I have a recipe that calls for a casserole to be baked inside a 10"
skillet (2" depth). I'd like to make a larger portion for an office
party and would like to use the same recipe but instead use a 13x9x2
pan.

Am I correct in my calculations that the 13x9x2 is just a tad bigger
than 1.5 times the 10" skillet?

(Kicking myself for not paying attention in math)...

Thanks!

On Thu 03 Mar 2005 04:23:16a, Ron West wrote in rec.food.cooking:

> I have a recipe that calls for a casserole to be baked inside a 10"
> skillet (2" depth). I'd like to make a larger portion for an office
> party and would like to use the same recipe but instead use a 13x9x2
> pan.
>
> Am I correct in my calculations that the 13x9x2 is just a tad bigger
> than 1.5 times the 10" skillet?
>
> (Kicking myself for not paying attention in math)...
>
> Thanks!

Yes, that's about right. You must have paid just enough attention. :-)


--
Wayne Boatwright
____________________________________________

Give me a smart idiot over a stupid genius any day.
Sam Goldwyn, 1882-1974

In article . com>, Ron
West > wrote:

> I have a recipe that calls for a casserole to be baked inside a 10"
> skillet (2" depth). I'd like to make a larger portion for an office
> party and would like to use the same recipe but instead use a 13x9x2
> pan.
>
> Am I correct in my calculations that the 13x9x2 is just a tad bigger
> than 1.5 times the 10" skillet?
>
> (Kicking myself for not paying attention in math)...
>
> Thanks!
>

I don't do math either. You could just fill the 10" with water then
pour into the 13x9x2.

Ron West wrote:
> I have a recipe that calls for a casserole to be baked inside a 10"
> skillet (2" depth). I'd like to make a larger portion for an office
> party and would like to use the same recipe but instead use a 13x9x2
> pan.
>
> Am I correct in my calculations that the 13x9x2 is just a tad bigger
> than 1.5 times the 10" skillet?
>
> (Kicking myself for not paying attention in math)...
>
> Thanks!
>

The volume of a 10" skillet filled to 2" = 157 cubic inches
area=pi*r squared so area = 3.14 *25 = 78.5, then multiply by 2" to get
volume (157 cubic inches)

The volume of the pan is 13x9x2=234 cubic inches.

So the volume of the pan is 1.5 times the skillet as you computed.

"Ron West" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>I have a recipe that calls for a casserole to be baked inside a 10"
> skillet (2" depth). I'd like to make a larger portion for an office
> party and would like to use the same recipe but instead use a 13x9x2
> pan.
>
> Am I correct in my calculations that the 13x9x2 is just a tad bigger
> than 1.5 times the 10" skillet?
>
> (Kicking myself for not paying attention in math)...
>
> Thanks!
>

It's area that matters, or course.

For a round pan:

1) Take half the diameter (half of 10 in your case, or 5)
2) Multiply it by itself (5x5 = 25)
3) Multiply by 3.14 = 78 sq inches appx.

For rectangular, just multiple length by width:

13 x 9 = 117 sq inches.

So 1.5 times as large is just right.


--
Peter Aitken

Remove the crap from my email address before using.

George >, if that's their real name, wrote:

>The volume of a 10" skillet filled to 2" = 157 cubic inches
>area=pi*r squared so area = 3.14 *25 = 78.5, then multiply by 2" to get
>volume (157 cubic inches)
>
>The volume of the pan is 13x9x2=234 cubic inches.
>
>So the volume of the pan is 1.5 times the skillet as you computed.

People who understand this stuff scare me.

Enviously yours,
Carol
--
"Years ago my mother used to say to me... She'd say,
'In this world Elwood, you must be oh-so smart or oh-so pleasant.'
Well, for years I was smart.... I recommend pleasant. You may quote me."

*James Stewart* in the 1950 movie, _Harvey_

"Peter Aitken" >, if that's their real name, wrote:

>It's area that matters, or course.
>
>For a round pan:
>
>1) Take half the diameter (half of 10 in your case, or 5)
>2) Multiply it by itself (5x5 = 25)
>3) Multiply by 3.14 = 78 sq inches appx.
>
>For rectangular, just multiple length by width:
>
>13 x 9 = 117 sq inches.
>
>So 1.5 times as large is just right.

