Very, very carefully.

Although that's rather tongue in cheek, it's true: slowly and carefully is the key approach.

The quicker you try to move, the rougher the shape you produce.

You also significantly increase the chance of breakage.

Make an initial rough hole at the center point of your eventual window area, and then cut out to finish the edges.

A serrated knife used with a slow, steady sawing motion should work.

Luckily, if you do end up with lopsided, misshapen, or unexpected results, icing and candy decoration can help hide the mistakes :)

Serrated knife is the best choice and was what I was taught to use in my baking class.

What @Erica said is right, slow and steady.

If the pre-bake is too tough and dry then a possible fix is to add steam to the area you are cutting the window to both sides to soften before cutting (assuming you didn't attach the piece to something already).

You can boil some water and then set the piece above it to soften or even fill a bowl with water then put the cookie above the bowl in the microwave (microwave

may over cook cookie!!!!)

(don't let the water touch the cookie)

Try not to use anything other than a serrated knife if possible.

But if you are trying for a small window then you may have to create room for the serrated knife with a pairing knife before hand just try not to use it too much if at all.

Pairing knifes often will put lots of pressure on and make it easy to crack the brittle cookie.

If it does crack, fill it with thick-ish consistency royal icing (watch out if you steam it after adding royal icing it may and probably will fall apart) and let it set before trying to deal with it more (unless you wanna try to cut out the window first then glue it together with icing).

If money (and complexity) is no object, laser cutting creates the best finish.

A friend of mine created a fantastic gingerbread 'mansion', all of the pieces for which were cut from large slabs of gingerbread she baked.

The difficulty in your case would be calibrating the laser to cut in the right place on your pieces.

This is obviously not a practical solution for most people, but should nevertheless be mentioned

I'd propose the carving approach: With just the very tip of a pointy knife, draw the lines where the window should be Carve a thin layer of gingerbread away from the inside of the window to the line you made.

Re-cut the outline of the window to get a sharp and straight edge Repeat carving out the inside of the window to the edge

The reason for this approach is that sticking a knife through the gingerbread to cut out any shape first adds material to the gingerbread that is not flexible enough to accomodate the knife without breaking.

By pre-cutting shallow lines and then carving the inside out you only remove material, lowering the chances of breaking your gingerbread.

I would start not with a knife, but with a cookie cutter.

If you dont't have a square cookie cutter, choose something which has at least one straight side, but is smaller than the full window, maybe some kind of triangle.

Cut that out, then use the tip of a knife to cut out the other straight sides.

Question: We have a gingerbread kit that we would like to add windows.  What is the best way to cut into the hard gingerbread without breaking?

Cutting windows into a premade gingerbread

Laser cutting would give the best result , but otherwise it is best to cut with a serrated knife, possibly starting with a hole cut with a paring knife. Alternatively, you can cut a hole in the middle, score around the edges with a paring knife and cut lines from the centre to the edges with a serrated knife.

The technique for cutting windows in a gingerbread house is to make a whole in the centre of the window and cut towards the outside. A small, pointed knife is required to make the hole and a serrated knife for the cutting. Steaming the area where you want to cut may make the job easier. Invest in a laser cutter but that is probably expensive.

Make asmall hole with a pointy knife then cut from the centre to where you want the edges to be.

Use a serrated knife for the main cutting.

Use steam to soften the gingerbread in the are you want to cut.


This might seem silly

but, . . .

I use my fist.

I always cover my chicken with plastic wrap to contain the mess before I pound it.

You can also glove up instead/as well.

I have found that punching it is just the right amount of force for the job.

And the uneven surface of my knuckles acts as a meat tenderizer and breaks up the tissue just a little.

(But not too much.)

Anything flat, non-breakable, and reasonably heavy would work: rubber mallet, rolling pin, flat-bottomed wooden bowl, etc.

I would suggest protecting the meat and implement from one another with plastic wrap.

Put breast between baking paper, roll like dough with a rolling pin.

If you have any spices/herbs/salt/pepper to add you can sprinkle then mid rolling as this will push them inside meat.

Put it between two plastic sheets, or inside of a zipblock bag big enough to accommodate the smashed size of the breast.

Then you're going to want to grab a skillet and beat that meat into submission.

Cast iron is the classic here, but anything you can swing will work.

