Girl Detective

#58 in my book challenge for the year. I re-read the book after seeing the movie, and can now say that the movie gets muddled when it departs from the book. I can see why the film director chose to depart, because the book is complex. It centers on Sophie, a young hat girl who is bewitched to look like an old woman. Ashamed of her appearance, she leaves home and takes up residence in the moving castle of the title, owned by the wizard Howl. There are many mysteries that Sophie must solve, and she must stand up to any number of witches and difficult situations. Sophie is a strong, well-realized female character, and her story is a compelling one. I recommend this and other books by Diana Wynne Jones for fans of fantasy and Harry Potter.

I learned to cook when I found myself living alone for the first time in a tiny sublet that had a food processor. My mom sent me a copy of The Moosewood Cookbook, not because I was vegetarian but because it was easier to learn to cook on vegetables. I was so ignorant that I had to ask a foodie friend whether a clove of garlic was one segment or the whole head. (She never forgot that. Never mind that I’d been pretty sure of the answer, and was just checking to be certain. Years later she still laughed.)

It was a few years later that another foodie got me a subscription to Cook’s Illustrated. I’d read other cooking magagazines before–Food and Wine, Gourmet, and Bon Appetit. I liked them fine, though I found them largely the same. Cook’s Illustrated, though, was something else. It had no ads, just a few recipes per issue, plus a tasting and an equipment testing. Best of all, they were obsessed with food, so that when they published a recipe, they let you know just how many times and what variations were tried before arriving at the final recipe. It was like the Consumer Reports of cooking. I have been a subscriber now for about ten years.

A few years ago they began a show on PBS, America’s Test Kitchen. I was surprised to find that the show was a good complement to the magazine. It highlighted just a few recipes, plus one tasting and one testing. It featured staff from the magazine, and they were fun to watch. The style of the show was like the magazine–straightforward, not fancy, and above all, informational.

Last summer I spent a lot of time away when we sold our condo and bought a house. I decided to sign up for Cook’s Online, which includes all the recipes, as well as searchable databases. It has been a useful subscription even when I’m home and have access to all my back issues of Cook’s.

Finally, last year Cook’s sent out a solicitation for their new sister magazine, Cook’s Country, which a friend has jokingly called “Red-State Cook’s”. I was going to pass, since I felt one subscription plus online was enough, but was swayed by the “try it for free” offer. When it arrived, I prepared to write cancel on the invoice. That is, until my husband waved the magazine in my face and said excitedly, “Have you seen this? There are about seven recipes I want to make in here!” And so we became subscribers to Cook’s Country, as well.

We were converts to the Cook’s empire, then, but I’d managed to shed other cooking magazines and shows. Then a friend recommended Everyday Food, a digest-sized mag from the Martha Stewart empire. I checked it out, and found it had good photography and simple recipes that were true to the title. I also found they had a cooking show. The show, though, like the magazine, features a lot of recipes. It goes through them very quickly. There are some tidbits of information, but they are mostly very basic cooking tips, like generously salt water for pasta, and save some pasta water to thin the sauce if necessary. It isn’t a bad show, but I found it redundant to the magazine for me. Perhaps it would be more useful to someone newer to the cooking learning curve, however. I am going to give the magazine a try, though I’ve had a hard time tracking it down in stores. It features simple, straightforward recipes that would be ideal for weeknight cooking. I think it could be a good balance for Cook’s, which favors quality above all, sometimes resulting in longer cooking times.

My first “dinner party” was a disaster a la Bridget Jones. I had invited a few good friends over, and planned an overambitious menu. I had no sense of timing or the recipes. I was making a risotto for the very first time with roasted garlic. I burned the garlic, and one of the guests had to coach me through the risotto, which seemed to take hours. I forget what there was besides the risotto, but I’d planned some sort of ice cream concoction at the end that I didn’t have time to put together. We ended up just eating plain ice cream from the carton.

Some of the lessons I learned right away: Do not cook a recipe for guests that I haven’t made already. One time-consuming recipe a night (if that). Always have a dessert back up in case time runs out.

