On Irony

Unlike the term “satire” discussed in a previous post, the term “irony” seems more often used and even less correctly understood.  Its use (or misuse) is not limited to academic circles or literature classes; whether a statement or situation is or is not ironic has been a frequent matter of debate in online comments and in verbal conversation.  Even I have to pause and evaluate whether the declared “ironic” situation is truly an example of irony.  Part of the difficulty lies in that not everyone agrees on its definition—or, one might say, certain kinds of irony depend on one’s perception.  The following, therefore, merely sets forth my own understanding of the term.

People commonly say such things as “How ironic that it would rain just when I’m ready to walk the dog.”  However, that’s not irony; that’s an annoying coincidence.  

“It’s ironic that this politician embezzled.”  Um... sorry.  Still “no”—unless some unstated aspect of the context makes it so, such as his previously speaking against embezzlement, and even then it's questionable—I mean, we're talking about a politician.

“A car crashing into a ‘drive safely’ sign—now, that’s ironic!”  Finally, yes!  In this case, we see situational irony between an expected outcome (that people would drive more safely because of the sign) and the real outcome (a car crash despite—and more ironically, into—the sign).  In a similar way, Shelly’s poem “Ozymandias” demonstrates situational irony with the visual juxtaposition in its final lines:

And on the pedestal these words appear:

"My name is OZYMANDIAS, King of Kings."

Look on my works ye Mighty, and despair!

No thing beside remains. Round the decay

Of that Colossal Wreck, boundless and bare,

The lone and level sands stretch far away.

The following images likewise show the same kind of irony:

http://izismile.com/2012/05/10/irony_alert_part_2_18_pics.html

http://izismile.com/2012/05/10/irony_alert_part_2_18_pics.html

Aside from situational irony, other forms include dramatic, verbal, and Socratic.  Dramatic irony appears solely in fiction (plays, films, literature), for its irony is understood by an audience but not by the characters, such as in Romeo and Juliet when most characters believe and behave as though Juliet has died while the audience knows otherwise.  Verbal irony is mild sarcasm in which the words express the opposite of their literal meaning, such as “What lovely weather” said in regard to a hailstorm.  Finally, in Socratic irony, a questioner pretends ignorance to expose his interlocutor's folly, such as used by... well, you can guess.  

In general terms, then, irony is “a reversal of expectations” (Matthew Inman, theoatmeal.com).  Of course, this definition of irony causes some debate, for someone might say, "I expected Jim to lose that race, but he won it instead—is that ironic?"  Not quite.  The speaker's guess was merely incorrect—or one might say Jim exceeded expectations rather that reversing them.  Furthermore, it fails to be ironic because the juxtaposition between the two—expectation and reality—is neither striking nor proximate.  Finally, for some morbid reason, negative reversals seem more ironic than positive ones: simply consider the relative perception of irony in "We'll be fine" spoken just before a tragedy and "We're gonna die!" shouted just before a rescue.
            The line between error and irony is extra fuzzy since one person’s expectations—or strength of said expectations—may differ from another’s.  Thus, I prefer the definition that irony is any contradiction between an action or statement, and its context.  (I just recalled—C.S. Lewis wrote in The Screwtape Letters that the Joke Proper "turns on sudden perception of incongruity."  Rather similar to irony, eh?)  Even then, however, one may argue that a contradiction between assumption and reality exists in un-ironic circumstances, such as coincidences, unfortunate scenarios, and human errors.  Alas!
            Well, even if the term's still unclearly defined, at least you now have a couple working definitions you can use to defend your position in a dispute over the presence of irony.

To view Inman’s humorous (but unfortunately crass) explanation of irony, click the following link: http://theoatmeal.com/comics/irony.

On Satire

           I worked with a student yesterday whose paper dealt with a certain author’s various literary devices, one of which was satire.  As I read the paragraphs dealing with that “technique,” the words didn’t quite ring true, but I found myself unable to articulate what satire is or how she could improve her use of the term.  I looked up satire in the dictionary and even called over my coworker, but we were equally at a loss.  As a literature major, I felt chagrined.  At length, I agreed with my co-worker that the paragraph seemed well-written, supported by quotes from the book and paraphrases from sources.  The student’s use of the term “satire” still seemed off, but I feebly suggested she add what foible each example was a satire of, and we moved on.

            A niggling discontent with my ignorance prompted me (after completing other necessary chores at work) to research satire.  Up, Wikipedia!  Down, ignorance!  And now, dear readers, you shall benefit from my lesson:

            First, satire is not a technique; rather, it is a genre along with comedy, tragedy, romance and the rest.  As such, it has its own particular style and purpose: namely, satire employs such techniques as irony, sarcasm, parody, exaggeration, caricature, juxtaposition, mockery, double meanings, and so on to critique an aspect of society--politics, religion, human rights, manners, traditions, and so on.  The author seeks to expose human folly and to shame individuals and society into improvement, so in essence, satire uses wit as social criticism.  Thus can one easily distinguish satire from its techniques or from non satirical teasing, dark humor, and other forms of mockery and juxtaposition, for satire always addresses core issues related to the subject’s ideas, morals, conduct, traditions, or social position--and most notably, its address judges the subject and draws toward it not sympathy, but criticism (and, one hopes, beneficial change).