Just make sure the skillet isn't hot or warm when you start assaulting that meat.

I've been known to cover with plastic wrap, lay my chef's knife flat along a piece of chicken, and then hit the flat of the blade with the heel of my hand.

Obviously, stay away from the sharp / pointy parts; but that is easy to do with a big chef's knife.

I typically only do this

when I have one or two pieces of meat that need tenderizing (as anymore will tenderize you back!)

We designed ourselves a wooden block (remains from a 2" laminate floor joist) about 8" by 8", drilled a hole in one side, and screwed in a handle.

When we use it, we wrap it around and around with plastic wrap to keep the meat clean.

We would then use this as an intermediate, placing the chicken breasts underneath it, and pound it with a 3 lb sledge hammer.

Though it sounds a bit extreme, it is actually quite effective, works quickly, and does not damage the meat.

I've seen my mother use a Corningware plate or saucer in place of a meat tenderizer.

She would just hold the plate sideways and pound out the meat with the edge of the plate.

Iron Skillet (or another heavy pot/pan) Cutting board Rolling pin - really easy if you have the French tapered kind Big can of tomatoes...

An empty wine bottle A pool ball (the kind you use on a table...not in the water!)

Bon Appetit!

First off, you'll definitely want your chicken between two sheets of plastic.

You can either do this with two sheets of plastic wrap, or by putting it in a gallon ziplock bag (don't seal it though).

The best alternative tool to use is a rolling pin as it's got no sharp edges (will break your plastic and can cut the chicken in half) and has weight and length to aid in leverage when whacking.

Not everyone has a rolling pin, so if you don't just grab the largest heaviest can of food you have and slam it into the chicken.

I wouldn't use any beverage cans, and especially not anything carbonated like soda or beer.

I actually have a purpose built meat tenderizer and prefer using my rolling pin.

I have used a cast iron skillet against a cutting board.

Plastic wrap or parchment paper to protect the surfaces...

Question: I do not have a meat tenderizor. I want to fry my chicken breasts but need to pound out the meat. What can I use instead?

How to pound chicken breasts without a meat tenderizer?

Anything heavy, flat and non-breakable would work, like your fists, a rubber mallet, a rolling pin, a flat-bottomed wooden bowl, a cast iron skillet, a pool ball etc. Protect your surfaces and the meat with baking or parchment paper, and place the meat on a cutting board.

Two techniques are considered useful for tenderizing meat: rolling and hitting. For rolling a rolling pin is the tool of choice, but a wine bottle or pool ball are other options. For hitting select from a mallet, cast iron pan or your fist. In all cases the meat should be placed between sheets of plastic or parchment.

Numerous heavy items can be used in place of a meat tenderizer, including rolling pin, mallet, empty wine bottle. There are two approaches: rolling and hitting. Carbonated beverage cans should not be used.

The meat to be tenderized should be between sheets of plastic or parchment.


I don't think that it is really necessary to use your knuckles.

Rather, there are ways to knead dough well, and ways to knead dough badly.

I have seen ineffective people pinching the dough, or turning it between their hands, or other strange motions, which in a cargo-cult way resemble actual kneading, but don't do anything useful.

My guess is that whoever writes such instructions has learned a correct way of kneading that involves the knuckles, and writes down the admonishment to remind people that they have to do it right for the recipe to work well.

The reason for the choice of label may be because the author is unaware that there are effective kneading methods which don't use the knuckles, or because the author has taught new kneaders and has found out that "use your knuckles" is a good cue to get them to use the right kind of motion.

A third possibility is that the author is referring specifically to the punching down step of a double-rise bread process.

In that case, the motion between the first and second rise is not the same as standard kneading, and maybe the author wanted to underscore the difference.

This may not be the primary reason

but I have hot hands and my knuckles are noticeably cooler than my palms or even the insides of my fingers.

It's less of an issue with dough than with pastry

but I still find that kneading with my palms makes the dough sticky compared to using my knuckles.

The writer is telling you a method for kneading.

They can't the skill level of the user.

This is from my knowledge not books:

Fingers only give 8 points of impression, which is a small area.

Fingernails can leave bacteria.

Although some modern cooks weargloves to protect food.

Using fingertips can cause injury to fingers nerves.

It is a more efficient to use knuckles.