My mom used to have a handwritten recipe card with lots of what equals what
so she could easily adjust her recipes. I wonder if I have that?

Enviously yours too,
Carol
--
"Years ago my mother used to say to me... She'd say,
'In this world Elwood, you must be oh-so smart or oh-so pleasant.'
Well, for years I was smart.... I recommend pleasant. You may quote me."

*James Stewart* in the 1950 movie, _Harvey_

In article . com>, "Ron
West" > wrote:

> I have a recipe that calls for a casserole to be baked inside a 10"
> skillet (2" depth). I'd like to make a larger portion for an office
> party and would like to use the same recipe but instead use a 13x9x2
> pan.
>
> Am I correct in my calculations that the 13x9x2 is just a tad bigger
> than 1.5 times the 10" skillet?
>
> (Kicking myself for not paying attention in math)...
>
> Thanks!
>

I don't know. An easy way to figure it out would be to measure the
capacity of both (pour measured water into both pans) and figure from
that. If the 9x3 is 3 quarts (I think that's what the Pyrex 9x3 pan
volume is) and the 10" skillet is 2 quarts (seems reasonable; my 3 quart
saute pan is 12" diameter), then you're right on at 1.5x.
--
-Barb, <www.jamlady.eboard.com> Sweet Potato Follies added 2/24/05.
"I read recipes the way I read science fiction: I get to the end and
say,'Well, that's not going to happen.'" - Comedian Rita Rudner,
performance at New York, New York, January 10, 2005.

In article >,
wrote:

> "Peter Aitken" >, if that's their real name, wrote:
>
> >It's area that matters, or course.
> >
> >For a round pan:
> >
> >1) Take half the diameter (half of 10 in your case, or 5)
> >2) Multiply it by itself (5x5 = 25)
> >3) Multiply by 3.14 = 78 sq inches appx.
> >
> >For rectangular, just multiple length by width:
> >
> >13 x 9 = 117 sq inches.
> >
> >So 1.5 times as large is just right.
>
> My mom used to have a handwritten recipe card with lots of what equals
> what
> so she could easily adjust her recipes. I wonder if I have that?
>
> Enviously yours too,
> Carol

Some cookboobs have charts, too.
--
-Barb, <www.jamlady.eboard.com> Sweet Potato Follies added 2/24/05.
"I read recipes the way I read science fiction: I get to the end and
say,'Well, that's not going to happen.'" - Comedian Rita Rudner,
performance at New York, New York, January 10, 2005.

In article >, George
> wrote:
>
> The volume of a 10" skillet filled to 2" = 157 cubic inches
> area=pi*r squared

Pi r not squared! Pi r round! (Sorry, George. The devil's in my soul
this morning.)
--
-Barb, <www.jamlady.eboard.com> Sweet Potato Follies added 2/24/05.
"I read recipes the way I read science fiction: I get to the end and
say,'Well, that's not going to happen.'" - Comedian Rita Rudner,
performance at New York, New York, January 10, 2005.

Wow, now my head's spinning.....

math challenged in Ontario

Peter Aitken wrote:
>
> "Ron West" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
> >I have a recipe that calls for a casserole to be baked inside a 10"
> > skillet (2" depth). I'd like to make a larger portion for an office
> > party and would like to use the same recipe but instead use a 13x9x2
> > pan.
> >
> > Am I correct in my calculations that the 13x9x2 is just a tad bigger
> > than 1.5 times the 10" skillet?
> >
> > (Kicking myself for not paying attention in math)...
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
>
> It's area that matters, or course.
>
> For a round pan:
>
> 1) Take half the diameter (half of 10 in your case, or 5)
> 2) Multiply it by itself (5x5 = 25)
> 3) Multiply by 3.14 = 78 sq inches appx.
>
> For rectangular, just multiple length by width:
>
> 13 x 9 = 117 sq inches.
>
> So 1.5 times as large is just right.
>
> --
> Peter Aitken
>
> Remove the crap from my email address before using.

