People of the Book

I just "read" People of the Book by Geraldine Brooks (by "read" I mean I listened to it on audiobook) and was pleasantly surprised. I've heard good things about March, but I had never tried any books by Geraldine Brooks before, so I wasn't quite sure what to expect.

The book tells the story of the Sarajevo Haggadah, an illustrated Jewish manuscript from the 15th century that needs authentication from Dr. Hanna Heath, an Australian rare books expert. Hanna flies to war-torn Sarajevo in 1996, and is entranced by the beauty of the Haggadah. According to Jewish tradition, images of the Scriptures are not allowed, but this book proves the exception to the rule. Hanna finds several small clues hidden between the pages of the book: such as a wine stain, a salt stain, and a white hair, that set Hanna on a quest to find out who created this unusual Haggadah, and why.

I liked that People of the Book revealed the secrets of the Haggadah in reverse order, starting with the story of a young Jewish girl running from the Nazis in WWII, and the Muslim family that protected her and the Haggadah. The story progressed from WWII back to turn-of-the-century Vienna, then back to sixteenth century Venice, then back to Spain during the Inquisition, and finally back to the source of the book. The book is told in alternating chapters, flashing back and forth between the story of Hanna in the present day, and the other people who helped protect the book over its long and varied history.

The audiobook version I listened to was fun; the narrator was Australian which gave Hanna's character a vivid, realistic flavor. My one irritation was that the older Jewish characters all ended up sounding the same in the narrator's voice--even though some of them were male and some were female.

This book could have easily fallen into the same silly historical-quest type mold as Dan Brown or Steve Berry or all the other copycats out there, but it didn't at all. There was no big conspiracy, just a story of an intriguing young woman, the complications in her personal life, her love for beautiful books, and this one particularly beautiful book that had touched so many lives over so many centuries. The plot was a little bit predictable, the huge surprise that Hanna is blindsided by was pretty obvious about six chapters earlier; but that's not a huge complaint, I didn't mind seeing exactly how the characters were going to get to that point of the story.

If you're looking for an enjoyable historical fiction book, I'd highly recommend People of the Book. And I'm going to read March soon I think, so I'll keep you posted on whether or not Geraldine Brooks stands up to the second-book test.

Deliciously Addicting Butter Cookies

First of all, don't say I didn't warn you. Since I'm going to share the recipe I can testify that there is no crack/other addicting substance in them, but somehow, once I start eating them I just can't stop. But several other people had the same problem today, so I feel slightly less perturbed about my inability to refrain from eating them.

Anyway, this recipe comes from my grandma's sister Hazel, and is simple but fantastic. It only has six ingredients, so make sure to use the best--I like using organic sugar and unbleached flour and unsalted butter. Martha Stewart tells me that I should use local artisanal brands or quality imported butter, but I don't go quite that far.

My new best friend the kitchen-aid mixer mixed this up in about 4 minutes flat, then the dough has to refrigerate for at least an hour, then you roll it out, cut, and bake. They are quick-baking cookies (only six minutes a pan) so you have to either work fast to have a new pan rolled and cut before the last pan was done, or you're going to have to waste some oven heat. Which, if you live in somewhere other in Tucson, might not be such a big deal; but in my case I semi-frantically rolled and cut and brushed and sprinkled and baked, and got about 80 cookies done in 45 minutes or so, thus avoiding any smidgen of superfluous warmth.

Speaking of brushing and sprinkling--I tried a new method to decorate these, using an egg tempera instead of frosting, and it turned out quite well. But this post will be ridiculously long if I try to talk about both the cookies and the decorating method, so I'll save it for another post.

These cookies are basically a sugar cookie, but a little more buttery and a little less sugary (hence the "butter cookie" name). They're kind of a cross between shortbread and a soft sugar cookie. They melt in your mouth, and on their own aren't too sweet--what makes them sweet is the frosting or sugar that you top with them. I probably wouldn't recommend them plain, unless you're the type who prefers less sweet desserts. I roll them out in various thicknesses depending on my mood. For thin, crisp cookies roll out to a scant 1/8 inch. For thicker, softer cookies, go for closer to 1/4 of an inch.

