I have a gift card for a bookstore. I'm going to buy a cookbook.

What I'm looking for is standard basic information for standard basic
cooking of standard fare. The kind of thing where if I know the name of
it, I can find how to do it. Not the kind where I would find recipes
somebody invented in order to fill up a cookbook, and which I would
never cook.

I already have "Joy of Cooking" which is pretty good, except too often
they say in effect "there is a standard way to do this but our way is
spiffier." I want the standard way.

My current candidate is Bittman's "How to Cook Everything."
Any comments or suggestions?

David Harmon wrote:
> I have a gift card for a bookstore. I'm going to buy a cookbook.
>
> What I'm looking for is standard basic information for standard basic
> cooking of standard fare. The kind of thing where if I know the name of
> it, I can find how to do it. Not the kind where I would find recipes
> somebody invented in order to fill up a cookbook, and which I would
> never cook.
>
> I already have "Joy of Cooking" which is pretty good, except too often
> they say in effect "there is a standard way to do this but our way is
> spiffier." I want the standard way.
>
> My current candidate is Bittman's "How to Cook Everything."
> Any comments or suggestions?

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.

I would love to own "How to Cook Everything". I think "Cookwise" is
similar. Maybe.

-Tracy

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?




Brian

--
If televison's a babysitter, the Internet is a drunk librarian who
won't shut up.
-- Dorothy Gambrell (http://catandgirl.com)

"David Harmon" > wrote in message
m...
>I have a gift card for a bookstore. I'm going to buy a cookbook.
>
> What I'm looking for is standard basic information for standard basic
> cooking of standard fare. The kind of thing where if I know the name of
> it, I can find how to do it. Not the kind where I would find recipes
> somebody invented in order to fill up a cookbook, and which I would
> never cook.
>
> I already have "Joy of Cooking" which is pretty good, except too often
> they say in effect "there is a standard way to do this but our way is
> spiffier." I want the standard way.
>
> My current candidate is Bittman's "How to Cook Everything."
> Any comments or suggestions?
>
>
After the "Joy of Cooking", I always reach for Julia Child's "The Way to
Cook", published about 1989. It's a great synthesis of what she did. It may
be in print. The bookstore could order it for you. The next one, though it's
a bit focused, is Marcella Hazan's "Classic Italian Cooking".
Cheers,

Theron

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?
>
>
>
>
> Brian
>

No, I just hate flipping back and forth. I just want a list of
ingredients and directions.
I think the recipes are fine in JOC - I just don't like the format very
much.

-Tracy

On Jan 8, 2:23*pm, David Harmon > wrote:
> I have a gift card for a bookstore. *I'm going to buy a cookbook.
>
> What I'm looking for is standard basic information for standard basic
> cooking of standard fare. *The kind of thing where if I know the name of
> it, I can find how to do it. *Not the kind where I would find recipes
> somebody invented in order to fill up a cookbook, and which I would
> never cook.
>
> I already have "Joy of Cooking" which is pretty good, except too often
> they say in effect "there is a standard way to do this but our way is
> spiffier." *I want the standard way.
>
> My current candidate is Bittman's "How to Cook Everything." *
> Any comments or suggestions?

I like The New Basics, written by the Silver Palate ladies (Lukins and
Rosso) before their feud. Has a nice overview from appetizers, soups,
salads, sides, vegetables, mains, desserts, even drinks. Maybe that
would work for you?

Kris

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?
>
>
>
>
> Brian
>
Instead of a commercially available 'popular' cook book published for
the masses, consider a text book cook book from a cooking school.

The London catering guild publishes a book titled "English Cookery" by
Cesarini and Kenton that i think is a very good example of its type, and
is a companion text book to the cooking courses they offer.

These types of text book/cook book, are marvelously arranged and offer
elaboration's on fundamentals and basics.
--
Joseph Littleshoes

"David Harmon" > wrote in message
m...
>I have a gift card for a bookstore. I'm going to buy a cookbook.
>
> What I'm looking for is standard basic information for standard basic
> cooking of standard fare. The kind of thing where if I know the name of
> it, I can find how to do it. Not the kind where I would find recipes
> somebody invented in order to fill up a cookbook, and which I would
> never cook.
>
> I already have "Joy of Cooking" which is pretty good, except too often
> they say in effect "there is a standard way to do this but our way is
> spiffier." I want the standard way.
>
> My current candidate is Bittman's "How to Cook Everything."
> Any comments or suggestions?

