As recent subscribers to Netflix, we've seen more movies in the last three months than in all of last year. But we do like movies and I think we're caught up. But with all the hype going around, we decided not to wait for the DVD but go to see AVATAR in the theatre. In 3-D at the IMAX. What a waste of $22.
In all honesty, I have to admit that, according to the polls, 82% of viewers liked the film. But you and I both know that movies these days are made for teenagers. That's why they open on Fridays: 'cause the kids have a big allowance and no school the next day. Plus they go two or three times. But again, to be fair, perhaps most adults liked it too. I'm just not one of them. What can I say? I write romance and mystery novels, not science fiction or fantasy, and that's plainly what AVATAR is. So shoot me.
We went early, stood in a long line and got seats right in the center. It was quite dark, as if filmed in green and brown, and I didn't see much difference between seeing it with or without the special glasses. As we left the building, my husband said the right word for the experience: ordeal. Like me, he wanted it to be over long before it was. In my opinion, when the audience starts thinking it should be over, it's too long. I don't care how many awards it gets, 162 minutes requires more romance and/or mystery and a whole lot less weirdness, constant action and violence. Even as science fiction, this is no STAR WARS, which I liked.
I especially hated the natives having tails. What was that all about? I doubt that--if humans mated with natives--they'd have tails. Unless they used them (and they didn't in this film) I believe appendages tend to disappear. I also didn't find the blue people attractive or worthy of my sympathy. Some say the film is a metaphor for what conquering people (us) do to indigenous people in foreign lands. However, although they're right, and I don't condone what we did to the Indians or what the British and Dutch did in South Africa, we didn't do it with gigantic military weapons. And all to get a mineral called "unobtanium." Now, that I loved!
The Internet is full of reviews of the film, and, just to show I'm not the only person who wasn't starstruck by the computer wizardry, here are some of their comments:
"If you like graphics and special effects, you'll love it."
"Adjectives like beautiful and breathtaking have been thrown at it, but I'll add a third B, Boring."
"...everything about the story, the setting, the dialog, and the parts that aren't purely visual, is awful."
"DANCES WITH WOLVES in outer space."
"...doing the Funky Chicken with aliens."
"Enough toys to please all the kids in the audience."
"A big, dumb movie built to make money... it resists serious criticism. You might as well analyze a beach ball."
"...overlong, dramatically two-dimensional, smug and simplistic."
And my favorite: "Like staring at the world's most expensive screen-saver."
Saturday, February 20, 2010
Friday, January 15, 2010
BLOOPERS, BLUNDERS AND BOO-BOOS
As a former proofreader for a national magazine, I'm perhaps more aware of literary blunders than your casual reader. But, in these days of difficulty getting published, writers need to be more scrupulous than ever so that an editor won't find her "pet peeve" of author mistakes in your manuscript.
If I were an editor, my Top Ten List of No-nos would be the following because I've seen them too often.
1. Could've - could of. There is no legitimate reason to use "could of." I've seen it in printed books and it apparently stems from the author having missed an English class in grade school. He/she means "could've" which is a contraction of the two words, "could" and "have." Example: "I could've been a contender." "I could have danced all night."
2. It's - its. "It's" with an apostrophe, is a contraction of "it is" or "it has." Example: "It's in your best interest to stop doing that now." "Its," without an apostrophe, is a possessive. Example: "That book, even with its tattered cover, belongs in your library."
3. doctors - apple's. While we're on the subject of apostrophes, please remember that a plural word needs none. Example: "The apples were ripe and the doctors ate them." If you put an apostrophe before the "s" you have turned the word into a possessive. Example: "The doctor's time was limited."
4. Nauseated - nauseous. Nauseated is how you feel when something makes you ill. Example: "I was nauseated by the odor coming from the landfill." Nauseous is an adjective describing the thing that makes you ill. Example: "The landfill gave off a nauseous odor."
5. Try to - try and. Technically, there is no "try and." If your character is going to try to do something, use "try to," not "try and." Example: "I will try to help you." However, if you say "try and," you imply you'll succeed. But what if you don't succeed? You've told a lie.
