NON-REVIEW: Cydonia / Lightbringer
Andrew Plotkin
(Note: _Lightbringer_ was released some time ago as _Cydonia_. The name
was apparently changed for legal reasons.)
(Note 2: With some trepidation I'm crossposting this to the Mac adventure
newsgroup, the PC adventure newsgroup, and rec.games.int-fiction.
Followups are set to rec.games.int-fiction, because this is more a
game-design rant than a review of a particular game.)
I wanted to write a review, but I didn't. A review is hard enough to
write when you've *finished* a game. I only got about halfway through
_Lightbringer_; I doubt I'll ever see the rest of it. So no review
today.
Instead, I'll take this slice of my time and your attention to talk
about *bits* of _Lightbringer_. Or, in fact, to ramble a bit about bits
of _Lightbringer_. I'm good at rambling. I can go on about anything from
game design principles to the recipe for cayenne chocolate truffles, and
I intend to. Warn me if I outrun your patience.
Today's ramble is entitled: "Failures of Imagination: or, Oh No Not
Again: or, How Not To Think Like A Game Designer".
The first failure of imagination I must mention: fer chrissake don't
imagine that you can skip QA. Don't imagine that you can ship a CD with
a bug that traps the player in one area halfway through the game, making
it unwinnable. Don't imagine that putting a patch on your web site is an
adequate solution, because I didn't find out about it in time, and I'm
certainly not starting the game over from scratch.
Enough said about that, I should hope.
The premise of _Lightbringer_ annoys me, as the premise of _Timelapse_
did. It's a unique form of nutbar who needs to believe that aliens built
pyramids in Egypt, or on Mars, or anywhere else that the human eye has
ever applied its overly aggressive pattern-matching. Though not,
unfortunately and however, a *rare* form of nutbar. So bookstores and
web pages continue to clog up with pandering, in varying degrees of
self-deluded sincerity and outright greed. This pisses me off. People
should be smarter.
This is not, mind you, really a flaw in _Lightbringer_. I doubt the
designers of the game believe there's a human face on Mars.
_Lightbringer_ is fiction -- based on a modern myth instead of an
ancient one. You may view it, if you like, as taking place in an
alternate world where that myth is true.
And the Martian Pyramid myth has no ending. Everyone knows how the story
*starts*: "Wow, look at this Viking probe photo! Mysterious and powerful
aliens must exist." But every version goes off its own way after that.
Each storyteller, whether he believes he's telling true or not, spins
his own story and ending and moral. It's wide open, really.
So I don't have a problem with a computer game that picks up the myth. I
do wish that _Lightbringer_ fell a *little* farther from the tree. It's
got a dying Earth, choked with human failings, which must be saved by
alien wisdom. No surprises there, hey? But of course I haven't seen the
ending. The fragments that I did see hinted at a third race, the true
aliens, who taught the Martians as well as the ancient Terrans. That
could turn out interesting. I can't tell from here, anyway, so I'll just
let it lie.
Good sleeping doggie. Let me turn to tinier matters.
The game is about the first manned mission to Mars. Then why, why, why
does your PDA have a complete dictionary and grammar for the Martian
language? Did someone find the Oxford Martian Dictionary embedded in a
meteorite in Antarctica? What?
Even worse -- that section in your PDA is labelled "Decryption". Have
you ever learned a foreign language? Was the class called "Decrypting
French"? The study of languages is called *linguistics*.
I am not nitpicking. Or -- I am nitpicking, to a purpose. Both of these
points illuminate the problem: a game designer thinking of a game only
*as* a game, and never as a story. Well, this puzzle *is* a secret code,
he thinks; naturally I'll call the solution "Decryption". Right?
When we get fancy on rec.games.int-fiction we call this "breaking
mimesis". Mimesis is the quality of a game that could be real life.
Well, not necessarily real life, of course. It could be sci-fi or
fantasy as well. But a game should read well *as a story*. Big gaping
plot holes are to be avoided. Imagine you are there; what *makes sense*?