I would recommend The original Julia Child " The Way To Cook"


Dimitri

"David Harmon" wrote in message >I have a gift card for a bookstore. I'm
going to buy a cookbook.
>
> What I'm looking for is standard basic information for standard basic
> cooking of standard fare. The kind of thing where if I know the name of
> it, I can find how to do it. Not the kind where I would find recipes
> somebody invented in order to fill up a cookbook, and which I would
> never cook.
>
> I already have "Joy of Cooking" which is pretty good, except too often
> they say in effect "there is a standard way to do this but our way is
> spiffier." I want the standard way.
>
> My current candidate is Bittman's "How to Cook Everything."
> Any comments or suggestions?

If you're looking for something very basic, but informative I'd recommend
one of Betty Crocker's cookbooks.

http://tinyurl.com/6wg9yg

or

Better Homes & Gardens New Cookbooks

http://tinyurl.com/9p2y92

In article >, 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.
> -Tracy

Come over here and sit by me; I've been saying that every time JOC comes
up, including this time. :-) I'm sure it's a fine book and I have
two old ones but I never open them for that very reason.
--
-Barb, Mother Superior, HOSSSPoJ
<http://www.caringbridge.org/visit/amytaylor>
December 27, 2008, 7:30 a.m.: "I have fixed my roof,
I have mended my fences; now let the winter winds blow."

David Harmon wrote:
> I have a gift card for a bookstore. I'm going to buy a cookbook.
>
> What I'm looking for is standard basic information for standard basic
> cooking of standard fare. The kind of thing where if I know the name of
> it, I can find how to do it. Not the kind where I would find recipes
> somebody invented in order to fill up a cookbook, and which I would
> never cook.
>
> I already have "Joy of Cooking" which is pretty good, except too often
> they say in effect "there is a standard way to do this but our way is
> spiffier." I want the standard way.
>
> My current candidate is Bittman's "How to Cook Everything."
> Any comments or suggestions?


That's the one I was going to suggest.

My first cookbook, in that vein, was the '64 edition (I think)
of Fanny Farmer's Boston Cooking School Cookbook. If I'm looking for a
classic recipe or way to treat an unfamiliar ingredient, I go there
first,then JOC. Bittman, I think, would also be a good go-to.
Alton Brow is interesting and informative but sometimes too pedantic,
like the Cooks' Illustrated guy.

gloria p

On Thu, 08 Jan 2009 11:23:21 -0800, David Harmon >
wrote:


>My current candidate is Bittman's "How to Cook Everything."
>Any comments or suggestions?

That was my first suggestion, but another one just came to mind.

You might want to check out the revised edition of Fannie Farmer. It
was revised by Marion Cunningham, who for years was the assistant to
James Beard, and has gone on to write several good cookbooks on her
own, as well as revising the Fannie Farmer cookbook.

Christine
--
http://nightstirrings.blogspot.com

Melba's Jammin' > wrote:

>In article >, Tracy >

>> 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.
>> -Tracy

>Come over here and sit by me; I've been saying that every time JOC comes
>up, including this time. :-) I'm sure it's a fine book and I have
>two old ones but I never open them for that very reason.

For awhile, I worked for a group writing technical standards
that had a policy against cross-references in their standards.
Every concept had to be explained fully in in-line text.

It did make for a much more lengthier document, but you could
read just one section and it would be complete.

Steve

"Christine Dabney" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 08 Jan 2009 11:23:21 -0800, David Harmon >
> wrote:
>
>
>>My current candidate is Bittman's "How to Cook Everything."
>>Any comments or suggestions?
>
> That was my first suggestion, but another one just came to mind.
>
> You might want to check out the revised edition of Fannie Farmer. It
> was revised by Marion Cunningham, who for years was the assistant to
> James Beard, and has gone on to write several good cookbooks on her
> own, as well as revising the Fannie Farmer cookbook.
>
> Christine
> --
> http://nightstirrings.blogspot.com



Fanny Farmer is a good one. Or Better Homes & Gardens, or Good
Housekeeping. Or the various Betty Crocker cookbooks.

Jill

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.

I have been using Joy of cooking for more than 35 years. I don't
understand your complaint. I suppose that I could dig it out and check
some recipes at random....

