Jon did not commit to murdering Daenerys when he came to the Throne room.

The first thing he did was lash out at her about killing innocent civilians and prisoners of war.

He had been a passive partner to Daenerys these last few episodes.

He lashed out in anger because he wanted Daenerys to see reason.

To snap her out of the cloud of smoke to see the rubble she had laid on ground.

The next thing he does is plead to her to see reason.

To give mercy to Tyrion and the rest.

Daenerys at this moment is now convinced that she knows what's right for the people.

The last thing he does is asks her plainly as to "what about the people who think they know what's best for them".

She replies that they don't have a choice.

After making every effort to redeem Daenerys in his eyes, he fails and decides to kill her.

He loves her still and proclaims her the queen, now and always.

Kisses her back, embrace her in his arms and stabs her in the heart.

Because there is a conflict between multiple of his honors here.

He vowed loyalty to Daenerys, and even after all that happened seems to still love her to some extent.

He is shown very often and very clearly not to break oaths, even risking the whole expedition North over this particular one.

He vowed to protect all people, the common folk.

Literally as part of his Night's Watch oath ("I am the shield that guards the realms of men"), but more significantly it's how he is raised and what he believes with all his heart, even to the point of getting killed over helping/protecting the free folk against the Night's Watch sentiment.

Tyrion reminds him very heavily of the second vow.

Basically Jon is now tormented, if he keeps his first oath he will most likely be breaking his second oath because Daenerys at that point seems like a cruel conqueror who will not stop bringing fire and death.

If he keeps his second Oath he must somehow stop Daenerys from doing that but there is not obvious way without breaking the first Oath.

In the end he chooses his second, more deep-rooted vow.

After that choice it doesn't matter of how the murder is performed, the act in itself is dishonorable for him, and you see he is tormented by it and very well prepared to die as a consequence.

Ultimately Jon had to betray someone - Dany or the people he was sworn to protect.

Dany was bent on making the world better through force, convinced of her own righteousness.

So for example, if Sansa had refused her it seems likely that she would have torched her, if not the whole of Winterfell.

The rest of the world gets the same treatment.

So Jon killed her.

He gave her every opportunity to change her mind.

The way he ended up doing it was simply to avoid a violent fight.

I don't think it's about honor, the way I saw it, Jon didn't want Dany to suffer, i.e. it was a "Mercy Kill".

Clearly, Daenerys wasn't herself any longer, and was consumed by grief and hatred.

When Jon realized he can't get her back, and the "old Dany" is suffering, he decided to end her pain.

He also knows that if he would let her know he's going to kill her, she can convince him to stop, and he won't be able to resist, still being in love with her.

All the above together should explain why Jon acted the way he did.

movies.stackexchange.com/users/106/Shadow Wizard is Ear For You

Love is the death of duty.

Jon and Tyrion discussed this quote from Maester Aemon.

For Jon, it meant that he had forsaken his duty (acting in the best interest of the Realm) because of his love for Dany.

Tyrion then adds that duty can be the death of love .

In order words, if Jon wants to do his duty, he must put his feeling of love aside.

Quite literally, Jon's rightful duty would be to kill the woman he loves, since she is an active threat that cannot be stopped.

Killing Dany was in the best interest of the Realm, and Jon has unwaiveringly acted in the best interest of the people he represents: the Starks, the Night's Watch (and thus also the realm of men), the North.

When Jon killed Dany, he put aside his personal feelings and acted in the best interest of the people he swore to defend.

Because Dany would have remained an active threat.

While Jon may not have understood Dany's statement, don't forget that in her victory speech, she specifically mention "liberating" Winterfell.

That puts Jon in a strong conflict.

The woman he loves threatens everything else he stands for, and he had to make a choice.

He chose duty over love.

Because he couldn't prevent Dany from waging eternal bloody war.

I understand that maybe he couldn't kill her another way...

I wouldn't discount this as part of the reason.

Once he'd decided he had to do it, which wasn't until well into the scene, he had to know that she was a hard person to kill.

She had Drogon, and she was canny.

If he'd given her advance notice of his intention, he might well have become a smoking outline on the ground, leaving the seven kingdoms doomed to suffer under The Mad Queen and her dragon.

A swift, unexpected stroke was his best — possibly only — chance of success.

He didn't stab her in the back.

He did it discreetly, not in order to hide that he did it but too remove the weirdness if he just took a dagger and came running to her to get a kill - that would have been funny lol and last minutes of Danys would have been where he saw Jon came like a lunatic and kill her.

But this is very opinion based.

Even if it was 1 bit not honorable then he have been through enough to say "Fuck honor" and do something for the greater good.

Question: Jon Snow from  Game of Thrones  is a man of honor. When he killed the dragon queen in S08E06, he didn't even escape but told the truth. But then why did he kill her with a back stab? Not literally, but he kissed her and she didn't know that he has a weapon.  I understand that maybe he couldn't kill her another way, but that's not a very honorable anyway.

Why did Jon Snow do this immoral act if he is so honorable?

Jon chose to kill the woman he loved rather than betray his people. Stabbing Dany in the back could have been to make it more quick and painless.

Jon chose to do his duty to his people and so he was forced to kill her. He was putting her out of her misery.

Jon had to kill the dragon queen as it was his duty to protect the people she was hurting.

Jon killed her so she wouldn't suffer later.


Yes, Disney moved away from hand-drawn animation In a 2013 interview with the Guardian,

chief executive Bob Iger said that none of its animation companies are working in the traditional 2D format, and there are no current plans to do so again.

Speaking at an annual shareholder's meeting in Phoenix, Arizona, on Wednesday, chief executive Bob Iger revealed that none of the studio's animation companies was working on 2D, hand-drawn material for the big screen.

While Iger did not rule out returning in the future to the style which made the company famous, the long gestation period for Hollywood animated productions means a gap of several years before any new film might emerge.

"To my knowledge we're not developing a 2D or hand-drawn feature animated film right now," said Iger.

"There is a fair amount of activity going on in hand-drawn animation but it's largely for television at this point.

We're not necessarily ruling out the possibility [of] a feature but there isn't any in development at the company at the moment."

No, Disney does not produce nor is making any traditional hand drawn animation.

There is probably a good reason for this in Disney's eyes.

Traditional hand animation is a lot of work.

It's very time consuming and can't be changed easily late in production like CGI can and is expensive because of that.

To give a demonstration, there is a nice video about

Who Framed Roger Rabbit which goes quite into depth about "Live" animation, but just goes to show how much work can go into producing traditional animation.

As I explained in this answer about mermaids (At the time of writing, The little Mermaid is the last traditionally hand painted cel animation disney film...) and this answer about Disney princess' marrying older men .

Disney is a lazy company and definitely looks at the cost of things.

To quote a quote from Steve Huelett , a Disney animator: I've worked on CG features

and I've worked on hand-drawn features.

And hand-drawn features are harder to make.

Hand-drawn cartoons take a year to produce.

Once you've produced sequences, it's hard to change the work.

You have to go back and do everything over.

But with CG, you can animate the movie in three or four months, change things close to the release date.

You can't do that in hand-drawn animation.

If you find out the story doesn't work when you're two-thirds done, you're stuck.

With CG, we change the story and rework sequences until late in the process.

It's close to live-action in that way.

You can rework until late in the production.

With hand-drawn animation, the plot, action and dialogue has to be locked down way earlier, or the picture won't get done in time for its release.

As you can see, traditional animation just can't cut it compared to CGI cost-wise.

Though it's not impossible that they won't try to go back to it.

There is a small renaissance in going back to more traditional filming methods, as we saw with the new Star Wars films the return of practical effects .

Or a surprisingly good looking trailer for the Dark Crystal Prequel . Should traditional animation all of a sudden become a demand, compared to the money machine that CGI is, you can be sure that Disney will jump on the hand drawn bandwagon.

Although other people have answered the question on full hand drawn films very well, a notable recent relevant fact is that Maui's tattoos in Moana were, in fact, hand drawn animation superimposed on the CG film.

From the Hollywood Reporter article

"How 'Moana's' Animators Brought a Tattoo to Life" : "Somewhere in the process, Mini Maui started to emerge, almost as a Jiminy Cricket alter ego; the tattoo can't speak, but he can communicate with Maui," explains John Musker, who directed with Ron Clements, of the telltale tat's development.

Maui's full of himself, and here is someone who could poke fun at him — literally poke him."

The two directors, responsible for such Disney classics as

The Little Mermaid and Aladdin , are making their first foray in a near-fully computer-animated feature with Moana , but for Mini Maui, they decided to return to their roots and create a hand-drawn character .

So they recruited the legendary Eric Goldberg, best known as the lead animator of the Genie in Aladdin , to serve as Mini Maui's animation supervisor."

Yes, Disney no longer does hand-drawn cartoons.

Their most recent hand drawn/2d movies were very poorly received.

They really did try to keep that age alive, but it just wasn't making enough money to account for how expensive they were to make.

Here's part of an interview with Bob Iger (a chief executive of Disney).

"To my knowledge we're not developing a 2D or hand-drawn feature animated film right now," said Iger.

"There is a fair amount of activity going on in hand-drawn animation but it's largely for television at this point.

We're not necessarily ruling out the possibility [of] a feature but there isn't any in development at the company at the moment.

The profits are discussed in the above linked interview.

The studio subsequently put the hand-drawn animation The Princess andthe Frog into production.

The traditional musical, based on theBrothers Grimm story the Frog Prince but relocating the action to1920s New Orleans, was well-reviewed but failed to mirror theastounding success of Pixar at the box office with a middling returnof $267m (£178m).

Another hand-drawn animation – 2011's Winnie thePooh – drew praise from critics but pulled in just $33m across theglobe.

Meanwhile, Disney CGI efforts such as 2009's Bolt and 2010'sTangled grossed $310m and $590m respectively.

So, their CGi movies are clearly making a lot more than their 2D animations, this is probably why they were abandoned.