(Yes, of course some things have to be fudged or skipped over. But not
important things! Perhaps your Martian explorers have a universal
translator... but then why make a big deal out of translation puzzles?
Just pop up English translations on the helmet screen, automatically.)
The Martian language is written from left to right, top to bottom. (Or
sometimes top to bottom, left to right. But real writing on obelisks and
such varies the same way; I'll accept that part.) Lucky that it
coincides with English/Latin convention that way, yes... but what are
these joined symbols, arrows above other glyphs? The grammar describes
them as modifiers. Fine. But the Translation, I mean Decryption, program
*doesn't use joined symbols*. Does *that* make sense, or is it merely
easier on the player? What good is a translator that doesn't accept the
written language it's translating? Doesn't even have a note about how to
transform to the format it accepts?
*Yes*, these sloppinesses bug me.
Failures of imagination. Did you know the Martians have the same five
platonic solids that we do? Of course they do -- that's mathematics.
(I'm willing to grant that they're *interested* in platonic solids. Hmm,
what if they weren't...)
But did you also know that Martians have the same three primary and
three secondary colors? Well, no. That's biology, and it's not even the
same for all Earth creatures, much less Martians. Some birds see in six
primary colors, three of them green. The red/blue/yellow of your youth
is pure human chauvinism, you hear me? (And so just as much is the
red/green/blue of your new web-design career.)
What would a puzzle be like constructed around a non-human visual
system? Would you need filters? Special lights? Digital image processing
in your PDA? Would it be more *interesting* than yet another
yellow-and-blue-make-green puzzle? Eh?
I have strayed from the topic of _Lightbringer_, as I promised. It had
no yellow-and-blue-make-green puzzle. (The language combined the symbols
of "red" and "yellow" to make "orange"... and "red" and "blue" made
"purple"... but "green" was a symbol of its own. Clearly the Martians
designed web pages in nursery school.)
They did, I noticed, see the solar system in the same terms we do. An
interesting topic to slip, that one. How long *has* Saturn had rings?
Anyone check? I think the Jovian Red Spot is quite recent, geologically
speaking... did Martian civilization predate it? Anyone for an Oort
cloud? How about them asteroids?
I love questions like this. Sci-fi novels have been playing with them
for decades. I wish a sci-fi *game* would.
Melt 9 ounces of semisweet chocolate, 3/4 cup butter, and 4 teaspoons of
cayenne pepper. (Melting them in the microwave works if you're careful.
A double-boiler is more reliable.) Add 6 teaspoons of heavy cream and 1
1/4 cups powdered sugar. Mix well. Cover and chill overnight. Then form
the mixture into small balls and roll in a mixture of powdered sugar,
cocoa, cinnamon, and ginger. Store chilled.
(This review -- or whatever it is -- and my reviews of other adventure
games -- such as they are -- are at:
http://www.eblong.com/zarf/gamerev/index.html)
--Z
"And Aholibamah bare Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah: these were the
borogoves..."
Elmer Hollingsworth
> Andrew Plotkin <erky...@netcom.com> wrote:
>
> They did, I noticed, see the solar system in the same terms we do. An
> interesting topic to slip, that one. How long *has* Saturn had rings?
> Anyone check? I think the Jovian Red Spot is quite recent, geologically
> speaking... did Martian civilization predate it? Anyone for an Oort
> cloud? How about them asteroids?
>
--------------
Here is an answer to your questions, or at least what answers we have.
Saturn's Rings. We know their composition, their width, and their density.
We first observed them through a telescope in the mid-1600's. We also know
the Neptune, Uranus, and Jupiter also have rings. What we do not know is
their age. They could have formed ten thousand years ago, or ten billion
years ago.
The Great Red Spot (GRS) on Jupiter is not a geological formation, but is
instead a weather anomaly. It was first observed 300 years ago when
telescopes progressed to the point to allow Jupiter to be more clearly
viewed. It is a high-pressure region whose cloud tops are significantly
higher and colder than the surrounding regions. In fact, there are several
smaller similar regions. Similar structures have been seen on Saturn and
Neptune. It is not known how such structures can persist for so long.
