#( tiernan trying a new recipe )

[chubbzsreadss]

Cooking again?

So, I won’t go into much detail about where my mental state is at the moment. But long story short, I’ve been reading and writing again. As well as getting back into cooking again. DON’T WORRY, I’m keeping up with my 50 book challenge as well. I’m currently reading the first bind-up of the Sweep Series ( Book 1-3) By Cate Tiernan and the Alchemist By Paulo Coelho. Both books are pretty freaking great.

Anyway, I grew up around family and friends always cooking and that is one thing I can say that I loved doing growing up I remember visiting my aunt in Albany and that is where I bought my first cookbook. It was a French based cookbook on how to make breads and cakes. YESSSS! CARBS! I mean, who doesn't love carbs. 

The food network used to be my favorite channel, Emeril Lagasse, Bobby Flay, Rachel Ray, Ina Garten, Guy Fieri,  Giada De Laurentiis, to name a few. Even Julia Childs is AMAZING. Trying new foods is one thing. Actually cooking them and being able to experience what those chefs and foodies experience is a whole different experience. 

Yesterday I decided to make a classic Beef Stew, Artisan bread, and strawberry thumbprint cookies. It’s been about 6 years since I’ve actually  cooking anything from scratch. For someone who is used to cooking for a family, and has been alone for the past 2 years. I must say it was definitely a great experience. I spent at least 3 hours in the kitchen, taking my time and actually learning how to do it all over again. 

Any way, I started with the bread because that is probably the one that takes the longest - Mostly rising time. The smell of yeast filled the kitchen and the smell was sooo pleasant! If you are a bread lover and never made bread from scratch. Please try it.  All you need is 4 ingredients - Flour, instant yeast, salt, water, oh and LOVE! I have no complaints about this recipe because it came out so great and tasted so good with the stew. BUT I’m CURRENTLY making it again due to changes in the recipe. I will make a post about that one tomorrow.

I allowed that to rise for 3 hours. in the mean time I got started on the thumbprint cookies. That recipes was quick and easy, I remembered me of the sugar cookie recipe I used 6 years ago without eggs. Now, for the first time making thumbprint cookies, I must saying I wasn’t really happy with how they turned out. They look amazing BUT something was missing in the batter. once I figure it out I will make a post about that.

Now, the beef stew. OMG! I’m so satisfied with how this recipe came out. I played this one by ear being that I made beef stews before. It was so good, I had it for lunch today and still have some left over. when I make that one again. I will definitely have pictures and the recipe for you guys. Beef stew also known as “Carne Guisada” for us, is a simple recipe but everyone makes it different. I used the typical sazon and adobe with everyday herbs. with just the right amount of herbs and spices and favorite recipe was made just like that. I would def make this again. I will also have the recipe and picture for that too. 

Is anyone else a foodie? Is anyone else reading this? LOL

until Tomorrow beautiful people! Blessed Be! 

[thevortexofourminds]

What is a story?

Tiernan's @tiernanogphoto wonderful contemplation (found here: http://letstalkphotography.tumblr.com/post/171568318505/on-the-intersection-of-art-journalism-and) on "stories", "photo-journalism", "objectivity", and his thought-provoking question whether all kinds of photography can (or maybe even should) evoke stories (which will certainly be a topic for one of the next inConversations), made me think.

I certainly cannot add anything of value to Tiernan's "sociologist approach", because my background is largely different. I studied literature, drama, (and social-psychology), later went to filmschool, and have been working as a producer, writer, director, video-editor, and cameraman. So, what I write here, is a very different take on the subject, and rather the viewpoint of a "storyteller" and that one of a person, who has been engaged in trying to understand and to work with the "mechanics" of storytelling.

What is a story?

A story certainly is some sort of narrative. It can be based on actual events (to whichever extent), or it can be completely fictitious. The goal of a story is to interest, inform, amuse, emotionally engage, or also instruct an audience. And that unrelated to whether the story is "true" or not. Often, the most effective informative or instructional stories are not "documentaries" but are complete fiction (think of fables for instance or instructional videos which present a fictitious story based on certain information). And often "true stories" are merely told for entertainment purposes. What all stories have in common: They are communication. And communication always demands at least two parties. The person who "tells" and the person who "is told" (I'll get into that a bit later).

