favourite uses of parsley? (and some reading reflections)
So I'm a little addicted to saag paneer these days. I can't quite explain it (though actually, I've been craving all sorts of cooked leafy greens, so spinach + awesome Indian spices and cheese does make sense). In order to keep from ordering take-out too frequently, I've taken it on as a cooking project. My version does not yet taste like what I get at my Indian take-out place (though it is good and getting better, I think).
When I made it the other night, though, I commented to my roommate that I couldn't taste the cilantro at all, which is odd, given how strong cilantro is and how much I put in. Tonight, I pulled out the presumed cilantro to put it in black beans, and it turned out that I'd accidentally picked up parsley (it must have been right next to the cilantro because I even smelled it in the store to be sure, and it smelled like cilantro--but now, of course, it just smells like parsley). Aside from the obvious lack of cilantro problem, I also now have a bunch of fresh parsley that I don't really know what to do with: I never cook with parsley. What sorts of food do you put it in? Potatoes, maybe? Other vegetables? (I can't eat gluten, incidentally, so suggestions involving wheat, barley, rye, etc. are out, or would at least need to be modified.)
I also welcome any awesome saag paneer recipes you might have, including what kind of cheese you might use if you can't easily get paneer.
**
I finished A Conspiracy of Kings, the fourth (and last to date) book in Megan Whalen Turner's Queen's Thief series, and I have a few thoughts on the whole series. I don't think it's spoilery to say that I thought the second and third books (The Queen of Attolia and The King of Attolia) were emphatically the best books, though there were aspects of the first and fourth that I definitely enjoyed.
I have some fictional buttons, which you probably know well enough if you've been reading my journal much. These include awesome female characters, moral ambiguity, love/hate romances, and characters put in untenable situations where they're forced to make the best of any number of difficult choices. Obviously these books hit all of the above. I've been particularly impressed throughout at the plotting and at the way Turner has not shied away from the necessary ruthlessness of being a ruler in such a world. That, in fact, was the best part of the fourth book to me: that sometimes there isn't a noble way, or a peaceful way, and sometimes you've just got to put the fear of Attolia in people.
On a similar note, I've really enjoyed the way the gods have been portrayed: real, active, capricious, somewhat terrifying, and decidedly other than human. They're not just more powerful versions of humans; they've got their own agendas, their own ways of seeing and being, and their own codes of morality. And while they are clearly based strongly on the Greek pantheon, they're also quite their own thing. It's one of the most appealing features of Turner's world-building.
And I've said before and will say again that I completely adore the Queen of Attolia, and I think perhaps I love the Queen of Eddis at least as much if not more. But I'll also say that my biggest disappointment with these books also has to do with the gender balance. Turner is walking a fine line. In almost every individual case of potential uncoolness on the gender front, there's a good explanation for it--the plot, the specific characters, etc.--but then put them all together and it becomes a story about boys saving the world, and about two awesome, independent female rulers who give up their sovereignty to a boy. But it all follows from a) the world as set up, which, at least in terms of gender politics, is probably more progressive than the actual historical period she's drawing on (though if you're going to fictionalize a lot of things, why not fictionalize that, as well?), and b) both Attolia and Eddis make choices they're happy with, or at least as happy as they can be under the circumstances.
Attolia's choices work better for me, perhaps because we see them play out more over time, and definitely because we see in ACoK that she really hasn't given much of anything up: she's still the one running her country, but now she has a partner--who is really an equal partner--by her side. And Attolia/Eugenides really works for me as a pairing, what with the whole history of mutilation, kidnapping, and blackmail leading to true love. :)
But then there's Eddis (who is so much more Helen in my head than Attolia is Irene, which alone probably says something about how unexpectedly fond I've grown of her and her non-inkpot-throwing ways) and Sophos, and choices that make sense again, individually, but that also turn the whole thing into a bit more of a pattern than I'm comfortable with. And I while I'm not anti-Helen/Sophos (though I totally wanted her to get together with the Magus, instead--they were so nicely intimate in KoA), I don't quite see what she's getting out of all this (whereas I feel like Attolia's motivations are far more solid. As it is, I can read it as her giving up her sovereignty to save her people (and that, too, is a bit of a button, and it makes me think of Laura Roslin banning abortion, stealing elections, condoning terrorism, and otherwise selling her soul), with the perk that she genuinely loves Sophos (though why is something I'm also not entirely clear on--he's still such a child!).
But why does the mountain have to erupt? I wonder what would happen in the world where it's not going to, and Eddis doesn't marry Sounis/Sophos, even though she does love him, because she loves her people more. These books are about the impossible choices that are forced upon these characters, and Turner sets up the plot in such a way that it usually feels like there are not many ways that things could have unfolded differently without disaster. But this is one point where I question her decision to include this idea that the mountain is going to erupt: is this a plot necessity, and then Eddis has to work her way around it, or is it something stuck in the plot in order to get us to the point where Eddis marries Sounis and Gen is king of everyone? I suppose only time, and the future books, will tell.