Literary satires include well-known titles such as Candide, Animal Farm, and The Screwtape Letters.  Many film spoofs are also a form of satire, as are the articles and videos from the “news” website The Onion.  Even funnies like Doonesbury and Beetle Bailey, and certain story arcs in Terry Pratchet’s Discworld series count as satires.  Satirical works such as these range from the mild and humorous (e.g. The Rape of the Lock) to the intensely serious (e.g. Lord of the Flies) to even the grotesque, tragic, or offensive (e.g. Gargantua and Pantagruel).

Though satirists hope to motivate social improvement--and some like Charles Dickens do--in some cases, their works prompt primarily negative reactions because they can, understandably, come across as unpleasantly critical and even insulting.  Occasionally, satirists make purposefully inflammatory works.  For instance, the savage verses of an ancient Greek poet named Hipponax allegedly caused one of his opponents to hang himself [“Hipponax,” Wikipedia].  However, even with milder satire, readers may take offense easily if they have a personal connection to the subject the work addresses: Consider when, in 2005, satirical Muhammad cartoons printed in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten sparked violent worldwide protests.  Problems may also occur if readers take a sarcastic work literally.  For example, A Modest Proposal is indeed offensive if one thinks Jonathan Swift earnestly supports cannibalism as a means to reduce poverty.

Due to satire’s potential to inflame readers, most totalitarian countries prohibit it (along with less-divisive forms of free speech), and even some organizations in “free speech” countries like the U.S. have banned particular works from their libraries, schools, and so forth (such as the book The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn).  However, we cannot discount their potential for good: Dickens’ social satires were widely enjoyed and likely paved the way for various social reforms during and after his time.  More recently, Doonesbury satirized a county law in Florida “requiring minorities to have a passcard in the area; the law was soon repealed with an act nicknamed the Doonesbury Act” (“Satire: Contemporary Satire,” Wikipedia).  

            As Wikipedia observes, satires can relieve or even resolve social tension, and they “provide the keenest insights into a group's collective psyche, reveal its deepest values and tastes, and the society's structures of power.”  With such a testimony to the genre's lofty role in society, I'm sure I shall never again mistake satire for a mere technique.

 

On Tornados

When I was seven, I slept through a tornado.  

That’s not as unusual as it sounds; my room was already in the basement, and the tornado didn’t come near our house, so my parents saw no reason to wake me.  Furthermore, the neighborhood’s tornado siren always sounds faint inside the house, and the storm itself didn’t make any more noise than a usual storm.  When I was told about the tornado the next morning, in my child-like way, I felt impressed by my “feat”--it seemed like a bragging point.  It doesn’t now, of course; sleeping during a tornado due to ignorance is not particularly laudable or even strange.  However, it’s an indication of my upbringing, which has led me to perceive tornados as an interesting natural phenomenon to be cautious of but not to fear.  

I’m well aware that many out-of-staters and Kansans alike find tornados terribly frightening.  I presumably acquired my ambivalence by observing and imitating the calm, prudent attitudes of my parents and teachers, who I’m sure first exposed me to tornados through tornado drills during preschool and elementary school.  Mom has also reported that I watched The Wizard of Oz repeatedly as a five-year-old.  Naturally, I now have no memory of doing so and no notion of what I thought of Hollywood’s tornado, nor its relation to me or my state.  Still,  these unremembered events surely affected the way I perceived that tornado in second grade.

    Tornado and fire drills were both mandatory at Pleasant Hill Elementary, and in later grades, I vaguely remember the space we used for the former--a long, featureless concrete room embedded in the hill for which our school was named.  We accessed it through the kindergarten or one of the first grade classrooms, which took up the outer part of the walk-out basement.  There we were made to sit in rows.  To the teachers standing over us as monitors, we must have looked like a bunch of funny turtles, bent over our crossed legs and covering our necks with our hands.

    The next tornado I recall struck while I was in summer daycare at Temple Beth Shalom (in cooperation with Topeka’s YWCA).  I might have been eight or nine.  We were herded toward the basement, and rumor quickly spread through the ranks that this was a real tornado rather than a drill.  The steps we descended paused at a landing before turning and continuing down, and I was one of several kids who paused to gape out the rain-speckled window there, hoping to see the tornado.  Our caretakers scolded us and made us continue downstairs.  I remember feeling irritated with them, certain that our watching wasn’t nearly as dangerous as they supposed.