"Dog3" > wrote in message
1...
> "Peter Aitken" > wrote in
> . com:
>
>> "Ron West" > wrote in message
>> ups.com...
>>>I have a recipe that calls for a casserole to be baked inside a 10"
>>> skillet (2" depth). I'd like to make a larger portion for an office
>>> party and would like to use the same recipe but instead use a 13x9x2
>>> pan.
>>>
>>> Am I correct in my calculations that the 13x9x2 is just a tad bigger
>>> than 1.5 times the 10" skillet?
>>>
>>> (Kicking myself for not paying attention in math)...
>>>
>>> Thanks!
>>>
>>
>> It's area that matters, or course.
>>
>> For a round pan:
>>
>> 1) Take half the diameter (half of 10 in your case, or 5)
>> 2) Multiply it by itself (5x5 = 25)
>> 3) Multiply by 3.14 = 78 sq inches appx.
>>
>> For rectangular, just multiple length by width:
>>
>> 13 x 9 = 117 sq inches.
>>
>> So 1.5 times as large is just right.
>>
>>
>
> OMG! the knowledge some people have on this ng is scary. Do you cook or
> own
> a restaurant(s)? I've always loved your posts BTW.
>
> Michael
>

Thanks! I love to cook but would not own a restaurant for love or money (for
both...who knows?).


--
Peter Aitken

Remove the crap from my email address before using.

George wrote:
>
> Ron West wrote:
> > I have a recipe that calls for a casserole to be baked inside a 10"
> > skillet (2" depth). I'd like to make a larger portion for an office
> > party and would like to use the same recipe but instead use a 13x9x2
> > pan.
> >
> > Am I correct in my calculations that the 13x9x2 is just a tad bigger
> > than 1.5 times the 10" skillet?
> >
> > (Kicking myself for not paying attention in math)...
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
>
> The volume of a 10" skillet filled to 2" = 157 cubic inches
> area=pi*r squared so area = 3.14 *25 = 78.5, then multiply by 2" to get
> volume (157 cubic inches)
>
> The volume of the pan is 13x9x2=234 cubic inches.
>
> So the volume of the pan is 1.5 times the skillet as you computed.

Y'all could have saved yourselves some math by ignoring
the 2" depth. Since that factor appears on both sides of
the equation you can cancel it out and just compare the
2 areas.

Kate Pythagoras

--
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?

Damsel in dis Dress wrote:
>
> George >, if that's their real name, wrote:
>
> >The volume of a 10" skillet filled to 2" = 157 cubic inches
> >area=pi*r squared so area = 3.14 *25 = 78.5, then multiply by 2" to get
> >volume (157 cubic inches)
> >
> >The volume of the pan is 13x9x2=234 cubic inches.
> >
> >So the volume of the pan is 1.5 times the skillet as you computed.
>
> People who understand this stuff scare me.
>
> Enviously yours,
> Carol

Hey, Carol! Boo!!!!

Teeheehee.

Kate Decartes

--
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?

Melba's Jammin' wrote:
>
> In article >,
> wrote:
>
> > "Peter Aitken" >, if that's their real name, wrote:
> >
> > >It's area that matters, or course.
> > >
> > >For a round pan:
> > >
> > >1) Take half the diameter (half of 10 in your case, or 5)
> > >2) Multiply it by itself (5x5 = 25)
> > >3) Multiply by 3.14 = 78 sq inches appx.
> > >
> > >For rectangular, just multiple length by width:
> > >
> > >13 x 9 = 117 sq inches.
> > >
> > >So 1.5 times as large is just right.
> >
> > My mom used to have a handwritten recipe card with lots of what equals
> > what
> > so she could easily adjust her recipes. I wonder if I have that?
> >
> > Enviously yours too,
> > Carol
>
> Some cookboobs have charts, too.

And if you're a cookboob, you really need that chart!

;-)

Kate Euclid

--
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?

biig wrote:
> Wow, now my head's spinning.....
>
> math challenged in Ontario
>
> Peter Aitken wrote:
>
>>"Ron West" > wrote in message
roups.com...
>>
>>>I have a recipe that calls for a casserole to be baked inside a 10"
>>>skillet (2" depth). I'd like to make a larger portion for an office
>>>party and would like to use the same recipe but instead use a 13x9x2
>>>pan.
>>>
>>>Am I correct in my calculations that the 13x9x2 is just a tad bigger
>>>than 1.5 times the 10" skillet?
>>>
>>>(Kicking myself for not paying attention in math)...
>>>
>>>Thanks!
>>>
>>
>>It's area that matters, or course.


Only if the height is the same as in this example. You know that teach a
man to fish proverb...



