amandasupak's review against another edition
4.5
4.5 stars
This book was SO interesting! I learned so many random tidbits about the history of how we used to cook. If I and a person from 400 years ago swapped places neither of us would have any clue on how to cook in the other person's kitchen haha.
This book includes
Introduction
Chapter 1 - Pots and Pans
Chapter 2 - Knife
Chapter 3 - Fire
Chapter 4 - Measure
Chapter 5 - Grind
Chapter 6 - Eat
Chapter 7 - Ice
Chapter 8 - Kitchen
Fun tidbits I learned:
- The first “pans” that were invented we're simple vessels that could be heated and also contain liquid like the stomachs of animals. People would put their food in their stomachs cook the food over the fire and then eat it. An example is haggis.
- Putting a pot of water over a fire was very non intuitive because creating and maintaining fire was a difficult process in the past, and the idea of having a pot of water that could spill and put the fire out was to be avoided. The first instance of cooking in a pot was thought to start by taking the very hot rocks from a fire in putting them in a pot full of water that was away from the fire, and letting the rocks heat up the water which you could then cook in.
- Even after we invented pans, a lot of people still like to cook and eat out of pottery because it imbued a flavor into the food.
- Short and medium grain rice are perfect for a rice cooker, but the long grain rice found in india often turn mushy under such treatment. That is likely why almost all of Asia has rice cooker culture but India does not
- In medieval Europe people would carry their own knives with them everywhere they went so that they always had a way to cut the food wherever they were eating. People would decorate or carve the handles in a way that suited their tastes, and to differentiate them from other peoples knives. People would wear their knives on their belts habitually, similar to how we wear watches all the time.
- The term curfew now means the time that someone (usually a teenagers) comes back home, but in the past it was a metal cover you placed over the embers in your hearth to contain the fire while people slept.
- The styles of cooking in Europe and China were so different because of the amount of fuel that each of them had for cooking. In Europe fuel was abundant in the form of wood, so you would often find people building large fires and roasting large pieces of meat on a spit next to the fire. In China what was more scarce so a style of wok cooking was invented out of necessity. A wok was placed over the fire, and all of the energy from the fire went directly into the pan. The European style of cooking a roast next to the fire meant that a lot of the fuel wasn't cooking anything. When the first stove was invented in Europe, it changed the way that Europeans thought about cooking because it was much more similar to the style of cooking in China, where you put a pot of food on top of a small heat source.
- It took a long time to convert people to gas stoves because they thought it would poison their food. When people finally did convert it reduced a lot of the labor of cooking because you no longer had to clean out the embers and ash out of your hearth. Electric ovens didn't really get adopted until the 1920s
- The reason why a teaspoon became very popular as a way to measure things was because it was a good balance between having enough surface area to be able to shovel enough food onto the spoon, but it then it would also fit in your mouth.
- Forks did not become popular as a utensil to eat with until the 1700s, because italians realized it was great for eating pasta. Once the fork was already being used at the table they started using it for other foods too.
- In the Shinto religion, there's a taboo against impurity. There is a belief that something that has been in someone's mouth picks up not merely germs which would be killed by washing but aspects of their personality which would not. To use a stranger's chopsticks is therefore spiritually disgusting. This explains the phenomenon of wooden disposable chopsticks. It is sometimes assumed that these are a modern western influx similar to plastic cutlery. However, they have been used ever since the beginnings of the Japanese restaurant industry in the 18th century because giving a fresh pair of chopsticks to all customers was the only way a restauranter could assure his clientele that what they put in their mouth was not defiled
This book was SO interesting! I learned so many random tidbits about the history of how we used to cook. If I and a person from 400 years ago swapped places neither of us would have any clue on how to cook in the other person's kitchen haha.
This book includes
Introduction
Chapter 1 - Pots and Pans
Chapter 2 - Knife
Chapter 3 - Fire
Chapter 4 - Measure
Chapter 5 - Grind
Chapter 6 - Eat
Chapter 7 - Ice
Chapter 8 - Kitchen
Fun tidbits I learned:
- The first “pans” that were invented we're simple vessels that could be heated and also contain liquid like the stomachs of animals. People would put their food in their stomachs cook the food over the fire and then eat it. An example is haggis.
