SC - Redaction class on-line

[Philip & Susan Troy]

david friedman wrote:

> My point is that it is more reasonable to use the dot to represent the high
> point of a hill--in this case the hill in the top layer of pasta due to the
> blob of filling underneath--

Okay. So far so good.

> then to represent a blob whose size is
> significant in the scale of the figure.

Boom. You lost me. I see no difference between using a dot to represent
a 1/2 inch object or a two-inch object, given that the overall scale is
in some question. Of course, this is why the scale is in some question,
hence the conundrum. I feel that the dot is used for the convenience of
either the period scribe or the modern printer, and that neither person
would expect slavish devotion to the details of the picture. The period
scribe would point out that, say, William the Conqeror, really wasn't
three times the height of King Harold, but that you get the idea. The
modern printer would say that he had some type blocks made up, and this
was the closest he could find. The point is that the dot represents a
high point, wherein lies the filling, and it isn't clear to me the size
or scale of the overall illustration.

> If it follows, not that the blob is
> small rather than large, but that the picture represents the object after
> folding. That interpretation is also consistent with the language of the
> recipe--but not with your interpretation as I understand it, since after
> folding in your version what you have no longer resembles the figure. In my
> interpretation it does.

True. But then the simplest solution to adhere to the details of the
picture is still to top the individual rectangles with other rectangles,
rather than folding them. If one wants to argue that the instruction to
smear the filling all of one dole negates the existence of any clean,
unfilled pasta rectangles, then your interpretation has the same problem
as mine. 

If, on the other hand, one wants to argue that a dot of filling, as
illustrated, negates the possibility of an oblong mass of filling, as
would be appropriate for filled pastries 3 x 6 inches, then I can only
say that it would have been better to illustrate the individual cells of
the pictured grid as squares. I'm working on an assumption that
(relatively) huge tracts of unfilled pasta, trailing from either end of
each portion, would be regarded by most people as a shame and a waste.  

> Returning to your point, my argument is that the only lacuna in the text
> instructions is filled in by the figure--which is why it is there. Consider
> how hard it would be to explain my version in words without a picture.

I dunno. I don't remember if there is an illustration in the Miscellany.
Is there? If so, I apologize, but I thought you made it pretty clear.  I
just didn't really agree with it, but... ;>)

Now, as an aside for you folks out there in Cyberland: I assure you that
I feel I speak for both His Grace and myself that this discussion is
pretty much our idea of a good time. You will note that we have not
descended to the type of vulgar wrangling such as one might find on that
rowdy East Kingdom list ;  ), or the Rialto. In any case, for those who
may or may not be following all this with rapt attention, I'll point out
that this has been going on for a while, and that it could be taken to
private mail if people really wanted it to. Do people really want it to?
Please let one or the other of us know, OK?   
 
> >What I would really, really, like to do at some point is to meet you at
> >a Pennsic or some similar event, lay aside any preconceived
> >interpretations of the recipe, and just cook the dish, using only the
> >primary source recipe and a basic kitchen battery of tools and
> >ingredients. Even then, we might not get to the bottom of it, but I bet
> >we'd both have fun.
> 
> Yes. Where are you physically located? I live in the Bay area of
> California, but will be in Atlanta for some econ meetings late next month,
> and giving a talk in N.Y. city early in January. Do any of those fit?

As a matter of fact, I am physically in New York City, and would love to
get together to discuss and / or, if possible, cook this dish, as well
as several other topics (of discussion, that is). Some of them even
related to cookery. By any remote chance, would your stay in New York,
in early January, include, or could it be made to include, the 3rd of
January? Obviously you are a busy man, and I will understand if this is
not workable, but I have a unique proposal for you. 

On the 3rd, The Crown Province of Ostgardr will be holding the East
Kingdom's Twelfth Night. The kitchen is to be run by some newbie upstart
(sorry, I couldn't  even type it with a straight face) of the name of
Brekke Franksdottir. Seems she's a Countess from way back in the mists
of time...actually Brekke is a dear friend, whom I wouldn't even dream
of calling an upstart, except that it was her idea I should do so. She
went on to say I should tell you that in honor of the fact that Ostgardr
got the bid as a second choice, the first choice group having lost their
site, we will be using our second-string cooks of the Old Guard. They
include Brekke, Countess Aiden ni Lier, and there was some talk of
dragging Bishop Geoffrey d'Ayr, my master, out of the woodwork. I'll be
there, too, and of that group, the most clearly identifiable newbie
upstart will be myself.

If you could make it, I think many people could have a very good time,
indeed.

G. Tacitus Adamantius, newbie upstart 
______________________________________
Phil & Susan Troy
troy at asan.com
============================================================================

To be removed from the SCA-Cooks mailing list, please send a message to
Majordomo at Ansteorra.ORG with the message body of "unsubscribe SCA-Cooks".

============================================================================