Strike two, book
Nov. 10th, 2010 09:43 amI have this newish cookbook that has the most fabulous sounding recipes in it. It's incredibly fussy, though. Which I'm sometimes willing to deal with, but only if the results warrant it. So far, we haven't had a true hit. (Well, actually, no--B won't stop talking about the pinenut tart, which I thought was very good, but no one else seemed all that enthusiastic about.) This is also the book that involved the ranting a couple months ago because they hid a four hour wait in the middle of a step and also completely screwed up the math on the number of cups of cream, listing a cup less in the ingredients list than it eventually required over the course of the recipe.
I think I found another seriously damaged recipe.
I made an orange-glazed olive oil cake last night. The recipe called for 4 eggs, 2 tsp baking powder and 1 tsp baking soda, which I thought was odd in context, but did. The picture is of a very dense, moist cake maybe two inches high. What I got (haven't tasted it yet, as it's for tonight) appears to be a fluffy pound cake about four inches high. Which, in retrospect, is exactly what one should expect with that much leavener. I'm actually wondering whether the cake they photographed had any leavener at all besides the eggs. It really looked more like the texture of a deliberately fallen souffle.
So we haven't eaten it yet. If we do, and it's tasty enough to consider making a second time, perhaps I'll keep the book. If it's only mediocre, though, I'm thinking that I should probably stop bothering. The writer and/or editor clearly didn't care enough to make sure the recipes make sense. The Walnut Layer Cake with Apple-Caramel Filling and Calvados Cream Cheese Icing sounds amazing. What do you want to bet it takes two days to make, and comes out disappointingly?
I think I found another seriously damaged recipe.
I made an orange-glazed olive oil cake last night. The recipe called for 4 eggs, 2 tsp baking powder and 1 tsp baking soda, which I thought was odd in context, but did. The picture is of a very dense, moist cake maybe two inches high. What I got (haven't tasted it yet, as it's for tonight) appears to be a fluffy pound cake about four inches high. Which, in retrospect, is exactly what one should expect with that much leavener. I'm actually wondering whether the cake they photographed had any leavener at all besides the eggs. It really looked more like the texture of a deliberately fallen souffle.
So we haven't eaten it yet. If we do, and it's tasty enough to consider making a second time, perhaps I'll keep the book. If it's only mediocre, though, I'm thinking that I should probably stop bothering. The writer and/or editor clearly didn't care enough to make sure the recipes make sense. The Walnut Layer Cake with Apple-Caramel Filling and Calvados Cream Cheese Icing sounds amazing. What do you want to bet it takes two days to make, and comes out disappointingly?