- Putting a pot of water over a fire was very non intuitive because creating and maintaining fire was a difficult process in the past, and the idea of having a pot of water that could spill and put the fire out was to be avoided. The first instance of cooking in a pot was thought to start by taking the very hot rocks from a fire in putting them in a pot full of water that was away from the fire, and letting the rocks heat up the water which you could then cook in.
- Even after we invented pans, a lot of people still like to cook and eat out of pottery because it imbued a flavor into the food.
- Short and medium grain rice are perfect for a rice cooker, but the long grain rice found in india often turn mushy under such treatment. That is likely why almost all of Asia has rice cooker culture but India does not
- In medieval Europe people would carry their own knives with them everywhere they went so that they always had a way to cut the food wherever they were eating. People would decorate or carve the handles in a way that suited their tastes, and to differentiate them from other peoples knives. People would wear their knives on their belts habitually, similar to how we wear watches all the time.
- The term curfew now means the time that someone (usually a teenagers) comes back home, but in the past it was a metal cover you placed over the embers in your hearth to contain the fire while people slept.
- The styles of cooking in Europe and China were so different because of the amount of fuel that each of them had for cooking. In Europe fuel was abundant in the form of wood, so you would often find people building large fires and roasting large pieces of meat on a spit next to the fire. In China what was more scarce so a style of wok cooking was invented out of necessity. A wok was placed over the fire, and all of the energy from the fire went directly into the pan. The European style of cooking a roast next to the fire meant that a lot of the fuel wasn't cooking anything. When the first stove was invented in Europe, it changed the way that Europeans thought about cooking because it was much more similar to the style of cooking in China, where you put a pot of food on top of a small heat source.
- It took a long time to convert people to gas stoves because they thought it would poison their food. When people finally did convert it reduced a lot of the labor of cooking because you no longer had to clean out the embers and ash out of your hearth. Electric ovens didn't really get adopted until the 1920s
- The reason why a teaspoon became very popular as a way to measure things was because it was a good balance between having enough surface area to be able to shovel enough food onto the spoon, but it then it would also fit in your mouth.
- Forks did not become popular as a utensil to eat with until the 1700s, because italians realized it was great for eating pasta. Once the fork was already being used at the table they started using it for other foods too.
- In the Shinto religion, there's a taboo against impurity. There is a belief that something that has been in someone's mouth picks up not merely germs which would be killed by washing but aspects of their personality which would not. To use a stranger's chopsticks is therefore spiritually disgusting. This explains the phenomenon of wooden disposable chopsticks. It is sometimes assumed that these are a modern western influx similar to plastic cutlery. However, they have been used ever since the beginnings of the Japanese restaurant industry in the 18th century because giving a fresh pair of chopsticks to all customers was the only way a restauranter could assure his clientele that what they put in their mouth was not defiled
tracey_stewart's review against another edition
4.0
The overriding impression of this book is that it is very, very British. Not entirely because of the reader, Alison Larkin (who is very British), or because of too much of an Anglo-centric focus in the history it covers (maybe a bit, but not enough to take issue with) – but mostly because of… well, there's the casual and frequent mention of kebabs and the *ahem* wrong use of "chips" and so on, but mostly it's the almost patronizing tone taken about the United States.
Everything was going along just fine – I was entertained and informed, always my favorite combination – till I hit the chapter on measurements. According to the author, the US is the only first-world country to inexplicably cling to the bizarre and impossibly inaccurate method of measurement standardized by Fanny Farmer, using cups and teaspoons and tablespoons. Everyone else in the civilized world, she says, measures by weight, which makes SO much more sense and is SO much more accurate.
While I have seen British recipes using weights (and skipped over most of them, not willing to do the work to find the website to help me convert them), I never realized that we are the lone rebels in the cooking world, resolutely measuring a quarter-cup of this and half a teaspoon of that. Interesting. As much as our method seems odd to Bee Wilson, weighing everything seems to me like a huge pain in the butt.
Seriously? The rest of the world weighs, say, a teaspoon of vanilla? How the heck does that work? And doesn't that dirty even more containers or utensils than our way? Doesn't it all take much longer, and where the heck do you stash a scale when you're not using it? I have no counter space as it is; the thought of going from cups-tossed-in-a-drawer to yet-another-appliance-on-the-counter gives me a headache. How big is the thing?