Actually, per the NY Post article "Forget CGI: ‘

Mary Poppins Returns’ uses hand-drawn cartoons" and other sources, the Mary Poppins Returns movie from late 2018 did all of the animation hand-drawn.

I believe the purpose of this was to make the new movie have as close to an identical look/feel to the original one as possible.

Question: Over the past few years Disney has remade a lot of their hand-drawn films with either live-action or [modern] computer animation. Examples that immediately come to mind include:  The Jungle Book ,  Beauty and the Beast ,  The Lion King ,  Christopher Robin ,  Dumbo , and  Aladdin .  That being said, does Disney no longer produce hand-drawn cartoon films? Have they completely strayed away from this and now only offer computer animated and live-action films?

Does Disney no longer produce hand-drawn cartoon films?

Hand drawn animation was not profitable enough for Disney, so they have stopped producing it for the forseeable future.

Disney no longer produces hand-drawn cartoons as they are expensive to make. They have not ruled out a return to this practice in the future.

Disney no longer produces hand-drawn cartoons.

Hand-drawn cartoons weren't making enough money.

There are no hand-drawn cartoons in development at the moment, but they have not ruled out a return in the future.


Clark has been on Earth his entire life and has become very familiar with his super-powers and with the atmosphere.

The Kryptonians have not and although they might seem to have

become used to their environment incredibly quickly, they haven't.

At several points Zod is shown attempting to get used to his powers.

As an example, he has problems controlling his ability to see through things.

We can imagine this extends to the rest of the Superman abilities.

This lack of experience gives Superman the edge.

Plus the Kryptonians are some what handicapped because Clark is/contains the DNA of their species.

So they can't just do whatever they please

, they have to be conscious of preserving him.

They actually said in the film how the atmosphere of Earth is more nourishing, and the sun provides him with more energy.

This happened over his entire life, and only a short while for the other Kryptonians, therefore Superman has essentially had a great diet his whole life, whereas the Kryptonians have been eating junk food: he is physically in far better shape.

I think the answer talking about Clark being more used to his powers is right, and Zod etc do have trouble with them.

BUT the codex bit is totally wrong, as the scientist on Zod's ship says he doesn't need to be alive to harvest the codex from his body.

The way Superman can defeat them is having more experience with his powers, coupled with having been on Earth longer, so his cells have bathed in the radiation of the sun longer; he has become stronger through that.

He is able to do this because in this version of Superman he was born not cloned (that part has nothing to with his power set) and the codex was infused into his body.

The codex is every Kryptonian that has ever lived or will ever live.

He is literally ALL that ever was or ever will be of Krypton.

He has access to all of the information stored in each cell by the codex and that's why he is so powerful.

And yes, he has been on earth for far longer and is far more powerful than any of them

would ever be!

He was in the literal sense made better than any other person from his home world.

Acquiring the power of Superman would make all other training irrelevant.

Consider Judo, which uses gravity to facilitate falls.

You can't trip someone who can fly, no matter how many belts you have.

The best boxer in the world would be just as mowed down by a machine gun as a couch potato would be.

Also, Brandon Routh's Superman took a bullet in the eye and didn't blink, so even vulnerable spots on a non-super become insignificant at Superman levels of powers.

At that level of power, the power level is the only significant thing, barring (in this case) access to Kryptonite.

As others have mentioned, Superman has higher power levels than does Zod due to his longer exposure to the Sun and the Earth's atmosphere.

Superman, therefore, wins through power-imbalance attrition, as is shown in the movie.

Question: During Man of Steel, Superman battles and defeats several military trained Kryptonians (eg. Zod, Faora etc) who have much more training and combat skill at their disposal. Faora mentions that he is weak and unsure of himself and Zod mentions that he has trained his entire life.  So how is Superman able to defeat them, is this explained/hinted at in the movie at any point?

How is Superman able to defeat Kryptonians who are better trained and skilled than him?

Superman has spent his whole life on earth, which gives him more energy and makes him stronger. He has more experience using his powers and he is genetically more powerful than other Kryptonians.

Superman has been on Earth for this whole life. This means he has benefited from Earth's atmosphere and has more practice at using his powers. His DNA codex contains the best of his species.

Clark has more experience with his powers on Earth and has been nourished by its atmosphere. The others have only just arrived.

Superman was born not cloned and his DNA is made up of all Kryptonians.


The joke is that the Principal is saying his name has "no relation" to the body part.

He is constantly attempting to clarify that his last name is "not a joke" and that it's a real, "possibly Scandanavian" last name.

When people who have the same (or similar) name as someone famous introduce themselves, they will often get questions as to whether they're related.

Think if an American was named Richard Clinton, or Travis Trump.

After a while they will anticipate these questions, and as part of their self-introduction just state flat-out that they aren't related to that famous person it sounds like they are related to.

Just to avoid having to be asked: "Hi, my name is Richard Clinton.

And before you ask, no, I'm not related to Bill.

" This can be shortened to "No relation."

This is what the principal is doing.

Only instead of a famous person, it's a body part.

I always understood it as a reference to "not being a pussy".

Thus he is saying his name is not a reference to his character.

It could also be a nod to Die Hard's Agent Johnson and Special Agent Johnson .

AJ: I'm Agent Johnson AJ:

And this is Special Agent Johnson AJ: ...

No relation

The joke there is they have the same surname

but they're clearly of different ethnicity.

But in relation to Rick and Morty, Johnson is American slang for penis.

To me, having grown up with a TV in the 90's (for good reason: moved to USA for learning the language and culture), this phrase was an instant reference to Tiny Toon Adventures cartoon series, where two major characters - Buster and Babs Bunny (sometimes with Bugs Bunny in the loop) - always introduced themselves with a "No relation!"

disclaimer.

Question: In the Rick and Morty series, we see multiple interactions with Morty's school Principal. His name is Principal Vagina. After he introduces himself, he says, "no relation" afterwards. Why? What joke am I missing? I thought he might be referring to the school name but if so, I'm not getting it.   What's the joke here, or what does he mean when he says it?

Why does Principal Vagina say, "no relation" after introducing himself?

He could be saying that his name is not related to the body part, nor is he a 'pussy'. It could also be a reference to Buster and Babs Bunny in the classic cartoon series Tiny Toon Adventures.

It could be a reference to a body part, a character trait or a cartoon character in loony toons.

The Principal is saying that he is no relation to the body part, a joke that one would normally make in relation to a famous person.

It is a reference to a loony toons cartoon character who made a similer joke.


That all depends on how big the artillery shell was.

A standard 75mm/18lb shell would have difficulty making a hole anywhere near that big, but the largest shell fired in WWI was 3,130 lbs !

used by the 520mm French Schneider Howitzer...

Somewhat more portable were the 24cm or 25cm Schwerer Flügelminenwerfer* which carried a 200 lb charge…

*Roughly translates to 'heavy winged mine thrower' - the shells had fins at the rear.

Then there was Big Bertha - with a 17" barrel - which could leave shell craters as wide as 9 m (29 ft 6 in) and as deep as 6 m (19 ft 8 in).

It's quite difficult to picture the size of this

- it was 15ft tall, 32ft long

Possibly the result of an underground bomb , placed there by miners: One of the common techniques used in warfare during the First World War was mining.

There were various mines planted under trenches, then detonated to send part of the trench, and anyone in it, sky high.

The BBC also did an article on this.

National Geographic says of the Messine explosion(s) :

This Explosion Was the Biggest Blast Before Atomic Bombs

The mines were each fired by soldiers and so went off a few seconds apart up and down the length of the ridge, sending geysers of earth, steel, concrete, and bodies spewing into the air and searing the dark sky with orange flame.

The mines, totaling nearly 1 million pounds of explosives, are believed to have created one of the largest human-caused explosions before the nuclear era.

On the British side of the front, men were knocked off their feet by the blast.

Farther away, in France, the shockwave was mistaken for an earthquake.

And the roar of the detonation was reportedly so tremendous that it was even heard by the British Prime Minister in London.

The craters resulting from the Battle of Messines are fairly well-known:

Given all you see is the crater, there's no guarantee it was made by a single shell, though the odds are statistically high it was a shell given how many were fired.

The biggest crater created still exists today in 2020, 104 years after it was created.

The crater is 30 metres deep and 100 metres across (98 feet and 330 feet) and was caused by a 2,700 kilogram (6000 lb) high explosive charge triggered on 1916-07-01 at 07:28.

The Lochnagar mine crater on the 1916 Somme battlefields in France is the largest man-made mine crater created in the First World War on the Western Front.

It was laid by the British Army's 179th Tunnelling Company Royal Engineers underneath a German strongpoint called “Schwaben Höhe”.

Further info http://www.greatwar.co.uk/somme/memorial-lochnagar-crater.htm and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lochnagar_mine

Another thought

- there's no reason it couldn't be a series of shells, each landing in the previous crater.

Estimates range from 1.7 billion to 8 billion rounds fired by both sides, and that France has a land area of 643,801 km², of which very roughly 25% was directly in a warzone at some point.

Meaning 10,000 to 40,000 rounds landed on each square kilometre on average, with many more in heavily contested areas.

(This last part is super-fudgy with estimates, don't take it accurately at all.)

In addition to the incredibly heavy shells that could be lofted by the artillery of either side, delayed fuzes were used which trigger a few seconds after impact, causing the shell to explode under the surface, pushing the ground advice up and out, and creating craters as deep and wide as you see in the picture you posted.

Since proximity fuzes, which would allow reliable airbursts and are very effective in throwing shrapnel out, were not in use until the Second World War, the sub-surface explosion was the most devastating and effective anti-infantry tactic, compared with a surface explosion.

It had the added advantage of turning no-man's land into a crater riddled quagmire, making it that much harder for an attacking force to progress.

It is a bit too big for an artillery shell.

Others have shown the artillery pieces, and the mine craters.

But few people today have any idea of how much the heavy artillery of the day churned up the landscape in general.