>>
>>For a round pan:
>>
>>1) Take half the diameter (half of 10 in your case, or 5)
>>2) Multiply it by itself (5x5 = 25)
>>3) Multiply by 3.14 = 78 sq inches appx.
>>
>>For rectangular, just multiple length by width:
>>
>>13 x 9 = 117 sq inches.
>>
>>So 1.5 times as large is just right.
>>
>>--
>>Peter Aitken
>>
>>Remove the crap from my email address before using.

Kate Connally >, if that's their real name, wrote:

>Damsel in dis Dress wrote:
>>
>> People who understand this stuff scare me.
>
>Hey, Carol! Boo!!!!

<Carol lets out a blood-curdling scream>

>Teeheehee.

You're just plain mean! LOL!

>Kate Decartes

You're sure having fun with your signatures today. <G>

Carol
--
"Years ago my mother used to say to me... She'd say,
'In this world Elwood, you must be oh-so smart or oh-so pleasant.'
Well, for years I was smart.... I recommend pleasant. You may quote me."

*James Stewart* in the 1950 movie, _Harvey_

On Thu, 03 Mar 2005 08:46:31 -0600, Melba's Jammin'
> wrote:

>In article >, George
> wrote:
>>
>> The volume of a 10" skillet filled to 2" = 157 cubic inches
>> area=pi*r squared
>
>Pi r not squared! Pi r round! (Sorry, George. The devil's in my soul
>this morning.)

Cornbread are squared

Pan Ohco

In article > , "Peter
Aitken" > wrote:

> "Ron West" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
> >I have a recipe that calls for a casserole to be baked inside a 10"
> > skillet (2" depth). I'd like to make a larger portion for an office
> > party and would like to use the same recipe but instead use a 13x9x2
> > pan.
> >
> > Am I correct in my calculations that the 13x9x2 is just a tad bigger
> > than 1.5 times the 10" skillet?
> >
> > (Kicking myself for not paying attention in math)...
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
>
> It's area that matters, or course.

Are you sure, Peter? I'm thinking that volume is what's most important.
--
-Barb, <www.jamlady.eboard.com> Sweet Potato Follies added 2/24/05.
"I read recipes the way I read science fiction: I get to the end and
say,'Well, that's not going to happen.'" - Comedian Rita Rudner,
performance at New York, New York, January 10, 2005.

In article >, Kate Connally
> wrote:

> Melba's Jammin' wrote:
> >
> > In article >,
> > wrote:
(snip)
> > >
> > > My mom used to have a handwritten recipe card with lots of what
> > > equals what so she could easily adjust her recipes. I wonder if
> > > I have that?

> > >
> > > Enviously yours too,
> > > Carol
> >
> > Some cookboobs have charts, too.
>
> And if you're a cookboob, you really need that chart!
>
> ;-)
>
> Kate Euclid


Oy! CookbooK !
--
-Barb, <www.jamlady.eboard.com> Sweet Potato Follies added 2/24/05.
"I read recipes the way I read science fiction: I get to the end and
say,'Well, that's not going to happen.'" - Comedian Rita Rudner,
performance at New York, New York, January 10, 2005.

In article >, Pan Ohco
> wrote:

> On Thu, 03 Mar 2005 08:46:31 -0600, Melba's Jammin'
> > wrote:
>
> >In article >, George
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> The volume of a 10" skillet filled to 2" = 157 cubic inches
> >> area=pi*r squared
> >
> >Pi r not squared! Pi r round! (Sorry, George. The devil's in my soul
> >this morning.)
>
> Cornbread are squared
>
> Pan Ohco
>
>

Well, sure. But pi r round. "-)
--
-Barb, <www.jamlady.eboard.com> Sweet Potato Follies added 2/24/05.
"I read recipes the way I read science fiction: I get to the end and
say,'Well, that's not going to happen.'" - Comedian Rita Rudner,
performance at New York, New York, January 10, 2005.

Melba's Jammin' wrote:

>
> >
> > It's area that matters, or course.
>
> Are you sure, Peter? I'm thinking that volume is what's most important.

I think it depends on what the OP is making. If it is being baked it will
affect the cooking time. If it is something that has a topping it may will
it thinner, and the same if it has a crust.

