[Sca-cooks] Redaction

Claire Clarke angharad at adam.com.au
Tue Jan 25 03:05:03 PST 2011


------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2011 23:42:59 -0500
From: Johnna Holloway <johnnae at mac.com>
To: Cooks within the SCA <sca-cooks at lists.ansteorra.org>
Subject: Re: [Sca-cooks] Redaction
Message-ID: <78477C3B-37AB-4509-88AE-98ACC0B03291 at mac.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; CHARSET=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes


It can be adapted or redacted or a working recipe... just so it works  
for the reader when the time comes!

Johnnae

You wrote back in 2003
> But that  isn't what we are doing. What we call a redaction is an  
> original recipe plus additional information--"if you do it this way  
> it comes out tasty." It's a conjectural reconstruction, not an  
> adaptation.


>> An adaptation would be if you had the recipe for cooking over an  
>> open fire and converted it into "so many minutes on the stove at  
>> medium" and the like.
>> --
>> David/Cariadoc
>>
>> ---
------------------------------

Coming into this discussion rather late, I have to say I like
'reconstructing'. That's what it feels like I'm doing when I'm experimenting
with period recipes in the kitchen - not so much taking a known recipe and
adapting it for different circumstances (though of course there are elements
of that) but trying to end up with something that's more or less what the
original recipe is trying to describe. 'Conjectural reconstruction' seems
like an excellent (if rather cumbersome' description.

Angharad




More information about the Sca-cooks mailing list