Now, what she says does make sense; I never thought about how different one cupful of whatever can be from the next, depending on a person's method of measurement and the kitchen's humidity and the phases of the moon. The way she tells it, we must be a land of flat cakes and rock-hard cookies and all around complete disasters in the kitchen.
But here's the thing. I've been baking since I was ten, and cooking since a few years after that, and - not to brag, just saying – I'd say 95% of everything I've made has come out just as I'd intended. I've had cheesecakes crack; I've had cookies spread more than I wanted; but every cake I've made has risen (not all as high as I'd like, but they all did rise), and so on. So, while it does make sense that my cupful may differ from yours, and mine today might differ from mine four years ago, and that baking requires exactitude in measuring … um. Sorry. My experience just doesn't bear it out. And you know what? It's not just me. I can't say I remember ever seeing a cooking show on the Food Network or PBS that featured a chef (or plain old cook) using a scale instead of measuring implements. Even the snobbier end of the spectrum, exemplified by Martha Stewart (no relation) and the Barefoot Contessa, use the same old cups and spoons – and so does America's Test Kitchen. If weighing was so very superior, I would expect Martha and Ina to insist upon it, and if ATK – whose primary concern is determining the best and most reliable way to do and make just about everything – doesn't … Then, Ms. Wilson (and Ms. Larkin), you can rid your voices of that tone of marveling condescension. In the end your method is different, not better.
So there.
(I feel constrained to add that one reason an individual baker using the cup-measurement system may achieve a level of consistency is experience. I know when a batter is a bit thin, and add more flour; if it's a bit too floury I know how to correct. There's a natural personal consistency that comes with using the same utensils and measuring devices all the time. And I know how to adjust flavor as I go along. I suppose that's the point of the whole scales-are-better-than-cups argument; my cookies probably aren't going to be the same as yours. I for one prefer it that way. Consistency is necessary for restaurant chains and trying to recreate Mom's scones or such, but otherwise? My cookies are my cookies, and yours are yours, and that's the way it should be.)
Speaking of tones of voice, for the most part Alison Larkin is an excellent narrator. There's a sense of humor to the book, and Ms. Larkin plumbs those depths quite nicely. She has a very pleasant voice, and a very pleasant accent, except … The only objection I have is when she reads a quote from an American writer (seriously, these two do not seem to see Americans as worth much respect) she switches into a pseudo-American accent which sounds more like mockery than a genuine attempt at dialect.
Anyway. Gripes aside, this is (as mentioned) an entertaining and informative exploration of how the preparation and consumption of food has evolved through the millennia. It's fascinating stuff, invaluable to a writer of period pieces, and just fun for those who, as I do, love to look more closely at everyday things. Well done.
Everything was going along just fine – I was entertained and informed, always my favorite combination – till I hit the chapter on measurements. According to the author, the US is the only first-world country to inexplicably cling to the bizarre and impossibly inaccurate method of measurement standardized by Fanny Farmer, using cups and teaspoons and tablespoons. Everyone else in the civilized world, she says, measures by weight, which makes SO much more sense and is SO much more accurate.
While I have seen British recipes using weights (and skipped over most of them, not willing to do the work to find the website to help me convert them), I never realized that we are the lone rebels in the cooking world, resolutely measuring a quarter-cup of this and half a teaspoon of that. Interesting. As much as our method seems odd to Bee Wilson, weighing everything seems to me like a huge pain in the butt.
Seriously? The rest of the world weighs, say, a teaspoon of vanilla? How the heck does that work? And doesn't that dirty even more containers or utensils than our way? Doesn't it all take much longer, and where the heck do you stash a scale when you're not using it? I have no counter space as it is; the thought of going from cups-tossed-in-a-drawer to yet-another-appliance-on-the-counter gives me a headache. How big is the thing?
Now, what she says does make sense; I never thought about how different one cupful of whatever can be from the next, depending on a person's method of measurement and the kitchen's humidity and the phases of the moon. The way she tells it, we must be a land of flat cakes and rock-hard cookies and all around complete disasters in the kitchen.
