.
>
> Maybe my dislike as a child for those style of books with multiple
> endings....where if you think Sally should shoot the horse turn to page
> 97 or if you think Sally should shoot the dog turn to page 52; plays a
> bit part.
>

Alan, I never said or implied that any cookbook in any format was a bad
cookbook, nor that they were all good. Few of us will buy things we're
uncomfortable with or dislike for whatever reason.

--
Wayne Boatwright
-------------------------------------------
Sunday, 06(VI)/29(XXIX)/08(MMVIII)
-------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------
Don't be so humble, you're not that
great. -Golda Meir
-------------------------------------------

Wayne Boatwright wrote:
> *Most* cookbooks, not just JOC, do not necessarily give you all component
> parts of a completed item; e.g., Lemon Meringue Pie, where the pie filling
> is one recipe, the crust is a second recipe, and the meringue is a third
> recipe. I have seen few cookbooks where all three components are listed
> together as a unit. I'm quite used to that approach, and it's definitely
> no big effin' deal to me. If I like the recipes a cookbook contains, I
> rarely care about the format.
>
> Interestingly, a cookbook that seems to be almost uiversally popular is The
> Betty Crocker Cookbook. For some reason I can't quite define, i detest it.
> I never bought it, but have immediately given away copies I've been gifted
> with.
>
I'll have to wander downstairs and see what you might be turned
off by. Are you speaking of "Big Red" (1950) or some other edition?

I think there is something very personal in our reactions to
cookbook formats. I have at least gotten to the point where I am
aware of a cookbook being in a format that will put me off.

--
Jean B.

Wayne Boatwright wrote:
> On Sun 29 Jun 2008 10:40:38a, hahabogus told us...
>
>> Wayne Boatwright > wrote in
>> 6.120:
>>
>>> Interestingly, a cookbook that seems to be almost uiversally popular
>>> is The Betty Crocker Cookbook. For some reason I can't quite define,
>>> i detest it. I never bought it, but have immediately given away
>>> copies I've been gifted with.
>>>
>>>
>> See! My dislike of a certain formats is valid. Proved by your apparent
>> dislike of MRS. Crocker. JOC, Artisan bread, Ben and Jerry's icecream
>> Cookbook and some other format styles are not to my liking. This doesn't
>> mean they are bad cookbooks...just not to my taste. Being normal, I
>> rarely buy or use stuff I dislike.
>>
>> Maybe my dislike as a child for those style of books with multiple
>> endings....where if you think Sally should shoot the horse turn to page
>> 97 or if you think Sally should shoot the dog turn to page 52; plays a
>> bit part.
>>
>
> Alan, I never said or implied that any cookbook in any format was a bad
> cookbook, nor that they were all good. Few of us will buy things we're
> uncomfortable with or dislike for whatever reason.
>
Welllllllll, now that I've turned into a crazy cookbook collector,
I might very well buy such things. I also probably wouldn't use
them much if at all.

--
Jean B.

On Sun 29 Jun 2008 03:38:27p, Jean B. told us...

> Wayne Boatwright wrote:
>> *Most* cookbooks, not just JOC, do not necessarily give you all
>> component parts of a completed item; e.g., Lemon Meringue Pie, where
>> the pie filling is one recipe, the crust is a second recipe, and the
>> meringue is a third recipe. I have seen few cookbooks where all three
>> components are listed together as a unit. I'm quite used to that
>> approach, and it's definitely no big effin' deal to me. If I like the
>> recipes a cookbook contains, I rarely care about the format.
>>
>> Interestingly, a cookbook that seems to be almost uiversally popular is
>> The Betty Crocker Cookbook. For some reason I can't quite define, i
>> detest it. I never bought it, but have immediately given away copies
>> I've been gifted with.
>>
> I'll have to wander downstairs and see what you might be turned
> off by. Are you speaking of "Big Red" (1950) or some other edition?

It was definitely one published in the 1950s, and there was definitely
"red" on the cover, but IIRC, I think it was in a plaid.