Okay, the recipe for Toad in the Hole says to served with Honey Apples
and sends you to another page for that recipe. The recipe for Braised
Liver Cockaigne sends you to another page for the recipe for stock. The
recipe for Sauced poached Sweetbreads sends you to a recipe for Patty
shells. That is not out of line. Some of those are the sorts of things
that any well stocked kitchen might have on hand. It is better, IMO, to
refer you to the recipes for things that a well stocked kitchen would
have in stock than to write out the entire recipe with every dish.

I suppose that if a recipe, like meatloaf, might call for ketchup. Most
people in NA have it on hand and would not need to prepare it as part of
the process.


I find Joy of Cooking to be my number one best all round cookbook for
just about everything. If I could only have one, that is the one I
would likely pick. If I have something I have never cooked before, there
is a probably a better chance of finding a recipe for cooking it that in
just about any other cookbook.

On Jan 8, 11:23*am, David Harmon > wrote:
> I have a gift card for a bookstore. *I'm going to buy a cookbook.
> ......
> My current candidate is Bittman's "How to Cook Everything." *
> Any comments or suggestions?

I know two young people who are quite interested in cooking but fairly
inexperienced. Both are using Bittman's book very productively. I
have his international tome, "The Best Recipes in the World," and like
it. His column in the NYT is consistently good. Although Julia's
"The Way to Cook" is terrific, I think the Bittman book is more what
you're looking for. -aem

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.
--
modom

ambitious when it comes to fiddling with meat

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.

If it was just the beef stock, it would be one thing. But some
cookbooks, it's every recipe that calls for 2 or more other
recipes from the book. Read through the recipe turns into
read all these recipes.

To each their own, of course. I'm not big on recipes that call
for a few dozen ingredients, so perhaps those cookbooks are
not for me.

nancy

David Harmon wrote:
> I have a gift card for a bookstore. I'm going to buy a cookbook.
>
> What I'm looking for is standard basic information for standard basic
> cooking of standard fare. The kind of thing where if I know the name of
> it, I can find how to do it. Not the kind where I would find recipes
> somebody invented in order to fill up a cookbook, and which I would
> never cook.
>
> I already have "Joy of Cooking" which is pretty good, except too often
> they say in effect "there is a standard way to do this but our way is
> spiffier." I want the standard way.
>
> My current candidate is Bittman's "How to Cook Everything."
> Any comments or suggestions?

I cannot part with my Better Homes and Gardens cookbooks, but I like the
old ones more than the new ones. (They're the ones with the red plaid
covers.) But I hear wonderful things about the Bittman, and I just got
it as a gift, so I'll be trying some things out of that, too.

Serene
--
Super Cool Toy Store (I've played with them, and they really are super
cool): http://supercooltoystore.com

"I am an agnostic only to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at
the bottom of the garden." -- Richard Dawkins

Nancy Young wrote:

> If it was just the beef stock, it would be one thing. But some
> cookbooks, it's every recipe that calls for 2 or more other
> recipes from the book. Read through the recipe turns into
> read all these recipes.
> To each their own, of course. I'm not big on recipes that call for a
> few dozen ingredients, so perhaps those cookbooks are
> not for me.

I tend to prefer nice simple recipes too, but once in a while I get the
urge to tackle something bigger. I have seen worse. I posted here before
about doing boeuf en croute from a French cookbook. Not only were there
ingredients with references to another recipe, but when I went to those
recipes I was directed again to yet another.

Melba's Jammin' wrote:
> In article >, 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.
>> -Tracy
>
> Come over here and sit by me; I've been saying that every time JOC comes
> up, including this time. :-) I'm sure it's a fine book and I have
> two old ones but I never open them for that very reason.


Oh, thank you, thank you! I am glad I am not the only one!
;-)

-Tracy

"David Harmon" > wrote in message
m...
>I have a gift card for a bookstore. I'm going to buy a cookbook.
>
> What I'm looking for is standard basic information for standard basic
> cooking of standard fare. The kind of thing where if I know the name of
> it, I can find how to do it. Not the kind where I would find recipes
> somebody invented in order to fill up a cookbook, and which I would
> never cook.
>
> I already have "Joy of Cooking" which is pretty good, except too often
> they say in effect "there is a standard way to do this but our way is
> spiffier." I want the standard way.
>
> My current candidate is Bittman's "How to Cook Everything."
> Any comments or suggestions?

Julia Child's "The Way to Cook". It gives the whys of things and a basic
recipe that can be modified and added to for great meals. Good for both
beginner and a cook with some experience that wants to learn more.