In sixth grade, our class toured Washburn University.  The only part of that excursion I remember, however, was the room with aftermath photos of the devastating 1960s tornado that tore through Washburn U. and other parts of Topeka.  I remember feeling amazed by the amount of destruction, and I remember--piecemeal--our teacher’s recollection of hiding below their stairs during that event and how she felt when she and her family emerged.

That was also the year we frequently went outside to work on a compost project for our science lessons.  I recall sitting on the hill while this student or that dug through the compost and made observations.  One of those days, some of us were distracted, studying some thick clouds amassing, which we speculated were thunderheads.  Before we’d finished our work with the compost, we heard the tornado sirens begin, though the sun still shone in part of the sky.  We returned inside with a mixture of reluctance and excitement.  

The movie Twister came out in 1996, and my family watched it some time after it came out on video.  Unlike the main characters, I was a cautious child and fond of my comforts, not inclined to put myself in danger or get wet however interesting it might be to study something like a tornado, but I did once run into a downpour with wild delight to investigate a new stream that had appeared in our yard parallel to the creek a dozen yards away.  My dad was furious when I didn’t come back immediately when he called.  Even though there wasn’t a tornado, lightning was another very real danger which may have passed through the water to me or may have struck one of the giant cottonwoods by our creek and sheared off a huge branch above my head, which it has done in the past (sheared off a branch, that is--not over my head).

When the tornado sirens sound now when I’m at home, I unplug my laptop in case of a lightning strike and spend a few moments examining the sky from the screen door.  Although our basement is a creepy, spider-filled place where I don’t like to linger doing laundry too long, eventually, I’ll grab the flashlight and a book, and go sit on the basement steps (it’s not possible to sit under them, and there’s no way I’m venturing into the poorly-lit, unclean other half of the basement where I might hide in what was to be a closet before mold made the basement uninhabitable).  When multiple people are present, we may sit on top of the dryer or on a folding chair brought down from the kitchen.  I may go up now and then to watch the rain or hail and to check for twisting clouds.  When Joel’s present, he watches the radar for us; when he’s not, I simply take my ease as best I can and wait for the sirens to stop, indicating it’s safe to ascend to ground level.
I wouldn’t say I have a cavalier attitude about tornados; I’m well aware of their dangers--Topeka’s 1960s tornado might have been before my lifetime, but Greensburg’s certainly isn’t.  Whether foolish or not, I don’t mind my little risky glimpses of nature’s power, knowing it is just a fraction of the power its Creator has at His disposal.  It awes and thrills me--though like anyone, I’d prefer the tornados chew up unused land instead of homes and crops and lives, but despite that, I’d rather live in unpredictable tornado country than in hurricane country, where those storms’ destruction and flooding are often more wide-spread than that left behind by our smaller, more powerful twisters.  I pray I’ll never have reason to regret this preference.

On the Custom of Holding Doors

Though society has no law or moral requirement regarding holding doors open for others, somewhere along the line it’s become a curious custom in our part of the world--a courtesy which men originally performed for women but which anyone might now perform for succeeding persons.  (Naturally, this applies to hinged doors--particularly ones that swing closed automatically--rather than to hanging, sliding, or revolving doors.)  People who practice door holding rarely reflect on why or how we do it, yet like other customs or traditions, whether a “thank you” after being helped or exchanging presents at Christmas, someone who breaks the custom risks annoying other persons.  However, unless done with the purpose of giving offense, an omission of this custom is hardly sufficient reason to break peace between persons, nor is it a moral misdeed in the category of stealing or even calling someone a rude name.  However, it’s still such an ingrained part of our culture that a person who wishes to be courteous ought to learn and comply with the custom.

I can only wonder about when or where men first began holding doors for ladies.  The underlying motive for all rules of etiquette is selfless consideration for others, so I imagine that at first, men--likely in a patriarchal European society--performed the act as a natural and occasional courtesy toward women, which over time became generally perceived--and then ingrained--in our culture as good manners.  It may even have been codified in tomes on etiquette, possibly in Europe during the 17- or 1800s (or so I would guess using my knowledge of history--which admittedly isn’t as extensive as I might wish).  Perhaps someone else can tell me if my guess is correct or if this custom had (or has) parallels in non-European-based cultures.

Whenever and wherever it began, gentlemen (whom I name thus for their genteel actions rather than landownership) certainly continued to hold doors for women into the mid-1900s.  Considering the weight of some of those old-style doors, I’m sure many women appreciated this act of consideration.  It may well have made them feel pampered and appreciated.  However, this perspective began to change during the feminist (or femi-nazi) movement in the ‘60s and ‘70s when some women decided the gesture implied their arms were weak or that they were subordinate to the male holding the door.  Even today, a few women get offended when a man holds a door for her as if she were incapable of doing it herself.  I believe such overly defensive women are rare, but perhaps due to the influence of such thoughts, many men no longer see a particular need to hold doors for women.  The custom itself persists, but today’s door holders are more often the first person of either gender to reach the door.  