Hard to say about Oort Clouds, since their existence is largely theoretical.
There is no way to verify this theory, at least not until faster than light
space travel is developed. (If that is even possible.)
Everyone knows that Martian Civilization died out after they landed in
Grover's Mill, New Jersey, on October 30, 1938. The cold virus which killed
the Martian invaders was inadvertently taken back to Mars where it promptly
wiped out the entire race. Unfortunately, they destroyed their above ground
facilities in a "scorched mars" policy, leaving only remnants of their
canals as witness to their existence.
--
Elmer Hollingsworth - aka Remle of Puddleby
The Fellowship of the Red Quill
Andrew Plotkin
>
>> Andrew Plotkin <erky...@netcom.com> wrote:
>>
>> They did, I noticed, see the solar system in the same terms we do. An
>> interesting topic to slip, that one. How long *has* Saturn had rings?
>> Anyone check? I think the Jovian Red Spot is quite recent, geologically
>> speaking... did Martian civilization predate it? Anyone for an Oort
>> cloud? How about them asteroids?
>
> We first observed them through a telescope in the mid-1600's. We also know
> the Neptune, Uranus, and Jupiter also have rings. What we do not know is
> their age. They could have formed ten thousand years ago, or ten billion
> years ago.
I seem to recall hearing that they're a pretty short-lived effect, from a
planet's point of view, but I don't know how reliable that is.
> The Great Red Spot (GRS) on Jupiter is not a geological formation, but is
> instead a weather anomaly.
That's what I meant. On Jupiter, weather *is* geology.
(And I refuse to say "joveology")
Knight37
>NON-REVIEW: Cydonia / Lightbringer
>
>(Note: _Lightbringer_ was released some time ago as _Cydonia_. The name
>was apparently changed for legal reasons.)
Legal reasons? Is the word Cydonia trademarked? By whom? For what?
>Today's ramble is entitled: "Failures of Imagination: or, Oh No Not
>Again: or, How Not To Think Like A Game Designer".
Yeah, but was it fun?
Knight37
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com * The Internet's Discussion Network *
* The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free! *
Andrew Plotkin
> erky...@netcom.com (Andrew Plotkin) wrote:
>
>>NON-REVIEW: Cydonia / Lightbringer
>>
>>(Note: _Lightbringer_ was released some time ago as _Cydonia_. The name
>>was apparently changed for legal reasons.)
>
I have no idea. There's a footnote on the box that says pretty much that
sentence.
I can easily imagine that someone else has released an obscure computer
game called "Cydonia".
http://www.uspto.gov/ if you're really curious. :)
>>Today's ramble is entitled: "Failures of Imagination: or, Oh No Not
>>Again: or, How Not To Think Like A Game Designer".
>
> Yeah, but was it fun?
You'll have to find a review, to find that out. I didn't write a review.
Elmer Hollingsworth
> Andrew Plotkin <erky...@netcom.com> wrote:
>
>> Saturn's Rings. We know their composition, their width, and their density.
>> We first observed them through a telescope in the mid-1600's. We also know
>> the Neptune, Uranus, and Jupiter also have rings. What we do not know is
>> their age. They could have formed ten thousand years ago, or ten billion
>> years ago.
>
> I seem to recall hearing that they're a pretty short-lived effect, from a
> planet's point of view, but I don't know how reliable that is.
>
The origin of the rings of Saturn (and the other three planets) is unknown.
Though they may have had rings since their formation, the ring systems are
not stable and must be regenerated by ongoing processes, probably the
breakup of larger satellites. It is thought that one source of
replenishment material is the fragmented material from the satellites as
they are impacted by other objects.
It is believed that the rings are partially held in place through the action
of "shepherding satellites", that is, a balance of the rings is maintained
between the gravitational pull of Saturn and it's moons. (Saturn has
eighteen named satellites, or moons.) Tidal effects are seen in the rings
as the moons orbit Saturn.
The rings may have originally been formed as a byproduct of the same event
that caused the creation of the planets. There easily could still be large
portions of material from the generating event, with supplemental material
from later events. They may also have been the formed as a result of the
collision of smaller satellites sometime Saturn's history.