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?
>
> Brian

i really don't understand this complaint either, unless people aren't
reading the whole recipe before they start, which is foolish anyway.

your pal,
blake

blake murphy 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?
>>
>> Brian
>
> i really don't understand this complaint either, unless people aren't
> reading the whole recipe before they start, which is foolish anyway.
>
> your pal,
> blake

It's the cross referencing I don't like. Just give me a list of
ingredients and directions.
I don't think it's necessary to include a recipe for stock/broth or
whatever in every soup recipe. Just list "stock" and let the reader
decide for him or herself if they want to go and find a recipe for
homemade or used canned.

Say you wanted to make Chicken and Dumplings - I would guess that JOC
suggests you make stock on page blank saving the chicken and then make
either dumplings (dropped or rolled) on page something else. Or maybe
you want biscuits with your chicken stew? That's on page whatever.

To each his own I guess. It's not the kind of cookbook that I like to use.

-Tracy

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.





Brian
--
If televison's a babysitter, the Internet is a drunk librarian who
won't shut up.
-- Dorothy Gambrell (http://catandgirl.com)

Chris Marksberry wrote:
> "David Harmon" wrote in message >I have a gift card for a bookstore. I'm
> going to buy a cookbook.
>> What I'm looking for is standard basic information for standard basic
>> cooking of standard fare. The kind of thing where if I know the name of
>> it, I can find how to do it. Not the kind where I would find recipes
>> somebody invented in order to fill up a cookbook, and which I would
>> never cook.
>>
>> I already have "Joy of Cooking" which is pretty good, except too often
>> they say in effect "there is a standard way to do this but our way is
>> spiffier." I want the standard way.
>>
>> My current candidate is Bittman's "How to Cook Everything."
>> Any comments or suggestions?
>
> If you're looking for something very basic, but informative I'd recommend
> one of Betty Crocker's cookbooks.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/6wg9yg
>
> or
>
> Better Homes & Gardens New Cookbooks
>
> http://tinyurl.com/9p2y92

I was also thinking Betty Crocker. And I love the
Good Housekeeping cookbook. I don't know what edition
I have but it's at least 30 years old. I don't know if
it's still in publication.

Everyone in our family has used Betty Crocker for all
our basic cookies, cakes, pies, etc. We mainly use the
baked goods recipes but occasionally use others. (I love
there rumaki recipe - not authentic, but I like it better
than the authentic rumaki I've had.)

And Good Housekeeping has a great brownie recipe.

I guess the reason we mainly used these books for baked goods
and desserts is that we didn't really use recipes for a lot
of our basic meat and vegetable dishes back in the day.

Kate


--
Kate Connally
“If I were as old as I feel, I’d be dead already.”
Goldfish: “The wholesome snack that smiles back,
Until you bite their heads off.”
What if the hokey pokey really *is* what it's all about?

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.
--
modom

ambitious when it comes to fiddling with meat

Tracy wrote:
> David Harmon wrote:
>> I have a gift card for a bookstore. I'm going to buy a cookbook.
>>
>> What I'm looking for is standard basic information for standard basic
>> cooking of standard fare. The kind of thing where if I know the name of
>> it, I can find how to do it. Not the kind where I would find recipes
>> somebody invented in order to fill up a cookbook, and which I would
>> never cook.
>>
>> I already have "Joy of Cooking" which is pretty good, except too often
>> they say in effect "there is a standard way to do this but our way is
>> spiffier." I want the standard way.
>>
>> My current candidate is Bittman's "How to Cook Everything." Any
>> comments or suggestions?
>
> 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.

I'm not that big a fan of JOC either but not for the
same reason. I read through the whole thing and there are
some awful recipes in there. So I have never really gotten
in the habit of consulting it. I only bought it because for
years I heard everyone extol its virtues till finally I thought
I really ought to get one. It has definitely not replaced my
Betty Crocker and Good Housekeeping cookbooks for basic stuff.

Kate


--
Kate Connally
“If I were as old as I feel, I’d be dead already.”
Goldfish: “The wholesome snack that smiles back,
Until you bite their heads off.”
What if the hokey pokey really *is* what it's all about?

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:

> > 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.

Sorry, but not really. It's not that hard to flip to a different
section of the book. The classic JOC was absolutely packed with recipes
and tips on who to do things. One of the ways that was achieved was
through the references.