It is less likely to remove gloves stuck to the dough (wrappingfingers tightly into a fist helps to hold gloves on) This way a camper in the woods as well as a chef with nice equipment can get the same results.

Maybe knuckles impart more force compared to just using extended fingers (or the palm of your hands) when kneading the dough ?

I assume the "use knuckles" step is when you punch the dough after the first rise; it is just easier.

It might be intended to make kneading easier on one's wrists, especially for persons with weak wrists or joint problems.

When you knead with your palms, they are bent close to 90 degrees backward, which puts additional stress on the joints and ligaments.

When you knead with your fists (knuckles)

your wrists are (or should be) straight, which allows you to apply more force without stressing the joint.

This will be especially beneficial if you knead a lot of dough (or for long time).

Question: Some recipes specify that the baker's knuckles should be used when kneading the dough. What is the purpose and effect of using one's knuckles as part of the kneading process?

What is the purpose and effect of using knuckles when kneading bread dough?

This is probably not necessary if you have another effective method, but kneading with the knuckes could be more efficient, easier and less painful than using your fingers or the palm of your hand.

Correct technique is important for kneading bread. This may or may not be done with your knuckles. However, using your knuckles is easier and more efficient and beneficial for people with weak wrists.

It is not essential to use your knuckles to knead bread. The correct technique is more important.

Using knuckles to knead bread is more efficient as more force can be used. It is easier and may help people with weak wrists.


Apple juice is good with pork.

The frozen cans of concentrate are cheap and perfect for this use.

Apple juice lacks the dark notes of cola.

To get those I propose you add hoisin sauce .

It is very sweet, a great mix with pork (I have some boneless ribs soaking in some right now awaiting the grill) and will lend the apple juice more of a dark sweet tone.

If you want to stay pure to your recipe, sub in one of the organic root beers on the market.

They are easy to find and they will brag about how they don't do the stuff you dislike about Big Cola.

Whole Foods has a store brand one you could use.

Root beers vary a lot; try some first to make sure it has flavors you want for your pork.

The main function that soda adds in these recipes is as a flavored syrup that also has an acid.

So make your own.

Add your preferred sweetener to water with some form of acidulation (I prefer apple cider vinegar with pork) and a few spices and you will have something suitable to use.

I learned a recipe for a chicken dish from my mother.

Her recipe also called for cola to create a sticky and caramelised sauce.

She taught me, however, that the cola could be replaced with fruit juice.

Her preference was a mix of pineapple, mango, and orange juice.

Shops where I live call this juice mix "tropical fruit" juice.

It stands to reason, though, that any of the above juices individually, and maybe others, will work, too.

Here's an example of a recipe similar to what my mother taught me, supporting my claim of the juice helping to create the property sought by your question

What about something like Hansen's ?

It's available at the local store here in Nowheresville,

MN population

so it shouldn't be too hard to find.

The flavors in Coke are cinnamon, vanilla, and citrus.

I personally taste cinnamon the most.

Dr. Pepper has a lot of other spice and berry flavors, and is similar to root beer.

You could try to recreate the cola taste by using apple cider vinegar and adding cinnamon, vanilla, and molasses.

Depending on how much time you have, how often you would like to use this (or similar) recipes, how much you like the idea(s), and how involved you want to get...

you could try making a cola syrup recipe*.

You could even reconstitute it with club soda, or carbonated or sparkling water, or use water, a sprinkle of yeast, and some time to turn your syrup into a cola you can directly sub into the recipe.

This does require a much higher up-front investment, but it might be fun on one hand, and work for other recipes (and, yanno, drinking sodas) on the other.

*example link was randomly chosen

Question: I was looking up sweet pork recipes and every one of them call for Coke or Dr. Pepper.   I avoid soda as much as possible because of questionable ingredients: specifically GMO corn syrup, sodium benzoate and caramel color.  Are there any safer substitutions I could use to achieve the same/similar flavor?

What can I substitute for soda pop in a sweet pork recipe?

You can try making a cola syrup or substitute with fruit juice, root beer, apple cider vinegar of a mixture of apple cider vinegar, cinnamon, vanilla, and molasses.

Alternatives to cola include fruit juices and root beer. It is also considered while making a recipe of your own with sweetener, apple cider vinegar and cinnamon.

Fruit juices are a good substitute for cola in cooking.

Root beer is a natural substitute for cola in cooking.