I can’t recall ever hearing a thorough explanation of the etiquette of modern door holding; parents or other role models comment on it now and again, but one must generally pick up the nuances through observation and trial-and-error: One learns to calculate the speed of an approaching person to determine whether one should wait with the door open, or continue walking and let it close.  One must similarly decide whether, in a mass of humanity entering, exiting, or both, one should step aside and hold the door for everyone or simply support the door long enough for the nearest person to hold it as he or she passes through.  “Thanks” may be a sign one’s gotten it right; “excuse me” or “sorry to make you wait” may be a sign one needs to refine one’s actions.

I have here compiled twenty “rules” I’ve observed--some common-sensical and some requiring a little more thought.  Readers, share your own “rules” in the comments if you think I’ve missed or erred with one:

When to hold a door, and for whom:

1. One should always give preference to a person less mobile than oneself or whose hands are occupied--whether by a child, objects, crutches, a wheelchair, etc.--since that person would find grasping the door or pressing an automatic-open button awkward or inconvenient.  If one is in a position to hold the door for such a person, even if one does not intend to pass through it oneself, one should do so--and if passing through oneself, one should not balk at speeding up or even around the person, or at waiting longer than usual by the door to be sure of giving aid.
   
   

2. If neither party is particularly encumbered, and assuming a second person is relatively near, etiquette suggests that men hold doors for women and that younger persons hold doors for older persons--each with the motive of showing respect, and each more important in formal settings than in informal. 

3. When the inner space is smaller or more full of people, such as in a subway or restroom, the person on the outside should always hold the door for the one on the inside--or at least politely stand aside--to allow the one inside to exit before the one outside enters.

4. These considerations being moot, the first person to reach a door should hold it for the next person or persons.

5. If a door would have time to fall and remain completely closed for a second or more before the other person arrives at it, one may let it fall and walk on without giving offense or particular inconvenience.  Persisting to hold the door while the other person is at such a distance may distress the individual one intends to help, for it makes that person self-conscious of his or her own speed and aware of inconveniencing the door holder.

How to hold a door:

6. Unless an awkward situation requires it, one should avoid holding a door so that others must pass under one’s armpit.

7. One who opens a door by pulling and holds the door for persons going either direction ought to stand behind the door, or if that’s not possible, beside its open edge so the passage remains clear.  

8. One who opens a door by pushing may hold the door for someone following by taking a step or two inside and supporting the door from a position “in the way” until the follower can stretch a hand out and take the door’s weight, at which point both may move forward.  Note that this method would not suit a formal setting.

9. One who opens a door by pushing and is obliged to hold it--for a large party following, for an oncoming person by dint of arriving first, for someone with no free hands to perform the office, or for someone in a formal setting--should walk through and turn to stand behind or beside the door.  This way, others passing through need not support the door, themselves, nor be forced to awkwardly squeeze by the door holder’s body.

10. If persons on opposite sides of a transparent door see each other approach at the same time, and if one is a man and the other a woman, traditionally the woman will slow or pause and let the man reach the door first to hold it for her.  My own logic, however, suggests that since the person on the “pull” side of the door can hold it most conveniently for both individuals, this person had best do the honors regardless of gender.

11. When one notices a person holding a door for a large flux of individuals without finding an appropriate time to let go, one should offer to take over for a while so that person may also pass through or continue on his or her way. 

12. Even when a door is held for one individual, anyone--but particularly a man for a woman--may politely offer to take the position of a current door-holder with words such as, “Here, let me get that for you,” “Allow me,” “Ladies first,” or “Please, after you.” 

13. One offering to hold a door for a current door holder may only reach out to perform the office while speaking if reasonably sure the offer will be accepted; if unsure of the offer’s reception, one had better wait until receiving an acceptance so as to avoid seeming offensively forward or forceful.  Either way, one should take the door without touching the current door holder, obstructing his or her way, or subjecting him or her to close quarters with one’s armpit.  If, instead, the offer is refused, one may say something like, “I don’t mind”--once--but if refused a second time, one should acquiesce and keep the peace.
    
    

How to respond to door-holding:

14. The one benefiting from the clear passage ought always to thank the door holder--or at least acknowledge the person’s consideration with a smile and possibly a nod.  
    
    

15. One ought never to consider someone’s offer to hold a door rude when made in a gallant manner--whether the one offering would replace a man, woman, or child, or whether he would replace an able or less able person.  He intends to be considerate, which deserves thanks rather than censure.  However, one may acceptably refuse with words such as, “Thanks, but I’m fine” or “No, please--after you.”

