Book-It '10! Book #32
The Fifty Books Challenge, year two! This was a library request.
Title: What's New, Cupcake?: Ingeniously Simple Designs for Every Occasion by Alan Richardson and Karen Tack
Details: Copyright 2010, Houghton Mifflin Co
Synopsis (By Way of Authors' Website Description): "Our newest book, What's New,Cupcake?, shows you how to use candy and snacks right from the grocery store and a few simple techniques to turn your dachshund into cupcakes, make a tasty treat out of a hippo, or serve up a pizza made from cupcakes so real looking your friends will have to taste them to realize they are made out of fruit roll up, cereal snacks, and frosting. We don't believe in hard-to-follow techniques or hard-to-find ingredients for cupcake decorating. So go bake a batch of cupcakes, grab a handful of your favorite candies, and let's get this cupcake party started."
Why I Wanted to Read It: I enjoyed Hello, Cupcake! on last year's challenge and it seemed natural I'd love this book, too.
How I Liked It: This book has the feel of a sequel in the most positive of ways. Having decided the world was safe for their style of cupcake after testing the waters with their bestselling first book, the authors seemed to have cranked up the knob on their brand: the cupcakes are even crazier, the recipes are even easier (with at least one "EZ" in each section), and the methods even more ingenious (I'm not certain if the authors created the idea of using melting wafers with plastic Easter eggs but they deserve some sort of culinary recognition nonetheless). And my personal favorite, the "cupcake that looks like other food" has expanded past its own "April Fool's Play" section (including the "carton of eggs" cupcakes as well as the gorgeous "shrimp lo mein" and "fried rice" selections) to other parts in the book (including cupcake apples in the "Let's Party, Cupcake!" section as well as miniature stuffed turkey cupcakes in the seasonal/autumn chapter)
Of course, the book takes the just-criticism of the first to a whole new level: the cupcakes may look gorgeous, but are they edible? It's tough to review a cookbook when you haven't made all the recipes. And from feedback around the boards, many of these are pretty to look at but almost impossible to eat: sugar on top of sugar on top of sugar. Also, this book makes heavier use of chewing gum (something that isn't really meant to be swallowed, as we learned in elementary school, let alone eaten) than the first, including several holiday cupcakes made almost entirely of the stuff to make an admittedly beautiful poinsettia.
However, as many other will argue, the books offer gorgeous photography and inspiration to bakers more than a strict "letter-of-the-law" cookbook. I know several veteran bakers and chefs who have found new tricks and tips from the books without consenting to an entire "recipe" that each design lists. Given the authors' suggestions of ways to switch things up and hosting of several discussion boards, it appears that creativity and inspiration, rather than rote replications of the recipes listed, are what the authors are hoping for in this book. And given the vast amounts of press and imitators in the short period since the books have been published (in 2008 and 2010, respectively), their work is a success.
In all, a fun book for bakers and non-bakers alike.
Notable: Some cupcakes, as mentioned, people have complained are pretty to look at, but when you go to eat them, are way too sugary. And then there is the problem with the designs in chewing gum. But what do you do with a cupcake that you wouldn't want to eat because it's disgusting-looking (at least if it came out the way it's supposed to)? Witness the "pantry pets" (pgs 162-164) in the Halloween/Thanksgiving chapter. I can't provide a picture due to my scanner being temporarily out and not being able to find a picture of the cupcake online (you do NOT want to know the sorts of things that come up when you Google "cupcake+roach") but it's really for the best. This cupcake consists of halved M&M head, soft caramel wings, chocolate frosting antennae, and a date body. That's right, a big, squishy, naturally brown piece of fruit decorated to look like a particularly heinous insect. The cupcakes are decorated with bits of rice flake (or cornflake) cereal. But wait, you say. There were insects in the first book and other insects in this book! After chomping down on butterflies, ants, bees, ladybugs, and even the admittedly very cute M&M centipedes, ticks, spiders, and scorpions, why are roaches any different? Because not only were those insects not vermin (per se; ants and scorpions can be vermin), they were also depicted in a cute fashion, or otherwise, not to look like what they were. Roaches are just disgusting. And fashioning a cupcake to look like a roach (particularly made of a date) just can't be a good idea. On the other hand, I can see how sticking a nut and raisin candy in the centers and declaring to your party guests that the cupcakes have a "surprise" in them will make for a memorable party, particularly mid-chew.
A recipe for typically cute animals (hippos, flamingos, and crocodiles) is named "Jungle Fever" (pg 79). You may feel free to shift uncomfortably, particularly when you picture children excitedly talking about making these, particularly in public, particularly when overheard by passersby.
A recipe for cupcake rings (the kind you wear on your finger-- no really! Very cute) is entitled "Ring Bling" which includes the suggestion
"For even bigger bling, try the finger plate variation that can hold a whopping 24 carats of candy." (pg 53)
I know I've bitched about this before, but it bears repeating. People. "Bling" is not clever slang, or hip slang, or even really slang anymore. It's just obnoxious and is synonymous with lame suburbia (or the suburban mindset) trying to "amusingly" nod to "hip hop" culture. Stop. Please stop. Enough. It's been years now. It's dead. It was never even alive. Stop stop stop. "Ring bling" isn't even that clever-- given the other names in the book "Ring Around Your Finger" or "Ring-a-Ling" or "Ring Fling" or "Cupcakes are a Girl's Best Friend" would've been just as good or better because THEY DID NOT CONTAIN THE WORD "BLING". It's time we as a society stood up and said enough is enough with a stupid phrase. Let it begin with me.