The earth was pounded over and over for months , which means that eventually it was just a thick layer of mud (which got displaced even easier with each successive barrage).

Borrowing from the "heaviest shell" link in Tetsujin's answer, emphasis mine:

In March 1918 for every mile of their 50-mile trench network, the German Army had 92 field guns.

In addition to [those] 92 field guns [...], they had 31 field howitzers, 14 medium howitzers, 14 heavy guns, 7 heavy howitzers and 3.5 super heavy howitzers for each mile of trench .

Respecting the photographer's copyright, I just link to some pages showing the fields of carnage, almost a hundred years later -- with some of the craters still in evidence rivaling that from your question: Quiet on the Battle-scarred fields (blogspot.com) 100 years on, buried WWI shells pose threat in French fields (reuters.com) (which is -- part of -- the reason why these areas have not been taken under the plow again.

Also, chemicals, and body parts of the many thousands that were blown into so small pieces that burial was simply not an option.) Verdun battlefield scars (YouTube)

Question: In the movie, 1917, there is huge crater filled with muddy water and bodies, what could have caused it? It is a bit too big for an artillery shell.

What could have resulted in such a huge crater in WW I?

The crater is too big for a standard 75mm/18lb shell, but some shells were far bigger than this. It could also have been made by several shells, an underground bomb or a shell with a delayed fuse that would explode under the surface.

They had shells that wzere very heavy and could make very big craters. It could also have been from an underground bomb or a shell with a delayed fuse.

It is too big for a standard shell but considering how many were fired, there is a good chance it was one. They were able to fire very heavy shells that could make a crater that size.

It could have been from an undergroung bomb.

It could have had a delayed fuse so it would sink into the ground then on explosion make a much bigger hole.


Yes I think the answer to this is probably many

After a short think, the first example I was able to find was: Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? , by

Philip K. Dick was adapted as Blade Runner , directed by Ridley Scott, which in turn was adapted as Blade Runner: A Story of the Future by Les Martin Philip K. Dick approved of the movie despite the differences in the adaptation, but refused to write the novelization and is quoted as saying

[I was] told the cheapo novelization would have to appeal to the twelve-year-old audience.

Yes Planet Of The Apes (1968) was based on French author Pierre Boulle's 1963 novel La Planète des Singes .

After becoming a movie and additional sequels, it was further developed into cartoons, TV series and comic books.

Additionally, all of the original sequels spawned novelizations by established science fiction writers of the day, each of which went through multiple reprintings of their own.

Michael Avallone wrote the novelization for Beneath the Planet of the Apes in 1970.

Jerry Pournelle, who later co-authored Lucifer's Hammer and The Mote in God's Eye , wrote the Escape from the Planet of the Apes novelization.

John Jakes, former Science Fiction Writers of America president, wrote Conquest of the Planet of the Apes .

David Gerrold, scriptwriter for the Star Trek episode

"The Trouble with Tribbles", novelized Battle for the Planet of the Apes .

Novelizations of the live action and animated television series were also produced.

William T. Quick novelized the 2001 Planet of the Apes ; he also wrote two prequel novels, and several other book tie-ins were published.

Source: Planet Of The Apes Wiki

If you consider a graphic novel to be a novel, then the graphic novel V for Vendetta (written by Alan Moore and illustrated by David Lloyd) was adapted as a film (directed by James McTeigue and written by the Wachowskis), which was in turn novelized by Steve Moore (no relation to Alan Moore).

The film had a number of differences from the graphic novel, and these differences are carried through to the novelization.

In 1992 Francis Ford Coppola did his version of Dracula, released under the title "Bram Stoker's Dracula".

Apparently the original novel was not adequate so a novelization was published (by James V. Hart and Fred Saberhagen).

Another example, years ago someone showed me a copy of H. Rider Haggard's "King Solomon's Mines" with a picture of Stewart Granger and Deborah Kerr from the 1950 movie on the cover.

I know Haggard's writing; I read several of his books.

He showed me the first page - it certainly was not Haggard.

The cover and spine say Haggard.

On the title page at the bottom it gives the movie director credit, the producer credit, screenplay credit and "Fictionized by Jean Francis Webb".

I found the book on eBay so I could report this.

One relatively clear-cut example is The Wicker Man , which "is a 1978 horror novel written by Robin Hardy and Anthony Shaffer.

It was based on the 1973 cult horror film The Wicker Man, directed by Hardy and written by Shaffer.

[..] The film itself is loosely based on the 1967 novel Ritual by the actor and novelist David Pinner." If you'll expand your question to accept "Novels based on movies starring characters who originated in print

" thenThe 2011 Conan

the Barbarian Novel is 'Based on the Movie', and there are several James Bond novels based on the movies, and lots of the Marvel universe movies have been subsequently novelised.

An early almost-example is the novel The Circular Staircase , which was adapted into the play

The Bat , which was separately adapted into novel

The Bat and movie The Bat . https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Circular_Staircase

As no-one seems to have mentioned them yet, James Bond, The Spy Who Loved Me and James Bond and Moonraker are novelisations of the relevant Bond films, which have no resemblance to the original novels by Ian Fleming whose titles they bear.

(well, the OP did say "regardless of how faithful the adaptation was")

Another example: Snow White and the Huntsman.

Loosely based on the original fairy tale, which has been novelized many times (a.o.

the brothers Grimm.)

The 2012 movie got is own novel, written by Lily Blake.

Yes Another example to the great ones given previously: In 1937, Frederic Dannay and Manfred Lee (writing as Ellery Queen ) released The Door Between .

In 1940, it was adapted as Ellery Queen, Master Detective , directed by Kurt Neumann and written by Eric Taylor.

Finally, in 1941 the novelization of the movie was published as Ellery Queen Master Detective (sometimes reissued as Vanishing Corpse ).

The ghostwriter was Laurence Dwight Smith , but the cover credited Ellery Queen only.

Hence, this is an example where both the source and the novelization were published with the same name of the author on the cover.

Question: Inspired by a discussion to an answer on  this question , has a movie which was explicitly adapted from a novel (regardless of how faithful the adaptation was) received an official novelisation based solely, or even primarily, on the movie?

Has a movie based on a novel ever had its own new novelisation?

Several examples of this exist, including graphic novels like V for Vendetta that were adapted as a film, which was then novelised. Some James Bond novels have also been produced as films and then novelised.

Many films have been adapted into novels. Examples include V for Vendetta and certain James Bond films.


He works.

According to Wikipedia in the first film adaptation he has a job as a guard at an art-gallery in London.

“In the first film adaptation, Bean, ‘Mr.’ appears on his passport in the ‘first name’ field, and he is shown employed as a guard at London’s National Gallery.”

We don't know much about his profession and income at the time of where the " Mr. Bean " TV series was recorded (1990-1995).

In the " Bean " film, he has worked as a guard at London's National Gallery (1997).

Maybe he already got the job before back in 1990?

Maybe.

Currently, he turned a Youtuber where he does some silly things, like making some real strange tutorials and bringing out some new crazy records .

He promote some well-priced merchandise products like T-shirts and also website creation with Wix .

Not to mention the income from the commercials posts blend in at each video.

That's probably enough to make a nice living in his flat in Highbury.

movies.stackexchange.com/users/83204/RobertS supports Monica Cellio

One of the funny things about Bean is that, as weird as he is, he is at times incredibly competent .

For example, in this clip he measures a hole in the wall basically by eyeballing it, and later when he cuts a patch, the patch is precisely correct .

It fits perfectly.

So while I don't know exactly what his job is (and I imagine it changes from time to time as he screws things up), it appears he does indeed possess useful skills.

Mr. Bean also had a stint as a politician, once being elected a Member of Parliament for the independent "Bean" party.

A few other sketches hint at other possible jobs - in the first episode, "Mr Bean", he is attending a maths exam, possibly hinting at a need to gain a maths qualification for some reason.

In the unaired sketch "The Library" he is copying a page from a rare tome in a library.

Of course, these could both be simply other interests of his rather than related to work.

In The Royal Premiere (Episode 2, Act 3), Mister Bean is shown to work at a prestigious cinema.

Though it's unlikely he kept that job after headbutting the queen.

Question: Mr. Bean has a house and a good car, but all he does is funny things and nothing else. How does he get paid to buy food, electricity and clothing?

How did Mr. Bean manage to make money?

Mr Bean has several jobs during the films and series, including as a guard at London’s National Gallery, a Member of Parliament for the independent "Bean" party and an employee at a prestigious cinema.

Mr Bean had several jobs. He was a guard at a gallery, worked at a cinema and was even elected to parliament.

Mr Bean has as job as a guard for the National Gallery.

Mr Bean was elected a member of parliament for a short time.


Try a butter crock .

This will keep your butter fresh at room temperature for a fairly long time (weeks, not days).

It depends on the room temperature where you live.

At 65F (18C) or below, butter is often barely spreadable and will last for weeks on the counter in a sealed container.

At 80F (26C), it starts to get overly soft and doesn't last more than several days.

Our family goes through about a pound / week and we've never had any issues with keeping a half-pound block on the counter at any given time

- we finish it off before it has time to lose any quality or flavour.

The rest we keep in the fridge until needed.

The most important thing is to keep it in a covered container - I'm sure a butter crock would do a great job, but even just any old small glass container with a lid will do.

The question seems to have been more about food safety than whether it seems palatable.

When the fat in butter decomposes (i.e. when the butter becomes rancid), it produces an unhealthy acid that actually inhibits mold growth.

So, don't wait for your butter to mold to determine if it's gone bad.

To follow strict food-safety guidelines, protect butter from heat, light, and air; store it up to two weeks in a refrigerator, below 40 degrees.

It can also be frozen for 6 to 9 months.

As long as you use salted butter it will keep in a covered container at room temperature for at least 2-3 weeks without getting mouldy or rancid, in my experience.

If you use unsalted butter there are more microorganisms that can live on it

so it spoils faster, but there aren't any common contaminants that can grow on salted butter other than moulds, and even they grow very slowly on it.