16. If an elderly or less agile passerby takes offense at one’s attempt to hold a door for him or her, one should give a simple apology rather than argue or grovel.

17. In essence, it’s impolite to fuss about who holds the door, to make a showy scene of being polite, or to get in the way of others.

How to respond after a door-related error:

18. If passersby fail to acknowledged a door holder’s service, or if someone fails to apologize for a door-related error, one should maintain social harmony by ignoring the rudeness or omission rather than offering correction; only the relation of a child, student, or close friend entitles one to give the other a kindly phrased rebuke for such a relatively minor discourtesy.  Similarly, the recipient of a door-related error should accept a sincere apology immediately.

19. One customarily offers a brief apology after realizing one let a door begin to close upon an unnoticed person who follows closely behind; it’s quite unpleasant for that second person to nearly walk into the edge of a door he expected to remain open, or to have said door close in his face (which, culturally, implies rejection or intentional disrespect). 

http://how.to-draw.co.uk/?s=slam%20door

 

20. One customarily excuses oneself or apologizes upon surprising someone formerly hidden on the other side of a door one has just opened.  An apology is especially necessary if that door knocked into the other person.

The golden rule for door holding and other acts of etiquette--“Do what least inconveniences others.”

On Adventures with Marzipan

Note: If you'd like to read this humorous anecdote without the cooking details, skip the blue text.
 
          For a couple months, I’ve kept a perpetual tab open in Firefox with a recipe for marzipan.  
          For a couple weeks, I’ve had two cans of almond paste sitting ready in my plastic kitchen drawers.  
          Finally, on Friday, I resolved to make the recipe, but to get ideas for shapes, I first watched a couple online videos in which two women (with delightful British accents) demonstrated how to form marzipan roses and animals.  I decided to start with the former. 
           Mentally prepared, I readied my kitchen space and began.  I found it relatively easy to mix the almond paste, powdered sugar, and corn syrup.  Once it formed into a proper ball, I separated a small portion of the light beige dough, and then encircled the rest in plastic wrap and stuck it in the fridge for safekeeping.   
           At that point, to continue following the recipe required that I flaunt the video’s advice against liquid food coloring.  I bit my lip and hoped it would turn out well.  A couple drops of red dye got me a nice pink shade, and a little more powdered sugar made up for any additional stickiness.  I rolled it out, only mildly inconvenienced by my long wooden rolling pin in the tight quarters of my kitchen.  

           Lacking a rose-petal-shaped cookie cutter (which looks like a one-inch-long tear drop), I cut approximate shapes out with a knife.  I had to then pinch the round edge to thin the marzipan to a petal-like thickness, so the jagged edges weren’t much of an issue.  The first petal wrapped around a small cone of marzipan.  The round portion of the tear-drop petal lay fractionally above the tip of the cone, and the petal’s sides overlapped just slightly.  A little delicate pinching adhered it to the cone, and a little more pinching around the tip curled one part of the marzipan petal outward.  Three more petals, one inside the next, wrapped around this first petal, again rising slightly above and curled outward.  I stopped there, with a bud, on my first try, deeming the final round of five a bit too unwieldy to manage at first.  I cut off the rose’s ugly “stem” and set both aside. 

  

           With my second effort, I attempted the layer of five, but by that point, I had to wet the tip of my finger and dab the drying round ends of the marzipan so they’d pinch and flatten properly.  Unfortunately, this made them so sticky they tore easily, and I had to constantly re-coat my fingers in powdered sugar, giving the petals an uneven coating of “snow.”  Still, I felt fairly pleased with the result, but with the third and fourth roses, it grew harder and harder to keep the balance between stickiness and dryness, and the petals grew harder and harder to peel off the cutting board, so I scraped the whole pink lot back into a ball, wrapped it in plastic, and banished it to the fridge.  The finished roses made their way into a Gladware container (whose lid I always fear I’ll tear when I try to pry it open) and followed in the wake of the marzipan dough balls.

           Now, Joel and I planned to entertain guests Monday night: Joel’s former college roommate, Andrew Wallace, and his fiancé, Sam, would be driving through the area.  They’d requested chicken pot pie, which I looked forward to making, and I envisioned a dessert of personal apple pies—a simple but somewhat time-consuming recipe I’d tried out a few weeks before.  I made sure to acquire all the ingredients, and with our guests in mind, I also decided to make more marzipan roses as an extra treat.  Thus, I set to work Sunday afternoon before our Easter choir practice.  I left the neutral-colored ball alone, but re-thawed and re-rolled the pink marzipan ball.  I managed perhaps six or seven more roses before the same problem forced me to reevaluate my plan. 
           I reformed the ball with a little water, then kneaded, rerolled, and flattened it.  Frustrated with the irregular results achieved by knife cutting, I tried using the small end of my melon baller to cut round petals.  It worked rather well, though I had to run powdered-sugar-coated fingers around the melon baller's lip between cuts to keep the marzipan dough from sticking inside it.  These round pieces seemed impractical to form a rose, and at any rate, roses were time-consuming.  Time was running out before practice, so I experimented with arranging the round pieces roughly in the shape of a violet.  The effect wasn’t as realistic as the roses, so I stopped after two and put the completed flowers back in the fridge.  I wasted a few minutes molding the remaining ball of pink marzipan into an animal head (using my own judgement rather than advice from the online videos).  No matter how I pinched and pushed it, I couldn't decide if it looked more like a cat, a pig, or a cow, so I mashed it back into a ball and returned it to the fridge, rewrapped in plastic.