Brian

--
If televison's a babysitter, the Internet is a drunk librarian who
won't shut up.
-- Dorothy Gambrell (http://catandgirl.com)

Tracy wrote:


> It's the cross referencing I don't like. Just give me a list of
> ingredients and directions. I don't think it's necessary to include
> a recipe for stock/broth or whatever in every soup recipe. Just list
> "stock" and let the reader decide for him or herself if they want to
> go and find a recipe for homemade or used canned.

That makes even less sense. They save you to time and trouble of
consulting the index to search for a stock recipe by giving you a
reference to the one they think will work best with the recipe, and
that's a detriment? I don't see it.




Brian

--
If televison's a babysitter, the Internet is a drunk librarian who
won't shut up.
-- Dorothy Gambrell (http://catandgirl.com)

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

blake murphy 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?
> >
> > Brian
>
> i really don't understand this complaint either, unless people aren't
> reading the whole recipe before they start, which is foolish anyway.
>


People are awfully lazy/uninformed these daze, blake...take a gander at yer
local weekly noozepaper food section, the recipes for the most part are so
dumbed - down that they read like something from _Highlights_ magazine or
_My Weekly Reader_...


--
Best
Greg

Nancy Young wrote:


> 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

By which I guess you mean they just say, "one cup of beef stock." Or
something similar. You realize that that IS referencing another recipe,
just not explicitly telling you which one. You'll still have to look up
a recipe for stock or use canned. JOC is good because it tells right
away where to find the one they think is best.




Brian

--
If televison's a babysitter, the Internet is a drunk librarian who
won't shut up.
-- Dorothy Gambrell (http://catandgirl.com)

Default User wrote:
> Nancy Young wrote:
>
>
>> 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
>
> By which I guess you mean they just say, "one cup of beef stock." Or
> something similar. You realize that that IS referencing another
> recipe, just not explicitly telling you which one. You'll still have
> to look up a recipe for stock or use canned. JOC is good because it
> tells right away where to find the one they think is best.

Thing is, you say beef stock. That's not really the 'see other recipe'
I'm thinking of. For one thing, if I'm making a recipe that calls for
beef stock, I'm sure not going to expect a recipe that starts with
simmering some other recipe for 4 hours. Whatever. I would have
that made or bought already. I'm fine with the recipe saying 4 cups
beef stock and no need to point me to another page. Not helpful.

I like my recipes to say add this add that, simmer until thickens.
Meanwhile, pan roast chops until browned on both sides blah blah.
Many recipes are printed and posted that follow that format, and
that's how I like it.

Apparently I do prefer a book not have a gazillion recipes where
it's not a burden to print the whole thing together. And maybe I
wouldn't mind the occasional (make this recipe), but I find that
some cookbooks use that to where I find it annoying.

nancy

Nancy Young wrote:

> Default User wrote:
> > Nancy Young wrote:
> >
> >
> > > 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
> >
> > By which I guess you mean they just say, "one cup of beef stock." Or
> > something similar. You realize that that IS referencing another
> > recipe, just not explicitly telling you which one. You'll still have
> > to look up a recipe for stock or use canned. JOC is good because it
> > tells right away where to find the one they think is best.
>
> Thing is, you say beef stock. That's not really the 'see other
> recipe' I'm thinking of.

Then I don't know what you do mean. That's normally the references JOC
has. They will be for basics like stock, tomato sauce, salad dressing,
that sort of thing.

As I said, it still a reference just because the book doesn't give a
page number in the same book. Stock and sauces don't appear out of thin
air when you're cooking. You either have to prepare the item or open a
can or bottle.

> For one thing, if I'm making a recipe that
> calls for beef stock, I'm sure not going to expect a recipe that
> starts with simmering some other recipe for 4 hours.

Then what would you expect? Where would the beef stock come from? The
beef stock fairy?

> Whatever. I would have that made or bought already.

Once you knew needed it. Which find out the first time your read the
recipe. Then it's, "Oh, gotta make stock first." With JOC, you can then
add, "Ah, and that's on pg 233."

> I'm fine with the recipe
> saying 4 cups beef stock and no need to point me to another page.

It's not very hard to ignore the reference if you don't need it.


> I like my recipes to say add this add that, simmer until thickens.
> Meanwhile, pan roast chops until browned on both sides blah blah.
> Many recipes are printed and posted that follow that format, and
> that's how I like it.

I don't see how:

1 cup beef broth (see pg 233)

Interferes with anything.