I do think, though, that Turner is aware of the line she's walking, and she's doing things carefully. My deepest wish, however, would be for a book five that focuses more on the women. More queens!!!!!
Crossposted from DW, where there are
comments. Comment here or there.
When I made it the other night, though, I commented to my roommate that I couldn't taste the cilantro at all, which is odd, given how strong cilantro is and how much I put in. Tonight, I pulled out the presumed cilantro to put it in black beans, and it turned out that I'd accidentally picked up parsley (it must have been right next to the cilantro because I even smelled it in the store to be sure, and it smelled like cilantro--but now, of course, it just smells like parsley). Aside from the obvious lack of cilantro problem, I also now have a bunch of fresh parsley that I don't really know what to do with: I never cook with parsley. What sorts of food do you put it in? Potatoes, maybe? Other vegetables? (I can't eat gluten, incidentally, so suggestions involving wheat, barley, rye, etc. are out, or would at least need to be modified.)
I also welcome any awesome saag paneer recipes you might have, including what kind of cheese you might use if you can't easily get paneer.
**
I finished A Conspiracy of Kings, the fourth (and last to date) book in Megan Whalen Turner's Queen's Thief series, and I have a few thoughts on the whole series. I don't think it's spoilery to say that I thought the second and third books (The Queen of Attolia and The King of Attolia) were emphatically the best books, though there were aspects of the first and fourth that I definitely enjoyed.
I have some fictional buttons, which you probably know well enough if you've been reading my journal much. These include awesome female characters, moral ambiguity, love/hate romances, and characters put in untenable situations where they're forced to make the best of any number of difficult choices. Obviously these books hit all of the above. I've been particularly impressed throughout at the plotting and at the way Turner has not shied away from the necessary ruthlessness of being a ruler in such a world. That, in fact, was the best part of the fourth book to me: that sometimes there isn't a noble way, or a peaceful way, and sometimes you've just got to put the fear of Attolia in people.
On a similar note, I've really enjoyed the way the gods have been portrayed: real, active, capricious, somewhat terrifying, and decidedly other than human. They're not just more powerful versions of humans; they've got their own agendas, their own ways of seeing and being, and their own codes of morality. And while they are clearly based strongly on the Greek pantheon, they're also quite their own thing. It's one of the most appealing features of Turner's world-building.
And I've said before and will say again that I completely adore the Queen of Attolia, and I think perhaps I love the Queen of Eddis at least as much if not more. But I'll also say that my biggest disappointment with these books also has to do with the gender balance. Turner is walking a fine line. In almost every individual case of potential uncoolness on the gender front, there's a good explanation for it--the plot, the specific characters, etc.--but then put them all together and it becomes a story about boys saving the world, and about two awesome, independent female rulers who give up their sovereignty to a boy. But it all follows from a) the world as set up, which, at least in terms of gender politics, is probably more progressive than the actual historical period she's drawing on (though if you're going to fictionalize a lot of things, why not fictionalize that, as well?), and b) both Attolia and Eddis make choices they're happy with, or at least as happy as they can be under the circumstances.
Attolia's choices work better for me, perhaps because we see them play out more over time, and definitely because we see in ACoK that she really hasn't given much of anything up: she's still the one running her country, but now she has a partner--who is really an equal partner--by her side. And Attolia/Eugenides really works for me as a pairing, what with the whole history of mutilation, kidnapping, and blackmail leading to true love. :)
But then there's Eddis (who is so much more Helen in my head than Attolia is Irene, which alone probably says something about how unexpectedly fond I've grown of her and her non-inkpot-throwing ways) and Sophos, and choices that make sense again, individually, but that also turn the whole thing into a bit more of a pattern than I'm comfortable with. And I while I'm not anti-Helen/Sophos (though I totally wanted her to get together with the Magus, instead--they were so nicely intimate in KoA), I don't quite see what she's getting out of all this (whereas I feel like Attolia's motivations are far more solid. As it is, I can read it as her giving up her sovereignty to save her people (and that, too, is a bit of a button, and it makes me think of Laura Roslin banning abortion, stealing elections, condoning terrorism, and otherwise selling her soul), with the perk that she genuinely loves Sophos (though why is something I'm also not entirely clear on--he's still such a child!).
But why does the mountain have to erupt? I wonder what would happen in the world where it's not going to, and Eddis doesn't marry Sounis/Sophos, even though she does love him, because she loves her people more. These books are about the impossible choices that are forced upon these characters, and Turner sets up the plot in such a way that it usually feels like there are not many ways that things could have unfolded differently without disaster. But this is one point where I question her decision to include this idea that the mountain is going to erupt: is this a plot necessity, and then Eddis has to work her way around it, or is it something stuck in the plot in order to get us to the point where Eddis marries Sounis and Gen is king of everyone? I suppose only time, and the future books, will tell.
I do think, though, that Turner is aware of the line she's walking, and she's doing things carefully. My deepest wish, however, would be for a book five that focuses more on the women. More queens!!!!!
Crossposted from DW, where there are
comments. Comment here or there.