These butter cookies are also quite possibly the most photogenic cookies ever. Whether they be glazed, frosted, or merely dusted with sugar, they're always cute. I make them seasonally whenever there's a definitive shape (ie snowmen and trees at Christmas, hearts at Valentine's Day, etc) to the holiday or season. This particular batch was a nice assortment of leaves and acorns, perfect for one last autumnal hurrah before the Christmas insanity.

Happy Thanksgiving!

Aunt Hazel's Butter Cookies

1 cup unsalted butter

1 cup sugar

1 unbeaten egg

2 tsp vanilla

1/4 tsp salt (only if using unsalted butter!)

2 2/3 cups flour

plus additional sugar for decorating, if so desired

Sift together the flour and salt, set aside. Cream together the sugar and butter for about three minutes, or until smooth and well-combined. Beat in the egg and then the vanilla. Add the flour/salt combination in half cup increments, beating well after each addition. Once all flour is absorbed, shape the dough into a ball, wrap tightly in plastic wrap and refrigerate for at least an hour.

Preheat the oven to 375 degrees. Roll the dough on a well-floured surface to about 1/8 inch thick for thinner, crisper cookies, and 1/4 inch thick for thicker, softer cookies. Place cookies one inch apart on parchment-lined baking sheets, sprinkle with sugar or glaze if desired. Bake for 6-7 minutes, or until just firm. Carefully remove cookies from pan and place on wire racks to cool. (They'll still be a little pale and soft, but they'll harden as they cool, and in my opinion they don't taste as good if you bake them till they're golden-brown).

Alternately you can make drop cookies without refrigerating the dough for as long. After mixing the dough, refrigerate for about ten minutes, then drop by teaspoonful onto a parchment lined baking sheet. Using a fork dipped in water make a criss-cross pattern on the top of the cookies, flattening them as you do so. Sprinkle with sugar if desired, then bake as directed above.

Let rest on wire racks until completely cool, then frost if desired (and if you didn't previously sugar them). Makes about fifty regular sized cookies, I got eighty using half miniature cutters and half regular cutters. They'll keep for a week, or even ten days, in an air-tight container.

P.S. In the last picture the cookies are on one of a set of pretty nifty glass plates that my grandma got as wedding present fifty-one years and two days ago. Happy Anniversary Grandpa and Grandma!

Crankiness: Failed Quiche

The other night I thought I had a genius plan. I was kind of in the mood for chile relleno, and I was kind of in the mood for quiche, so I decided to combine the two. I basically made a quiche lorraine, but instead of bacon and onions I used red peppers, green chiles, and onions.

I ended up baking it for an HOUR and TEN minutes, and then gave up and ate it soggily anyway. The flavor was pretty good, but I couldn't get over the terrible texture.

And then yesterday I tried making marshmallows again. This time instead of fluffy pillows of perfection I got sticky lumps of gooey flatness. Sigh.

Better Than White Rolls

As you may have noticed by now, bread is one of my favorite things. White, wheat, sweet, sourdough, cheesy, salty, I'm really surprisingly un-picky about my bread, considering how picky I am about everything else. But normally a slightly sweet white bread is definitely my favorite, and I found a good recipe for white rolls a couple of years ago, so I usually stick to those when I want hot rolls.

But last night we were taking mac and cheese with us for game night, and I didn't want to go totally overboard with the white flour, so I decided to try a recipe for wheat rolls that I found more than two years ago, but had never gotten around to trying. I think part of the reason that I had avoided it was that it wasn't my usual type of bread recipe--I usually use a bread machine for the kneading/rising part, and then just shape the completed dough. This recipe, however, called for actual kneading (gasp!) but I decided it was about time I try making bread by hand, so I tackled it...

...and discovered that it was really easy. I should've done this years ago! The only part that worried me a little bit was the part where you're supposed to heat the water to 110 degrees. Since I don't have a candy thermometer (hey Mom--you can add that to my Christmas list by the way) I used the decidedly unscientific method of microwaving the water in ten second intervals and periodically sticking my finger in it till it felt like what I thought 110 degrees probably felt like. I was scared that I might've gotten the water too hot and inadvertently killed my yeast, but it seemed to work out ok.

