Scriniary

•Last week there was some discussion over the 101 Reasons to Stop Writing blog.

For those of you who may have missed them, here are jaylake’s post and arcaedia’s post.

Also, don’t miss jimvanpelt’s Signs that you need help quitting writing.

I don’t have any thoughts to add: basically, I don’t see the point in quitting writing, or telling other people to quit writing. If it’s something I enjoy, why would I quit just because I’m unsuccessful?

•Via sartorias, swan_tower on Magic vs Science in fantasy.

If you remove that personal element, making the procedure something anyone can do, then you have science, not magic. Even if it doesn’t obey the laws of science as we know them, it’s imaginary or invented science, not magic.

Very interesting essay; also useful to me in terms of clarifying what I can do to strengthen my distinction between magic and science in Shadow Play (and in the rest of the books in that world, but it’s less confusing there).

Filed by scriniary at 9:11 am under Writing
Comments Off

Found The Art of Travel, Sir Francis Galton, 1855, a book of advice based on his experiences in southwest Africa. I was looking up different kinds of pack/riding animals (”Now, it is to be noticed that men attach themselves to horses and asses, and in a lesser degree to mules and oxen, but they rarely make friends of camels.”), but was also amused by the figure showing a knot that you must never tie.
(table of contents)

Filed by scriniary at 6:25 am under Writing
Comments Off

I’m behind on food posts (again). Recent weeks have seen tuna/salmon noodle cassarole, chicken pot pie (twice), chicken cutlets with maple dill sauce (Cooking Light, Dec. 2006, too sweet, not going to make it again), and Beef Stew with Poblanos, Tomatillos, and Potatoes (also the most recent issue of CL), which I have now made twice and am going to be making again next weekend (in the crockpot next time).

Filed by scriniary at 3:06 pm under Food
Comments Off

• sartorias on kids preferring fantasy to sf (specifically the YA versions).

Her theory sounds pretty reasonable to me (though there’s a difference between science fiction that focuses on the science and sf that focuses on the story, and I definitely prefer the latter), and also explains why I like fantasy better (though I always liked sf too): science was fascinating, sure, but it was also mundane and normal, the sort of thing that people did for a career – a large proportion of the adults I knew as I kid worked in the space industry, so the idea of people going up in spaceships was not very far-fetched. Magic, on the other hand, was completely exotic.

• The NYTimes reviews the 75th-anniversary edition of the Joy of Cooking, which came out last week (article dated Nov. 1 and hopefully still available):

The bad news is that this new version forces a decision. Which “Joy” do we want? Do we keep our mother’s vintage copy from the ’60s? The reliable and popular version from 1975? The smart, chef-driven 1997 book? Or do we clean house, get with the times and buy the new book, which has much more reference material along with a cloying coat of nostalgia?

[...]

All that being said, the new version is the most complete and current “Joy” you can buy. If I didn’t have my trusty 1975 version, I would shell out $30. But for the number of times I actually dip into “Joy,” the ’75 will suffice. After all, a meringue is a meringue and cuts of beef don’t really change.

Still, cooking is a highly personal thing, and the book that fits best depends on your demographic, your kitchen skill and your existing cookbook collection. Those who want a book that reminds them of their mothers and includes the pecan-laden angel slices they remember from childhood might prefer a vintage edition from the 1950s, or the 1963 revision.

My brother, the best cook in the family and someone who prefers not to mix sentimentality with information, is the kind of cook who would appreciate the smarter tone, multicultural depth and thorough exploration of technique in the 1997 book.

My household is a three-Joy household: My parents gave me the 1997 version (which I use for all my basic recipes) and a two-volume paperback from 1964, which I should investigate more thoroughly. My boyfriend has the 1975 version, which has a better pancake recipe than the 1997. I have annotated my 1997 pancake recipe with the 1975 ingredients.

I was amused that the writer mentioned the tuna casserole recipes in each edition, since I made the 1997 version last weekend. It calls for making a butter/flour/milk/cheese sauce, while the 1975 and 2006 versions use cream of mushroom soup. I’ll stick with my 1997 book, thanks.

Filed by scriniary at 8:26 am under Books, Food
Comments Off