I keep my butter in a covered dish next to the toaster.

When it gets hard on the outside I toss it.

This doesn't happen very often as I am now using 1/8 pound sticks.

Usually the sticks last about a month in the summer, longer in the winter.

If it has been a while I'll smell it before using it or just toss it.

When I first got a microwave oven I tried to use it for warming the butter when I took it from the fridge.

I found that the butter went rancid if you did it two or three times.

Although just microwaving a small portion to use was OK, it was difficult to time the warming so the stuff didn't melt.

Now I just keep it in a butter dish at room temperature, except in high summer.

I have always kept my butter, 1/4 pound at a time, out on the counter in a covered, pottery-type butter dish (Fiestaware) or a covered glass dish.

The latter is probably less desirable because of light exposure, but either way, I have never had a problem, and I am picky about food freshness.

We use the 1/4 pound within about a week, I'd say.

The exception is in summer, when it sometimes gets hot enough to melt the butter in the dish.

At those times, I put the butter dish in the wine refrigerator, which we keep at 55 degrees F.

If you happen to have a wine refrigerator, it's a great compromise - the butter doesn't spread as easily, but it isn't rock-hard either, and it's better than having it melted.

Yes.

Butter is cultured cream, meaning there are good bacteria fighting off the bad bacteria.

Cover it in a butter crock or similar and it should last a couple weeks.

I have left butter out on the counter uncovered for as long two or three weeks or more.

It has never gone bad are tasted any different .

We do eat butter everyday so we use it quickly.

Sometimes I microwave it when I first take it out of the Frig.

if I'm going to use it right away.

I come from a family that has always left the butter out and we never noticed a difference in the taste or had butter go rancid.

The only time I had mold on butter is when there was a hurricane and the electricity was out for weeks

and we had to throw out every thing in the Frig.

I use salted butter but occasionally unsalted with no problem.

My experience is that butter crocks just suck.

I was all excited when I first had one (what a great idea!), only to find that the butter would get really yucky tasting and even moldy quite quickly.

Then maybe fifteen years later (last year)

I decided to try again.

Same experience.

I've also tried it without the water -- similar results.

A simple covered butter dish is much more effective, in my experience.

Butter keeps and tastes good for quite a while -- a couple of weeks, anyway.

I have no scientific theories to explain this (though I'd be vaguely interested to hear some).

Just the empirical facts, validated through repeated experiments with consistent results.

Question: Is it safe to leave butter at room temperature? If so, for how long is it safe to keep it out?

Is it safe to leave butter at room temperature?

This depends on your room temperature, but salted butter can be left in a covered pottery or glass dish on the counter for two weeks or more. It may need to be refrigerated in summer. Butter that has gone bad may not appear mouldy, so it should be protected from air, light and heat; the safest option is in the refrigerator.

You can keep butter outside of the fridge in a covered dish for several weeks. It depends on the temperature where you live.

It depends on where you live, but you should be able to keep butter out for 2-3 weeks without it going rancid.

Be careful with it going moldy. You can keep it for up to 2 weeks in the fridge.


Why bother paying for instruction or books.

The best way to learn is watching a video and practicing.

Youtube Youtube has a great wealth of videos on knife skills.

I'm more a visual learner.

I like to see a video.

A book are not going to help me squat.

Knife Skills: Julliene with Ann Burrell Knife Skills: Chiffonade with Ann Burrell

Knife SKills: Slicing with Ann Burelle and Beau Knife Skills:

Bias Cuts with Ann Burrelle and Beau

Honing a knife with Gordon Ramsey

(video is labeled as sharpening although he is showing a knife being honed)

Rick Theory, well respected on knife forums for good technique

Sundry old Martin Yan episodes across youtube.

Cleaver centric technique that requires paying attention to do safely, but can achieve a lot.

Chowhound Chowhound has a great wealth of knife skill videos.

How to make a chiffonade cut How to chop How to dice How to hone a knife Roll Cuts Know your Knife Cuts How to make julienne and batonnet cuts How to cut with a chef's knife : 5 Simply knife safety tips

How to hold a knife Not totally related but

- Should i buy a knife set Knife Skills troubleshooting How to make a bias cut Other Wusthof Knife Skills Series

I really like the book " Knife skills Illustrated "; it is a bit annoying that it has left and right handed versions of everything, though.

The Good Eats episode American Slicer was devoted entirely to knife usage.

The absolute best way to pick this up is to do it with the help of an in-person instructor.

It is a motor skill that is best learned by trial, error, and the emulation of experts.

Your local culinary institutes might offer courses or one-day workshops on various topics for the general public and cooking enthusiasts.

For instance, here's a place in Maryland that offers classes: L'Academie de Cuisine .

I once gave my wife a gift certificate for their "knife skills" workshop.

She can now chop circles around anyone who isn't a chef!

Epicurious have some useful videos on knife skills, they can be found at: http://www.epicurious.com/video/technique-videos/technique-videos-knife-skills/1915458779/knife-skills-how-to-sharpen-a-knife/1915433332

Another interesting source is Rouxbe, they have a large number of cooking lesson videos online, which include knife skills.

This site, however, requires a subscription: http://rouxbe.com/

Serious Eats has some videos and what not in their Knife Skills section.

The basic skills are covered in this article (slice, chop, rock chop).

Other things to note include how to carve meats, how to cut herbs and tomatoes.

America's Test Kitchen is pretty good as well, since they go slow and show things visually though they often don't narrate their knife skills verbally.

I've also seen good material in Gordon Ramsay 's Ultimate Cookery Course and Home Cooking, though he's a bit faster and less detailed.

Some of the stuff is on his youtube channel.

Finally, I'd like to recommend Jaques Pepin's New Complete Techniques (though the original complete techniques is fine, the new one is in color).

He's very careful in explaining how to do things.

Mastering Knife Skills: The Essential Guide to the Most Important Tools in Your Kitchen by Norman Weinstein is a great picture book demonstrating technique for specific fruits, vegetables, and meats.

Question: What are some good resources for learning knife skills? Specifically, is there anywhere that I can see video demonstration of different slicing techniques and when those techniques are appropriate?

What are some good resources for learning Knife Skills?

There are several good video tutorials on Youtube or on cooking shows like Good Eats. Books including Mastering Knife Skills: The Essential Guide to the Most Important Tools in Your Kitchen by Norman Weinstein and Knife Skills Illustrated offer pictures demonstrating proper techniques, or local culinary institutes and private instructors might offer workshops for the general public.

While the best way to learn is in person, there are lots of resources available online, from books and TV.

There are lots of video you can watch on Youtube and Serious Eats also has a knife skills section.

Mastering Knife Skills and Knife Skills Illustrated are recommended books.

Good Eats is a god show for learning skills like this.

Look for a short course at a local culinary institute as the best way to learn is in person.


Other people have answered similarly but definitely make sure your cooking surface is VERY HOT before the food hits the surface.

Cold food+cold metal=sticking!

In addition to this, you should also make sure you don't start trying to flip too early.

Let the food cook and get a good sear on one side before you try to flip.

If you do this with a hot surface, you shouldn't have any problems with sticking.

One more thing, it's important that the grill surface is clean, so cleaning your grill religiously after you finish using it each time, and then oiling it lightly before you use it, can be a huge help in this area.

I'll start with agreeing with the others -- oil your grill (after first cleaning it), and make sure it's hot.

Think of it like seasoning a cast-iron pan, but you have to redo it, because the heat from the grill can bake it off.

Next, don't keep trying to move it.

Things like chicken and steak will release from the (well oiled) grill once they've gotten a sear on them.

Fish, however, I go with an alternate, possibly controversial method -- aluminum foil.

Use a piece of foil slightly larger than the piece of fish (one for each piece, you want space between each piece for the smoke to come up) and oil it slightly.

When set onto a hot grill, you'll even still get grill marks.

I've found that if you brush on some cooking oil either on the chicken or directly on the grill it will help.

Also, if you move the meat slightly before it cooks too long it will help it from sticking so much.

In addition to oil, make sure the grill is nice and hot before you start cooking.

The same principle applies when pan frying.

Generally the best way to prevent sticking is with fat.

One solution is to apply fat (oil) directly to the meat, or to the grill, right before cooking.

The other thing is to avoid cleaning the grill too much.

While you should keep too much junk from building up on the grill you do want to let it season, much as you would a cast iron pan.

As the fats and everything build up on the grill it'll help future meals from sticking.

All the books I've read say that oiling your food is the preferred method.

Having said that, I often oil my grill by using a paper towel with oil on it

You could season the grill.

Oil the grill before you start cooking and then heat up the grill.

The heated oil will create a 'non-stick' surface on the grill.

The more often you do it, the more non-stick the grill will become.

I'd been using paper towels to oil the grill, and I just discovered that newspapers work a lot better.

Paper towels absorb the oil and then don't release it, and they leave fibers behind on the grill.

Newspaper transports the oil but then releases it onto the grill.

I tried this yesterday and after several applications of oil, the grill was terrifically seasoned, to the extent that the food was sliding around a bit too much.

Something I tried for the first time today: I used oiled green onions to create separation between my fish and the wire basket.

My fish came out perfect and the charred green onions improved the presentation and maybe even improved its flavor.

I am really quite surprised no one has mentioned grilling on wood planks yet.

It's an extremely useful alternative to keeping the lighter meats/seafood from sticking to the grill surfaces.

Typically they aren't too expensive and you get the added bonus of the smoky aroma in your food.

Link to a decent primer on wood plank grilling for those interested: http://backyardprovisions.com/blogs/grilling-101/10784049-wood-plank-grilling

Yep.

As others have said, don't be afraid of fat or heat.

Let it sit for a while.

When the crust has formed and the food is ready to be flipped, it should release fairly easily with a bit of gentle nudging.

Additionally, I find that dredging fish in a bit of flour helps to prevent sticking.