Try to recreate a similar taste to cola with a recipe of your own, using, for example, sweetener, vinegar and cinnamon


Thai curry recipes often use a lot, and the flavour is distinctive.

You'll need to experiment.

Your idea of cashews is a good place to start.

What I've often used in Indian curries is ground almonds (almond flour would be better but I can't get it easily).

They have some thickening power and quite a suitable taste.

You could also try cooking with nut milk - I've only done this a couple of times because it's not something I normally have, but recently used some almond milk in a sauce with lentils etc.

It ended up with a fairly creamy texture.

This was a brand marketed for cooking and a little thicker than I've come across before As an aside, I hope you've had medical confirmation of the allergy

- it's not exactly unknown for these things to be deceptive.

Substitutes have been mentioned already, but how about going the other way?

There are more curries without coconut than there are with it.

Many many curries use an onion base for thickness; coconut is a Southern Indian/Sri Lankan twist on what is a continent-full of cuisine.

Look down the even just the standard sauces of any take-away menu...

Bhuna Madras Vindaloo Jalfrezi Rogon Josh Dopiaza Pathia Dansak

The list goes on... & not a coconut in sight.

Or for more variety, how about Ethiopian Wat, or a Moroccan Tagine?

For Thai, have a look at a Jungle Curry - again, no coconut.

I don't know much about Thai curries but there are plenty of Indian curries that are broadly similar to coconut-based ones but with sauces made with cashews and other nuts.

Typically, you'd want to soak the nuts for a few hours and then blitz them into a puree, or just use a nut butter because life's too short.

Indeed, there are many Indian curries that don't use coconut or any other nut.

Coconut is basically a south-Indian thing and being allergic to coconut doesn't stop you eating Indian food, just like being intolerant of pasta wouldn't stop you eating European food.

I suggest you get yourself a good Indian recipe book.

I'm a huge fan of Camellia Panjabi's 50 Great Curries of India , because it has a pretty long introductory section that explains what all the different ingredients are for, which is really helpful when, for example, you can't eat coconut

but you want to make something similar.

We cooked a lot of vegan at home for some time and often used soy cream as substitution for sauces that demanded cream.

It has a unique taste, but I do not find it unpleasant.

It has about the same thickness as coconut

and I think the taste is also quite fitting for curries.

As others mentioned, some almonds or cashews could enhance the experience.

In Germany, I usually find this soy cream in the vegan/non-dairy aisle next to the other soy products.

As we do not know exactly what you allergic to (you said coconut but it could be coconut milk, an additive in the milk or coconut in general), I will make some extra suggestions: 1)

You might be able to try adding natural coconut flavouring to the already mentioned nut milks (cashew or almond).

This might tip the scales in making an Indian style almond based curry taste like a Thai coconut milk based curry.

If you are allergic to everything

coconut

then you could try Imitation Coconut Extract which shouldn't contain any coconut.

Again, this might tip the balance on the other nut-based milks.

You could try adding gorse flower extract.

I have never tried it

but I do know from roaming the coastlines and moorland of Devon , that gorse smells a lot like coconut.

It is edible , is common year-round and according to eatweed.com , has a subtle coconutty taste.

I see no reason this could not be added to a curry to infuse further coconut tones.

Finally, if you are allergic to all coconut, here is a quick and helpful guide to replacing all coconut ingredients .

I can only speak to south indian curries.

I don't have a substitute for coconut but you can certainly make a great curry without dairy or coconut added to the mix.

You can make a delicious sauce from just water and emulsified fats combining with your choice of spice meats and veg.

I have only experience with meat based dishes

so this may not work out for any vegetarian attempts.

Meat releases fat and water when covered and heated.

After I sauté the veg (typically ginger, garlic, onion), I add the meat which has been marinating in spices and oil (or just dry rubbed with spices).

I cover the pot and keep the heat on high for a few minutes until I see water appear at the bottom of the dish.

Then I reduce the heat to med low and leave it covered for 30 mins or so.

Over time more water and fat is released and the meat should be practically swimming.

From there I simmer uncovered for as long as I need to thicken the mixture.

This also concentrates the flavors.

Chicken stock also can be added.

Even plain water.

You'll also get water from watery veg like tomatoes.

I'm pretty sure you could add kool aid if you wanted to.

Most of the flavor comes from the spices and chillis.