My mother had only a half dozen or so cookbooks, but her two cookbook
"bibles" were The Good Housekeeping Cookbook and Joy of Cooking. OTOH, my
favorite aunt had even fewer cookbooks and her "bible" was The Betty
Crocker Cookbook. I had an interest in cooking even as a young child, and
often read the GHC and JOC at home, either attempting or helping with
recipes from those. When we would visit my aunt, I remember my reaction to
reading her BCC, was that it wasn't a "serious" cookbook. Funny how things
like that stick in your mind, even though I can't recall exactly what the
reason was. Thinking about it more now, I believe I thought it was overly
simplified.

> I think there is something very personal in our reactions to
> cookbook formats. I have at least gotten to the point where I am
> aware of a cookbook being in a format that will put me off.

My aversions are more about content than format.

--
Wayne Boatwright
-------------------------------------------
Sunday, 06(VI)/29(XXIX)/08(MMVIII)
-------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------
I'm immortal....so far. - Anon
-------------------------------------------

On Sun 29 Jun 2008 03:50:29p, Jean B. told us...

> Wayne Boatwright wrote:
>> On Sun 29 Jun 2008 10:40:38a, hahabogus told us...
>>
>>> Wayne Boatwright > wrote in
>>> 6.120:
>>>
>>>> Interestingly, a cookbook that seems to be almost uiversally popular
>>>> is The Betty Crocker Cookbook. For some reason I can't quite define,
i
>>>> detest it. I never bought it, but have immediately given away copies
>>>> I've been gifted with.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> See! My dislike of a certain formats is valid. Proved by your apparent
>>> dislike of MRS. Crocker. JOC, Artisan bread, Ben and Jerry's icecream
>>> Cookbook and some other format styles are not to my liking. This
doesn't
>>> mean they are bad cookbooks...just not to my taste. Being normal, I
>>> rarely buy or use stuff I dislike.
>>>
>>> Maybe my dislike as a child for those style of books with multiple
>>> endings....where if you think Sally should shoot the horse turn to page
>>> 97 or if you think Sally should shoot the dog turn to page 52; plays a
>>> bit part.
>>>
>>
>> Alan, I never said or implied that any cookbook in any format was a bad
>> cookbook, nor that they were all good. Few of us will buy things we're
>> uncomfortable with or dislike for whatever reason.
>>
> Welllllllll, now that I've turned into a crazy cookbook collector,
> I might very well buy such things. I also probably wouldn't use
> them much if at all.

I certainly have cookbooks that I rarely use and might not have bought had
I given them a closer exam at the time.

--
Wayne Boatwright
-------------------------------------------
Sunday, 06(VI)/29(XXIX)/08(MMVIII)
-------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------
My life is not organized around
high-probability events.
-------------------------------------------

Wayne Boatwright wrote:
> On Sun 29 Jun 2008 03:38:27p, Jean B. told us...
>
>> Wayne Boatwright wrote:
>>> *Most* cookbooks, not just JOC, do not necessarily give you all
>>> component parts of a completed item; e.g., Lemon Meringue Pie, where
>>> the pie filling is one recipe, the crust is a second recipe, and the
>>> meringue is a third recipe. I have seen few cookbooks where all three
>>> components are listed together as a unit. I'm quite used to that
>>> approach, and it's definitely no big effin' deal to me. If I like the
>>> recipes a cookbook contains, I rarely care about the format.
>>>
>>> Interestingly, a cookbook that seems to be almost uiversally popular is
>>> The Betty Crocker Cookbook. For some reason I can't quite define, i
>>> detest it. I never bought it, but have immediately given away copies
>>> I've been gifted with.
>>>
>> I'll have to wander downstairs and see what you might be turned
>> off by. Are you speaking of "Big Red" (1950) or some other edition?
>
> It was definitely one published in the 1950s, and there was definitely
> "red" on the cover, but IIRC, I think it was in a plaid.
>
> My mother had only a half dozen or so cookbooks, but her two cookbook
> "bibles" were The Good Housekeeping Cookbook and Joy of Cooking. OTOH, my
> favorite aunt had even fewer cookbooks and her "bible" was The Betty
> Crocker Cookbook. I had an interest in cooking even as a young child, and
> often read the GHC and JOC at home, either attempting or helping with
> recipes from those. When we would visit my aunt, I remember my reaction to
> reading her BCC, was that it wasn't a "serious" cookbook. Funny how things
> like that stick in your mind, even though I can't recall exactly what the
> reason was. Thinking about it more now, I believe I thought it was overly
> simplified.
>
>> I think there is something very personal in our reactions to
>> cookbook formats. I have at least gotten to the point where I am
>> aware of a cookbook being in a format that will put me off.
>
> My aversions are more about content than format.
>
Isn't it interesting that even as a child that Betty Crocker
cookbook turned you off!