6. I couldn't care less - I could care less. Once again, the second construction should never be used. After all, if you could care less, then you must care somewhat. But you're trying to say that you care so little, it would be impossible for you to care any less than you do.
7. lose - loose. Look them up in the dictionary. To lose something is to no longer have it. Example: "I don't want to lose the lovely watch you gave me." Something which is "loose" is not lost but of an unstable consistency. Example: "The watch slipped off my wrist because the band was too loose."
8. incidents - incidentses. The latter is not a word. One event is an "incident." Two or more events are "incidents." There is no such word as "incidentses."
9. roll - role. As a noun, a "roll" can be a small pastry. As a verb it means moving or turning. Example: "He let the car roll down the hill." "Role" is a noun which describes a part you might play in a film or in life. Examples: "The role required me to exit the stage." or, "I'm tired of playing the role of your wicked stepmother."
10. titled - entitled. When you give a book a title, you have "titled" it. Example: "I titled my book MASQUERADE." "Entitled" means something is owed or expected. Example: "As the eldest I'm entitled to the largest piece."
11. I hope I don't have to tell you that--unless you're writing dialogue in the voice of an illiterate character--you should never write, "Me and my brother," "Her and I," "we was," or "she don't." But I often see "myself" used instead of "me." Don't try to get fancy. Wrong: "She gave the book to John and myself." Right: "She gave the book to John and me." If John was gone, you'd say "She gave the book to me," wouldn't you?
12. farther - further. "Farther" refers to physical distances. Example: "The house we sought was farther down the road." Use "further" to indicate figurative distances. Example: "We had to look further among the possible suspects in the murder."
13. breath - breathe. "Breath" is a noun. Example: "He took my breath away." Breathe" is a verb. Example: "It's so hot, I can hardly breathe."
Well, I see my Top Ten list turned into a Baker's dozen, but I found it hard to choose fewer than thirteen. Writers seem to invent more bloopers every year. Two wonderful (and inexpensive) books on the subject are MORTAL SYNTAX and GRAMMAR SNOBS ARE GREAT BIG MEANIES, by June Casagrande. Her website, grammarsnobs.com, contains her weekly newspaper column, the "grammar lesson of the week," and her Blog. All contain useful information, written in a lively style. And, for punctuation, I recommend EATS, SHOOTS AND LEAVES by Lynne Truss.
If you have some pet grammar peeves, leave a comment. And may your writing contain no bloopers, blunders or boo-boos.
If I were an editor, my Top Ten List of No-nos would be the following because I've seen them too often.
1. Could've - could of. There is no legitimate reason to use "could of." I've seen it in printed books and it apparently stems from the author having missed an English class in grade school. He/she means "could've" which is a contraction of the two words, "could" and "have." Example: "I could've been a contender." "I could have danced all night."
2. It's - its. "It's" with an apostrophe, is a contraction of "it is" or "it has." Example: "It's in your best interest to stop doing that now." "Its," without an apostrophe, is a possessive. Example: "That book, even with its tattered cover, belongs in your library."
3. doctors - apple's. While we're on the subject of apostrophes, please remember that a plural word needs none. Example: "The apples were ripe and the doctors ate them." If you put an apostrophe before the "s" you have turned the word into a possessive. Example: "The doctor's time was limited."
4. Nauseated - nauseous. Nauseated is how you feel when something makes you ill. Example: "I was nauseated by the odor coming from the landfill." Nauseous is an adjective describing the thing that makes you ill. Example: "The landfill gave off a nauseous odor."
5. Try to - try and. Technically, there is no "try and." If your character is going to try to do something, use "try to," not "try and." Example: "I will try to help you." However, if you say "try and," you imply you'll succeed. But what if you don't succeed? You've told a lie.
6. I couldn't care less - I could care less. Once again, the second construction should never be used. After all, if you could care less, then you must care somewhat. But you're trying to say that you care so little, it would be impossible for you to care any less than you do.
7. lose - loose. Look them up in the dictionary. To lose something is to no longer have it. Example: "I don't want to lose the lovely watch you gave me." Something which is "loose" is not lost but of an unstable consistency. Example: "The watch slipped off my wrist because the band was too loose."