There is a lot of "could have been" and "it is believed" in the above
statements. Frankly, the origins of the rings and the source of the
materials contained within them is mostly theoretical. We can make some
pretty darn good assumptions based on analysis of the composition and tidal
effects observed, but it is still largely theoretical.
But I Digress
Elmer Hollingsworth <el...@san.rr.com> wrote in message
news:B4610A28.EEC4%el...@san.rr.com...
>
> > Andrew Plotkin <erky...@netcom.com> wrote:
> >
> > They did, I noticed, see the solar system in the same terms we do. An
> > interesting topic to slip, that one. How long *has* Saturn had rings?
> > Anyone check? I think the Jovian Red Spot is quite recent, geologically
> > speaking... did Martian civilization predate it? Anyone for an Oort
> > cloud? How about them asteroids?
> >
I'm looking forward to more good answers here.
My 0.02UKP is that several outer planets have ring systems, so the principle
of mediocrity suggests that they are pretty likely and may have been around
for a long time. More than a billion years, I would speculate, though they
may be a dynamic feature that comes and goes.
The Oort cloud (and the Kuyper Belt), for which I believe the evidence is
still indirect, are made of primitive cometary material and have been around
for a long time. Though there is evidence (New Scientist points to Nature,
vol 402, p269) that Jupiter is made of even older material.
And there probably isn't much that's 10 billion years old, which is not much
less than recent estimates of the age of the Universe.
What I really want to know is, are you serious about cayenne chocolate
truffles? 4 teaspoons sounds like a *lot* of cayenne.
Paul
Magnus Olsson
But I Digress <ButID...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>Elmer Hollingsworth <el...@san.rr.com> wrote in message
>news:B4610A28.EEC4%el...@san.rr.com...
>>
>> > Andrew Plotkin <erky...@netcom.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > interesting topic to slip, that one. How long *has* Saturn had rings?
>> > Anyone check? I think the Jovian Red Spot is quite recent, geologically
>> > speaking... did Martian civilization predate it? Anyone for an Oort
>> > cloud? How about them asteroids?
>> >
>
>
>My 0.02UKP is that several outer planets have ring systems, so the principle
>of mediocrity suggests that they are pretty likely and may have been around
>for a long time. More than a billion years, I would speculate, though they
>may be a dynamic feature that comes and goes.
Ring systems are unstable, hence must be replenished to last. I seem
to recall seeing that Saturn's rings are quite young by astronomical
standards.
>The Oort cloud (and the Kuyper Belt), for which I believe the evidence is
>still indirect,
The Kuiper belt is being discovered while we're talking - lots of icy bodies
have been discovered beyond Pluto in the last few years. Pluto itself may be
just the largest Kuiper belt object.
>are made of primitive cometary material and have been around
>for a long time.
Basically, they're leftovers from the formation of the solar system,
ejected to large distances by the giant planets.
--
Magnus Olsson (m...@df.lth.se, zeb...@pobox.com)
------ http://www.pobox.com/~zebulon ------
David T. Blackston
Andrew Plotkin <erky...@netcom.com> wrote:
>
>Melt 9 ounces of semisweet chocolate, 3/4 cup butter, and 4 teaspoons of
>cayenne pepper. (Melting them in the microwave works if you're careful.
>A double-boiler is more reliable.) Add 6 teaspoons of heavy cream and 1
>1/4 cups powdered sugar. Mix well. Cover and chill overnight. Then form
>the mixture into small balls and roll in a mixture of powdered sugar,
>cocoa, cinnamon, and ginger. Store chilled.
>
OK, I gotta ask... What is this a recipe for? Aside from the cayenne
pepper it looks like a recipe for truffles, but the cayenne pepper
definitely takes this recipe into uncharted realms.
Just curious...
Dave Blackston
dav...@cs.berkeley.edu
Andrew Plotkin
> In article <81ft75$amh$1...@nntp1.atl.mindspring.net>,
> Andrew Plotkin <erky...@netcom.com> wrote:
>>
>>cayenne pepper. (Melting them in the microwave works if you're careful.