The rolls were hearty and wheaty, but still sweet and buttery. They tasted amazing last night, and today I took two to work for lunch, and they tasted really good again after about ten seconds in the microwave to soften them a bit. They're good with or without extra butter, and I think they'd really go with just about any meal. So if you're scared of yeast/kneading--don't be! These are so good and so easy that you'll be very, very proud of yourself for making them, and you can feel slightly virtuous about consuming large quantities of them since you just burned calories kneading them!

My only warning is to make sure you have enough time to make them. You're only actually working for about 20-25 minutes, but there's so much rising time in between the steps that you need to allow a little more than three hours from start to finish. But hey, you could go exercise while they're rising, and then feel even more virtuous. Or you could make the aforementioned mac and cheese and eat some chocolate chip cookies to tide you over till dinner. Whatever you prefer.

Soft Wheat Rolls

(from allrecipes.com)

2 (.25 ounce) packages active dry yeast
1 3/4 cups warm water (110 degrees F)
1/2 cup white sugar
1 teaspoon salt
1/4 cup butter, melted and cooled
1 egg, beaten
2 1/4 cups whole wheat flour
2 1/2 cups all-purpose flour

1/4 cup butter, melted

In a large bowl, dissolve yeast in warm water. Let the yeast stand until creamy, about 10 minutes. Mix the sugar, salt, 1/4 cup melted butter, beaten egg, and whole wheat flour into yeast mixture. Stir in the all-purpose flour, 1/2 cup at a time, until dough pulls away from the sides of the bowl (I ended up using a few tablespoons more than the 2 1/2 cups called for).

Turn dough out onto a well floured surface, and knead until smooth and elastic, about 8 minutes. Lightly oil or butter a large bowl, place the dough in bowl, and turn the dough to coat with the oil. Cover with a damp cloth, and let rise in a warm place until doubled in volume, about 1 hour.

Punch down dough, cover, and let rise in warm place until doubled again, about 30 minutes.

Meanwhile grease 2 dozen muffin cups. Punch down dough, and divide into two equal portions. Either roll each portion into a 6x14 inch rectangle, and then cut the rectangle into twelve 7x1 inch strips, or split the portion into thirds, and then divide each third into twelve small balls of dough. (For a total of thirty-six balls from each portion. Not thirty-three like I did because I can't count.)

If you choose the strip method, roll strips up into spirals, and place into muffin cups. Brush tops with melted butter. Let rise uncovered in a warm place 40 minutes, or until doubled in bulk. If you choose the ball method, place 3 small dough balls into each muffin cup, brush tops with melted butter, and let rise in the same manner.

Preheat oven to 400 degrees F. Bake for 12 to 15 minutes, or until golden brown. Remove from oven, and brush again with melted butter (I skipped this final buttering, I felt like they'd had enough already, and the rolls were served with butter, so I didn't want to unnecessarily clog anyone's arteries.)

I did one portion of my dough in the strip method, resulting in rolls that looked a bit cinnamon-roll-ish, leaving a long curl of softness on the inside, with a crispy edge around the first ring. I did the other portion in the ball method, making for rolls that pulled apart easily and that I think were a little softer than the cinnamon-roll way. Both were delicious though, and it's kind of fun to have both shapes in the bread basket, it makes things look more festive. Oh yeah, I totally forgot to take a picture of the bread basket. Next time....

Mug shots....no, actually mug CAKE!

Nowadays when I want a souvenir I buy a Christmas ornament. They're small, portable, and it's ok if they're tacky, because most Christmas ornaments are anyway. And then there's the great night where you play Christmas carols and decorate the tree, and then all the ornaments remind you of all the places you've been.

But there was a time when my souvenir of choice was a mug--mostly notably during my travels in Europe. (Which, looking back on it, was one of the dumbest things I could pick! They are bulky, heavy, and easily broken, I'm not sure what I was thinking. But I digress.) I have mugs with Shakespeare on them and mugs with the London tube map and mugs from Greenwitch and Harrods and mugs with the Eiffel Tower and mugs from Annecy and I did have a mug from Brussels until it broke...