--
Jean B.

Wayne Boatwright wrote:
> On Sun 29 Jun 2008 03:50:29p, Jean B. told us...
>
>> Wayne Boatwright wrote:
>>> On Sun 29 Jun 2008 10:40:38a, hahabogus told us...
>>>
>>>> Wayne Boatwright > wrote in
>>>> 6.120:
>>>>
>>>>> Interestingly, a cookbook that seems to be almost uiversally popular
>>>>> is The Betty Crocker Cookbook. For some reason I can't quite define,
> i
>>>>> detest it. I never bought it, but have immediately given away copies
>>>>> I've been gifted with.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> See! My dislike of a certain formats is valid. Proved by your apparent
>>>> dislike of MRS. Crocker. JOC, Artisan bread, Ben and Jerry's icecream
>>>> Cookbook and some other format styles are not to my liking. This
> doesn't
>>>> mean they are bad cookbooks...just not to my taste. Being normal, I
>>>> rarely buy or use stuff I dislike.
>>>>
>>>> Maybe my dislike as a child for those style of books with multiple
>>>> endings....where if you think Sally should shoot the horse turn to page
>>>> 97 or if you think Sally should shoot the dog turn to page 52; plays a
>>>> bit part.
>>>>
>>> Alan, I never said or implied that any cookbook in any format was a bad
>>> cookbook, nor that they were all good. Few of us will buy things we're
>>> uncomfortable with or dislike for whatever reason.
>>>
>> Welllllllll, now that I've turned into a crazy cookbook collector,
>> I might very well buy such things. I also probably wouldn't use
>> them much if at all.
>
> I certainly have cookbooks that I rarely use and might not have bought had
> I given them a closer exam at the time.
>
Oh, that's another story--and I have plenty of those.

--
Jean B.

On Sun 29 Jun 2008 07:02:10p, Jean B. told us...

> Wayne Boatwright wrote:
>> On Sun 29 Jun 2008 03:38:27p, Jean B. told us...
>>
>>> Wayne Boatwright wrote:
>>>> *Most* cookbooks, not just JOC, do not necessarily give you all
>>>> component parts of a completed item; e.g., Lemon Meringue Pie, where
>>>> the pie filling is one recipe, the crust is a second recipe, and the
>>>> meringue is a third recipe. I have seen few cookbooks where all
>>>> three components are listed together as a unit. I'm quite used to
>>>> that approach, and it's definitely no big effin' deal to me. If I
>>>> like the recipes a cookbook contains, I rarely care about the format.
>>>>
>>>> Interestingly, a cookbook that seems to be almost uiversally popular
>>>> is The Betty Crocker Cookbook. For some reason I can't quite define,
>>>> i detest it. I never bought it, but have immediately given away
>>>> copies I've been gifted with.
>>>>
>>> I'll have to wander downstairs and see what you might be turned off
>>> by. Are you speaking of "Big Red" (1950) or some other edition?
>>
>> It was definitely one published in the 1950s, and there was definitely
>> "red" on the cover, but IIRC, I think it was in a plaid.
>>
>> My mother had only a half dozen or so cookbooks, but her two cookbook
>> "bibles" were The Good Housekeeping Cookbook and Joy of Cooking. OTOH,
>> my favorite aunt had even fewer cookbooks and her "bible" was The Betty
>> Crocker Cookbook. I had an interest in cooking even as a young child,
>> and often read the GHC and JOC at home, either attempting or helping
>> with recipes from those. When we would visit my aunt, I remember my
>> reaction to reading her BCC, was that it wasn't a "serious" cookbook.
>> Funny how things like that stick in your mind, even though I can't
>> recall exactly what the reason was. Thinking about it more now, I
>> believe I thought it was overly simplified.
>>
>>> I think there is something very personal in our reactions to
>>> cookbook formats. I have at least gotten to the point where I am
>>> aware of a cookbook being in a format that will put me off.
>>
>> My aversions are more about content than format.
>>
> Isn't it interesting that even as a child that Betty Crocker
> cookbook turned you off!
>