But here's the thing. I've been baking since I was ten, and cooking since a few years after that, and - not to brag, just saying – I'd say 95% of everything I've made has come out just as I'd intended. I've had cheesecakes crack; I've had cookies spread more than I wanted; but every cake I've made has risen (not all as high as I'd like, but they all did rise), and so on. So, while it does make sense that my cupful may differ from yours, and mine today might differ from mine four years ago, and that baking requires exactitude in measuring … um. Sorry. My experience just doesn't bear it out. And you know what? It's not just me. I can't say I remember ever seeing a cooking show on the Food Network or PBS that featured a chef (or plain old cook) using a scale instead of measuring implements. Even the snobbier end of the spectrum, exemplified by Martha Stewart (no relation) and the Barefoot Contessa, use the same old cups and spoons – and so does America's Test Kitchen. If weighing was so very superior, I would expect Martha and Ina to insist upon it, and if ATK – whose primary concern is determining the best and most reliable way to do and make just about everything – doesn't … Then, Ms. Wilson (and Ms. Larkin), you can rid your voices of that tone of marveling condescension. In the end your method is different, not better.
So there.
(I feel constrained to add that one reason an individual baker using the cup-measurement system may achieve a level of consistency is experience. I know when a batter is a bit thin, and add more flour; if it's a bit too floury I know how to correct. There's a natural personal consistency that comes with using the same utensils and measuring devices all the time. And I know how to adjust flavor as I go along. I suppose that's the point of the whole scales-are-better-than-cups argument; my cookies probably aren't going to be the same as yours. I for one prefer it that way. Consistency is necessary for restaurant chains and trying to recreate Mom's scones or such, but otherwise? My cookies are my cookies, and yours are yours, and that's the way it should be.)
Speaking of tones of voice, for the most part Alison Larkin is an excellent narrator. There's a sense of humor to the book, and Ms. Larkin plumbs those depths quite nicely. She has a very pleasant voice, and a very pleasant accent, except … The only objection I have is when she reads a quote from an American writer (seriously, these two do not seem to see Americans as worth much respect) she switches into a pseudo-American accent which sounds more like mockery than a genuine attempt at dialect.
Anyway. Gripes aside, this is (as mentioned) an entertaining and informative exploration of how the preparation and consumption of food has evolved through the millennia. It's fascinating stuff, invaluable to a writer of period pieces, and just fun for those who, as I do, love to look more closely at everyday things. Well done.
tealight's review against another edition
2.0
2.5 stars
A quarter of this was fascinating, and the remaining three quarters painfully dull, even self-explanatory. At its very worst, its eurocentrism veered into cringeworthy territory. For example, this description of Japanese curry:
“...strange, all purpose sauce, gloppy and redolent of canteen food.”
Yikes.
A quarter of this was fascinating, and the remaining three quarters painfully dull, even self-explanatory. At its very worst, its eurocentrism veered into cringeworthy territory. For example, this description of Japanese curry:
“...strange, all purpose sauce, gloppy and redolent of canteen food.”
Yikes.
mikecross's review against another edition
3.0
Very easy read and well put together. I felt like the author brushed over too many topics and most chapters could have good, well researched books all by themselves. Nothing really negative about the book, but simply not very deep or enlightening.
christyreads83's review against another edition
informative
lighthearted
reflective
medium-paced
4.0
klambson's review against another edition
5.0
Thoroughly enjoyed this book. I don't typically read a lot of non-fiction, and in fact only picked this up because of book club, but it was a good time. My main takeaway was that I want a tou knife, though.
minty's review against another edition
3.0
What a perfect companion to Bill Bryson's At Home. It just delved more deeply into the kitchen technologies. I loved the ancient history included, and how the book was NOT solely interested in recounting the history of food as originating in Europe/England. There was a lot of attention paid to Asia and the traditions that exist there. (Though scant details from Africa or South America.) Thoroughly enjoyable.
Particularly loved the reader's use of different accents when reading quotes from others--for some reason, I really liked her American accent!
Listened at 1.8x speed.
Particularly loved the reader's use of different accents when reading quotes from others--for some reason, I really liked her American accent!
Listened at 1.8x speed.