8. incidents - incidentses. The latter is not a word. One event is an "incident." Two or more events are "incidents." There is no such word as "incidentses."
9. roll - role. As a noun, a "roll" can be a small pastry. As a verb it means moving or turning. Example: "He let the car roll down the hill." "Role" is a noun which describes a part you might play in a film or in life. Examples: "The role required me to exit the stage." or, "I'm tired of playing the role of your wicked stepmother."
10. titled - entitled. When you give a book a title, you have "titled" it. Example: "I titled my book MASQUERADE." "Entitled" means something is owed or expected. Example: "As the eldest I'm entitled to the largest piece."
11. I hope I don't have to tell you that--unless you're writing dialogue in the voice of an illiterate character--you should never write, "Me and my brother," "Her and I," "we was," or "she don't." But I often see "myself" used instead of "me." Don't try to get fancy. Wrong: "She gave the book to John and myself." Right: "She gave the book to John and me." If John was gone, you'd say "She gave the book to me," wouldn't you?
12. farther - further. "Farther" refers to physical distances. Example: "The house we sought was farther down the road." Use "further" to indicate figurative distances. Example: "We had to look further among the possible suspects in the murder."
13. breath - breathe. "Breath" is a noun. Example: "He took my breath away." Breathe" is a verb. Example: "It's so hot, I can hardly breathe."
Well, I see my Top Ten list turned into a Baker's dozen, but I found it hard to choose fewer than thirteen. Writers seem to invent more bloopers every year. Two wonderful (and inexpensive) books on the subject are MORTAL SYNTAX and GRAMMAR SNOBS ARE GREAT BIG MEANIES, by June Casagrande. Her website, grammarsnobs.com, contains her weekly newspaper column, the "grammar lesson of the week," and her Blog. All contain useful information, written in a lively style. And, for punctuation, I recommend EATS, SHOOTS AND LEAVES by Lynne Truss.
If you have some pet grammar peeves, leave a comment. And may your writing contain no bloopers, blunders or boo-boos.
Saturday, December 19, 2009
NAMES - TWO
Last August I posted an article about names, especially strange names. So I read with interest something on the subject in Time Magazine's December 7th issue. According to that, if you want to keep your kid out of prison, name him Michael, not Maxwell. In a study reported in Social Science Quarterly, people with unpopular names have a higher risk of criminality than people with popular ones.
This was not only news to me, but surprising news at that. In fact, I would have thought just the opposite might be true. But no. The researchers took records of over 15,000 boys and their names and tracked the crimes committed when the boys were adolescents. Boys with popular names, like Michael, committed the fewest crimes. Those with less popular names, like Preston or Alec. committed the most. The theory is that a familiar name leads to greater social acceptance, which leads to greater self-acceptance, and that leads to better behavior.
Hey, don't shoot the messenger. I'm just reporting this and, obviously, there are exceptions by the dozens of people with unusual names becoming famous for their good behavior, like, say, Barak Obama.
But, leaving the names of real people, let's talk about names of occupations. Remember when a janitor was a janitor and not a "building custodian"? Or a secretary was not an "administrative assistant?" Not that I object to people getting their self-esteem anyway they can. The one that really bugs me, though, is "Human Resources Department" instead of the old-fashioned "Personnel." Personnel was certainly shorter, and I don't think anyone was confused about what it meant. However, as I stated in one of my yet-to-be-published novels:
"Human Resources is rather scary. It makes me feel that, if I were to work for that company and somehow fail to perform adequately, I could end up on the cafeteria menu as 'Burger of the Month.'"
And then there's the word "zest." How did lemon or orange peel morph into zest? According to the dictionary, it hasn't, but every TV cooking show host talks about adding "zest" to a recipe, when really all she's doing is grating lemon or orange peel. I felt relieved that not everyone has fallen for this "uppity" name when I read in the November issue of Sunset Magazine a recipe that called for "grated orange peel."
And as a cooking magazine, Sunset is high on the list of food experts. They have their own kitchens where every recipe is tested before it's printed in the magazine. In fact, years ago, when I lived in the San Francisco Bay Area, I knew the people who owned the magazine, went through their kitchens myself, and got to taste the results of their testing. I remember it well. Yummy!