I suppose so, but I had a definite dislike for it, and a clear preference
for cookbooks that I perceived as more detailed and complex.

Apart from the book itself, I think I had a disdain for the fact that there
were Betty Crocker branded food products in the supermarket, such as cake
mixes, etc. My mother never made anything from a mix, and perhaps that
association with the cookbook had some influence.

--
Wayne Boatwright
-------------------------------------------
Sunday, 06(VI)/29(XXIX)/08(MMVIII)
-------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------
'Politically Correct' - Colloquial
oxymoronic figure of speech.
-------------------------------------------

On Sun 29 Jun 2008 07:02:33p, Jean B. told us...

> Wayne Boatwright wrote:
>> On Sun 29 Jun 2008 03:50:29p, Jean B. told us...
>>
>>> Wayne Boatwright wrote:
>>>> On Sun 29 Jun 2008 10:40:38a, hahabogus told us...
>>>>
>>>>> Wayne Boatwright > wrote in
>>>>> 6.120:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Interestingly, a cookbook that seems to be almost uiversally
>>>>>> popular is The Betty Crocker Cookbook. For some reason I can't
>>>>>> quite define, i detest it. I never bought it, but have
>>>>>> immediately given away copies I've been gifted with.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> See! My dislike of a certain formats is valid. Proved by your
>>>>> apparent dislike of MRS. Crocker. JOC, Artisan bread, Ben and
>>>>> Jerry's icecream Cookbook and some other format styles are not to my
>>>>> liking. This doesn't mean they are bad cookbooks...just not to my
>>>>> taste. Being normal, I rarely buy or use stuff I dislike.
>>>>>
>>>>> Maybe my dislike as a child for those style of books with multiple
>>>>> endings....where if you think Sally should shoot the horse turn to
>>>>> page 97 or if you think Sally should shoot the dog turn to page 52;
>>>>> plays a bit part.
>>>>>
>>>> Alan, I never said or implied that any cookbook in any format was a
>>>> bad cookbook, nor that they were all good. Few of us will buy things
>>>> we're uncomfortable with or dislike for whatever reason.
>>>>
>>> Welllllllll, now that I've turned into a crazy cookbook collector,
>>> I might very well buy such things. I also probably wouldn't use them
>>> much if at all.
>>
>> I certainly have cookbooks that I rarely use and might not have bought
>> had I given them a closer exam at the time.
>>
> Oh, that's another story--and I have plenty of those.
>

LOL! Most of us probably do.

--
Wayne Boatwright
-------------------------------------------
Sunday, 06(VI)/29(XXIX)/08(MMVIII)
-------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------
Vee off ze KGB are not ez slow ez you
tink, comrade.
-------------------------------------------

Wayne Boatwright > wrote in
6.120:

> It was definitely one published in the 1950s, and there was definitely
> "red" on the cover, but IIRC, I think it was in a plaid.
>

The Plaid book was Better Homes and Gardens...A hard covered 3 ringed
binder of great repute.

--

The house of the burning beet-Alan

On Sun 29 Jun 2008 10:32:47p, hahabogus told us...

> Wayne Boatwright > wrote in
> 6.120:
>
>> It was definitely one published in the 1950s, and there was definitely
>> "red" on the cover, but IIRC, I think it was in a plaid.
>>
>
> The Plaid book was Better Homes and Gardens...A hard covered 3 ringed
> binder of great repute.
>

Thanks, Alan. I've never owned either one, but it was definitely the Betty
Crocker book I didn't like. My aunt must have had both.