>>A double-boiler is more reliable.) Add 6 teaspoons of heavy cream and 1
>>1/4 cups powdered sugar. Mix well. Cover and chill overnight. Then form
>>the mixture into small balls and roll in a mixture of powdered sugar,
>>cocoa, cinnamon, and ginger. Store chilled.
>
Cayenne chocolate truffles.
They are the perfect food. Don't take my word for this; try some.
I've got a batch chilling in the fridge now.
Marnie Parker
>From: Andrew Plotkin erky...@netcom.com
>Date: Thu, 25 November 1999 12:17 AM EST
>Cayenne chocolate truffles.
>
>They are the perfect food. Don't take my word for this; try some.
>
>I've got a batch chilling in the fridge now.
>
>--Z
Aha! You finally disclosed the secret recipe. I will actually have to try these
some time.
>The fragments that I did see hinted at a >third race, the true
>aliens, who taught the Martians as well as >the ancient Terrans. That
>could turn out interesting. I can't tell from >here, anyway, so I'll just
>let it lie.
Three little words.
Philip K. Dick
Doe :-)
doea...@aol.com -------------------------------------------------
Kingdom of IF - http://members.aol.com/doepage/intfict.htm
Inform Tips - http://members.aol.com/doepage/infotips.htm
IF Art Gallery - http://members.aol.com/iffyart/gallery.htm
Andrew Frederiksen
: Cayenne chocolate truffles.
: They are the perfect food. Don't take my word for this; try some.
If there were any reasonable way to ship it, I'd send you a litre of
chocolate chili ice cream from La Casa Gelato.
Jason Melancon
<el...@san.rr.com> wrote:
> [The Great Red Spot] is a high-pressure region whose cloud tops are
> there are several smaller similar regions. Similar structures have been
> seen on Saturn and Neptune. It is not known how such structures can persist
> for so long.
ISTR that they are self-organizing systems which can exist and
perpetuate because they are anti-cyclonic. _Chaos: The Making of a
New Science_ by James Gleick (?) showed a computer model of this
phenomenon. I loaned it out, so I can't elaborate from it.
--
Jason Melancon
Kathy I. Morgan
> Melt 9 ounces of semisweet chocolate, 3/4 cup butter, and 4 teaspoons of
> cayenne pepper. (Melting them in the microwave works if you're careful.
> A double-boiler is more reliable.) Add 6 teaspoons of heavy cream and 1
> 1/4 cups powdered sugar. Mix well. Cover and chill overnight. Then form
> the mixture into small balls and roll in a mixture of powdered sugar,
> cocoa, cinnamon, and ginger. Store chilled.
Ah, thank you! I was afraid you would forget to put it in. I prefer
jalapinos (sp?) so I think I'll try substituting. Sounds scrumptious!
--
Kathy
help for new users of newsgroups at <http://www.ptialaska.net/~kmorgan>
Good Net Keeping Seal of Approval at <http://www.xs4all.nl/%7Ejs/gnksa/>
Michael J. Cross
erky...@netcom.com "Andrew Plotkin" writes:
> Knight37 <knig...@gamespotmail.com> wrote:
> > erky...@netcom.com (Andrew Plotkin) wrote:
> >
> >>NON-REVIEW: Cydonia / Lightbringer
> >>
> >>(Note: _Lightbringer_ was released some time ago as _Cydonia_. The name
> >>was apparently changed for legal reasons.)
> >
> > Legal reasons? Is the word Cydonia trademarked? By whom? For what?
>
> I have no idea. There's a footnote on the box that says pretty much that
> sentence.
>
> I can easily imagine that someone else has released an obscure computer
> game called "Cydonia".