So don't call it zest - call it by its real name: grated lemon (or orange) peel - and strike a blow for truth in labeling.
This was not only news to me, but surprising news at that. In fact, I would have thought just the opposite might be true. But no. The researchers took records of over 15,000 boys and their names and tracked the crimes committed when the boys were adolescents. Boys with popular names, like Michael, committed the fewest crimes. Those with less popular names, like Preston or Alec. committed the most. The theory is that a familiar name leads to greater social acceptance, which leads to greater self-acceptance, and that leads to better behavior.
Hey, don't shoot the messenger. I'm just reporting this and, obviously, there are exceptions by the dozens of people with unusual names becoming famous for their good behavior, like, say, Barak Obama.
But, leaving the names of real people, let's talk about names of occupations. Remember when a janitor was a janitor and not a "building custodian"? Or a secretary was not an "administrative assistant?" Not that I object to people getting their self-esteem anyway they can. The one that really bugs me, though, is "Human Resources Department" instead of the old-fashioned "Personnel." Personnel was certainly shorter, and I don't think anyone was confused about what it meant. However, as I stated in one of my yet-to-be-published novels:
"Human Resources is rather scary. It makes me feel that, if I were to work for that company and somehow fail to perform adequately, I could end up on the cafeteria menu as 'Burger of the Month.'"
And then there's the word "zest." How did lemon or orange peel morph into zest? According to the dictionary, it hasn't, but every TV cooking show host talks about adding "zest" to a recipe, when really all she's doing is grating lemon or orange peel. I felt relieved that not everyone has fallen for this "uppity" name when I read in the November issue of Sunset Magazine a recipe that called for "grated orange peel."
And as a cooking magazine, Sunset is high on the list of food experts. They have their own kitchens where every recipe is tested before it's printed in the magazine. In fact, years ago, when I lived in the San Francisco Bay Area, I knew the people who owned the magazine, went through their kitchens myself, and got to taste the results of their testing. I remember it well. Yummy!
So don't call it zest - call it by its real name: grated lemon (or orange) peel - and strike a blow for truth in labeling.
Sunday, November 29, 2009
THE HARLEQUIN CONTROVERSY
Those of you who are romance authors know what this is about. For others, let me explain that Harlequin--the premier romance publisher in the world--has just announced they're going into the self-publishing business.
In other words, they plan to solicit authors to pay them to print their books., just as other self-publishing companies--such as Author House, iUniverse and XLibris, etc.--do. Like those companies, dozens of which have proliferated since print-on-demand technology made it possible, they will charge an author anywhere from a few hundred dollars to many thousands of dollars to publish their book in either hard cover or trade paperback. Those books get no editing and no promotion, and some companies charge the authors hefty sums to buy copies of their own books.
A few years ago ago a woman asked me, "Don'tall authors have to pay to get their books published. I was surprised then but not anymore. And now the biggest publisher of all has stooped to that level. Why, when Harlequin is already #1? The word "greed" comes to mind. Or is it jealosy that, when they see so many companies charging authors to get their book in print, they decided to join the crowd rushing to exploit them?
Whether you've been writing for thirty years (as I have) or thirty days, you need to know certain things. Publishers are in business to make money, and the traditional way to do that is to hire editors to read submitted manuscripts and decide which ones to publish based on their belief they can sell sufficient copies of said book to print, ship, advertise and pay the author for having written it. Remember, without authors writing books, publishers have no business. Today, ads by self-publishing companies offer to publish any book for a price, and a beginning writer may think that's the way it's done. But, as a reader, do you really want to spend money for a book that might have been (and probably was) written by a total amateur, which has never been edited (or even looked at) by a professional editor?
Romance Writers of America, Mystery Writers of America, and Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers have all announced that--if Harlequin charges authors to print their books--they will no longer be granted "eligible publisher" status with their members. I hope the pressure being applied by these associations will convince Harlequin to back down. There are far too many badly-written books out there now, and Harlequin will only damage its reputation by adding to the pile.