Question: When I grill fish or chicken, often much of the meat and/or skin ends up sticking to the grill. What's the best way to avoid this?

How can I keep delicate food from sticking to the grill?

Make sure the grill is hot enough and brush some cooking oil on the grill or meat to prevent sticking. You can also move the meat around slightly before it is fully cooked. Another possible solution is to grill on wood planks.

The grilled surface should be very hot and have been oiled. You can also try moving the meat before it has the chance to stick and even grilling on a wooden plank.

The grilling surface should be very hot.


I'm not 100% sure

but I found this site that explains what fleur de sel is.

It says that Like other sea salts, fleur de sel is harvested by evaporating sea water.

However, to harvest fleur de sel, workers gently skim the top layer of the sea salt from partially evaporated pools, before it sinks to the bottom again.

These salt crystals are very fine, light, and delicate, and must be handled with care and exposed to minimal moisture, or they will clump again.

It looks like you are reproducing how fleur de sel is made, through boiling the water which is the equivalent to "evaporating sea water".

It is harvested manually

It is a small portion of the evaporated sea-salt produced.

It is a lot more expensive

It has finer salt-flakes as normal evaporated sea salt.

Unless you can distinguish it from other salts in a double blind randomized controlled trial I do not think that it is worth the trouble.

Setting a trail up with a few friends is a lot of fun :)

AFAIK, the mineral content of the salt is the major difference.

Also, the smaller crystals of Fleur de sel dissolve very quickly.

There is an incorrect assumption in your question.

Fleur de sel (flower of salt) is not salt collected from the top of a boiling pot of salted water.

It's salt collected from evaporated ocean water.

This is important and contributes to the following differences: The mineral content of the ocean is different than the contents of a pot with water and table salt.

So the final salt is composed of more than just sodium chloride.

Fleur de sel also includes calcium, magnesium, potassium, and iron.

By virtue of the collection method and the fact that it is not agitated by boiling but evaporated by the sun, the structure of the flake is very specific.

Delicate "flowers" of salt that are texturally distinct from grains of table salt or flakes of flaked salt.

Fleur de sel is formed in open air ponds.

The resulting salt contains biological material as a natural side effect of it being made outside.

It's a specialty product.

It's harvested by hand on nature's schedule.

The sun is the heat source.

Winds can disrupt the formation of the flowers.

It's expensive.

Most importantly, I just tasted Maldon flaked salt, kosher salt, and fleur de sel back-to-back while writing this answer.

They taste different.

That's probably the most important thing to note.

Since the salt crystallizes in a manner that produces large flat flakes it makes it ideal for finishing a dish since it offers a small textural contrast while providing good salt coverage.

Compared to coarse kosher salt it provides a small crunch and adds texture to the dish without being overwhelming it.

It's also visible versus something like a fine grained table salt.

It's a finishing salt though, so get some nice cheap fine grain salt for your regular day-to-day needs, and keep your fleur-de-sel in a small pinch pot to throw on finished dishes immediately before serving.

Question: Fleur de sel is the salt from the top of the pot when you heat salted water.  But what makes it different from the rest of the salt in the pot?

What makes fleur de sel different from regular salt?

Fleur de sel is harvested manually and is more delicate and work intensive. The large flat flakes provide good salt coverage while offering a small textural contrast.

Fleur de sel is harvested manually and it skimmed off the top of the rest of the salt. It has an ideal texture for cooking.

Fleur de sel is harvested manually and is only a small portion of the salt.

It has a good texture for finishing a dish.


Besides the material itself, there are lots of other factors -- Surface : There are smooth plastic cutting boards, and there are rougher ones.

I prefer the rougher ones, as smooth means things are slipping all over the place and its can be dangerous.

Plastic will roughen up with use, but cuts and nicks in plastic boards means more places for germs.

For those thin plastic cutting mats, they're so lightweight that you have to worry about both the food sliding, and the mat itself sliding.

Thickness

: Those 'butcher block' wooden boards look great, but I don't like them for two reasons: I'm short, and it raises the surface that I'm cutting at; they're heavier, and I like being able to pick up my cutting board to take to my stove, as my cutting area is near my sink, not my stove.

Size : Large enough to hold the amount of food you tend to prep at one time, and not so overly large that it's a pain to move /

clean / etc.

I like about 18" x 24" (45cm x 60cm),

but if you're cooking for one in a small apartment, that might be a little large.

(although, one of my apartments was small enough that I used a large board, so I could span the sink, as there was all of maybe 30" (75cm) of counter space.

All this being said

-- I use wood for all vegetables, and plastic cutting mats for meats and poultry, just because it saves me time sanitizing everything between cutting.

(although, I typically try to cut all of the vegetables first, then the meat, just to save on cleaning a knife).

Part of the complaint against wood is that it's very hard to get germs out once they get into wood -- but research has shown that if you clean the surface, wood cutting boards are unlikely to transfer germs to other food, and a well-maintained wooden cutting board will self-heal and continues to be safe over time, whereas plastic can't be simply wiped down once it starts developed scratches from use.

To sanitize wood boards, use half a lemon, and coarse salt (I use kosher salt), and use the cut side to scrub the board.

Rinse, let it dry, and give it some food-grade mineral oil every few months, depending on how humid your area is.

If it's looking sad, you can always sand it down, re-sanitize it and re-oil it.

I use two types of cutting boards: wood and [soft] plastic.

The plastic is for meat, or anything that could ruin a wood cutting board.

Wood is for everything else.

If you can afford it, try to get an end-grain wood cutting board.

Bamboo is a popular choice right now (it's affordable and sustainable), but I don't have any personal experience with it.

Most other materials, especially glass, will ruin your knives.

Don't use a glass board.

It dulls the edge of the knife and the food you are trying to cut is more likely to slip than on a wood/plastic board.

One thing not mentioned is feet/pads on the bottom of the board.

Boards without anything on the bottom except a flat surface can slip.

You can resolve this by adding rubber feet or a damp towel but if you are buying a new cutting board it might be something worth looking into.

Also, check out the size of the board in terms of your sink.

A large board is great for cooking, a large board is a pain in my side for cleaning as it barely fits in the sink and creates a mess just by cleaning it.

How about something on the edge of the board (like a soft rubber "fence" maybe .5

" tall)

that keeps the food from falling off.

I realize this is tricky b/c you don't want the "fence" to interfere w/ the cutting.

But it drives me nuts that food is always falling off the edge (just a tiny amount but enough to make a mess).

One thing not yet mentioned: For an everyday plastic board, it's great to have one just small enough to easily fit in the dishwasher - easily and perfectly sanitized every time.

My selection involves: Bamboo for general purpose veg, small bits of meat (e.g. bacon slices), I also occasionally cut meat on it - it is smooth and juices etc run straight off it.

Several Plastic for when I have several dishes on the go or lots and lots of veg and also meat and fish.

Wood for bread, cheese and cooked meat

- It looks nice when I serve cheese boards or antipasti.

I have a glass one but only use it as a heat mat as well as dulling knives it also makes a horrible noise when you do need to cut on it.

I have an endgrain wood board that is designed for meat

(it has a groove around the outside for collecting juices).

But I find it too big, heavy and hard to clean to actually use -

annoyingly it was also my most expensive.

I know people who have granite work tops and do not use a board - This is as bad as glass and will dull your knives also.

Wood boards can also absorb juice - so regularly cutting onions, garlic or "smelly" things may cause your board, and therefore other things you cut on it to pick up the smell.

Wood is also annoying to maintain - it needs oiling occasionally as well as disinfecting.

Question: I have heard various debates on the merits of wood versus synthetic cutting boards, and their affect on food safety, knife edges, and ease of cleaning and storage.  What are the pros and cons of the following and why?   Wood versus plastic or other materials  Affect on food safety and cleanliness  Cost to purchase  Affect on knife edge and ease of use

Cutting boards: What are some general tips on purchasing and using a cutting board?

Wooden cutting boards have a reputation for storing germs, but research has shown that a well-cleaned surface is generally enough to prevent transfer. Plastic surfaces are often smooth, but develop cuts and nicks that can store germs later. A small plastic board can fit in the dishwasher and sanitised easier, and will not pick up smells like garlic as easily as wood.

Plastic boards are the easiest to use and keep clean. Wood boards need to bekept really clean. Glass boards are not recommended.

Plastic boards are good for meat. They are easy to wash, especially if small enough to fit in the dishwasher.

Wood boards are harder to keep clean and neet maintenance.


Hold the mango upright - so the place where the stem was is at the top.

Turn the mango

so the widest side is facing you.

The pit mimics this same shape - it's tall, wide, and not very deep.

Cut all the way around as though you are creating two halves, one whole piece facing you, and one facing opposite.

Go ahead and peel this side (using a vegetable peeler).

Slide your sharp paring knife between the peeled flesh and the pit.

As you separate a section off the pit, slice it away from the rest of the flesh.

If you don't use a sufficiently sharp knife, you just end up with a mess.

Peel the other side and slice it the same way.

The reason I peel only half at a time is so I have something (the remaining peel) to grip as I slice the mango.

The pit is flat and thin and surrounded with a lot of fiber and most of the meat.

The best solution is to cut the mango into 3 "slices" (||), starting at the stem end, and cutting as close to the pit as possible.

Use a sharp knife.

The middle slice will have the pit and a small amount of meat and skin around the edge.

You can peel the skin and chew the meat at the edge of the pit, but there isn't a whole lot.

I haven't tried this before

but I found this youtube video that shows you how.

Cut into the mango, starting where the stem was and going around the long way, just in to the pit.

Reach in with a spoon and scoop around the pit, separating one half of the mango from the pit.

Then scoop the pit out of the other side.

In most countries where mangos are native, slicing a mango is anathema - they're eaten at the point at which they're 'like a woman'

(use your imagination)

i.e. fragrant, perfumed, melting, soft and very juicy.

If you must slice, generally you can get 2-4 'slices' as @Crispy suggest and then, with a bib on, or best of all, in the bath, you slurp away at the hairy delight that is the stone of a properly ripe mango.