But one risotto lesson has taken me many more years to learn. I’d buy a bag of arborio rice, make risotto, be reminded of how time consuming it is (even when I use the dump-and-stir method recommended by Cook’s Illustrated, of dumping in the first 3 cups of liquid, letting it boil down, then adding the rest in 1/2 c. increments) and how it doesn’t always make a meal itself, and often doesn’t leave leftovers, or at least tasty ones. So the bag of arborio would sit in my pantry until I was sufficiently removed from the experience to try risotto again. That bag would usually provide 2 to 3 risottos. I was always frustrated that no matter how long I cooked the rice, it still had a chalky texture. Then I bought a new bag, and noticed that the risotto wasn’t chalky. I realized the months-old, pantry-sitting arborio was probably to blame. So my new lesson on risotto is to buy arborio rice from the bulk section, in just the amount I need. I do the same thing with lentils. Just because something is dried doesn’t mean that it can’t be too dry. So now I only buy fresh dried lentils and arborio. It definitely makes a difference.

I don’t know why it surprises me when I find out someone reads this weblog. If I didn’t want or expect people to read it, then I’d write in a journal, not online. Over the years, I’ve found I can’t predict who will or won’t read it. There are close friends and relatives who don’t, yet distant acquaintances who do. Then there are also strangers, and others who I’ve come to know in person and online. This strange mix challenges me to try to write things that have significance beyond just my little midwestern life. I began a public weblog to keep me honest about my writing practice. The expectation of M to F posts helped ensure I was writing SOMETHING on a regular basis. And since that something was for public consumption, then it better be of interest to other people besides the ones who liked me already.

Since starting at this new URL last fall, I’ve had it happen not once, but twice now, that people involved with something I’ve critiqued have written to me. Both times, the responses have made me go back to what I’ve written and wonder whether I was fair and accurate. The good news is that the answer was mostly yes. The whole truth, though, is that sometimes things bother me out of proportion (see the topic category of “Weird Things that Bother Me”, for example) and that can skew a review to the negative. I’ll be editing a recent book review because the author asked me to clarify what it was that bothered me. In so doing, I also took the time to clarify what I admired and liked about the book.

I began this weblog three years ago as writing practice, and have kept it (perhaps, no, probably, at the expense of paying writing gigs) because I enjoy it. It is a good reminder to me that not only are people reading, but I can’t know who is reading. If I keep it honest, and fair, and fit for public consumption, then maybe I can please most of the people, most of the time.

And, just in case anyone who works on Battlestar Galactica is reading, I don’t take back my gripe that nothing happened in the first two episodes of Season Two. I was somewhat heartened when two things happened in the third episode–the team got off Kobol and Tigh declared martial law. But so many things happened on the last episode that I can’t even count them; I was thrilled. It was a very slow start to the season, but things look very good again.

It’s taken me some time, but I’ve finally managed to work my way through at least one issue of each of the shopping magazines: the original, Lucky; spinoff #1 Cargo for men; copycat #1 Shop, Etc.; and spinoff #2 Domino for home.

Years ago a friend told me Lucky was a great magazine. I scoffed. The shopping magazine? Then I checked it out, apologized and became a subscriber. Lucky is one of the most successful magazine launches in recent years. It positions its editors as in-the-know girlfriends, dispensing advice on how to dress and what products–classic and new–to try. Lucky is a great magazine for ideas, and it features a wide range of items, from drugstores to exclusive boutiques. The production quality is high with accessible layouts, and good photography, models, writing, and paper stock. Editor-in-Chief Kim France and Creative Director Andrew Linnett are alumni of the late, lamented Sassy, to which Lucky is a much more worthy heir than is the celebrity-suck-up Jane.

I picked up a few copies of Cargo to get fashion ideas for my husband, who tends to be somewhat sartorially challenged. Cargo, though, gave me a headache. It was too bright, too busy, and it’s pitched to a young, metrosexual consumer.