North indian and Pakistani food uses a combination of onions, tomatoes and ginger garlic paste to form the curry base.

First you fry some finely chopped onions until they turn golden brown, then add about a tablespoon of ginger garlic paste, finely chopped tomatoes and the spice powders (chilli powder, turmeric etc.).

You let that cook stirring from time to time until the tomatoes turn into a slurry.

That's your curry base!

There are many videos on youtube that show you how to make this in case you want to see it in more detail.

It's also possible to substitute yoghurt (curd) for tomatoes.

Question: I'm allergic to coconut - this is a new allergy, so I really miss Thai and Indian curry! I also have issues with dairy.   Would it work to use roasted cauliflower puree as a curry base instead of coconut? Maybe with a little raw cashews pureed to add creaminess.  Are there other options to satiate my dreams of curry without coconut or dairy milk?

What are substitutions for coconut in curry?

Many Indian and Thai curries do not use coconut at all, so you could try some of those recipies. Alternatively, cashew, almond, soy and some other options can be used, either soaked or as milk or butter. You could also try gorse flower extract.

Nuts are considered a good substitute for coconut in curry. It may also be worth trying gorse flower extract and soy cream. However, there is a wide range of recipe for curry without coconut, so no substitute is needed.

Coconut can be replaced by other nuts such as cashews and almonds in curry. Other options are soy cream and gorse flower extract.

Many curries do not use coconut so there are numerous recipes available.


The answer it seems is - no, you can't just use any variety of corn .

It seems that you need in particular a hard shell around the kernel that is not present in sweetcorn varieties.

I also suspect that it is harder to make than one might imagine, you need a specific percentage of water in the kernel to get it to pop -

this is why you can't store unpopped popcorn in the open and once opened needs to be used within a few months, as the water will evaporate and eventually the percentage will become too low to effectively pop.

It's a children's book, but The Popcorn Book by Tomie de Paola is actually a very comprehensive summary on the history and science of popcorn.

Popcorn pops because the kernels contain small amounts of moisture which, when heated, cook the starches inside the popcorn, causing them to rapidly expand and exploding out the kernel.

(This is my basic understanding; I'm sure food scientist will have a more comprehensive explanation).

What this means is that popcorn has to have a few specific features: it must have some internal moisture

it must have a hard outer shell holding in that moisture

it must not be too moist

I imagine all varieties of "sweet corn", the type used for corn on the cob, would probably not work very well.

I don't think it would dry very well, and I think the shell would be weak (a feature when marketing it as something for humans to consume) Dent corn, the variety used for animal feed, would also probably not work very well.

It is a tough kernel and I don't think it would have enough moisture to explode.

I very well could be wrong about this, but I doubt that popping these other types (and I'm sure there are many more) would make for good popcorn.

Interestingly, there are other grains which also pop very well, including sorghum and amaranth .

No, you need popping corn.

Popcorn works because it contains the right kind of starch; it has a hard husk that is quite waterproof;

it contains the right amount of moisture (14–20%, according to Wikipedia ).

When you cook the corn, the water turns to steam, and the husk stops the steam escaping until the pressure builds up enough to make the kernel explode and the starch turn to a solid foam.

The other kinds of corn (dent, flint, flour, pod and sweet corns) don't have the right combinations of starch, husk and moisture to pop properly.

For example, sweet corn has a soft husk and is picked while it still contains a relatively large amount of sugar that hasn't been converted to starch.

Dent and flour corns have lots of starch but it's the wrong kind.

My grandparents were Western Nebraska farmers who grew corn (and other things.)

Most was "field corn" which is suitable only for livestock feed.

Some was sweet corn, which is for humans.

Grandma used to make what she called "parched corn."

Sweet corn was dried out by pulling the husks back and hanging the ears down by tacking the husks to the side of the shed.

When the kernels were shriveled, she shelled them (that is, pulled them off the cob) and treated them like popcorn.

She popped pop corn by heating oil in cast iron skillet and stirring.

So she did the same thing to the dried sweet corn.

It didn't pop, per se, but the kernels became spherical and crunchy.

With a little salt, it was a great snack.

So, while you can't pop any kind of corn, you can still try, and what you get is still a treat.

I've always meant to try to reproduce this, but I've never gotten around to trying.

So YMMV.