Typically you just cut the flesh around the pit.

If the mango ripeness is right (soft but not mushy) you'll get nice chunks of mango and minimum mess.

There are devices that can make this rather arduous task easier.

I haven't used on personally

but they have been reccomended by friends.

I've used Alton Brown's technique for preparing mango with success before.

It involves cutting a disk off the top and bottom

so you have a flat way to set the mango down and then slicing along the pit to cut off the two big "cheeks" and then the two narrower "fingers".

You can either peel the mango before or after.

He also shows an easy way to cube the mango.

Separate the meaty part or cheeks of the mango by slicing slightly above where the tree stem and the fruit used to connect.

After separating the cheeks", get a water glass and use it to slide half a "cheek" of the mango into the glass and separate from the skin.

You do that without peeling the mango.

Question: I've only attempted this once, and it was a complete disaster. Can anyone provide some tips for a beginner?

How do you remove the pit from a mango?

In most countries where mangoes are native, they are not sliced but rather eaten when perfectly ripe. However, you can cut the flesh around the pit or slice down to the pit and eat around it.

People don't generally slice mangoes. If you try, you will probably get 2 to 4 slices and then you would eat the rest.

Normally people don't slice mangoes. You would just cut the flesh around the pit.

You might be able to get 2 to 4 slices and then you would just eat the rest.


Peter Martin at Chef Talk suggests adding sugar or cider vinegar.

He also mentions the old potato trick but says it's not effective for him unless it's only slightly too salty.

Make a second batch of Soup and under salt it, then mix them.

A trick that works sometimes is to put a potato in it and cook it a bit.

It'll tend to absorb some salt and not give flavor out.

Add water and/or unsalted chicken or vegetable stock...though depending upon how over-salted your soup is, you may not be able to rescue it without a significant amount of added liquid.

Make another batch with no salt added to it, then mix the two batches together.

It's the only way to save soup

that's too salted.

Nothing else works.

If you need to thicken it up after mixing, use smash powder packet, and add accordingly.

Strain soup and set solids aside.

Put salty stock in a lg, by at least half, pot.

Add handful of parsley, couple quartered onions, celery butt (end) and heart with leaves, 2 or 3 chopped carrots, 2 med.

Peeled potatoes, quartered and small chicken that you cleaned.

Bring to a boil, reduce and summer a couple hours.

DON'T SEASON.

when meat is falling off bones, strain.

Pick meat off and mix in.

Freeze half th is in qt containers.

Add your solid from the early salty soup.

Now taste for seasoning.

Should be fine now.

Perhaps just more water , more chicken stock ?

Adding a bunch of parsley to the soup and cooking it for another hour or so will usually work.

Parsley tends to soak up the salt somehow, at least flavour wise.

I'm not sure how it works, but it works for me.

Especially if I've been using fake chicken stock powder (it's we use instead of chicken stock in my vegetarian household).

Anyway, a proper Jewish chicken soup should have parsley in it, so why not add more?

That's what my granny taught me.

I find it is easiest to: remove about 1/2 of the solids with a slotted spoon (meat, vegetables, noodles, beans etc.)

place them in a strainer or colander and give them a quick rinse under warm or hot water, next remove 1/4 of the broth and replace it with water

(You can save this broth if you want to use in future soups but please label it to not use alone nor with additional salt), add an additional 1/4 of the original amount of other seasonings (except no more salt, this includes no garlic salt or onion salt) add the rinsed meat and vegetables back into the pot and simmer for 20 to 30 minutes to give the flavors a chance to blend.

I made the mistake of using all the drippings from baked ham in making soup and it was much too salty.

I followed the advice from DebraMN and spooned out all the meat and vegetables from the pot, rinsed them well with warm water and drained them in a colander.

I poured out half the broth and added back plain water.

In tasting the vegetables before adding them to the pot I found that the rutabagas I'd used were very salty

so I fished out as much rutabaga

as I could and then added the meat and veggies back to the pot.

I added around 2 tsp.

sugar and 2 Tbsp.

Cider vinegar to what was approx.

2 qts.

soup.

I did add two quartered raw potatoes and simmered for about an hour and that helped some but the rutabagas really seemed to have absorbed the salt and the soup did turn out tasting pretty darn good.

Question: I made a mistake with my lastest batch of chicken soup, and it's too salty to eat. Is there any way to save it?

Soup is too salty!

The surest way would be to add stock, water or another batch of soup without salt, but additives like sugar, cider vinegar or potato can also rescue and over-salted soup.

The easiest solution would be to add more liquid until the mixture is less salty. Other than that, you can try adding sugar, cider vinegar or a raw potato to soak up the saltiness.

Add more water or stock or make another batch of unsalted soup and mix together.

Add a raw potato then remove to soak up the saltiness.


Follow these steps and watch very carefully... Set your oven on Broil (high) and put your rack on the top shelf.

Let the oven get nice and hot (3-7 minutes).

Fill an oven safe dish with crushed ice and water and place your dishes into the ice/water bath.

The cold bath should keep the custard from cooking, but the sugar on top will heat till it caramelizes.

It'll only take 3-4mins.

The old fashioned way was with an iron (not like today's steam iron -- a heavy chunk of metal at the end of a handle)

you'd heat it up, and press it against the sugar to cook it.

Of course this typically means having a chunk of metal that's just slightly smaller than your container.

Some of the high-pressure torch style lighters might also work or you can try putting it under the broiler, but I'd really suggest picking up a propane torch if you're interested in creme brulee.

Don't go to a kitchen store, as they're vastly overpriced -- get one from a hardware store.

They're maybe $15 or so, and they have a number of uses -- I've soldered pipes, used it to light the grill and even used it for gardening (you know that weed block fabric?

You can burn holes in it where you want to plant, which saves a lot of time over cutting).

Here's what we did exactly once

but it worked for us:

Cut a area out of foil the exact size that you want the topping to be Spray one side with non-stick cooking spray Mix

some of the sugar topping and put it on the foil Put the foil+topping on a cookie sheet and broil.

Watch them closely -- this doesn't take long.

Bonus for our situation: this was for an event the next day at work.

By pre-making the delicate little topping disks, they could be kept separate from the custard until the last moment.

This meant the sugar didn't get soggy or broken for anyone.

It also meant that only this tiny package could be handled with care while the rest of the stuff could be handled normally.

may have already been said but you can use the oven top shelf if it's turned onto the grill.

When i worked in a restaurant we used to use the combi oven, which had the pull down grill to heat the top of creme brulee :)

Hope you get it done :) xxxxx

In theory you could place the Crème brûlée under a very hot grill for a few seconds, but you are in danger of killing the custard too.

Personally, if this is something you anticipate doing frequently, buy a torch.

You don't need to spend load on a specialised kitchen torch, just go to your local DIY and get a standard propane plumbers torch.

Easy:-mix

the sugar with a bit of Vodka and spread over the brule.

Light with a match or lighter and see the sugar caramelize as if by magic.

You can use an electric stove that has a broil function.

Put the rack on the top slot, turn on the broiler, wait until it is red hot and then add the cups of crème brûlée right under the element until you have a golden crust.

The crust will be thicker than if you used a torch.

Nonetheless, i find the result perfectly fine.

Just put sugar in a pan, and let it melt; then, pour it over the creme and refrigerate it so it hardens.

Question: I've always wanted to make a Crème brûlée but I don't have a blow torch to burn the top with. Is there anything else I can use to get that nice crunchy caramel on top?

What can I use for a Crème brûlée if I don't have a blow torch?

Traditionally a special crème brûlée iron would be used, but a propane torch is the easiest option. The crème brûlées can be placed under a grill for a few seconds, but this can ruin the custard. Alternatively, just pour melted sugar over the custard and allow to cool.

The best option is to put it under a grill for a few seconds. You can also try melting some sugar and pouring it over to harden.

The easiest option is to try putting it under a very hot grill for a few seconds. You can also trying melting some sugar and pouring it over the top so it hardens.

You can put it under a very hot grill for a few seconds.

Melt the sugar, pour it over the top and leave to harden.


I can say, as a salt snob, that sea salt is a far more flavorful product.

I can't even use regular table salt anymore.

Sea salt is salt formed from evaporated sea water, is not iodized, and because it doesn't come from salt mines requires very little processing.

Some people will say that because it's "natural", sea salt must be better for you.

The mayo clinic seems to disagree: http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/sea-salt/AN01142

Iodine.

Table salt has added iodine, and sea salt doesn't.

Sea salt also tends to be a little coarser, but that's just cosmetic.

Sea salt isn't as refined as table salt, either, so it may contain traces of other minerals (magnesium, sulfur).

Sea salt is also considered to be kosher.

As mentioned by Satanicpuppy , sea salt is largely regular, uniodized salt but with small amounts of different minerals from ocean water , and without the anticaking agent added to salt.

So, at least chemically , they are very similar as sea salt is still ~85% regular salt.

The presence of different minerals affects the taste and texture (maybe someone who uses it a lot can tell you how).

You can also find iodized sea salt sold in case you want to substitute it completely for normal iodized salt.

It depends on what country you come from.

In many countries "table salt" is just their local sea salt, crushed, filtered, and sometimes iodized.

Not every country has "salt mines", but most countries with a coast line can collect or "farm" evaporated salt.

See this PDF

In Italy we basically only use sea salt, in Romania they use mostly rock salt.

Once the salt has been mixed into the food, I can't tell the difference.

I don't taste salt by itself because... you would have to pay me for it.

Of course, if you did an A/B double blind test, perhaps you would get some effect.

But do you care?

Healthwise, food safety agencies the world over seem to have no problem at all with rock salt and sea salt.

Somebody befor ementioned iodine -

that is something to keep in mind.

Question: I often sea sea salt sold in grinders to be used at the table, with comments about how it tastes better. What sort of taste differences would I notice using sea salt vs table salt, and what other differences might using one over the other impart?  I've also noticed people say that regular table salt is unhealthy, but that sea salt is somehow healthier for you.