Shop, Etc. has tried to copy Lucky’s success. I found its first issue to be like a low-rent version of Lucky–poorer photography, cheaper paper, fewer models to save on costs, and clumsy attempts to write Lucky-like copy. A subsequent issue themed “everything under $100″ got my attention, but then annoyed me when I spotted the $100+ Mason Pearson hairbrush. I noticed from the letters column that readers seemed to believe it was a shopping magazine for more average lives and budgets, but I’m not sure that’s intended. It may be a response to the cheaper price and production value of the magazine. Aside from the under $100 issue, it features a wide range of items and costs. I found nothing in Shop, Etc. that Lucky doesn’t do better or that I felt Lucky lacked.

Finally, the newest entry, Domino, is like Lucky for the home. The premier issue did all the same things as does Lucky, but didn’t strike a chord with me. I found some of the items in the ads more compelling than the stuff in the features. Maybe it’s that I’m not a DIY-er, so I’m not the target, but I found the mini sections that Lucky has on home items to be sufficient. This full-length magazine was just too much for me.

Interesting, also, was that Cargo, Shop, Etc., and Domino were all difficult to find. Lucky is available up front at Target. The others I had to go to a bookstore to find, and even then, I had to go to more than one bookstore. At the end of my experiment, I’ve found I’m loyal to Lucky. One shopping magazine is enough for me, if not for the magazine industry.

My husband G. Grod has his gall bladder out today, stones and all. The doc said the procedure went perfectly, so he is home now and doing as well as possible, given 4 incisions and the loss of an organ.

We returned home to find that the company G. Grod works for has been bought out by another. Sigh.

#57 in my book challenge for the year was Freakonomics by Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner. It was a fast, flashy read that at first blush was quite clever. A little distance made it less brilliant, but still worthwhile and enjoyable. The Guardian has an amusing digested read of Freakonomics. Levitt is an unconventional economist who tackles puzzles that interest him rather than financials. He targets conventional wisdom, and notes that something becomes convention because it’s convenient and easy to believe, while not always true. Among the objects of his scrutiny are drug dealers, schoolteachers, and worried parents. Some of the comparisons he draws are overly extreme, as when he compares real estate agents to Ku Klux Klan members.

One of Levitt’s most contested points was that the unexpected crime drop of the 80’s was due to the aftereffect of Roe v. Wade. The pool of potential criminals was smaller because they had not been born. The authors wait until the end of the chapter, though, to say (in somewhat murky prose) that abortion is not effective crime control. They did point out, though, what many tracts on abortion don’t, which is that abortion is largely an issue for poor, minority women. Financially secure white women will always have access to safer abortions, whether they’re legal or not. One of the numbers they did not mention, though, is that when abortion is illegal, more women (usually poor, minority women) die.

I appreciated the chapters on effective parenting. They discovered that there was no correlation between success in school and reading to a child every day, the amount of TV kids watch, or how often children are taken to museums. There is, however, strong correlation with the age and education of the mother and number of books in the home. Interestingly, they did not define what they considered success in school. There was a murky bit when they argued that school choice didn’t matter–students who applied in a lottery for a different school did the same whether they went to that school or their local one. But another section argued that young children at poorer, mostly minority schools did worse than counterparts at wealthier, whiter schools. This may have been a distinction in age–young children versus high schoolers, but that wasn’t made clear.

#39 in my movie challenge for the year was Collateral, directed by Michael Mann. While Tom Cruise may be an insensitive buffoon, he can sometimes act well, and here he does. Jamie Foxx is the everyday guy whose life quickly spirals out of control due to a bizarre chain of circumstances. He absolutely deserved his Oscar nomination. Collateral is beautiful to look at, well acted, fast paced and mesmerizing. I was so impressed with this film that I watched all the extras; I rarely watch even one. They made me appreciate the film, its direction and the acting all the more.

Last week I read Bruce Campbell’s autobiography If Chins Could Kill: Confessions of a B-Movie Actor (#56 in my book challenge for the year) and went to see Bruce host a screening of The Man with the Screaming Brain (#38 in my movie challenge for the year).