In Bolivia we have this kind of giant popcorn, called "Pasankalla": I do not know what type of corn is used to create it, but obviously is not the same one used to create ordinary popcorn.

Bon appetit!

Question: Up until today I only knew about one type of corn for popcorn. Searching for Peruvian food I found out that in Peru there are different "popcorn" varieties.  So that made me think: is it possible to make popcorn with  just any  variety of corn? If not, what properties do these corn varieties have that allow then to be popped and not any others?

Can I make popcorn with any corn?

Not just any corn variety will work, as it needs to have the hard shell around the kernel. However, some other grains will work, such as sorghum, amaranth and a giant popcorn variety called 'Pasankalla'.

A special kind of xorn is needed to make popcorn. However, you can also pop other grains such as sorghum, Pasankalla and amaranth.

You need a special kind of corn to make popcorn.

Other grains can also be popped including sorghum nd amaranth.


It is less useful than what you think Frame challenge incoming...

Cling film is very light and made especially for such purposes.

The environmental damage is extremely low - which limits what alternatives you can choose.

Most alternatives (including those already mentioned in the other answers) will be so much more resource demanding to make, dispose or recycle for it to be worth it.

Baking paper, while extremely useful - is full of silicones, so don't put it in the "paper" bin... and it is more resource demanding to make.

Teflon, cloth, etc - same deal!

Aluminium foil, for instance.

75% of all Aluminium refined and made is still in use .

Because of the extremely friendly "recyclability" of aluminium, it is a very good material.

Just not for aluminium foil, it is rarely recycled .

People just throw it in the trash.

We destroy a valuable resource.

Cling film, on the other hand is dirt cheap to make and can safely be incinerated.

If you worry about polluting the sea - I'd see if there are any alternatives to landfilling your waste in your community.

As for carbon emissions - Walk once to the store instead of driving, and you'll be in the green even if you consider a life time supply of cling film.

Note: Some cling films are made with PVC, I'd consider switching to the less clingy, but better overall alternative LDPE.

PVC contains chlorides and while the environmental impact is still low, if you go for LDPE or similar it goes to negligible.

Check the box it came in to find which you have

Use Tupperware, or a plate over a bowl.

Since those items are reusable the environmental impact will be less so long as you keep using them.

You can get Tupperware that is mostly glass too.

Lots of places do this with their dough.

All that moisture will still be in there as the dough rises or rests.

As long as it's airtight it should work.

Alternatively you can put a damp tea towel over a bowl.

This will allow the pastry dough to breath while maintaining moisture.

Make sure the towel doesn't dry out though.

If it does, your dough will too.

Just add some more water to the towel when it starts to get dry.

Bakers use some variation of tupperware and damp towels all the time.

Plate over a bowl won't work as well, but it should still work.

You don't have to use clingfilm (cling wrap, saran wrap depending where you are in the world), there are alternatives as long as the pastry is not sticky: Plastic bags:

I reuse zippable plastic bags as many times as I can, you can wash them by turning them inside out Baking paper: baking paper can be re-used as long as it stays clean Aluminum foil: again this can be reused several times A damp towel: if all you want is to let pastry rest for an hour in the fridge then a damp tea towel works pretty well.

Just make sure it is damp, not wet, or you risk moisture from the towel getting into the pastry and making it too wet

Put it in a bowl, large enough so the dough doesn't reach the top (if possible), cover it with a damp dishtowel (not wet, just damp).

Voila.

Totally ecological, and works better than plastic wrap because the dough can breathe.

If the towel touches the dough, you might have to scrape it off depending on the dough and the time involved, but that's not really a problem.

Make sure to use a smooth towel, not a textured one which will both stick to the dough more and probably hold too much water.

And use a clean one of course.

I have reusable teflon sheets for lining cake tins and baking sheets.

They also work well for wrapping pastry and dough.

With pastry the easiest way is to make a folded parcel with the opening side underneath on a plate or dish.

They wash up by hand or in the dishwasher and also save you lots of baking parchment/greaseproof paper and some foil.

Another option is a plastic box only a little larger than the pastry.

With very little exposed surface area and very little air in the box it won't dry out noticeably.

The two options can be combined - ina box with a small piece of the teflon sheet (an offcut perhaps) on top

I have always used wax paper to wrap pastry for the fridge.

It's always worked for me.

(Note: this is not the same thing as the baking paper/parchment mentioned in other answers.)