What is the difference between sea salt and regular table salt?

Sea salt is taken from evaporated seawater rather than salt mines, so it undergoes less processing and doesn’t have added iodine and anti-caking agent. Sea salt may taste better, but some do not notice the difference in a meal.

There are mixed opinions on whether you can actually taste the difference. Table salt contains additives whereas sea salt is completely natural.

Sea salt is more flavorful than table salt.

Table salt contains iodine and anti-caking agents, whereas sea salt receives very little processing.

In food, it is difficult to tell the difference.


Why actually, I have just the link for you. http://www.eatfoo.com/archives/2007/12/recipes_more_spherification_wi.php Is exactly what you are looking for.

And http://www.albertyferranadria.com/eng/texturas-gelification-dosages.html for supplies.

I've seen it done with agar-agar on the Danish show "Spise med Price".

They made spaghetti with lemon balm .

They sucked the warm liquid with agar-agar in it up with a syringe, pushed the liquid into a thin plastic tube, which they lowered into ice water.

Before they served it, they pushed the spaghetti out of the tube with the syringe.

As for a flavor idea, they served it with carrot cake made in mere minutes (from start to finish) in a microwave oven.

Check out this PDF called 'Texture: A Hydrocolloid Recipe Collection'.

It has some recipes for various types of spaghetti using agar and other hydrocolloids.

Since agar tends to dissolve under heat, it also has a recipe to make noodles with methyl cellulose which gels when heated.

They suggest using a syringe to make your strands of spaghetti.

It may be time consuming, but I could see it working.

I like your ideas for flavors!

Perhaps mushroom bisque/broth flavored noodles with a beef stroganoff sauce.

I can't help with the gelling, but to make the strands, consider using (making?)

a chitarra : it's a frame with parallel wires -- you lay a sheet of pasta on top, then use a rolling pin to force it onto the wires, cutting the pasta into strands.

This would allow you to make sheets of gel, rather than trying to form each strand individually.

Some quick searching suggests they can be bought from a gourmet cooking store in the US for $40.

I don't know how hard it would be to find one in the UK.

I've also seen things that look like multiple pizza cutters mounted so they can be adjusted in how far apart they are.

(it looks like they're called an "adjustable dough divider" or "adjustable dough cutter", and they run between $22 and $200).

There are also fixed blades mounted on a single handle, and looks like the term to use is "rolling pasta cutter", which are much more reasonably priced, but not as flexible in their use)

Starch gelatinization .

Not sure if it'll work, but it won't melt at high temperatures.

Might be worth experimenting with.

Regarding flavors, try the Matcha tea ...also for the color of course,

Sheet gelatin.

Commercial bakeries use sheet gelatin to make large quantities of gelled foods such as jello.

It's perfectly edible and neutrally flavored.

Question: I would like to experiment with flavoured 'spaghetti' by taking a juice and gelling it in spaghetti shape, so I could have beetroot strands that I could use in a pasta dish.    Anyone done this?  Got any tips on gelling agents to use and what I could make the strands with ie moulds etc?    Also any flavour ideas would be appreciated.  Lobster bisque flavour appeals for a hot clam based 'pasta' dish or maybe an apple and cinnamon with ice-cream

I fancy making flavoured 'spaghetti', any tips?

The pasta can be made with agar agar or sheet gelatin, and squirting the liquid into ice water with a syringe can be used to make the spaghetti shape. Possible flavours include lemon balm, mushroom, and matcha tea.

For the setting agent, try agar agar or gelatin using a syringe. Flavor ideas include matcha tea and lemon balm.

Try using agar agar, sheet gelatin or starch gelatin for the setting agent.

You could try lemon balm, mushroom bisque or matcha tea.

Try using a syringe to push the liquid into a plastic tube and submerging into cold water.


Yes, ceramic knives are the "new thing," but that doesn't make them superior.

The problem with ceramic knives is that you can never sharpen them, and, as mentioned in the comments, they may chip.

Don't get a ceramic chef's knife or paring knife; the answer to your question is zero.

If you really want a ceramic knife, then buy a ceramic bread knife, although you won't be getting any extra performance for the money.

Ceramic blade mandolines, however, are great.

The ceramic blade will be sharper and hold the edge longer than a steel mandoline, and since you don't sharpen a mandoline anyway, it doesn't matter that ceramic doesn't sharpen.

Note, a separate, and good, question would be "what knives do I need?"

The answer is it depends, but I concur that you should not buy a "set" of knives.

Z E R O

- they break, they are tough to sharpen, and the really don't hold an edge as well as people think.

I personally have tried several and they are too light for me.

I like a heavier blade personally.

The best knife setup I have seen (

and I cooked professionally for ten years)

is a good 'ol cheapo-cheapie, purchased form an Asian market (restaurant-style, white handle) and then use this sharpener frequently to keep it sharp: http://www.accusharp.com/

I have seen people waste so much cash on costly, high carbon steel, Japanese blades and, while they are nice (and often have a superior feel), I have always done real well with the scenario described above.

They're just tools.

If you're fine with your steel knives, keep 'em.

I'd just buy one and see how I liked it.

Edit: I never buy sets .

I buy individual knives to fill individual needs.

Soft steel carving knives, for paper thin slices.

Hard steel utility knives for day-to-day chopping.

If you've got nothing, I'd head out and get some cheap high-carbon knives.

(In my opinion) you only really need three knives: Chefs knife for chopping A 4 or 5 inch utility knife A santoku, or a boning knife, depending on whether you're a vegetarian or a carnivore

That's all you need .

Once you've got those, then you can figure out which ones you want .

I have a nice ceramic santoku knife, which is pretty cool, but not as beloved as some of my older steel knives.

The only advantage that I'm aware of is that there are a few items that will discolor because they've been cut with a steel knife.

Lettuce comes to mind, but they also make really inexpensive serrated plastic knives that'll work for lettuce without breaking the bank.

There might be other stuff out there that I haven't worked with, or it hasn't bothered me, or as a home chef not prepping food 4 hrs before service, it doesn't discolor fast enough for me to notice.

So... how many ceramic knives do you need?

None.

For how many knives (of other materials), see What knives are “required” for a serious home kitchen?

Maybe I am not a serious cook because, unlike other answers, I love my ceramic knives.

I have three of them for casual kitchen work like peeling apples or cutting bread.

I like how they freshen up the whole mood of my kitchen with their plastic look.

(I bought colorful Kyocera knives from Japan.)

Also they don't leave metal smell on fruits, fresh fish (for sashimi), etc.

and are very easy to clean.

However, like others, I don't recommend you to buy a ceramic chef knife although there's a specially strong black one and my set has never been broken or chipped even after falling of kitchen table twice.

I kind of agree with what seems to be the general consensus: you don't need any ceramics.

With that being said, here are the positives: when new they are very sharp, they hold their edge well, and do not stain certain veggies as a carbon steel knife will do.

Now, the downside: THEY BREAK!

easily, You cannot pry, gouge or whack with them.

They will break (or at least, chip) Carrots and other colorful veggies and fruits will stain the knives.

As a knife maker, I am biased toward steel blades.

They will do everything a ceramic knife will do and more.

A good quality steel knife will be the last one you will ever have to buy and you can get them sharpened at many places (or by yourself).If you must, get a ceramic paring knife for little stuff but in the end, a good, high carbon, stainless steel, forged chefs knife will always be the workhorse of your kitchen.

I have one Ceramic knife.

a 15cm Cooks.

I got it in mail.

Flexed it (a little) Cuts my cheese blocks beautifully.

I've never been game to use it on anything else.

It's nice and safe in

it's sheath in the third drawer down.

Wustof.

20cm Cooks.

15cm Utility.

cheap Parer and a coupla meatworks heavy duty blades for pumpkin.

Boning etc.

They do me

fine thank you....

Tried a mates Shun Santoku.

Prefer thicker\heavier blades myself.

Bloody sharp though.

Question: I've heard that ceramic knives are the new thing. It's far easier, though, to find metal knives that look and feel nice.  So, budget notwithstanding (within reason) and assuming that I have to buy a whole knife set (which I do), how many ceramic knives do I "need"? Do I want a full set if I can get one? Do I only need one? What sort? (big, small, serrated...)

How many ceramic knives do I want?

The advantages may not be as great as people say, and there are downsides such as difficulty sharpening and brittleness. If you like your current knives, keep them and maybe try one ceramic knife before buying any more.

People disagree on whether ceramic knoves are any better than steel ones. Try buying one to see if you like it.

A lot of people agree that ceramic knives are not superior to steel knives. They are breakable and you can't sharpern them.

The blade will be sharper and won't require sharpening. Try buying one and seeing if you like it. The main advantage is they won't discolor foods like steel knives.


By the wording of the question, I'm pretty sure you're using one of those pyramidal graters or a "sheet" grater.

That's great for getting the "bulk", but if you want to grate a small amount of cheese (or the last bit of a large amount, if you don't want to just eat it) then you really need to get yourself a rotary grater .

They're more commonly used for fine/hard cheeses such as Parmesan, but most half-decent ones will come with a "coarse" blade that can be used for cheddar, mozzarella and so on.

Rotary graters all have a plate at the top that lets you push the cheese down onto the blade.

Higher-quality graters will give you slightly better results; the $10 cheap ones tend to leave a mush at the bottom that's hard to grate, even if you squeeze really hard, but that's easily remedied with a small wooden block or really any object at all to put between the top plate and the cheese you're trying to grate.

You can turn that last quarter-inch sideways and grate until you have only a thin stick of cheese left.

If it's only going to be melted anyway, you could just crumble the last stick in.

I don't know of a tool, but what I tend to do is grate one way until there is only a bit left, say 2cm deep (by however long the block was)

, then I rotate the piece so it is against the grater lengthways, then grate until I have 2cm again, then rotate again so the longest side is sticking out away from the grater, and grate again.