One of the biggest misconceptions about stories and storytelling is that there is ONE true and unambiguous interpretation of a story: Usually the one of the author. But that is not true. Never was. Never will be. Because it is not as simple as that.

Where does a story "happen"?

Since stories are always communication, the story "happens" inside of the mind of the recipient. And different minds create different stories. So there is not ONE story. But as many stories as there are minds who read/hear/watch them (plus the one of the author). The storyteller (especially, of course, the journalist) often wants to get sure that the same story they had in mind also appears in the mind of the recipient - which can be tricky. 

We have no possibility of communicating in an objective way.

Communication is encoding information into a form that can be transmitted. And then this "encoded information" has to be decoded and interpreted by the recipient. Facts, thoughts, feelings, opinions - they all have to be encoded into symbols - like words or sentences - to be transmitted. And to receive "the intended message", the recipient needs to have the same understanding of the symbols, the right "decoding mechanism", often also the same background knowledge, in short: the same "context". I am aware that what I wrote might seem like a bloated, and "blown out of proportions" analysis, but actually, it isn't. 

I'll give you an example: If I give you no context whatsoever, and I write that I love tits, your "story" will probably be that I like birds. Won’t it? When I continue writing: "I also love pussies", your story might change into: "Oh, Pete is not only fond of birds but also of cats. He loves animals". While this seems like a simplified example, think closer: I only threw in some words. There is no complex background story like in - say - news reporting. Every transmitted information is either based on that the audience has the same background knowledge - the same standpoint, or it ideally will give you the needed background information.

People in similar types of societies (like for example "the Western world"), certainly all have a very similar "decoding mechanism", but this is nevertheless tricky. Symbols are never unambiguous. You know that yourself. Misunderstandings in even the simplest forms of communication occur all of the time. A slightly different tone of voice, an added gesture, a missing gesture, a missing word, or a word that the person who said it, apparently uses slightly different than you do can lead to creating a whole different "story" in your mind than the "message" was intended to be.

I will not go (too deep) into the psychological part of this, and only will mention one of the (certainly one of the biggest) factors in all types of storytelling (including reporting and news media): Confirmation bias. Confirmation bias is "the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms one's preexisting beliefs or hypotheses" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias). In short: You are more likely to believe what confirms your existing beliefs. And you will automatically interpret information, stories, behavior, etc. biased towards this. You certainly know this yourself: As soon as we're confronted with information that stands in direct opposition to what we believe or "know", we will automatically be at least skeptical, try to disprove it, or completely reject it. And the more important the subject is for us, the more likely will we reject it without even spending thought on that we might have been wrong.

And there is more: If we like someone, we are more likely to accept and believe what they say. And we don't need proof. And if we don't like someone, they can tell us the most obvious truths, but we will at least be skeptical or even try to find ways to disprove them. That's why people often only read newspapers, or watch tv shows (including news) that confirm their own beliefs.

Journalism is supposed to be objective

Yes or no? I'd say "yes". I still believe that it is not possible. There cannot be complete objectivity. Confirmation bias just being one factor. Journalists also have confirmation bias. Even though a responsible journalist should be aware of this and work against it, in favor of the "objective truth". Not only is this hard, and I certainly don't want to be in this position, I am even sure that it is impossible to be completely impartial and bias-free.

But there is more: Journalists often are freelancers. So they will get paid for their stories being published. If the stories don't get published they won't get paid. So what they do - what they HAVE to do - is to find and write stories that WILL get published. And which stories will get published? Those stories that people want to read: Confirmation bias. And that is also true for permanently employed journalists. They have to deliver stories that the "audience" of the news-outlet wants to see.

And I'm not (only) talking about the "big stories".

It's also the seemingly small things: Say, I am a photo-journalist and I have to cover a protest march. Which photos will I try to take? The ones that I can sell. The ones that have a chance to get published. While my personal beliefs and certainly also the task I was given by my employer might be the big force that drives me through the hours of shooting, there is always my confirmation bias ("Is this a legit protest?", "Who are the good guys and who are the bad guys? The protesters or the counter-protesters?" etc). So I am even more likely to see things that confirm my beliefs. Granted, a good journalist should be able to be as objective as ever possible. But there is still the "get published threat". You will try to capture the best story you can get.