A few years ago I used a slightly different size of pan for some squares and
the results were totally unacceptable. I had to take them out of the oven
early because the corners were getting too well done, but the centre was
underdone. I ended up with squares where those cut from the centre were
soft, almost liquid, while the pieces form the corners where hard.

"Melba's Jammin'" > wrote in message
...
> In article > , "Peter
> Aitken" > wrote:
>
>> "Ron West" > wrote in message
>> ups.com...
>> >I have a recipe that calls for a casserole to be baked inside a 10"
>> > skillet (2" depth). I'd like to make a larger portion for an office
>> > party and would like to use the same recipe but instead use a 13x9x2
>> > pan.
>> >
>> > Am I correct in my calculations that the 13x9x2 is just a tad bigger
>> > than 1.5 times the 10" skillet?
>> >
>> > (Kicking myself for not paying attention in math)...
>> >
>> > Thanks!
>> >
>>
>> It's area that matters, or course.
>
> Are you sure, Peter? I'm thinking that volume is what's most important.
> --

Yes. Volume is not incorrect, it just adds another unneccessary step. Here's
how to look at it. For baking, the thickness (depth) of the batter in the
pan while baking is important. It should be the same regardless of the size
of the pan, otherwise baking times will be off. So, if the area of the pan
doubles, you must double the recipe. The effect is to double the volume of
batter, but there's no need to calculate that.


--
Peter Aitken

Remove the crap from my email address before using.

Melba's Jammin' > wrote in
:

> In article >, Pan Ohco
> > wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 03 Mar 2005 08:46:31 -0600, Melba's Jammin'
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >In article >, George
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> The volume of a 10" skillet filled to 2" = 157 cubic inches
>> >> area=pi*r squared
>> >
>> >Pi r not squared! Pi r round! (Sorry, George. The devil's in my
>> >soul this morning.)
>>
>> Cornbread are squared
>>
>> Pan Ohco
>>
>
> Well, sure. But pi r round. "-)

All your base are belong to us!

(Sorry. But it's mandatory )

K
--
nil illegitimi carborundum

Peter Aitken wrote:

>
>
> Yes. Volume is not incorrect, it just adds another unneccessary step. Here's
> how to look at it. For baking, the thickness (depth) of the batter in the
> pan while baking is important. It should be the same regardless of the size
> of the pan, otherwise baking times will be off. So, if the area of the pan
> doubles, you must double the recipe. The effect is to double the volume of
> batter, but there's no need to calculate that.

Not to be nit picking but...... (quite seriously).... what is the more
important factor when altering the volume and area?
In the case of the squares I mentioned in the previous post, they were not very
thick. I had assumed that depth was a primary factor. The dough was spread out
evenly. I had expected that the edges might cook slightly faster because they
were more directly exposed to the heat source (hot air in oven), but that the
heat was being directed down through the batter from the heat above, and that it
was being directed up through the batter from below. So I expected that the
whole thing would cook fairly evenly. This was not the case at all. The centre
was half cooked and the corners were turning into brick.

"Dave Smith" > wrote in message
...
> Peter Aitken wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Yes. Volume is not incorrect, it just adds another unneccessary step.
>> Here's
>> how to look at it. For baking, the thickness (depth) of the batter in the
>> pan while baking is important. It should be the same regardless of the
>> size
>> of the pan, otherwise baking times will be off. So, if the area of the
>> pan
>> doubles, you must double the recipe. The effect is to double the volume
>> of
>> batter, but there's no need to calculate that.
>
> Not to be nit picking but...... (quite seriously).... what is the more
> important factor when altering the volume and area?
> In the case of the squares I mentioned in the previous post, they were not
> very
> thick. I had assumed that depth was a primary factor. The dough was spread
> out
> evenly. I had expected that the edges might cook slightly faster because
> they
> were more directly exposed to the heat source (hot air in oven), but that
> the
> heat was being directed down through the batter from the heat above, and
> that it
> was being directed up through the batter from below. So I expected that
> the
> whole thing would cook fairly evenly. This was not the case at all. The
> centre
> was half cooked and the corners were turning into brick.
>
>
>

I cannot speak to your specific experience, but yes, depth *is* the primary
factor. Since the depth measurement figures into the base recipe and the
larger pan recipe in the same way, it cancels out and you are left with
area.