Whilst this doesn't mitigate the issue, it does mean that you end up with a much smaller block which is ungrated, as you have grated it in each dimension until you can't get any closer.

I bought a pair of kevlar gardening gloves for this exact sort of thing (and for using my mandoline without hacking off any (more) of my thumb).

With those, you can run it all the way down to the bottom and not worry about your fingers.

And when they get grotty, you can throw 'em in the washer.

I just hold the cheese closer to the edge away from the grater.

When it gets really small

I just have a single finger on it to grate.

Though sometimes I just pop it in my mouth too :D

Crumble it in, or just forget about grating cheese at all and just do some high-speed paper thin slices with your handy kitchen knife and block.

Tip grounded on the block, fingertips tucked in, and chop away.

By time you get a grater, mandolin, or Cuisinelf 3000 Turbomatic's fiddly little bits cleaned, you could have long since been serving up that cheese.

The knife has had about 100,000 years of R&D to get it to

it's current shape.

It really can't be much improved upon (except by a whetstone!).

BTW, it may be ugly, but some starch sure helps when handling cheese!

Question: You know the scenario: You grate the cheddar until you're left with a quarter-inch. What do you do? Try to grate it and risk cutting your knuckles, or pop it in your mouth and enjoy?  Usually I do the latter, but I wondered if anyone has any tips for grating cheese down to the last bit?  Is there some kind of small tool that you can use to safely grate the last of a block?

Is there a way to grate a block of cheese entirely without hurting one's fingers or knuckles?

Rotary graters let you push the cheese down with a plate rather than your fingers, or kevlar gardening gloves will protect your fingers when using a normal grater. The last bit can also be crumbled directly into the mixture or thinly sliced.

Try a different style of grater or a pair or gloves to protect your hand. Otherwise you could just crumble it in.

You try a different style of grater, that protects your hand, such as a rotary grater.

You could just crumble it in or slicely it finely.


The classic mistake when making a Mojito or a Julep is to over muddle the mint.

Pounding away at the mint will release so much flavour from it, that you won't taste any of the other ingredients.

A perfect Mojito should comprise a balance of flavours.

The other main constituents do not have a particularly strong flavour, so its very easy to swamp them with mint and end up with a glass of alcoholic toothpaste.

Mojito = Rum, Mint and Lime.

Julep's are a little more tolerant, due to the richer flavours of the other ingredients, but the same basic principles still apply.

Don't overdo the amount of mint you add.

Leaves from one decent sprig of mint will do.

Muddle the mint gently for about ten seconds.

You want to bruise the leaves and release a little bit of flavour, but not grind them into a pulp.

Finishing off a Mojito properly is also essential.

You only need a splash of soda.

Adding more than a shot will just dilute the ingredients and destroy the subtle flavours.

Most importantly, don't forget to taste the drink after you've made it, even if its for someone else!

This is the best way to learn and improve your mixing and muddling techniques.

It is also sometimes possible to rescue an imperfect drink (eg. by adding a touch of extra lime juice if its too sweet) if really necessary.

It's best to use a wooden pestle, but the back end of a wooden utensil can get the job done.

Muddle the lime and sugar in the bottom of the glass first.

The goal is to get a good syrup.

Put a bit of mint (2 leaves) in last and lightly muddle so as not to break them up into bits.

Add your ice to the top of the glass.

Add your Rum, and then add your Club Soda then mix by moving your utensil up and down through the ice.

Add a couple of mint leaves during this process.

The ice will help bruise the mint during the mix.

Finally, take about 12 mint leaves in your hands.

Clap your hands together to bruise the leaves helping to induce the mint juice/flavor out.

(I'll bet that rolling pin method would work well here).

Jam

the leaves down the ice with your utensil.

When we make mojitos, we put the lime, sugar, and mint into the glass then crush it with a wooden spoon.

Do this separately for each drink.

This is pretty time consuming which isn't a problem when you're making 1 or 2 glasses.

If you're making more, you may want to use another method.

I haven't had to muddle mint

but I found this forum that tells you how.

It says to bruise the mint but not to break it up.

They recommend using a muddler, a pestle or the end of a rolling pin or the back of a spoon.

This site makes a case for not muddling the mint at all; muddled mint can give "really muddy, dirty flavors," according to their expert, Leo Robitschek of The NoMad and Eleven Madison Park in Manhattan.

If you're looking to avoid bits of mint in your teeth, they have two suggestions: Make a mint simple syrup by "steeping mint leaves in hot water for about 5 minutes, and then mixing the strained liquid with equal parts of sugar for a simple syrup" or, alternately, cold-steeping mint in simple syrup for a few days or Make mint burbon in an iSi whipped cream canister using what they call the Dave Arnold method:

We use 35 grams of mint leaves in 1 L bottle of bourbon.

Charge the canister twice with nitrous oxide and allow it to sit for 5 minutes.

This ensures that the nitrous travels through the canister into the mint leaves.

The infusion actually happens when you vent (release the nitrous gas) the canister.

The nitrous rushes out into the bourbon, bringing all of the sweet aromatic compounds in the mint, and infusing it into the bourbon.

The great thing is that using this technique eliminates any bitter, muddy, or tannic flavors that you may get from muddling or over extracting mint."

Actually the right way to make a mojito is bruising the mint.

A lot of bartenders just use a couple of stalks of mint and slap it.

Mint (as some other herbs) have microscopic hair, which releases the aromas as soon as they are bruised.

Muddling as correctly said will release rather woody flavors (I probably would not call it dirty flavors, but well...

).The

stirring with sugar - will further draw more aroma out of the leaves (the sugar cristals act like "sandpaper").

It is important to understand, that a Mojito should not be an insanely minty drink, but just supposed to have some fresh (slightly minty) facets.

I also would not make a syrup out of mint, as warm water (or long steeping) completely changes the flavor of mint as well - then it would taste like mint tisane (and a mojito shouldn't taste like peppermint tea)!

For a mint julep, mint leaves can be very carefully muddled (as you don't usually take the full sprigs but the leaves, you cannot really slap the mint in your hands).

Again - no "mint juice" should be created, just the microscopic hair should be bruised.

I also made a contemporary mint julep, by freezing the mint leaves in liquid nitrogen, then infuse them in bourbon -

then fine strain everything into crushed ice (which you could also "powder" with LN2).

You have got a more intense, but still fresh minty flavor without woodiness (as the enzyme which creates the off-flavor is first "fixed" with the deep temperature, and then deactivated with the high proof alcohol.

cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37588/Dominik MJ opinionated alchemi

Question: Not a huge fan of the mojito, but my wife loves 'em. A good julep is another matter... But mine have a bad tendency to end up with lots of little mint pieces that get stuck in my teeth. So what's the proper way to prepare the mint in these drinks without ending up with a green leafy mess?

What's the proper way to muddle mint for a julep or mojito?

Don't add too much mint and lightly bruise the leaves rather than breaking them up when muddling. Some experts suggest not muddling at all, as this releases "muddy, dirty flavours".

Don't use too much mint and gently bruise the leaves to release the flavor.

Make sure you're not using too much mint.

You want to bruise or lightly muddle the mint leaves, not grind them.


You might be able to counter-balance it with other flavors (salt, sour, sweet, hot), but you're likely still going to have some bitter notes come through, it's just a question if it's tolerable or not, and some people dislike bitter more than others.

(I can't understand how people can drink beers other than lambics)

In looking at a similar thread on Chowhound , one of the recommendations is a bit of milk or cream.

If you're not lactose intollerant, it might be worth a try.

This could also be a chance for an experiment -- ladle it into a bunch of glasses, try some different things (sugar, vinegar, soy, hot sauce, milk, worcestershire, combinations of them, etc), and report back to us with what you think worked best.

This isn't a direct answer, but rather an anecdote from personal experience.

One time I made garlic parmesan mashed potatoes for a company thanksgiving pot-luck lunch.

I've made this recipe a few dozen times before.

However, this time I decided to get creative and go with parmesan, asiago, and romano cheeses instead of just parmesan.

I also committed the cardinal sin of not tasting as I went.

Well, I didn't realize how much more salty asiago and romano cheeses were than parmesan.

Needless to say when I finished and tasted it, it was almost inedibly salty.

Salt being a hard thing to counteract, and me being reluctant to throw out 5 lbs of mashed potatoes, I decided to try dilution.

I made about 7 lbs more of potatoes, omitted all the salt, and used only parmesan.

Surprisingly it worked rather well.

They were still a bit on the salty side of things, but delicious.

In short, maybe try doubling or diluting your recipe next time you make a mistake.

That in combination with some of the milk/cream methods suggested by others could save your dish.

About the only thing I can think of us adding a little sugar to the pot, but don't add a lot all at once.

Just add a little and taste...

Not a fix, but a footnote - next time only use the zest and not the light-coloured part of the rind

- that is where there the bitterness lies.

It is called the "pith", and is the white lining between the peel and the fruit.

I hope this helps, try chopping up a whole bunch of celery, It seems to absorb the bitter and nutralize the taste, It worked for me when I made a base for rice with way to much menthi Indian spice and the bitterness was unbearable, It worked for me

and I hope this helps you to!I also added a little vinagar and sugar.

Question: I just made a large pot of soup. It's a Mexican Caldo de Res. I added a bunch of lime juice, and thought, hey, maybe i'll throw the lime rinds in there too for a bit. This was a huge mistake. Now the whole thing has a really bitter flavor. I've removed the rinds, are there any suggestions on how to save this?

How do I remove bitter flavor from lime rind in soup?

You may be able to counter-balance it with other flavours or add milk, cream or celery to absorb the strong flavours. Doubling or diluting the recipe can also help to mask strong flavours.

While there isn't really a definitive way of removing bitterness, a few things can help: adding milk or cream, sugar, celery or diluting your recipe.

There isn't really any way to counteract the bitterness.

Celery could help to neutralize the bitterness.