Bruce Campbell is best known for his starring work in the Evil Dead trilogy, a set of B-movie horror flicks from the 80’s and 90’s. I saw Evil Dead for the first time when I was in college (in Henle 21, for the record), because some guy friends were big fans. It was bloody and it was funny, and I remember one of the guys kept up a continuous chorus of, “Oh, this part is so awesome.” It was clear that the guys had the movie memorized.

The director of the Evil Dead films, Sam Raimi, hit the big time finally with the very good Spider Man and even better Spider Man 2. Campbell has managed to stay alive in Hollywood as a B actor, but he doesn’t bemoan his fate. He has genuine affection for the early movies and how much creative control he and his friends had on them. He’s been in some big movies, such as the Coen Brothers The Hudsucker Proxy, and has spent a lot of time doing series television, first on the short-lived Adventures of Brisco Country, Jr. and later as a recurring character first on Hercules: The Legendary Journeys and later on Xena: Warrior Princess. If Chins Could Kill is an entertaining, anecdote-laden trip. Campbell is humorous and self-effacing, and comes off as a likable guy. Bruce is touring in support of his new book, How to Make Love the Bruce Campbell Way.

The Man with the Screaming Brain is his first time directing a film. It was financed by the Sci-Fi channel, who told him he had to film in Bulgaria, so he re-wrote the movie around that. During the Q & A after the showing, Campbell joked that the film wasn’t released, it had escaped. He did a good bit of bantering back and forth, solidifying that funny, good-guy persona. The Man with the Screaming Brain is the story of a mad scientist (Stacey Keach) who discovers a way to merge brain cells of different people. It’s played for slapstick, and it is quite funny at times. Both City Pages and The Beat have reviewed it favorably, and perhaps a bit kindly, but it’s hard not to want to be kind to Campbell. It will air on the Sci Fi Channel on Septemer 10.

Or rather, he has one giant stone and a few small ones. As I’ve mentioned a few times recently, my husband G. Grod has been having gall bladder trouble. He is having surgery later this week. Fortunately, he’s probably able to have the easy version (outpatient), rather than the hard version (5 day hospital stay) of the surgery, but it still has a 10 day recovery period, so things may be a little erratic around here for a while.

#37 in my movie challenge for the year was Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. I both admired and enjoyed this film. Jim Carrey’s performance was remarkably restrained, and was perhaps the best I’ve seen from him. Winslet was just as strong, and never once did I question her American accent. A friend of mine derided Kirsten Dunst’s performance, but I think she did a fine job of playing an annoying, immature person who hasn’t learned from her mistakes. Screenwriter Charlie Kaufman also wrote Being John Malkovich and Adaptation. Both of those were technically good, though I didn’t much like them. They were about being up in one’s head, and detached from emotion. This film did an admirable job of being intellectual as well as emotional.

When I moaned the other night that I was behind in my reading, my husband G. Grod patiently explained that I had already met my book challenge for the year, then chosen to increase it, so I was really ahead, and not behind.

Nonetheless, it does feel as if some of the books I’ve read lately have taken up more of my time than they were worth. That, though, probably isn’t so much about slow reading as it is about unworthy books.

#55 in my book challenge for the year, The Year of Secret Assignments is a really good young adult novel. It’s mostly epistolary, told in letters by six students in a pen-pal project, plus in journal and notebook entries. It is both funny and touching, centering on friendship, loss, finding oneself, plus a teensy bit of revenge. The main characters are likeable and engaging, and the book moves at a quick pace.

Within the last few months, my toddler son Drake has become much more affectionate. He asks to give and receives hug and kisses. He’ll also give a little squeeze to my arm or leg while he says, “Keethe,” because he lisps just a little.

It’s both strange and normal to see this change. Strange, because I’d resigned myself to the fact that he wasn’t a very snuggly guy. And normal, because I’ve been shown again and again not to make assumptions, and that everything changes all the time. Part of me wonders if this is simply his development. Another part wonders if it can be coincidence that he became more affectionate about the same time as our lives finally seemed to settle down. A lot of stresses fell away this past spring, and I can’t help but feel the change in his behavior meant that he noticed, too.