And Ken MacLeod has written a novel called _The Web: Cydonia_. (Which
hasn't been discussed in rasfw as much as his other books.)
all the best,
--
Michael J. Cross BSFA Magazine Index at http://www.mjckeh.demon.co.uk
"Beware of the Beautiful Stranger/Driving Through Mythical America"
by Pete Atkin & Clive James, CD reissue 11/97 on See For Miles
For more info on all PA/CJ releases, see http://www.rwt.co.uk/pa.htm
Andrew Plotkin
>> > Legal reasons? Is the word Cydonia trademarked? By whom? For what?
>>
>> I have no idea. There's a footnote on the box that says pretty much that
>> sentence.
>>
>> I can easily imagine that someone else has released an obscure computer
>> game called "Cydonia".
>
> And Ken MacLeod has written a novel called _The Web: Cydonia_. (Which
> hasn't been discussed in rasfw as much as his other books.)
Book titles are almost never trademarked. When they are, it's usually
because the title is already trademarked in the movie or TV realm ("Star
Trek", "Star Wars", etc)
But I Digress
Kathy I. Morgan <ka...@newsreaders.com> wrote in message
news:1e1tt7x.xua1p21ew9k85N%ka...@newsreaders.com...
>
> Ah, thank you! I was afraid you would forget to put it in. I prefer
> jalapinos (sp?) so I think I'll try substituting. Sounds scrumptious!
>
I can confirm that. The recipe survived a reckless conversion to English
units, uncertainty about what constitutes "semi-sweet" chocolate, cayenne
that had been on the shelf for I don't know how long, and my unaccountable
decision to use caster sugar (and stir, and stir, and stir).
Thank you, Mr P.
Paul
David Given
>I can confirm that. The recipe survived a reckless conversion to English
>units, uncertainty about what constitutes "semi-sweet" chocolate, cayenne
>that had been on the shelf for I don't know how long, and my unaccountable
>decision to use caster sugar (and stir, and stir, and stir).
So, what *is* semisweet chocolate? Is it the leftpondian term for dark
chocolate? Or what? I want to give this a try. It sounds perfect to give
to unsuspecting relatives.
--
+- David Given ---------------McQ-+ "If you're up against someone more
| Work: d...@tao-group.com | intelligent than you are, do something
| Play: dgi...@iname.com | insane and let him think himself to death."
+- http://wired.st-and.ac.uk/~dg -+ --- Pyanfar Chanur
Andrew Plotkin
> In article <81pol0$72r$1...@ssauraac-i-1.production.compuserve.com>,
> But I Digress <ButID...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> [...]
>>I can confirm that. The recipe survived a reckless conversion to English
>>units, uncertainty about what constitutes "semi-sweet" chocolate, cayenne
>>that had been on the shelf for I don't know how long, and my unaccountable
>>decision to use caster sugar (and stir, and stir, and stir).
>
> So, what *is* semisweet chocolate? Is it the leftpondian term for dark
> chocolate? Or what? I want to give this a try. It sounds perfect to give
> to unsuspecting relatives.
In the US, baking chocolate (chocolate chips, etc) is generally sold with
a lower sugar content than candy-bar chocolate. But some brands come in
both styles, and they're labelled "sweetened" and "semisweet".
Nothing to do with milk content.
There's also "unsweetened chocolate", which has no sugar at all. Don't
worry about confusing it with the others. It's unmistakeable. You can't
eat it. Don't try.
David Given
Andrew Plotkin <erky...@netcom.com> writes:
[...]
>> So, what *is* semisweet chocolate? Is it the leftpondian term for dark
>> chocolate? Or what? I want to give this a try. It sounds perfect to give
>> to unsuspecting relatives.
>
> In the US, baking chocolate (chocolate chips, etc) is generally sold with
> a lower sugar content than candy-bar chocolate. But some brands come in
> both styles, and they're labelled "sweetened" and "semisweet".
We have something called cooking chocolate; I always thought it had
something to do with having inverted sugars in it. Or possibly just being
very bad chocolate (it tastes greasy if you eat it raw).
[...]
> There's also "unsweetened chocolate", which has no sugar at all. Don't
> worry about confusing it with the others. It's unmistakeable. You can't
> eat it. Don't try.
Never met it. It sounds ghastly.