--
Wayne Boatwright
-------------------------------------------
Sunday, 06(VI)/29(XXIX)/08(MMVIII)
-------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------
LSD melts in your mind, not in your hands.
-------------------------------------------

Wayne Boatwright wrote:
> I suppose so, but I had a definite dislike for it, and a clear preference
> for cookbooks that I perceived as more detailed and complex.
>
> Apart from the book itself, I think I had a disdain for the fact that there
> were Betty Crocker branded food products in the supermarket, such as cake
> mixes, etc. My mother never made anything from a mix, and perhaps that
> association with the cookbook had some influence.
>
Oh! That reminds me. I don't like cookbooks that call for
specific store-bought products. Ugh.

I also don't recall my mother using mixes, which is probably why I
still harbor some disdain for them. I do have a rather old book
that gives recipes for such mixes--that is, IF it isn't among the
lost.

--
Jean B.

Wayne Boatwright wrote:
> On Sun 29 Jun 2008 07:02:33p, Jean B. told us...
>
>> Wayne Boatwright wrote:
>>> On Sun 29 Jun 2008 03:50:29p, Jean B. told us...
>>>
>>>> Wayne Boatwright wrote:
>>>>> On Sun 29 Jun 2008 10:40:38a, hahabogus told us...
>>>>>
>>>>>> Wayne Boatwright > wrote in
>>>>>> 6.120:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Interestingly, a cookbook that seems to be almost uiversally
>>>>>>> popular is The Betty Crocker Cookbook. For some reason I can't
>>>>>>> quite define, i detest it. I never bought it, but have
>>>>>>> immediately given away copies I've been gifted with.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> See! My dislike of a certain formats is valid. Proved by your
>>>>>> apparent dislike of MRS. Crocker. JOC, Artisan bread, Ben and
>>>>>> Jerry's icecream Cookbook and some other format styles are not to my
>>>>>> liking. This doesn't mean they are bad cookbooks...just not to my
>>>>>> taste. Being normal, I rarely buy or use stuff I dislike.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Maybe my dislike as a child for those style of books with multiple
>>>>>> endings....where if you think Sally should shoot the horse turn to
>>>>>> page 97 or if you think Sally should shoot the dog turn to page 52;
>>>>>> plays a bit part.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Alan, I never said or implied that any cookbook in any format was a
>>>>> bad cookbook, nor that they were all good. Few of us will buy things
>>>>> we're uncomfortable with or dislike for whatever reason.
>>>>>
>>>> Welllllllll, now that I've turned into a crazy cookbook collector,
>>>> I might very well buy such things. I also probably wouldn't use them
>>>> much if at all.
>>> I certainly have cookbooks that I rarely use and might not have bought
>>> had I given them a closer exam at the time.
>>>
>> Oh, that's another story--and I have plenty of those.
>>
>
> LOL! Most of us probably do.
>
The saner folks might actually get rid of them! (I MIGHT get rid
of my duplicates....)

--
Jean B.

Wayne Boatwright wrote:
> On Sun 29 Jun 2008 10:32:47p, hahabogus told us...
>
>> Wayne Boatwright > wrote in
>> 6.120:
>>
>>> It was definitely one published in the 1950s, and there was definitely
>>> "red" on the cover, but IIRC, I think it was in a plaid.
>>>
>> The Plaid book was Better Homes and Gardens...A hard covered 3 ringed
>> binder of great repute.
>>
>
> Thanks, Alan. I've never owned either one, but it was definitely the Betty
> Crocker book I didn't like. My aunt must have had both.
>
They are easily confused--by me, anyway. I also remembered the BC
as being plaid until that was pointed out to me.

--
Jean B.