--
Peter Aitken

Remove the crap from my email address before using.

Amarantha > writes:
>All your base are belong to us!

Someone set us up the bomb!

G.

Damsel in dis Dress wrote:
>
> Kate Connally >, if that's their real name, wrote:
>
> >Damsel in dis Dress wrote:
> >>
> >> People who understand this stuff scare me.
> >
> >Hey, Carol! Boo!!!!
>
> <Carol lets out a blood-curdling scream>
>
> >Teeheehee.
>
> You're just plain mean! LOL!
>
> >Kate Decartes
>
> You're sure having fun with your signatures today. <G>

Yes, yesterday was a day of whimsy! Or insanity! Same
thing.

BTW, I just started reading One Flew Over the
Cuckoo's Nest. I have never seen the movie except for
parts of it here and there. Anyway, I came across the
book while browsing in the library so decided to read it.
It may be affecting my mood. ;-)

(I trying to read all the classics I never read when I
should have - Hemingway stuff, Twain stuff, ancient
Greek stuff, etc. I've been working on For Whom the
Bell tolls for about 6 or 7 years now. Even longer for
The Innocents Abroad. I just can't seem to get interested
enough to keep reading. Although the Twain is definitely
good, so I don't know what my problem is. Probably that
it's not a mystery novel - that's my latest thing. And
Hemingway is just plain boring. Somebody please explain
to me how this stuff got to be a classic? There are classics
that I have read and really enjoyed - Catch 22 for one (read
it at least 3 times over the years) and The Great Gatsby for
another - but other stuff is deadly boring. Oh, well, I'll
probably never be well-rounded enough.) But I've heard
enough quotes from them that I can answer all the Jeopardy
questions. ;-)

Kate Illiterate

--
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?

Kate Connally >, if that's their real name, wrote:

>BTW, I just started reading One Flew Over the
>Cuckoo's Nest. I have never seen the movie except for
>parts of it here and there. Anyway, I came across the
>book while browsing in the library so decided to read it.
>It may be affecting my mood. ;-)

I've never seen the movie, but I read the book (of my own volition) when I
was in high school. For some reason, I had a real fascination with mental
illness. Go figure.

>(I trying to read all the classics I never read when I
>should have - Hemingway stuff, Twain stuff, ancient
>Greek stuff, etc. I've been working on For Whom the
>Bell tolls for about 6 or 7 years now. Even longer for
>The Innocents Abroad. I just can't seem to get interested
>enough to keep reading. Although the Twain is definitely
>good, so I don't know what my problem is. Probably that
>it's not a mystery novel - that's my latest thing. And
>Hemingway is just plain boring. Somebody please explain
>to me how this stuff got to be a classic? There are classics
>that I have read and really enjoyed - Catch 22 for one (read
>it at least 3 times over the years) and The Great Gatsby for
>another - but other stuff is deadly boring. Oh, well, I'll
>probably never be well-rounded enough.) But I've heard
>enough quotes from them that I can answer all the Jeopardy
>questions. ;-)

Have you read any Ray Bradbury? Great stuff! I guess I'd call it sci-fi.
I haven't read any of his work in decades. I'd love to go back and read
them again.

My current fascination is with books by Sylvia Browne (a psychic).

Carol

..


--
"Years ago my mother used to say to me... She'd say,
'In this world Elwood, you must be oh-so smart or oh-so pleasant.'
Well, for years I was smart.... I recommend pleasant. You may quote me."

*James Stewart* in the 1950 movie, _Harvey_

On Fri, 04 Mar 2005 11:43:06 -0600, Damsel in dis Dress
> wrote:

>Kate Connally >, if that's their real name, wrote:
>
>>BTW, I just started reading One Flew Over the
>>Cuckoo's Nest. I have never seen the movie except for
>>parts of it here and there. Anyway, I came across the
>>book while browsing in the library so decided to read it.
>>It may be affecting my mood. ;-)
>
>I've never seen the movie, but I read the book (of my own volition) when I
>was in high school. For some reason, I had a real fascination with mental
>illness. Go figure.
>
>>(I trying to read all the classics I never read when I
>>should have - Hemingway stuff, Twain stuff, ancient
>>Greek stuff, etc. I've been working on For Whom the
>>Bell tolls for about 6 or 7 years now. Even longer for
>>The Innocents Abroad. I just can't seem to get interested
>>enough to keep reading. Although the Twain is definitely
>>good, so I don't know what my problem is. Probably that
>>it's not a mystery novel - that's my latest thing. And
>>Hemingway is just plain boring. Somebody please explain
>>to me how this stuff got to be a classic? There are classics
>>that I have read and really enjoyed - Catch 22 for one (read
>>it at least 3 times over the years) and The Great Gatsby for
>>another - but other stuff is deadly boring. Oh, well, I'll
>>probably never be well-rounded enough.) But I've heard
>>enough quotes from them that I can answer all the Jeopardy
>>questions. ;-)
>
>Have you read any Ray Bradbury? Great stuff! I guess I'd call it sci-fi.
>I haven't read any of his work in decades. I'd love to go back and read
>them again.
>
>My current fascination is with books by Sylvia Browne (a psychic).
>
>Carol
>
>.
I dig South American fiction (in translation). Gabriel Garcia Marques
-- One Hundred Years of Solitude, Love in the Time of Cholera; Jorge
Luis Borges -- Ficciones (and almost anything else); Jorge Amado --
Dona Flor and Her Two Husbands.

That last one is on topic, by the way. The title character has a
cooking school in Bahia, Brazil.


modom

Only superficial people don't judge by appearances.
-- Oscar Wilde

On Fri, 04 Mar 2005 11:43:06 -0600, Damsel in dis Dress
> wrote:

>Have you read any Ray Bradbury? Great stuff! I guess I'd call it sci-fi.

A lot of Bradbury's stuff would be more aptly called "speculative fiction"
than sci-fi now.

--
Siobhan Perricone
"I ain't afraid of your Yahweh
I ain't afraid of your Allah
I ain't afraid of your Jesus
I'm afraid of what ya do in the name of your god"
- Holly Near

Siobhan Perricone >, if that's their real name, wrote:

>On Fri, 04 Mar 2005 11:43:06 -0600, Damsel in dis Dress
> wrote:
>
>>Have you read any Ray Bradbury? Great stuff! I guess I'd call it sci-fi.
>
>A lot of Bradbury's stuff would be more aptly called "speculative fiction"
>than sci-fi now.

Yeah, well, this was the early 70's. <G>

Carol
--
"Years ago my mother used to say to me... She'd say,
'In this world Elwood, you must be oh-so smart or oh-so pleasant.'
Well, for years I was smart.... I recommend pleasant. You may quote me."

*James Stewart* in the 1950 movie, _Harvey_

Damsel in dis Dress wrote:
>
> Kate Connally >, if that's their real name, wrote:
>
> >BTW, I just started reading One Flew Over the
> >Cuckoo's Nest. I have never seen the movie except for
> >parts of it here and there. Anyway, I came across the
> >book while browsing in the library so decided to read it.
> >It may be affecting my mood. ;-)
>
> I've never seen the movie, but I read the book (of my own volition) when I
> was in high school. For some reason, I had a real fascination with mental
> illness. Go figure.
>
> >(I trying to read all the classics I never read when I
> >should have - Hemingway stuff, Twain stuff, ancient
> >Greek stuff, etc. I've been working on For Whom the
> >Bell tolls for about 6 or 7 years now. Even longer for
> >The Innocents Abroad. I just can't seem to get interested
> >enough to keep reading. Although the Twain is definitely
> >good, so I don't know what my problem is. Probably that
> >it's not a mystery novel - that's my latest thing. And
> >Hemingway is just plain boring. Somebody please explain
> >to me how this stuff got to be a classic? There are classics
> >that I have read and really enjoyed - Catch 22 for one (read
> >it at least 3 times over the years) and The Great Gatsby for
> >another - but other stuff is deadly boring. Oh, well, I'll
> >probably never be well-rounded enough.) But I've heard
> >enough quotes from them that I can answer all the Jeopardy
> >questions. ;-)
>
> Have you read any Ray Bradbury? Great stuff! I guess I'd call it sci-fi.
> I haven't read any of his work in decades. I'd love to go back and read
> them again.

Yes, I recently reread a bunch of his short stories.
There was a collection that was recently put out. I was
sorely disappointed. I remembered thinking he was a good
writer but some of the stories I didn't care for at all.
I thought the writing was just plain bad.