The problem with this collection is that I don't like coffee or tea, and I can only drink so much hot chocolate. So ninety percent of the time the mugs just sit uselessly in the cupboard, waiting to be broken. Until yesterday, when Ben emailed me a wiki for making CAKE in a mug. That's right. You mix the cake in a mug, microwave it, and 3 minutes later have a tasty, brownie-ish cake.

The end result is rich and chocolatey, a little bit chewy, and best devoured when warm. I wouldn't think it would keep very well, but I'm pretty sure the only reason you would even make a mug cake would be to consume it instantanesouly, so you should be safe. If you're having a frantic chocolate craving this will definitely fit the bill! It's possible I guess that you could eat the whole thing, but I'd recommend sharing, it's a substantial amount for one person.

One small note before sharing the recipe: make sure your mug is microwave safe. And if it was made in France, it probably isn't.


Chocolate Mug Cake

One large microwave safe mug
Cooking spray
4 Tbsp flour
9 Tbsp hot chocolate mix
1 egg
3 Tbsp water
3 Tbsp oil

Spray the mug with cooking spray. Mix the hot chocolate mix and flour in the bottom of the mug and stir in the egg until well combined. Stir in the water and oil, making sure that there aren't any pockets of dry ingredients.

Microwave on high for 3 minutes. Use hot pad to take mug out of microwave. Let sit 1-2 minutes, then spoon/scrape cake out into a bowl. I think it would be better topped with ice cream, but you could try it plain.

I used peppermint flavored hot chocolate, which added a flair that I liked. I think maybe adding a couple of drops of orange or mint extract to the batter would be a nice touch if you just have regular hot chocolate.

P.S. I just realized when I typed up this recipe that I only used one tbsp each water and oil instead of three. Which (a) explains the chewiness, and (b) means I'm totally going to have to try this again!!

Ruminations and Juxtapositions or How I Judged a Book by Its Cover

Unless I'm completely engrossed and can't put a book down, I tend to like to mix several books to keep things interesting. Usually I have one at home, one audiobook in my office, and another book to read on breaks or when I have to wait somewhere when I'm out and about. This way I can read fiction and nonfiction simultaneously, so I don't get burned out on either.

Currently I have a fairly typical juxtaposition: two mysteries and a history. The mysteries are The Old Wine Shades by Martha Grimes and The Smoke by Tony Broadbent. The history is How the Irish Saved Civilization by Thomas Cahill. I just finished The Old Wine Shades, and have a few chapters left in each of the other two.

The Martha Grimes I grabbed to listen to in my office. I tend to be less picky about my audiobook selections than my regular reading selections: my two requirements are that the book be unabridged and that the narrator's voice be unannoying. This book fit these two requirements, so although I wasn't particularly intrigued by the mystery I decided to keep listening. It gives me something to do while I'm a-counting out the money.

Even though I wasn't loving the plot I was trying to work with it, until the book started being told from the dog's point of view. Yup, Mungo the dog's point of view. Mungo not only solved the crime, he also planted evidence, and saved some victims that the murderer had locked up. Nope, not kidding. It really happened. I wouldn't have been so irritated by this if I had known that it was going to be dogtective type book. I mean if I had picked up a Susan Conant or Laurien Berenson book I would've known what I was in for. But Martha Grimes seemed respectable. Her detective works for Scotland Yard for pete's sake!! Sigh.

Then there's How the Irish Saved Civilization. I feel like this title is a bit misleading. Ok, maybe more than a bit. It should be called How St. Patrick Was Different from St. Augustine and Created a Christian State in Ireland That Although It Differed Greatly From Roman Christianity Still Retained Enough of Roman Theological Thought To Make Sure That Some Texts Were Copied and Therefore Saved, Meaning That Not Everyone Was Illiterate During the Middle Ages and That Christianity Managed to Hang On In Pockets of Irish Civilization Called Monasteries. Because really, saying that the Irish saved civilization is a bit melodramatic. Really what Cahill is trying to say is that they saved some Greek and Roman texts and some tenets of Christianity that we probably wouldn't have otherwise. I understand choosing a catchy title though, I probably wouldn't have picked it up if it was called How Some Irish Monks Kinda, Sorta Saved Some Parts of Civilization. It isn't a bad book, some of the chapters about how the monks copied manuscripts and the tools that they used were actually quite interesting, but the title is definitely the best part of this book.