Brian
--
If televison's a babysitter, the Internet is a drunk librarian who
won't shut up.
-- Dorothy Gambrell (http://catandgirl.com)

In article >,
"Default User" > wrote:

> Nancy Young wrote:

> > I like my recipes to say add this add that, simmer until thickens.
> > Meanwhile, pan roast chops until browned on both sides blah blah.
> > Many recipes are printed and posted that follow that format, and
> > that's how I like it.
>
> I don't see how:
>
> 1 cup beef broth (see pg 233)
>
> Interferes with anything.

Although I don't own JOC, from what I've read in this thread, the book
sounds like it would be a perfect computer cookbook. It was written for
hyperlinking way too soon.
Written as HTML, the page references would simply become highlighted
items such as 'beef broth', roux, etc.. Click and go there. Print if
needed. I see they sell a CD-ROM. I wonder if the redundancies are
hyperlinked.

leo

"Dave Smith" > wrote in message
m...
> 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.
>
> I have been using Joy of cooking for more than 35 years. I don't
> understand your complaint. I suppose that I could dig it out and check
> some recipes at random....
>
> Okay, the recipe for Toad in the Hole says to served with Honey Apples
> and sends you to another page for that recipe. The recipe for Braised
> Liver Cockaigne sends you to another page for the recipe for stock. The
> recipe for Sauced poached Sweetbreads sends you to a recipe for Patty
> shells. That is not out of line. Some of those are the sorts of things
> that any well stocked kitchen might have on hand. It is better, IMO, to
> refer you to the recipes for things that a well stocked kitchen would have
> in stock than to write out the entire recipe with every dish.
>
> I suppose that if a recipe, like meatloaf, might call for ketchup. Most
> people in NA have it on hand and would not need to prepare it as part of
> the process.
>
>
> I find Joy of Cooking to be my number one best all round cookbook for just
> about everything. If I could only have one, that is the one I would
> likely pick. If I have something I have never cooked before, there is a
> probably a better chance of finding a recipe for cooking it that in just
> about any other cookbook.
>
>
I think you're absolutely right on!. With 300 cookbooks in front of me
that's the first one I go to. What never ceases to amaze me is that I've
never tried a recipe that had an error, or something that didn't work well.
The "Tuna and Noodle Casserole" on page 215 is, as she says an "excellent
emergency dish". We keep soup and canned tuna on hand just for that.

Thanks for all the suggestions. I will check out all of them that I can
find when I am back at the bookstore this afternoon.

2 Better Homes & Gardens New Cookbooks
1 Better Homes and Gardens cookbooks, the old ones
5 Betty Crocker
5 Bittman's "How to Cook Everything."
1 Cesarini and Kenton "English Cookery"
1 Cooking for Dummies
1 Fannie Farmer revised by Marion Cunningham
2 Fanny Farmer's Boston Cooking School Cookbook
4 Good Housekeeping
3 Julia Child "The Way to Cook"
1 Lukins and Rosso "The New Basics"
1 Marcella Hazan's "Classic Italian Cooking"

David Harmon wrote:
> Thanks for all the suggestions. I will check out all of them that I
> can find when I am back at the bookstore this afternoon.

Speaking of 'check out' ... do you have a library system?
You could try out some of these books before buying.

BTW, I really like America's Test Kitchen Family cookbook.

nancy
>
> 2 Better Homes & Gardens New Cookbooks
> 1 Better Homes and Gardens cookbooks, the old ones
> 5 Betty Crocker
> 5 Bittman's "How to Cook Everything."
> 1 Cesarini and Kenton "English Cookery"
> 1 Cooking for Dummies
> 1 Fannie Farmer revised by Marion Cunningham
> 2 Fanny Farmer's Boston Cooking School Cookbook
> 4 Good Housekeeping
> 3 Julia Child "The Way to Cook"
> 1 Lukins and Rosso "The New Basics"
> 1 Marcella Hazan's "Classic Italian Cooking"

On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 12:38:09 -0500 in rec.food.cooking, Susan
> wrote,
>I have a late addition for you to consider:
>> http://www.amazon.com/Art-Simple-Foo...d_bxgy_b_img_b

OK, you made me go to amazon to tell what you were talking about. And
while rummaging around there, I figured out that the edition of Bittman
that I looked at before is actually brand new, October 2008. I hadn't
noticed that.

Anyway, that's what I ended up buying yesterday. I think it's a very
impressive book, and will be everything I need for quite a while.