           Today, after work and a visit to Aunt Margie, I arrived home at 3:30 pm ready to prepare our meal as planned.  I readied my work area and first prepared the dough for the pot pie's crust.  The first time I had made the dough—for a pumpkin pie—I’d successfully modified Betty Crocker’s recipe by adding about a tablespoon of sugar per batch.  This I did, wondering if perhaps it was too much for a savory dish, but trusting what I’d written in the past.  I split the dough in half, wrapped the one half that would become the pie’s top in plastic and stuck it in the fridge, a shelf above the unshaped balls of marzipan.  The other half I rolled out and laid beautifully in the pie pan.  After trimming the edges of the dough, I laid plastic over that, too, and set it aside.
           Next came the chicken.  I started cutting fat off the chicken thighs and then cutting the chicken into bits… and then cutting some more… and yet more.  Joel got home, took his shower, came out, and I was still cutting chicken.  I lamented internally that I hadn't cut it the night before.  I kept glancing at the clock, gauging my time, and put Joel to work setting the table and washing dishes.  While I stirred the still-heating gravy for the pot pie, I asked him to peel and chop the carrots.  Noticing his careful speed at the cutting board, however, I suggested we swap roles so that I might chop them in half the time. 
           Now sweaty from working over the stove and with a sore back from standing still so long, I was eager for a shower and change of clothes before our guests arrived.  I had a half hour in which to do so—then fifteen minutes—then ten.  In haste once all was ready, I dumped the peas, carrots, and drained chicken into the boiling gravy Joel had dutifully kept from burning, pulled the pie pan from the oven where the bottom crust had been partially pre-cooked, dumped the innards in the shell, and grabbed a tan ball of dough from the fridge—cursing my foolishness for keeping it in there where it had gotten hard in the cold. 
            By bearing heavily on my floured rolling pin, I managed to roll the dough out on my flour-coated cutting board, but it kept trying to tear at the edges.  I feared I had gotten the marzipan by mistake for a moment.  A tiny pinch tasted like flour rather than sugar—good.  I carefully laid it over the pie, cut the excess dough, and pinched the edges together.  The lot went in the over for thirty-five minutes while I went in the shower for about five—all the time I had until our guests were due to arrive.
           I emerged in record time with several minutes to spare; our guests were running late, having first gone to the wrong house.  I knew the apple dessert would be impossible to prepare in time, but if they didn’t mind a child's treat, I decided I'd bake the scraps from the pie pastry—spread with a thin layer of margarine and sprinkled with cinnamon and sugar. 
           Our guests arrived as I prepared the dessert.  We greeted Andrew and were introduced to Sam—a delightful young woman—and I set tea to brewing and finished our dessert, which they confirmed sounded great.
           A few minutes of talk later, the timer buzzed for the pot pie.  I opened the oven… and stared in horror at my pie's blackened top.  How could this have happened?  I felt horribly embarrassed and apologized to Sam, who entered and witnessed the catastrophe I drew out of the oven.  She kindly assured me that her family’s exploits with cooking were much the same, so she didn’t mind.  I still felt awful—and perplexed.  This had never happened to me before!  I’d made pies overly brown a time or two, but never charred black!  It had also spilled into the oven—what a mess that would be to clean!  I supposed I must have set the heat on 450 instead of 425, but even as I said it, I remembered turning the dial carefully between 400 and 450.
           I stuck the dessert in the slowly-cooling oven and set about cutting (unwisely early) into the liquid-y pie with my triangular metal pie spatula.  The top crust seemed unusually thin and loose, but fortunately the charring didn’t extend very deeply, and Andrew assured me the rest of it looked and smelled quite tasty.  However, it soon became clear that my utensil’s holes would be problematic when it came time to lift the pieces onto our plates.  The others gave various suggestions, including using a wider spatula.  With a self-mocking smile, I wordlessly drew out a soup ladle and pulled out bowls in which to place the soupy mess.  This worked quite well, and we sat down to enjoy the meal.
           I was somewhat relieved that my first bite did not taste charred—however, it tasted unusually sweet instead.  I apologized again, feeling not a little distressed—what must they think of my cooking abilities?—and speculated that I may have used too much sugar in the crust, which might be another reason why it had blackened... but I didn't quite believe it.  I also noted that chicken thighs were also naturally sweeter than the typical chicken breasts used in this dish, but again, I wasn't convinced it could turn the pie this sweet.  Andrew said he actually liked the sweetness.  Encouraged, I acknowledged the unintended—but admittedly not unpleasant result—with no further complaint, and we ate and talked steadily of old college professors.
           When the kitchen timer went off, at first I didn’t know what it was for.  I rose and displaced Andrew to turn it off, supposing aloud that I must have accidentally set it when I turned it off earlier.   It wasn't until I had moved past poor Andrew again toward my seat that I remembered the dessert.  I stumbled returning to the oven (as if I needed to be more embarrassed).  I slid on my trusty red oven mitt and opened the door—upon dark brown bits of matter.  
           Not again! my heart cried as I tried to pry the melty bits up… and then logic caught up with my initial emotion: Pie pastry did not bloat or melt like this when charred.  Despite its crusty appearance, it also scraped easily from the pan—too easily, for it scrunched like soggy bread.
           That’s when I realized what must have happened.  I opened the fridge.  Yes—there was the ball of pie pastry.  I laughed as I related what had happened: The dough I’d grabbed and rolled out for the top of our pie had been the neutral-colored marzipan!  The pinch I'd taste-tested had been full of flour from rolling it out!
           We found that the baked marzipan “dessert” tasted fairly good, but as it cooled, the sugar made it nearly impossible to scrape off the pan—the heat reacted with the sugar so that when it cooled, it formed a hard candy.  After getting only a third off the pan and onto Sam and Andrew’s plates, I was forced to soak the rest in water, giving it up as lost.  
           Our guests enjoyed the treat, peculiar and unintended though it was.  We joked about kitchen accidents becoming inventions, and I shared how I created my recipe for potato soup from a mix-up while making my first chicken pot pie.  This incident reminded me to pull out the marzipan roses so Andrew and Sam could experience what marzipan was supposed to look and taste like.  (Which, unfortunately, wasn't as tasty as the rounds of Mexican marzipan that I remember my dad giving us as kids, but it served its purpose.)  Thus, despite everything, the catastrophic meal still turned out well and was followed by a fun game of Castle Panic and then Carcassonne, accompanied by much laughter and conversation.