I saw the playground dad yesterday (and, as is typical of playground interactions, I have no memory of his name, but I do know his son’s) I told him of our recent disastrous restaurant experience. He confirmed what I knew to be our key mistake–going with another family + toddler. His advice was for just the three of us to go early, to avoid crowds and keep the stimulation lower. He affirmed that dining out was a good thing for a family, and not something to be hastily given up.

Drake isn’t two for a few weeks, but it seems like he is for all intents and purposes. And that has become my answer for all questions, lately. Why is he throwing a tantrum? Why does he want me to read the same book four times in a row while he ignores others? Why is he so giddy and happy? Why won’t he eat sweet potatoes anymore? Why does he say “outside” then play with his trucks?

With a baby, and still with a toddler, there aren’t many concrete answers. One hard thing for me about parenting has been to soldier on without an answer. I think my vague parenting strategy, which I formed but have trouble following, is not to fret away the good times, and not to freak out during the tough ones.

Movies 35 and 36 in my movie challenge for the year were Zoolander and Starsky & Hutch. These were good, funny little movies that got the laughs and then got out. Each clocked in at about 90 minutes, as a good comedy should–see Wilson’s Shanghai Noon and Shanghai Knights for why not to push it to two hours. I am not a Ben Stiller fan. I find him rather creepy. Yet I didn’t find his presence detrimental to these movies, and he was particularly funny as Starsky. Both movies had strong supporting roles by the hilarious Will Ferrell. The soundtrack to Starsky and Hutch was great, as were the fashions. I keep hoping that both Vince Vaughn and Owen Wilson will find better movies and larger audiences, but they’re doing pretty well in Wedding Crashers, which is a good sign.

I can’t be the only one who has noticed that nothing has happened in the first two episodes of season two of Battlestar Galactica. Oh sure, there’s been some shooting, and a lot of people we’d never met and didn’t care about died, but at the end of the second episode we’re in a place no different than we were at the end of Season One: Adama’s unconscious, Apollo’s in trouble, Starbuck’s on Caprica, and that landing team on Kobol is screwed. Something better change Friday. I know it’s normal for a show to slump in its second season, but I can’t stop hoping. And I’m warning all and sundry, if the sophomore slump happens to Veronica Mars this fall, my wrath will know no bounds.

Also, if you didn’t notice but do care, Sci Fi is re-running Joss Whedon’s Firefly series in order in preparation for the release of the movie Serenity. Firefly is decent, and has a few cool bits, like how the ships don’t make sound in space, because, of course, they wouldn’t.

#34 in my movie challenge for the year, Howl’s Moving Castle was both lovely and disappointing. Disappointing because the story got muddled in the middle and was hard to follow. I found this probably the least well done of director Hayao Miyazaki’s films. Then again, a lesser Miyazaki film is still well above average. There was a lot to like about the film. The visuals were lovely. I enjoyed the varying portrayals of the main character Sophie, both as a girl and then later, under enchantment, as an old woman. I thought the pretty, non-threatening appearance of young wizard Howl contrased nicely with Christian Bales’ deep voice, and was a very believable object of attraction for a young girl. I also very much liked the appearance of Calcifer the fire demon, and thought that Billy Crystal did an admirably funny, restrained job of voicing him. And the moving castle was a wonder to behold. As usual for Miyazaki’s films, the young girl has to find solutions and help both herself and those around her, not just without adults but often in spite of them. Miyazaki’s film, like the Diana Wynne Jones book it is based on, does not gloss over the fact of evil in the world, or the sometime stupidity of adults. The book and the movie honor their young audience members by portraying a complex story with complex heroes. The movie perhaps works best as a companion to the book, which is one I have recommended before. Diana Wynne Jones is a British author of children’s fantasy books, and the Harry Potter series owes much to her work.

#54 in my book challenge for the year is the latest graphic novel collection of Y the Last Man, Vaughan’s tale of the only man who wasn’t killed off in a plague that killed all male animals on the planet. I read it cover to cover in one sitting. The story, the characters, and the art are all strong. We finally find out why Yorick survived, and it’s an interesting, believable addition to the plot that still leaves some questions. The collection has a good, cliff-hanger ending, and leaves me excited for the next installment of the story.