In other words, they plan to solicit authors to pay them to print their books., just as other self-publishing companies--such as Author House, iUniverse and XLibris, etc.--do. Like those companies, dozens of which have proliferated since print-on-demand technology made it possible, they will charge an author anywhere from a few hundred dollars to many thousands of dollars to publish their book in either hard cover or trade paperback. Those books get no editing and no promotion, and some companies charge the authors hefty sums to buy copies of their own books.
A few years ago ago a woman asked me, "Don'tall authors have to pay to get their books published. I was surprised then but not anymore. And now the biggest publisher of all has stooped to that level. Why, when Harlequin is already #1? The word "greed" comes to mind. Or is it jealosy that, when they see so many companies charging authors to get their book in print, they decided to join the crowd rushing to exploit them?
Whether you've been writing for thirty years (as I have) or thirty days, you need to know certain things. Publishers are in business to make money, and the traditional way to do that is to hire editors to read submitted manuscripts and decide which ones to publish based on their belief they can sell sufficient copies of said book to print, ship, advertise and pay the author for having written it. Remember, without authors writing books, publishers have no business. Today, ads by self-publishing companies offer to publish any book for a price, and a beginning writer may think that's the way it's done. But, as a reader, do you really want to spend money for a book that might have been (and probably was) written by a total amateur, which has never been edited (or even looked at) by a professional editor?
Romance Writers of America, Mystery Writers of America, and Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers have all announced that--if Harlequin charges authors to print their books--they will no longer be granted "eligible publisher" status with their members. I hope the pressure being applied by these associations will convince Harlequin to back down. There are far too many badly-written books out there now, and Harlequin will only damage its reputation by adding to the pile.
Sunday, November 8, 2009
WORDS THAT SAVE LIVES
As a writer, I naturally use words, and I want other people - many in fact - to read my words in the books I write. Even if they don't buy my books, but borrow them from friends or the library, I consider myself successful in my chosen career if people read my words. That's my goal, and, perhaps it's a selfish one. But what if words could sve lives?
Research about tjhe different lives lived by children (and adults) in poor families versus middle-class families shows that words make a huge difference in deciding who does well in school and succeeds in life.
What words? Well, any words. In fact, the more words a child hears while growing up, the better. A study in Kansas City showed that by the age of three, a child from a middle-class home heard 20 million more words than a child from an impoverished home.
Were the middle-class parents doing flash-card games to increase their child's vocabulary? No. They were just ordinary words spoken at the breakfast or dinner table. They were words used to a child while he played with blocks, or talking about games or toys, or asking what he did at day-care. Even better: the words of the books read to the child every night before bedtime.
Apparently, we don't use words because we can think: we can think because we have words to use.
What a simple way to lift children out of poverty. Read to them, talk to them. Instead of corporal punishment when a child misbehaves, try conversation. Negotiation, conversation, discussion about the incident will be far better. An important thing that language does for a child is to distance him from his emotions. If he can put a name to his feelings, he can begin to control them. It can give him motivation and the experience of learning new ideas.
Thus, hearing words can help a child succeed in school and keep him out of trouble after school. If fewer children drop out, or resort to violence because they don't know anything better, they can become useful citizens instead of gang members. And that can save lives.
So, if you're a parent or grandparent, talk to the children in your life, read to them. You'll be helping them and society at the same time.
Research about tjhe different lives lived by children (and adults) in poor families versus middle-class families shows that words make a huge difference in deciding who does well in school and succeeds in life.
What words? Well, any words. In fact, the more words a child hears while growing up, the better. A study in Kansas City showed that by the age of three, a child from a middle-class home heard 20 million more words than a child from an impoverished home.
Were the middle-class parents doing flash-card games to increase their child's vocabulary? No. They were just ordinary words spoken at the breakfast or dinner table. They were words used to a child while he played with blocks, or talking about games or toys, or asking what he did at day-care. Even better: the words of the books read to the child every night before bedtime.
Apparently, we don't use words because we can think: we can think because we have words to use.