           The moral—every catastrophe has a silver lining, so don’t get too upset over it. 
           Another lesson—marzipan chicken pot pie tastes surprisingly good, though in the future, I recommend using less marzipan.  To prevent burning, add it in bits below some real pastry dough--or add the marzipan topping about eight minutes before the pie is to emerge. 
           A third lesson—if you bake marzipan, cook it at less than 400 degrees for less than 10 minutes (how much less will be a matter of experimentation), and scrape it onto wax paper immediately to avoid an inedible, rock-hard mess.

On Girl Genius: a Recommendation

        Back in college (seven years ago, now... whoa!), my dad sent me a link to a little online graphic novel called Girl Genius.  Considering it has become my favorite online graphic novel and that the related Agatha H novels are my favorite books, I confess myself surprised that I have not yet dedicated a post to them.
        This three-time Hugo Award-winning “gaslamp fantasy” (for those deprived of the experience) chronicles the adventures of a young woman named Agatha, who soon discovers she is the long-hidden heir to the renowned house of Heterodyne.  Her tale is set in a vaguely Victorian era.  I must say “vaguely” since it’s an alternate European history in which mad scientists and their mechanical and biological creations are distressingly (or fascinatingly?) common.  Those with this “Spark” of mad genius can bend the laws of physics, and the strongest (or most reckless) can lay waste to entire civilizations.  Agatha’s forebearers—all strong Sparks—were terrors of this sort.  However, her missing father and Uncle Barry redeemed the name of Heterodyne in their youth by becoming sparky heroes fighting for peace and safety throughout Europa (as the natives call it).  This newly-revealed heir must now contend with an array of people who want to use her, kill her, or—in at least two prominent cases—marry her.  At the same time, she begins to come into her powers and gains numerous allies, which include a warrior princess, a talking cat who happens to be a military genius, a sentient and morbidly sadistic castle, as well as a wide variety of minions and monsters.
        An ineffable "Something" in Phil and Kaja Foglio’s work engages my compassion for the characters and secures my rabid interest in their fates despite my typical disregard for Victorian-esque settings and zany plots—somehow, those elements actually work in this story's favor.  Even better, the writing appeals perfectly to my sense of humor.  (I'll post more on the humor later, I hope.)  I’ve consequently found the series effective therapy for all forms of depression and ennui.  This means I’ve read each novel at least three times and am beginning my fifth or sixth read through the online comic, the updates of which I still read faithfully three times a week.  Perhaps it's needless to say at this point, but I highly recommend my readers give it a try if they haven’t already.