If your question can be changed slightly to: What to use instead of cling film to prevent pastry dough from drying out when resting (or storing) in the refrigerator?

, here is what I would do.

Similar to what others have suggested, find a glass container or plastic tub with lid a little larger than the footprint of the dough.

Place a ramekin (smaller than footprint of dough) in it upside down (or something else you have around your kitchen to elevate the dough), add a little water to the bottom of the container, place dough on ramekin, cover with lid.

Dough should not touch water, of course, sides, or lid.

This method is used by home cheesemakers to create a humid environment.

Question: I'm trying to stay away from single use plastics for the environment. The only kitchen thing I have not yet managed to find a substitute for is wrapping pastry in cling film to let it rest in the fridge before rolling and baking. What can I use instead that doesn't let the pastry dry out while resting? I'm interested in a substitute that's either biodegradable or ideally reusable.

What to use instead of cling film to wrap pastry

You can keep it in a plastic container slightly larger than the pastry, or a bowl covered with a damp teatowel, a plate, a teflon sheet or wax paper.

Alternatives to wrapping pastry in cling film include wrapping in wax paper, putting in a bowl with a damp cloth over the top, putting in a plastic box with teflon sheet on top or putting the pastry in tupperware.


TL;DR:

heating the pan before the oil has no useful effects in most cases.

While this is a duplicate of another question , I'm going to answer it again because that question's accepted answer provides zero evidence or citations to back itself up.

Which is important, because the accepted answer is wrong.

The popular myth is " Cold oil in hot pan and food won't stick ".

Like most such cooking myths, this one is nonsense; as Kitchen Myths points out : What you really want is “hot pan, hot oil” and that’s what you are actually getting because the cold oil heats up almost instantly when added to the hot pan.

You’ll get the same results if you heat the oil along with the pan rather than adding the oil at the last minute.

In fact some cooks prefer this technique because the appearance of the oil in the pan can give you some indication of when the pan has reached the proper temperature.

Serious Eats says the same thing: The thing is, only raw proteins will form this bond.

Heat causes proteins to fold in on themselves, or even to break down and form all new compounds.

Once in their folded or rearranged form, they no longer stick.

So the goal is to get the meat to cook before it even comes into contact with the metal by heating oil hot enough that it can cook the meat in the time it takes for it to pass from the air, through the film of oil, and into the pan.

So, you want a hot pan with hot oil.

Most of the time, this means that you want to preheat the oil with the pan, not add oil to a preheated pan, although the latter doesn't do any harm.

It just doesn't provide any benefit.

You'll notice I said most of the time , though.

There are times when you do want to preheat the cooking vessel before adding fat, and both of those times have to do with needing to heat the metal hotter than the smoke point of the oil you are using.

If you are cooking with a wok, getting proper "wok hei" (searing) requires heating the wok above the smoke point of vegetable oil, dry, a technique called "long yao" (video, skip to 3:22).

Classic cast-iron steak cooking uses a similar technique, heating the pan to 250 °C/500

°F before adding the oil or meat.

When cooking with butter as your fat (or a few other low-temperature oils like unrefined coconut oil), the burning point of the fat is sometimes a lower temperature than you want to cook at.

If so, the only way to get the pan hot enough is to preheat at dry plan, add the butter or fat, and then quickly add the food before the butter burns.

Neither of these cases has anything to do with preventing sticking, though.

They are both about not burning the cooking fat.

And the first technique only makes sense if you are using cast iron or carbon steel; it can damage other types of cookware.

You might ask: doesn't this apply to cooking sofrito, though?

And the answer is no.

Filtered olive oil has a smoke point of 210 °C, which is plenty hot enough for the very wet ingredients in a sofrito, which will drag the real pan temperature down to 105 °C or so in a few seconds anyway.

Further, a sofrito is made up entirely of non-starchy vegetables and aromatics, which means that sticking isn't a serious concern.

So, myth busted!

Regarding the (mis)conception that heating the pan will close its microfissures so micropieces of food will not fall into the small holes sticking to them: wrong.

Check the response to the more general problem of thermal expansion of a solid with a hole https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12599/will-a-hole-cut-into-a-metal-disk-expand-or-shrink-when-the-disc-is-heated

The only meaningful reason to heat the pan before the oil is to dry the pan, so the water droplets will not mix with the oil, then starting splattering around hot oil drops when the water-oil mixture gets heated to T>100C.As @MaxW

in the comments noted, a towel would do the same.