What a simple way to lift children out of poverty. Read to them, talk to them. Instead of corporal punishment when a child misbehaves, try conversation. Negotiation, conversation, discussion about the incident will be far better. An important thing that language does for a child is to distance him from his emotions. If he can put a name to his feelings, he can begin to control them. It can give him motivation and the experience of learning new ideas.
Thus, hearing words can help a child succeed in school and keep him out of trouble after school. If fewer children drop out, or resort to violence because they don't know anything better, they can become useful citizens instead of gang members. And that can save lives.
So, if you're a parent or grandparent, talk to the children in your life, read to them. You'll be helping them and society at the same time.
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
Paradise
Recently a friend commented to me that we live in "paradise." Well, not exactly. But it is nice. Our gated community sports tidy green golf courses, leafy green trees, carefully tended flower beds, four swimming pools (with adjoining spas), and tennis courts. Inside the three clubhouses, you'll find two exercise rooms, two theatres, four restaurants, a dance studio, club rooms (some with kitchens attached), a well-stocked library, even a branch post office.
On the other hand, Hawaii is often called "paradise,"and I'd have to say I'd put the island of Maui on the top of any list of mine. Blue skies, balmy breezes, sandy beaches, the aroma of flowers. What's not to like? After twenty years of owning a condo there, I still think fondly of it. Or maybe that's just me.
Do we live in a place because we love it or do we love it because we live there?
I'm sure that residents of other countries feel the same way about their surroundings. I've had the good fortune to travel to a few other countries, and, if I had to choose a place to live outside the U.S., I think it might be Lake Como in Italy.
In my newest romance novel ROMAN HOLIDAY, my character goes there and is as delighted with what she sees as I was when I visited. Apparently Europeans have made it a travel destination for thousands of years, and George Clooney owns a villa on the lake. Need I say more?
However, if you go to Lake Como, be sure to visit the rest of Italy too. The people are friendly (most speak English), the food is great and history surrounds you. Sometimes people say, "See Rome and die," (The original proverb was "See Naples and die" but that was in the 13th century.), because supposedly nothing after that can equal it. And it's almost true today. Besides many modern buildings, you can still see evidence of ancient churches and the Roman Forum and stand in the center of the Colosseum, which was built before Christ. In Florence you can look upon Michaelangelo's staue of David, or climb the 294 steps to the top of the Leaning Tower in Pisa (if you're young and fearless). And Venice has a sight you will see nowhere else in the world: canals instead of streets.
So I'm a great believer in leaving home from time to time to see the rest of the world. If nothing else, it gives writers a marvelous backdrop for their stories.
On the other hand, Hawaii is often called "paradise,"and I'd have to say I'd put the island of Maui on the top of any list of mine. Blue skies, balmy breezes, sandy beaches, the aroma of flowers. What's not to like? After twenty years of owning a condo there, I still think fondly of it. Or maybe that's just me.
Do we live in a place because we love it or do we love it because we live there?
I'm sure that residents of other countries feel the same way about their surroundings. I've had the good fortune to travel to a few other countries, and, if I had to choose a place to live outside the U.S., I think it might be Lake Como in Italy.
In my newest romance novel ROMAN HOLIDAY, my character goes there and is as delighted with what she sees as I was when I visited. Apparently Europeans have made it a travel destination for thousands of years, and George Clooney owns a villa on the lake. Need I say more?
However, if you go to Lake Como, be sure to visit the rest of Italy too. The people are friendly (most speak English), the food is great and history surrounds you. Sometimes people say, "See Rome and die," (The original proverb was "See Naples and die" but that was in the 13th century.), because supposedly nothing after that can equal it. And it's almost true today. Besides many modern buildings, you can still see evidence of ancient churches and the Roman Forum and stand in the center of the Colosseum, which was built before Christ. In Florence you can look upon Michaelangelo's staue of David, or climb the 294 steps to the top of the Leaning Tower in Pisa (if you're young and fearless). And Venice has a sight you will see nowhere else in the world: canals instead of streets.
So I'm a great believer in leaving home from time to time to see the rest of the world. If nothing else, it gives writers a marvelous backdrop for their stories.