On Lists

During my childhood, Mom instilled in me the value of to-do lists, which has lasted all my life. They help me remember and prioritize my activities when I feel stressed, and I find it incredibly satisfying to cross items off once they’re complete.  Doing so is a sign I’ve eliminated one source of chaos in my life and have regained some measure of organization and control.  Unfortunately, I’ve noticed I also tend to use lists in my prose--or rather, to overuse them.

Excessive listing is a literary failing I must constantly resist or, failing that, revise to avoid or reduce.  Though this tendency stems from my desire for linguistic precision, even I am aware that a piece with list after list quickly becomes dull.  There’s a reason most people dislike reading the beginning and end of Numbers in the Old Testament!  (My daily devotion had me read Numbers, chapter 2 today--a coincidence I didn’t recall when I started this post.)

            Now, in a larger sense, what is an essay but a list of reasons and details in support of a thesis?  By the same token, what is a story but a list of events and actions and feelings?  Yet somehow, skilled writers keep such lists from resembling a dry recitation and maintain the thoroughness they provide: Writers connect them with transitions, intersperse them with narratives, and expand them with details; they vary the lists from words to sentences to phrases to paragraphs to clauses.  The result is a flowing, organized progression of thought that is more than its constituent parts.

On Perceptions of Food

Our opinions about food go beyond personal preferences for taste, smell, appearance, texture, and even sound (whether this includes the food’s name or the way it squelches between our teeth).  Culture also sways our perception of a food’s appropriateness to a season, meal, or our bodies.

How interesting that certain foods evoke certain seasons or seem “wrong” to various people when offered out of that season!  I suspect this perception arises in part from regional growing seasons and in part from historical times when produce had to be consumed during certain seasons before it spoiled.  Similarly, the lack of thermostats in temperate and frigid regions made warm foods preferable in winter and cool foods preferable in summer.  However, now that we have such achievements as quick transportation between northern and southern hemispheres, greenhouses, freezers, central heat, and AC, we can easily enjoy pumpkin pie in June and iced lemonade in January should we so desire them.  

Yet despite our technological advancements, some old-fashioned ideas about seasonality persist, catered to by producers and retailers who naturally must adjust their supply to profit from popular trends--and whose ads even contribute to the stereotypes.  Oddly, some of these stereotypes are grounded more in holiday traditions than in seasonal availability.  For instance, when I decided to make pfeffernusse some weeks ago, I found that Walmart only carries anise oil during Christmas time, but I know of no seasonal reason for this restriction.  This inconvenience means that cooks must stock up months in advance--or find a non-seasonal supplier on the internet--to obtain certain unseasonal ingredients.

Seasons aren’t the only mental restriction we place on food; we have similar ideas about meal-specific dishes.  Some people, for instance, feel a mild shock when they hear about others consuming pizza for breakfast or pancakes for supper.  (Joel and I enjoyed pumpkin pancakes for dinner not too long ago.  Pumpkin goes well with our Belgian pancake mix!)  We all have some cultural rationale for our conceptions: some people cannot bear the thought of heavy food or even a great quantity of light food on an empty stomach in the morning, while others prefer it to help them last through the day.  Others like lunch to be their biggest meal of the day, while others prefer a small salad or granola bar--either in an effort to diet or so they don’t grow sleepy during the workday.  Supper, in turn, is in some cultures the large family meal and a time for the cook to show off, while in other places, people eat a small, quick meal alone or in the car before their evening activities.

Likewise, culture and habit also affect our perceptions of desert--both timing and content.  Dessert cakes in some cultures are so dry and bland that most Americans with our sweet tooths would never consider them true desserts.  As another example, I remember feeling cheated as a kid when the long-awaited dessert turned out to be “just some fruit,” which at that time I considered more of a snack or appetizer.  This perception has changed as I’ve gotten older, and I now feel that canned peaches in particular make an excellent desert!

            I haven’t even begun to mention our ever-changing nutritional perceptions--affected by fad diets, media sensationalism, and new or competing research.  The “experts” continually debate whether certain foods are healthful or harmful and whether certain combinations are beneficial or hazardous.  This has left us with some very confused and irrational consumers, some of whom make certain restrictions or suggestions nearly a crusade.  However, I say leave it to the health boards to make dangerous foods illegal, and let people eat whatever they darn well please regardless of the season or meal time or others’ opinions about the food--I only recommend people partake moderate portions of a variety of (preferably unprocessed) items from each food group: whatever tastes delicious, gives energy, and causes no subsequent discomfort.

Joel prepares to eat an Asian-inspired meal back in May of 2011: 

nikumanju (meat buns), carrot kinpura, and edamame.