"Jean B." > wrote in
:

> Wayne Boatwright wrote:
>> On Sun 29 Jun 2008 10:32:47p, hahabogus told us...
>>
>>> Wayne Boatwright > wrote in
>>> 6.120:
>>>
>>>> It was definitely one published in the 1950s, and there was
>>>> definitely "red" on the cover, but IIRC, I think it was in a plaid.
>>>>
>>> The Plaid book was Better Homes and Gardens...A hard covered 3
>>> ringed binder of great repute.
>>>
>>
>> Thanks, Alan. I've never owned either one, but it was definitely the
>> Betty Crocker book I didn't like. My aunt must have had both.
>>
> They are easily confused--by me, anyway. I also remembered the BC
> as being plaid until that was pointed out to me.
>

It might not be BH&G it might be Good Housekeeping

--

The house of the burning beet-Alan

hahabogus wrote:
> "Jean B." > wrote in
> :
>
>> Wayne Boatwright wrote:
>>> On Sun 29 Jun 2008 10:32:47p, hahabogus told us...
>>>
>>>> Wayne Boatwright > wrote in
>>>> 6.120:
>>>>
>>>>> It was definitely one published in the 1950s, and there was
>>>>> definitely "red" on the cover, but IIRC, I think it was in a plaid.
>>>>>
>>>> The Plaid book was Better Homes and Gardens...A hard covered 3
>>>> ringed binder of great repute.
>>>>
>>> Thanks, Alan. I've never owned either one, but it was definitely the
>>> Betty Crocker book I didn't like. My aunt must have had both.
>>>
>> They are easily confused--by me, anyway. I also remembered the BC
>> as being plaid until that was pointed out to me.
>>
>
> It might not be BH&G it might be Good Housekeeping
>
You are really going to make me go downstairs and look...

Betty Crocker has white vines on a red background. Better Homes
and Gardens has a red and white plaid cover, with the plaid
sometimes straight and sometimes at a diagonal, depending on the
edition (we won't get into the gold edition or the silver
edition). I don't know where I have stashed my GH from the 50s,
but their first editions actually date back to the early 1900s (I
think their Everyday Cook Book, dated 1903). Their format was not
one to be confused with the other two. (Looking online now, I see
the cover was basically brown.)

--
Jean B.

"Jean B." > wrote in :

> hahabogus wrote:
>> "Jean B." > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> Wayne Boatwright wrote:
>>>> On Sun 29 Jun 2008 10:32:47p, hahabogus told us...
>>>>
>>>>> Wayne Boatwright > wrote in
>>>>> 6.120:
>>>>>
>>>>>> It was definitely one published in the 1950s, and there was
>>>>>> definitely "red" on the cover, but IIRC, I think it was in a plaid.
>>>>>>
>>>>> The Plaid book was Better Homes and Gardens...A hard covered 3
>>>>> ringed binder of great repute.
>>>>>
>>>> Thanks, Alan. I've never owned either one, but it was definitely the
>>>> Betty Crocker book I didn't like. My aunt must have had both.
>>>>
>>> They are easily confused--by me, anyway. I also remembered the BC
>>> as being plaid until that was pointed out to me.
>>>
>>
>> It might not be BH&G it might be Good Housekeeping
>>
> You are really going to make me go downstairs and look...
>
> Betty Crocker has white vines on a red background. Better Homes
> and Gardens has a red and white plaid cover, with the plaid
> sometimes straight and sometimes at a diagonal, depending on the
> edition (we won't get into the gold edition or the silver
> edition). I don't know where I have stashed my GH from the 50s,
> but their first editions actually date back to the early 1900s (I
> think their Everyday Cook Book, dated 1903). Their format was not
> one to be confused with the other two. (Looking online now, I see
> the cover was basically brown.)
>

That 'might' is a powerful tool. Thanks for clearing up my brain fart...

I'm off to buy red bell peppers and boneless pork butt roasts. I'm off the
next 3 days and I see smoked pork butt and smoked red bell peppers in my
Future.... Tomorrow is Canada Day (July 1)... so Show Me Your Beaver...as
read off a T-shirt.

Gonna try a sugarless pork rub on the roasts. Smoked red bell peppers are a
good thing.