I read most of his stuff 25-30 years ago. Either my tastes
have changed or I was not nearly as discriminating back then.
Of course Farenheit 451 is still a classic, as is
The Illustrated Man and The Martian Chronicles.

I've also recently been reading some Fritz Leiber that
I had never read. One of my all time favorite pieces of
literature, by any author is Leiber's short story Space-Time
for Springers. It is still as good as I remember it except
for one tiny flaw (grammar) I found. But some of the
other stories in the same collection were just awful.
Although there was one I really liked in addition to
S-TFS.

I've been on a rereading binge and I've recently reread
many of the books I read years ago and consider classics.
(Lord of the Rings Trilogy, Dune Trilogy, Catch-22, etc.)
One of them was Heinlein's Stranger in a Strange Land.
It made me cringe. I had to force myself to finish it -
I wanted to see how it ended as I had forgotten after all
these years. I remember really liking Heinlein back in
my late teens and early 20's. (I used to use the work "grok"
a lot. ;-)) But later on I started to find his work very
juvenile and trite and disgustingly saccharine.

> My current fascination is with books by Sylvia Browne (a psychic).

Hmmm. Not sure if I'd like that too much. Although I'm
surprised that I really like that new tv show "Medium".
In general I don't care for books involving the supernatural
or paranormal or magic, etc. There, of course, are exceptions.
One of my favorite SF book series The Ozark Trilogy by
Suzette Haden Elgin.

My latest craze is reading all the Terry Pratchett I can
find. Also Kinky Friedman and Carl Hiaasen. Are you familiar
with any of these writers? They are all hilarious.

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?

Michael Odom wrote:
>
> On Fri, 04 Mar 2005 11:43:06 -0600, Damsel in dis Dress
> > wrote:
>
> >Kate Connally >, if that's their real name, wrote:
> >
> >>BTW, I just started reading One Flew Over the
> >>Cuckoo's Nest. I have never seen the movie except for
> >>parts of it here and there. Anyway, I came across the
> >>book while browsing in the library so decided to read it.
> >>It may be affecting my mood. ;-)
> >
> >I've never seen the movie, but I read the book (of my own volition) when I
> >was in high school. For some reason, I had a real fascination with mental
> >illness. Go figure.
> >
> >>(I trying to read all the classics I never read when I
> >>should have - Hemingway stuff, Twain stuff, ancient
> >>Greek stuff, etc. I've been working on For Whom the
> >>Bell tolls for about 6 or 7 years now. Even longer for
> >>The Innocents Abroad. I just can't seem to get interested
> >>enough to keep reading. Although the Twain is definitely
> >>good, so I don't know what my problem is. Probably that
> >>it's not a mystery novel - that's my latest thing. And
> >>Hemingway is just plain boring. Somebody please explain
> >>to me how this stuff got to be a classic? There are classics
> >>that I have read and really enjoyed - Catch 22 for one (read
> >>it at least 3 times over the years) and The Great Gatsby for
> >>another - but other stuff is deadly boring. Oh, well, I'll
> >>probably never be well-rounded enough.) But I've heard
> >>enough quotes from them that I can answer all the Jeopardy
> >>questions. ;-)
> >
> >Have you read any Ray Bradbury? Great stuff! I guess I'd call it sci-fi.
> >I haven't read any of his work in decades. I'd love to go back and read
> >them again.
> >
> >My current fascination is with books by Sylvia Browne (a psychic).
> >
> >Carol
> >
> >.
> I dig South American fiction (in translation). Gabriel Garcia Marques
> -- One Hundred Years of Solitude, Love in the Time of Cholera; Jorge
> Luis Borges -- Ficciones (and almost anything else); Jorge Amado --
> Dona Flor and Her Two Husbands.
>
> That last one is on topic, by the way. The title character has a
> cooking school in Bahia, Brazil.

When it comes to foreign lit I recently discovered Andrew
McCall Smith who was born in Zimbabwe but lived in Bostwana for many
years. He wrote a "mystery" series about Precious Ramotswe
of Botswana. The first book in the series was "The Ladies
No. 1 Detective Agency. There are about 5 books in the
series and he has other series - the Prof. von Igelfeld series
(not mysteries) and the Sunday Philosophy Club. He is a
wonderful writer and his books are hilarious.

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?