In almost all, if not all common storytelling theories, you will find one aspect as the centerpiece of stories: Conflict. "No conflict, no story". So you will try to find and build up the conflict. And the stronger the conflict, the more powerful the story.

Tiernan mentioned recurring "formulas" for storytelling. And yes, in (almost) every book about storytelling, and especially screenwriting, you will find "recipes" for structuring stories, for creating conflict, for constructing "interesting characters" etc. I won't go down this rabbit-hole, because I could ramble and rant about this for hours, just let me mention one point: You will find these "formulas" in almost every movie you will ever watch. Even in the ones that (pretend to) not follow formulas. You can literally predict the exact minute of a movie when one of the big events, which will give the story a different spin (the "plot points") will happen. And depending on the genre of the movie you can even predict WHAT will happen.

Every media outlet provides a certain "space" for every story. And the space is limited. Limited by time (for instance in movies) or limited by - literally - the number of letters (for instance in newspapers). So there is NO WAY to ever tell "the whole" unbiased story. There is NO WAY to be completely objective. Because we always - deliberately or not - have to leave out events, facts, and background information. And the recipient is the one who fills the blanks with their own interpretation, based on their own context and knowledge of the background information, and their own beliefs, and so create their own story.

So... if we are talking about being objective, it all comes down to Tiernan's wonderful notion: "But one can certainly be more objective"

Let me close this with a quote by Neil deGrasse Tyson, who said:

"No matter what eyewitness testimony is in the court of law, it is the lowest form of evidence in the court of science."

[yasbxxgie]

Black Axe Mangal's chef Lee Tiernan's hangover cure makes second-day Domino's shine

“I love pizza. I don’t think there’s such a thing as bad pizza,” he says. “There’s even something nice about shit pizza. One day I was looking at some cold pizza in my fridge and I just thought, ‘Yeah, I could soak that in egg and fry it. That’d be f*cking amazing.’ I had it with sriracha sauce and it just worked. It works well with Domino’s because the bread’s a bit thicker so it absorbs a bit more egg. The pure shittiness of a chain takeaway pizza lends itself perfectly to this dish. But I have done it with good New York-style pizza and it does work.”

A heavy offering, leftover pizza French toast has “mystical hangover-curing properties,” according to Tiernan.

“This could quite possibly save your life when you’re hungover. It goes really well with lager,” he says. “What people have got to remember is it’s not going to be like an eggy bread [French toast] experience. It’s pizza that’s been soaked in egg and then fried. So it probably has more calories in it than a Big Mac. It’s not something I would serve at dinner. It’s something you might just do when you get home from being out all night and just go for it.”

Since the pizza actually isn’t on BAM’s menu and the restaurant is, you know, in another country and all, your best option for trying out the last hangover cure you’ll ever need is making it at home.

To do that, you’ll need a wide, shallow bowl that’s big enough to fit a pizza slice and a non-stick or well-seasoned frying pan or skillet. In terms of ingredients, get three egg yolks, a half-dozen leftover pizza slices, some chilled butter, salt and freshly ground black pepper. Here’s the recipe, which can also be found in Tiernan’s first cookbook Black Axe Mangal:

Preheat the oven to 110°C/225°F/Gas Mark ¼. Beat the egg yolks in a shallow bowl or dish that’s big enough to accommodate a pizza slice. Place the pizza slice in the egg for 2–3 minutes, turning a couple of times until well coated. Repeat with the rest of the slices. Place a non-stick or well-seasoned frying pan over medium heat, add a knob of butter, wait for the butter to froth then add the pizza slices crust-side down. Season the topped side with a pinch of salt and a grind of pepper. When the crust side is golden, flip and fry the topped side. Drain on paper towels, then keep warm in the oven while you fry the rest of the slices. To serve, pile onto a large platter, along with any of the suggested sides (crispy bacon, grilled pork sausages, grated Comté, Ogleshield or Emmental cheese, Marmite) and condiments (ketchup, hot sauce, sriracha, maple syrup).

[InsideHook]