--
+- David Given ---------------McQ-+
| Work: d...@tao-group.com | Resist the resistance!
| Play: dgi...@iname.com |
+- http://wired.st-and.ac.uk/~dg -+
Ross Presser
>In article <81u3lp$2bk$1...@nntp4.atl.mindspring.net>,
> Andrew Plotkin <erky...@netcom.com> writes:
>[...]
>>> So, what *is* semisweet chocolate? Is it the leftpondian term for
>>> dark chocolate? Or what? I want to give this a try. It sounds perfect
>>> to give to unsuspecting relatives.
>>
>> In the US, baking chocolate (chocolate chips, etc) is generally sold
>> with a lower sugar content than candy-bar chocolate. But some brands
>> come in both styles, and they're labelled "sweetened" and "semisweet".
>
>We have something called cooking chocolate; I always thought it had
>something to do with having inverted sugars in it. Or possibly just
>being very bad chocolate (it tastes greasy if you eat it raw).
>
>[...]
>> There's also "unsweetened chocolate", which has no sugar at all. Don't
>> worry about confusing it with the others. It's unmistakeable. You
>> can't eat it. Don't try.
>
>Never met it. It sounds ghastly.
It is highly useful if you wish to create candies for diabetics, using
artificial sweeteners.
--
Ross Presser
ross_p...@imtek.com
"And if you're the kind of person who parties with a bathtub full of
pasta, I suspect you don't care much about cholesterol anyway."
Andrew Plotkin
>
>>> There's also "unsweetened chocolate", which has no sugar at all. Don't
>>> worry about confusing it with the others. It's unmistakeable. You
>>> can't eat it. Don't try.
>>
>>Never met it. It sounds ghastly.
>
> It is highly useful if you wish to create candies for diabetics, using
> artificial sweeteners.
Or savoury, non-sweet chocolate sauces -- for chicken, say -- Mexican
"moles" and so on.
I've never tried to make one of those, because I don't cook meat. I ought
to find some appropriate combination. Maybe eggplant. Hmm. Roasted
mushrooms with chocolate mole? Hmm.
Did we have a topic around here, once upon a time?
Kathleen M. Fischer
> Melt 9 ounces of semisweet chocolate, 3/4 cup butter, and 4 teaspoons
> of cayenne pepper. (Melting them in the microwave works if you're
> careful. A double-boiler is more reliable.) Add 6 teaspoons of heavy
> cream and 1 1/4 cups powdered sugar. Mix well. Cover and chill
> overnight. Then form the mixture into small balls and roll in a
> mixture of powdered sugar, cocoa, cinnamon, and ginger. Store chilled.
Is that equal quantities of powdered sugar, cocoa, cinnamon, and ginger?
Seems like a lot of ginger... About how many does it make?
Kathleen
--
-- Excuse me while I dance a little jig of despair.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Mary J Mcmenomy
: There's also "unsweetened chocolate", which has no sugar at all. Don't
: worry about confusing it with the others. It's unmistakeable. You can't
: eat it. Don't try.
I'm reminded of the time my brother (about 7 at the time) started whining
about how there was no dessert, so Dad offered him a square of unsweetened
baking chocolate. The results were predictable but amusing to watch.
Especially since Dad had made him promise to eat the whole square if he
accepted it at all.
-- Mary McMenomy
(Yes, this is totally off topic.)
John Palmieri
> Ross Presser <rpre...@nospamimtek.com.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >>> There's also "unsweetened chocolate", which has no sugar at all. Don't
> >>> worry about confusing it with the others. It's unmistakeable. You
> >>> can't eat it. Don't try.
I wouldn't eat it in large quantities, but when I'm cooking, I do
taste it. Very bitter, but still chocolate. Also, I recently opened
up a box of Scharffen Berger unsweetened chocolate and found a recipe
for double chocolate cookies: chocolate cookie dough and *unsweetened*
chocolate chunks. Ah, here it is:
http://www.scharffen-berger.com/recipes/text/cookies.htm
I can't wait to try it.
> >>Never met it. It sounds ghastly.