Sunday, September 20, 2009
NO MORE CAESAR SALAD
Well, maybe that's not true. Caesar Salad became popular because so many people liked it and that won't change with the closure of the original Caesar's restaurant in Tijuana, Mexico, this week.
But I, for one, am sorry that gang violence, the recession, and fear of swine flu have kept Americans from going south of the border to taste the original Caesar Salad. When I lived near San Diego--only six years ago--I went there several times, usually when our house guests from other places wanted to go to Tijuana to buy expensive prescription drugs at cheaper prices. We'd drive to the border, park on the U.S. side and walk across, then bus to the main street of town where pharmacies almost outnumbered the sidewalk hustlers who offered us hand-made toys, woven scarves and silver jewelry. Our friends would buy their drugs, using their own doctor's prescription (or one from the handy Mexican doctor in the back room) and then we'd go to Caesar's for lunch.
One of the perks of being there in person was that they gave us a business card with the original salad recipe printed on the back. This was important to me because--thanks to an article in our local newspaper which listed hot sauce as an ingredient in "traditional Caesar Salad"--I had researched the topic. Many of my cookbooks gave recipes for the salad, and all were different, but I found a book which told its history. (This was before Wikipedia.) Caesar Cardini was an Italian who emigrated to Mexico around 1918 and opened a restaurant. His brother Alex, who flew airplanes during WWI, joined him several years later and put together Romaine lettuce, croutons, a one-minute egg, lemon juice and Parmesan cheese, and tossed it with his brother's salad dressing. No hot sauce and no anchovies.
Because American flyers stationed in San Diego went to Tijuana often and loved the salad, it came to be known as "Aviators' Salad," but later simply Caesar's Salad, since one could only get it there. I remember my first one at a fancy restaurant where the waiter (as they still did in Tijuana six years ago) would put it together and toss it at your table if at least two people ordered it. Now, of course, you can get some version of it almost everywhere, even McDonald's. Except that these imitators invariably cut the Romaine in pieces, whereas the original used whole leaves.
I still have that business card from "Caesar's Palace," and if you want the entire recipe for four persons, with exact amounts of all ingredients, leave a comment. Meanwhile, raise your glass in a toast to Caesar while enjoying the most famous salad in the country.
But I, for one, am sorry that gang violence, the recession, and fear of swine flu have kept Americans from going south of the border to taste the original Caesar Salad. When I lived near San Diego--only six years ago--I went there several times, usually when our house guests from other places wanted to go to Tijuana to buy expensive prescription drugs at cheaper prices. We'd drive to the border, park on the U.S. side and walk across, then bus to the main street of town where pharmacies almost outnumbered the sidewalk hustlers who offered us hand-made toys, woven scarves and silver jewelry. Our friends would buy their drugs, using their own doctor's prescription (or one from the handy Mexican doctor in the back room) and then we'd go to Caesar's for lunch.
One of the perks of being there in person was that they gave us a business card with the original salad recipe printed on the back. This was important to me because--thanks to an article in our local newspaper which listed hot sauce as an ingredient in "traditional Caesar Salad"--I had researched the topic. Many of my cookbooks gave recipes for the salad, and all were different, but I found a book which told its history. (This was before Wikipedia.) Caesar Cardini was an Italian who emigrated to Mexico around 1918 and opened a restaurant. His brother Alex, who flew airplanes during WWI, joined him several years later and put together Romaine lettuce, croutons, a one-minute egg, lemon juice and Parmesan cheese, and tossed it with his brother's salad dressing. No hot sauce and no anchovies.
Because American flyers stationed in San Diego went to Tijuana often and loved the salad, it came to be known as "Aviators' Salad," but later simply Caesar's Salad, since one could only get it there. I remember my first one at a fancy restaurant where the waiter (as they still did in Tijuana six years ago) would put it together and toss it at your table if at least two people ordered it. Now, of course, you can get some version of it almost everywhere, even McDonald's. Except that these imitators invariably cut the Romaine in pieces, whereas the original used whole leaves.
I still have that business card from "Caesar's Palace," and if you want the entire recipe for four persons, with exact amounts of all ingredients, leave a comment. Meanwhile, raise your glass in a toast to Caesar while enjoying the most famous salad in the country.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)