Title: What's New, Cupcake?: Ingeniously Simple Designs for Every Occasion by Alan Richardson and Karen Tack
Details: Copyright 2010, Houghton Mifflin Co
Synopsis (By Way of Authors' Website Description): "Our newest book, What's New,Cupcake?, shows you how to use candy and snacks right from the grocery store and a few simple techniques to turn your dachshund into cupcakes, make a tasty treat out of a hippo, or serve up a pizza made from cupcakes so real looking your friends will have to taste them to realize they are made out of fruit roll up, cereal snacks, and frosting. We don't believe in hard-to-follow techniques or hard-to-find ingredients for cupcake decorating. So go bake a batch of cupcakes, grab a handful of your favorite candies, and let's get this cupcake party started."
Why I Wanted to Read It: I enjoyed Hello, Cupcake! on last year's challenge and it seemed natural I'd love this book, too.
How I Liked It: This book has the feel of a sequel in the most positive of ways. Having decided the world was safe for their style of cupcake after testing the waters with their bestselling first book, the authors seemed to have cranked up the knob on their brand: the cupcakes are even crazier, the recipes are even easier (with at least one "EZ" in each section), and the methods even more ingenious (I'm not certain if the authors created the idea of using melting wafers with plastic Easter eggs but they deserve some sort of culinary recognition nonetheless). And my personal favorite, the "cupcake that looks like other food" has expanded past its own "April Fool's Play" section (including the "carton of eggs" cupcakes as well as the gorgeous "shrimp lo mein" and "fried rice" selections) to other parts in the book (including cupcake apples in the "Let's Party, Cupcake!" section as well as miniature stuffed turkey cupcakes in the seasonal/autumn chapter)
Of course, the book takes the just-criticism of the first to a whole new level: the cupcakes may look gorgeous, but are they edible? It's tough to review a cookbook when you haven't made all the recipes. And from feedback around the boards, many of these are pretty to look at but almost impossible to eat: sugar on top of sugar on top of sugar. Also, this book makes heavier use of chewing gum (something that isn't really meant to be swallowed, as we learned in elementary school, let alone eaten) than the first, including several holiday cupcakes made almost entirely of the stuff to make an admittedly beautiful poinsettia.
However, as many other will argue, the books offer gorgeous photography and inspiration to bakers more than a strict "letter-of-the-law" cookbook. I know several veteran bakers and chefs who have found new tricks and tips from the books without consenting to an entire "recipe" that each design lists. Given the authors' suggestions of ways to switch things up and hosting of several discussion boards, it appears that creativity and inspiration, rather than rote replications of the recipes listed, are what the authors are hoping for in this book. And given the vast amounts of press and imitators in the short period since the books have been published (in 2008 and 2010, respectively), their work is a success.
In all, a fun book for bakers and non-bakers alike.
Notable: Some cupcakes, as mentioned, people have complained are pretty to look at, but when you go to eat them, are way too sugary. And then there is the problem with the designs in chewing gum. But what do you do with a cupcake that you wouldn't want to eat because it's disgusting-looking (at least if it came out the way it's supposed to)? Witness the "pantry pets" (pgs 162-164) in the Halloween/Thanksgiving chapter. I can't provide a picture due to my scanner being temporarily out and not being able to find a picture of the cupcake online (you do NOT want to know the sorts of things that come up when you Google "cupcake+roach") but it's really for the best. This cupcake consists of halved M&M head, soft caramel wings, chocolate frosting antennae, and a date body. That's right, a big, squishy, naturally brown piece of fruit decorated to look like a particularly heinous insect. The cupcakes are decorated with bits of rice flake (or cornflake) cereal. But wait, you say. There were insects in the first book and other insects in this book! After chomping down on butterflies, ants, bees, ladybugs, and even the admittedly very cute M&M centipedes, ticks, spiders, and scorpions, why are roaches any different? Because not only were those insects not vermin (per se; ants and scorpions can be vermin), they were also depicted in a cute fashion, or otherwise, not to look like what they were. Roaches are just disgusting. And fashioning a cupcake to look like a roach (particularly made of a date) just can't be a good idea. On the other hand, I can see how sticking a nut and raisin candy in the centers and declaring to your party guests that the cupcakes have a "surprise" in them will make for a memorable party, particularly mid-chew.
A recipe for typically cute animals (hippos, flamingos, and crocodiles) is named "Jungle Fever" (pg 79). You may feel free to shift uncomfortably, particularly when you picture children excitedly talking about making these, particularly in public, particularly when overheard by passersby.
A recipe for cupcake rings (the kind you wear on your finger-- no really! Very cute) is entitled "Ring Bling" which includes the suggestion
"For even bigger bling, try the finger plate variation that can hold a whopping 24 carats of candy." (pg 53)
I know I've bitched about this before, but it bears repeating. People. "Bling" is not clever slang, or hip slang, or even really slang anymore. It's just obnoxious and is synonymous with lame suburbia (or the suburban mindset) trying to "amusingly" nod to "hip hop" culture. Stop. Please stop. Enough. It's been years now. It's dead. It was never even alive. Stop stop stop. "Ring bling" isn't even that clever-- given the other names in the book "Ring Around Your Finger" or "Ring-a-Ling" or "Ring Fling" or "Cupcakes are a Girl's Best Friend" would've been just as good or better because THEY DID NOT CONTAIN THE WORD "BLING". It's time we as a society stood up and said enough is enough with a stupid phrase. Let it begin with me.