SC - cuskynoles, continued...

[Philip & Susan Troy]

david friedman wrote:

> >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.
> 
> But the top of a hill is not a 1/2 inch object. It is a point.

No, the top of the hill, by extending the logic of your interpretation,
_is_  a 1/2 inch object. Or rather, the hill itself is the 1/2 inch
object, with a dot representing the top. Mine is the 2-incher. 

(Aoife, I don't want to hear a word, thank you very much! ;  )  )

If the top of a 1/2 inch hill is a point, then the top of a 2-inch hill
could easily be a point, too. Ratios to an item of infinite or undefined
dimension are themselves undefined, and a proportion is only a ratio.
So, if a [theoretically] infinitesimal dot can reasonably be expected to
illustrate a 1/2 inch cell of filling, a dot can just as reasonably be
expected to illustrate the top of a two-inch blob of filling, suitably
covered with another sheet of dough. Since a dot is what is used, the
ratio becomes undefined, and therefore, by definition, unclear.   

> My point is that before covering you have a blob, after a hill with a high
> point. I concede that the blob could be hill shaped, so the argument is not
> conclusive. 

I'm sorry. I thought we had established (albeit recently, due to inexact
speech on my part) that my intepretation's ability to adhere to the
details of the illustration hinges on the fact that the filling is
covered with dough. In order to conform as well to the illustration
details as your method does, this needs to be done with a second sheet
of dough per portion. Of course, the dimensions as stated make the idea
of simply folding them in half, and ignoring the illustration, almost
entirely, quite tempting. Of course, then you'd have roughly 50% empty
space in the illustration, rather than each portion touching the next.

> >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.
> 
> That's fine with me.  I am agnostic as between interpreting "fold"
> literally and assuming it means sandwiching filling between two rectangles.
> But I don't see why the latter is simpler or closer to the details--the
> only difference is that one approach makes the pieces half as big as the
> other, and perhaps a differently shaped rectangle (depending on exactly how
> you interpret the description of dimensions).

Yes, "fold" is certainly open to a broad interpretation, based on a
glance at the dictionary. I'd just as soon say "wrap" in this case. My
interpretation isn't any closer to the details, only as close, in my
opinion. It is, however, simpler, in that the entire additional step of
subdividing the filled portions into fifteen little bites has been
eliminated, which I consider less a case of streamlining a process I
consider unnecessarily complex, than of reexamining a simple process,
and seeing it for what it probably is.
> 
> >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.
> 
> No. I interpret that as meaning that you smear it all over one
> portion--i.e. one rectangle. You then either cover that with another
> rectangle, or fold it. I'm not saying there are no other doles that you
> haven't, at least yet, smeared the filling all over.

That's okay. I was addressing, in advance, a point you didn't raise.
Sorry.
> 
> >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.
<snip>

> But once you have covered the filling, you can't see it. All you see is the
> bulge--which is conveniently represented by its high point.

Which is a dot. Which doesn't really tell us much (or, in fact,
anything) about its size, overall. We already know it is smaller than
2.5 x 6 inches, but that's all we really know for sure.

Now, just for giggles, let's pretend this: you make one cuskynole, 2 1/2
or 3 inches wide, by 6 inches long. Then, using the back of a knife, you
press grooves into the surface, pushing the dough through the filling,
until  it meets the dough on the other side, and sticks. Continue doing
this until your pastry, dumpling, call it what you will, is now divided
into fifteen little cells, each roughly 3/4 inch by 3/4 inch, deviating
from those dimensions just barely enough to indicate that they are, in
fact, rectangular rather than square, assuming you want to stick to the
picture as your guide. Each little cell, filled, naturally has a high
point on its surface. Now. Photograph it. Zoom in, until it's full
frame. Maybe have a good sketch artist draw it, if you'd rather. That is
your cuskynole, uncooked. Agreed?

Now. I'll make an entire batch of cuskynoles. Let's say I start with two
large sheets of dough, each about eight inches by thirty. I cut each
into fifteen rectangles, about 2 1/2 inches by 6. I leave them on the
board as they were. It will help keep the edges from drying out as I
work. I place about 2 tablespoons of filling on each of the fifteen
rectangles comprising one of my sheets. I do this all at once, possibly
with a pastry bag, before sealing any of them. Then, quickly, I top each
of my fifteen filled rectangles with an unfilled rectangle, from the
other sheet. I push the sheets of pasta dough down around the blobs of
filling, trying to keep them from spreading to the edges of each
rectangle, so they won't weaken the seal. This will also keep them from
losing most of their height.  I now have, more or less, fifteen
rectangular raviolis, arranged together, edge to edge in a rectangular
formation. Each has a high point. I will now photograph the scene on my
board, being sure to zoom out enough to ensure that the whole scene is
in the shot. Perhaps, on second thought, I'll just have a good sketch
artist draw it. Perhaps you can recommend one? Yes, it's a silly
question, I know.

So here's my question. Is the drawing or photograph of what I have made
so different from that of what you have made, that the diagram in
"Diversa Cibaria" decently represents what you have made, but _not_ what
I have made? If so, why? The only real difference is one of scale, and
the fact that what are scored depressions in your version, are true cuts
in mine. Both could easily be depicted by the artist of the primary
source as lines, of course.

There may or may not be a good answer for this little riddle. If there
isn't, I'll work on the assumption that either your interpretation of
the recipe is probably accurate, or mine is. That wouldn't bother me in
the least. Maybe someone reading all this gobbledegook will come up with
a theory that works even better than either.
 
> >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.
> 
> Correct.

It _has_ been rather invigorating, hasn't it? I suspect it will continue
to be, but you get the idea. So far the vote has been unanimous that we
aren't boring the heck out of everyone. This could change as the results
come in from the outlying districts, of course. We'll see.

> What odds that I have known Brekke longer than you have? Lots longer?
> Hint--whose queen was she? What is his relation to me? Who preceded them on
> the throne?

In my glib ignorance, I'll say...I have no idea, offhand. I'm sure you
have known all of them longer than I have, which is naturally why I
thought you'd enjoy hearing about them. I'm pretty good about Eastern
history within my time in the SCA, but that only goes back to the reign
of Viktor and Sedalia, IIRC. Brekke had dropped out for several years,
and only returned to the fold, what, about four or five years ago. She
is a Pelican now, BTW, not that she needed to become any more peer-like
for this to happen. Just thought you'd be interested.
 
> Unfortunately, I expect to be in NY on the 8th, not the 3d. I expect it
> will be a good dinner--even if you do have some newbies such as Geoffrey
> and Aiden associated with it.

Well, I figure Brekke will do the actual work, and then the newbies, in
their youthful exuberance, can screw everything up, and then they'll all
have me, the baby of the family, to blame it on.

I'm sorry to hear that you won't be able to make it. There is a rumor
that our Viceroy, Baron Ian Mitchell, is organizing another Pie-a-Peer
auction, in keeping with the Saturnalian spirit of Twelfth Night. I
thought you might want to bid on me, after all this. Ah, well...

You do have my number, though, and if you have an evening off when
you're in New York in January, please feel free to call me.

Adamantius
______________________________________
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".

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