--

The house of the burning beet-Alan

On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 18:23:59 +0200, "Michael Kuettner"
> wrote:

>
>"blake murphy" schrieb :
>> On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 15:48:46 +0200, "Michael Kuettner" wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Jean B." schrieb :
><snip>
>>>> Yes, it's a matter of taste, and I agree. I like to be able to evaluate and
>>>> envision the whole recipe when I look at it, and that is greatly hindered by
>>>> the turn to page thus and so approach.
>>>>
>>>Yes and no.
>>>There are some base recipes.
>>>If a recipe for a dish states :
>>>"Use two tbsp. mayonnese (p. 90) and 3 tbsp. Russian mayonnese (p.94)"
>>>I'm not bothered at all, because I know how to prepare them.
>>>It's a help for newbies.
>>>And it's nice that they won't have to look in the index to find the recipes.
>>>
>>
>> that's my feeling as well. i mean, you're supposed to read the whole
>> recipe before you start, right?
>Exactly.
>
>> you don't expect to see the recipe
>> for crust repeated with every pie recipe.
>>
>Yes.
>Add to that, that the classical Other Australian Kitchen is more
><ahem>"complicated" than the USAn one, I'm used to books stating
>"brown sauce (p.94)" etc.
>
>> but it is true that the j.o.c.'s layout was something of a revolution.
>> doesn't mrs. beeton's or the like just say 'make a crust with lard'?
>>
>Could you expand a little one the revolution of JOC for a furrinener ?
>Re : Mrs. Beeton : Yes, I know books like that. In those days making
>crust or yeast dough was taken as a given.
>
>Cheers,
>
>Michael Kuettner
>

well, i'm no expert on early 20th-century cookbooks, but
as i understand it, the interleaving of the ingredients with the
instructions had not been done ever before, as well as the
cross-references complete with page numbers, at least in american
cookbooks. rombauer also managed to inject her personality to a
larger extent (other than to scold readers) than had the books of the
past, which despite the titles ('mrs. beeton's,' 'betty crocker's')
were primarily products of committees.

it is also thought that some of the unique qualities were due to the
publisher, bobbs-merrill, being primarily a publisher of textbooks.
(incidentally, they screwed her out of the copyright. the relations
between authors and publisher were at times quite rocky.)

all this and much, much more can be found in 'stand facing the stove:
the story of the women who gave america the *joy of cooking*'

<http://www.amazon.com/Stand-Facing-Stove-America-Cooking/dp/0743229398/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1214842464&sr= 8-1>

....a complete biography, along with a healthy dollop of material on
historical st. louis, history of cooking styles in america, and a
blow-by-blow of rombauer battles with bobbs-merrill and struggles
within the family itself. (also detailed are the changes between the
various editions and the whys and wherefores thereof.) interesting on
a lot of levels. irma was a woman who seemed to get a kick out of
life, though she had her share of tragedies.

your pal,
blake




** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

hahabogus wrote:
> That 'might' is a powerful tool. Thanks for clearing up my brain fart...
>
> I'm off to buy red bell peppers and boneless pork butt roasts. I'm off the
> next 3 days and I see smoked pork butt and smoked red bell peppers in my
> Future.... Tomorrow is Canada Day (July 1)... so Show Me Your Beaver...as
> read off a T-shirt.
>
> Gonna try a sugarless pork rub on the roasts. Smoked red bell peppers are a
> good thing.
>
But wait! I was out and about and saw a 1944 ed. of the Good
Housekeeping Cookbook, which, indeed, did sport a plaid cover. (I
don't know where MY copy of this is--maybe in a box. It isn't
with the other such "bibles".)

So, actually, GH was in the forefront of such covers, and BH&G
copied them! Looking at my shelves of older books, there was an
earlier GH cookbook (1933--it's buried), that has red and white
stripes on its spine and may turn out to be plaid if I dredge it
out. It is a smaller format though.

--
Jean B.