And then, the surprising gem: The Smoke. The premise is preposterous: Jethro, a successful London jewel thief is recruited just after WWII to help MI-5 break into the Soviet Embassy and spirit out some important code books and a young Russian woman who wants to defect. But what makes this book is how real the voice of Jethro is: uneducated, yet ruminative, profane, yet hilarious, and surprisingly insightful. Jethro is a fantastic character. And, he talks in the rhyming cant popular among London's criminals, which makes his conversational wit that much more authentic and entertaining. (If you're not familiar with rhyming slang a common example is calling gloves 'turtles'. This is because turtledoves rhymes with gloves, and then is shortened to turtles). The Smoke itself is slang for London. And as Jethro 'creeps' around the smoke, I continue to be interested, entertained, and pleasantly surprised.

So I guess my new methodology is not going to involve picking books based on authors that I think are respectable (e.g. Martha Grimes) or that have catchy titles (e.g. How the Irish Saved Civilization). Nope, I'm going to do what I did with The Smoke. I'm going to pick 'em based on their covers.

False Advertising: Amish Friendship Bread

So this picture isn't actually Amish friendship bread, it's banana bread. I did make some more friendship bread: the two loaves in my fridge and the two more loaves in my freezer can attest to this! But, Noel left the camera at work, so I couldn't take any pictures. Personally I feel like the pictures are what make food blogs though, so I couldn't just leave you pictureless. In fact, maybe I'll share another of my favorite pictures:

Those are the chocolate ganache cupcakes I made for Noel's last birthday, and looking at that picture I think it might be about time to make them again.

But, first, I was here to talk about Amish friendship bread...which does look a bit banana bread-ish, so the picture isn't too far off. I tried two new variations this week, and they both came out nicely.

The first was butterscotch: I omitted the cinnamon from the original recipe, and used butterscotch pudding mix, and then added about 1/2 cup of butterscotch chips. This one isn't my favorite, it's a little too butterscotchy, but Noel is kind of in love with it. I made it in an 8x8 square pan though (plus a loaf pan), so the bigger one came out a little more cakey, and it had a nice consistency.

The second variation was lemon: I again omitted the cinnamon, substituted lemon extract for the vanilla extract, and then used lemon pudding mix. The loaves came out cheerily yellow, and have a light, bright flavor. The lemonness reduces the sugar a little I think, so it doesn't taste quite as sweet as the other variations I've tried.

I highly recommend any of the four variations of the friendship bread I've tried so far...once again, if you want a starter just let me know! Just make sure your camera is handy before you start baking!

P.S. I took all four variations to a brunch on Thanksgiving day (lemon, cinnamon, chocolate, and butterscotch) and the original cinnamon recipe was by far the most popular.

SQUONK

Maybe a year or so ago Ben (one of my co-workers) and I discovered a book on cryptozoology. Immediately entranced, we decided that someday we were going to be cryptozoologists. Bookmans is fun and all, but hunting down mythological beasties would beat Bookmans any day!

I had kind of forgotten about the cryptozoological quest until Ben found another book, which was even better than the last one. This one is a field guide for North American monsters, and in addition to the usual culprits such as Sasquatch and El Chupacabra, this book includes the SQUONK.

The squonk is a sad little monster. It's very, very ugly: descriptions vary slightly, but it's generally agreed that it has loose folds of warty skin, and is a bedraggled, lumpy little creature. The squonk (who hails from Pennsylvania) is so ashamed of its appearance that it hides in forests and swamps and quietly sobs to itself. When seen by humans it becomes so distraught that it weeps itself away--it literally dissolves into a puddle.

Now since we're not murderous/sadistic types, we don't want the squonk to see us, because we don't want to kill one of the poor little creatures. But I'm thinking that sneaking up and taking a picture of the back of one could be a good beginning place for the career of a soon-to-be-renowned cryptozoologist.

So if you've seen any inexplicable puddles, or you've had a boring day at work and hunting down crypto-creatures sounds good, or you haven't cooked anything interesting in a week, and the only books you've read aren't worth writing about, and you need a new obsession; I highly recommend the squonk. Especially if you're having a bad day--at least you know that you won't end up crying yourself to death!