> >
> > It is highly useful if you wish to create candies for diabetics, using
> > artificial sweeteners.
Or if you just want to control how sweet your chocolate
sauce/icing/candy is. I find a lot of chocolate candy too sweet--the
sweetness overpowers the chocolate. If you're using good chocolate,
try cutting down on the sugar.
> Or savoury, non-sweet chocolate sauces -- for chicken, say -- Mexican
> "moles" and so on.
>
> I've never tried to make one of those, because I don't cook meat. I ought
> to find some appropriate combination. Maybe eggplant. Hmm. Roasted
> mushrooms with chocolate mole? Hmm.
I've put cocoa powder in (vegetarian) chili before; that was a bit
odd, but interesting.
> Did we have a topic around here, once upon a time?
I thought that all threads on usenet groups eventually ended up being
about chocolate...
--
John H. Palmieri
Dept of Mathematics, Box 354350 palm...@math.washington.edu
University of Washington http://www.math.washington.edu/~palmieri
Seattle, WA 98195-4350
But I Digress
David Given <d...@pearl.tao.co.uk> wrote in message
news:sqbu18...@127.0.0.1...
> In article <81u3lp$2bk$1...@nntp4.atl.mindspring.net>,
> Andrew Plotkin <erky...@netcom.com> writes:
> [...]
> >> So, what *is* semisweet chocolate? Is it the leftpondian term for dark
> >> chocolate? Or what? I want to give this a try. It sounds perfect to
give
> >> to unsuspecting relatives.
> >
>
What worked for me was supermarket (Asda) dark chocolate. No doubt any
chocolate connoisseurs out there will cringe. I thought about cooking
chocolate but I imagined it would be nasty.
The result is sweet, but not too sweet, and hot, but I like hot. In laws
have tried it and thought it was fine.
Paul
Andrew Plotkin
> In article <81ft75$amh$1...@nntp1.atl.mindspring.net>,
> Andrew Plotkin <erky...@netcom.com> wrote:
>
>> Melt 9 ounces of semisweet chocolate, 3/4 cup butter, and 4 teaspoons
>> of cayenne pepper. (Melting them in the microwave works if you're
>> careful. A double-boiler is more reliable.) Add 6 teaspoons of heavy
>> cream and 1 1/4 cups powdered sugar. Mix well. Cover and chill
>> overnight. Then form the mixture into small balls and roll in a
>> mixture of powdered sugar, cocoa, cinnamon, and ginger. Store chilled.
>
> Is that equal quantities of powdered sugar, cocoa, cinnamon, and ginger?
> Seems like a lot of ginger...
I went with a half-cup of powdered sugar, two tablespoons of cocoa, two
teaspoons of ginger, one teaspoon of cinnamon. It worked. Maybe a bit less
sugar.
> About how many does it make?
That depends heavily on how big you make your spheres. I didn't count the
result, anyhow. Maybe two dozen?
Arcum Dagsson
<palm...@math.washington.edu> wrote:
> I've put cocoa powder in (vegetarian) chili before; that was a bit
> odd, but interesting.
Wish I'd read that before dinner. Just had said chili. Don't think I had
the cocoa home in any case, though...
--Arcum Dagsson
--
"Real children don't go hoppity-skip unless they are on drugs..."
"Everyone was acting normal, so I tried to look nonchalant..."
Gene Wirchenko
[snip]
>There's also "unsweetened chocolate", which has no sugar at all. Don't
>worry about confusing it with the others. It's unmistakeable. You can't
>eat it. Don't try.
I've done so. In *small* quantities, it's nice.
I've also eaten the odd lemon.
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
Computerese Irregular Verb Conjugation:
I have preferences.
You have biases.
He/She has prejudices.
Neil K.
> I thought that all threads on usenet groups eventually ended up being
> about chocolate...
Threads here usually end up drifting onto the topic of Smarties and
Turkish Delight, I thought.
- Neil K.
--
t e l a computer consulting + design * Vancouver, BC, Canada
web: http://www.tela.bc.ca/tela/ * email: tela @ tela.bc.ca