On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 17:40:38 GMT, hahabogus > wrote:

>Wayne Boatwright > wrote in
86.120:
>
>> Interestingly, a cookbook that seems to be almost uiversally popular
>> is The Betty Crocker Cookbook. For some reason I can't quite define,
>> i detest it. I never bought it, but have immediately given away
>> copies I've been gifted with.
>>
>>
>
>See! My dislike of a certain formats is valid. Proved by your apparent
>dislike of MRS. Crocker. JOC, Artisan bread, Ben and Jerry's icecream
>Cookbook and some other format styles are not to my liking. This doesn't
>mean they are bad cookbooks...just not to my taste. Being normal, I
>rarely buy or use stuff I dislike.
>
>Maybe my dislike as a child for those style of books with multiple
>endings....where if you think Sally should shoot the horse turn to page
>97 or if you think Sally should shoot the dog turn to page 52; plays a
>bit part.

your kid's books had sally shooting dogs and horses? must have been a
progressive school. all i remember is sally running or sitting around
looking stupid.

your pal,
dick
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

"blake murphy" schrieb :
> On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 18:23:59 +0200, "Michael Kuettner" wrote:
>
<snip>
>>Could you expand a little one the revolution of JOC for a furrinener ?
>>Re : Mrs. Beeton : Yes, I know books like that. In those days making
>>crust or yeast dough was taken as a given.
>>
>
> well, i'm no expert on early 20th-century cookbooks, but
> as i understand it, the interleaving of the ingredients with the
> instructions had not been done ever before, as well as the
> cross-references complete with page numbers, at least in american
> cookbooks. rombauer also managed to inject her personality to a
> larger extent (other than to scold readers) than had the books of the
> past, which despite the titles ('mrs. beeton's,' 'betty crocker's')
> were primarily products of committees.
>
> it is also thought that some of the unique qualities were due to the
> publisher, bobbs-merrill, being primarily a publisher of textbooks.
> (incidentally, they screwed her out of the copyright. the relations
> between authors and publisher were at times quite rocky.)
>
> all this and much, much more can be found in 'stand facing the stove:
> the story of the women who gave america the *joy of cooking*'
>
> <http://www.amazon.com/Stand-Facing-Stove-America-Cooking/dp/0743229398/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1214842464&sr= 8-1>
>
> ...a complete biography, along with a healthy dollop of material on
> historical st. louis, history of cooking styles in america, and a
> blow-by-blow of rombauer battles with bobbs-merrill and struggles
> within the family itself. (also detailed are the changes between the
> various editions and the whys and wherefores thereof.) interesting on
> a lot of levels. irma was a woman who seemed to get a kick out of
> life, though she had her share of tragedies.
>
Thank you very much !

Cheers,

Michael Kuettner

"blake murphy" schrieb :
> On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 18:23:59 +0200, "Michael Kuettner" wrote:
>
<snip>
>>Could you expand a little one the revolution of JOC for a furrinener ?
>>Re : Mrs. Beeton : Yes, I know books like that. In those days making
>>crust or yeast dough was taken as a given.
>>
>
> well, i'm no expert on early 20th-century cookbooks, but
> as i understand it, the interleaving of the ingredients with the
> instructions had not been done ever before, as well as the
> cross-references complete with page numbers, at least in american
> cookbooks. rombauer also managed to inject her personality to a
> larger extent (other than to scold readers) than had the books of the
> past, which despite the titles ('mrs. beeton's,' 'betty crocker's')
> were primarily products of committees.
>
> it is also thought that some of the unique qualities were due to the
> publisher, bobbs-merrill, being primarily a publisher of textbooks.
> (incidentally, they screwed her out of the copyright. the relations
> between authors and publisher were at times quite rocky.)
>
> all this and much, much more can be found in 'stand facing the stove:
> the story of the women who gave america the *joy of cooking*'
>
> <http://www.amazon.com/Stand-Facing-Stove-America-Cooking/dp/0743229398/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1214842464&sr= 8-1>
>
> ...a complete biography, along with a healthy dollop of material on
> historical st. louis, history of cooking styles in america, and a
> blow-by-blow of rombauer battles with bobbs-merrill and struggles
> within the family itself. (also detailed are the changes between the
> various editions and the whys and wherefores thereof.) interesting on
> a lot of levels. irma was a woman who seemed to get a kick out of
> life, though she had her share of tragedies.
>
Thank you very much !

Cheers,

Michael Kuettner