Recipes often call for a warm up for a reason similar to preheating an oven.

The recipe author has no idea how heavy you pan is.

What the author does know is that for just about any hot pan, 2Tbs olive oil will heat within a few seconds, where you can saute or whatever for a specified duration.

Samin Nosrat writes in her book Salt Fat Acid Heat: Preheat the pan to reduce the amount of time fat spends in direct contact with the hot metal, minimizing opportunity for it to deteriorate.

As oil is heated, it breaks down, leading to flavor degradation and the release of toxic chemicals.

Food is also more likely to stick to a cold pan—another reason to preheat.

But exceptions to the preheating rule exist: butter and garlic.

Both will burn if the pan is too hot, so you must heat them gently.

In all other cooking, preheat the pan and then add the fat, letting it too heat up before adding any other ingredients.

For a heavy pan and an underpowered stove, the difference can be few minutes versus few seconds for fat at gradually rising temperature.

How much of a difference this makes depends on the oil, but various processes (e.g. cis-trans isomerization) involved in burning fat vary their speed with temperature,

so longer time spent in the let's say range of 180-200°C really results in more degradation.

Source: my wife's a chemist

The major reason I can think of for adding oil to a pan after it is hot is safety: if you are heating a pan of oil and then forget it could start a pan fire.

If you add the oil only when you are ready to cook you don't have that risk.

I often add the oil when I first heat the pan because I can watch the oil and I can tell when it's hot by looking at it, but then sometimes I heat the pan dry and use the back of my hand to test for heat.

Either method works just fine.

Question: In the Netflix documentary  Salt Fat Acid Heat , Samin Nosrat says this when she is making sofrito and she is about to put olive oil into the pan:   This is one of those important things that I think home cooks always  forget, is how important it is to pre-heat the pan. You have to heat  the pan before you heat the oil.   Why do you need to heat the pan before putting the oil in?

Why do you need to heat the pan before heating the olive oil?

Preheating the pan before adding oil is sometimes thought to prevent the food from sticking, but this is not true. In some cases, it can be useful as a way to limit the oil's exposure to heat and the pan, or to dry out the pan completely before oil is added.

There are widely different on views on the pros and cons of preheating a pan before adding the oil. Overall, there are some occasions when it seems necessary, like wok frying, ensuring there is no water in the pan and preventing the oil from deteriorating. Otherwise it is unnecessary and not recommended for butter and garlic.

There is no need to heat the pan before adding the oil.

You need to heat the pan before adding the oil when you want the heat of the pan to be higher than the smoke point of the oil.

The only reason for preheating the pan is to dry it.

Preheating the pan helps to prevent the oil from deteriorating.

Do not preheat the pan when using butter and garlic.


Kiwi.

Don't knock it until you try it.

It will have a similar acidity and texture to pineapple.

Use ripe kiwi and maybe a touch extra lime juice!

Your pineapple in a salsa is going to add some sweetness, a lot of acidity, and crisp chunks that will be important to the texture.

While other tropical fruits would be have the sweetness and interesting flavor, I can't think of anything that adds the acidity and texture.

When ripe, mango and guava are quite soft and although there are delicious mango salsas it won't be similar to the pineapple at all.

You also need a fruit that will not be too distinctive of a flavor because that might distract from the strawberry or clash with the mint.

I think that I would use meyer lemons.

The meyers would be sweet enough not to bash you in the face but they still have some of the tartness.

The texture pops kind of like a pineapple and the flavor compliments both strawberry and mint.

Mango, specifically green mango.

You'll get a similar texture, some tartness, and it is already a widely used thing in salsas.

You could easily pick how tart you want it by switching to s slightly riper Mango.

I'd lean towards mango, with some lime juice to help match the acidity.

other possibilities to substitute for pineapple in that salsa: 1)

fresh rhubarb 1/4" cubed, some extra rhubarb juice, and sugar2)

jicima cubed and gently steamed, tamarind paste, and lime juice3)

big blueberries, halved, and sugar 4)

tart green apples cubed plus sugar and a little apple cider vinegar

Question: I need to sub pineapple with something else, im highly allergic to it.

What would be a good sub for pineapple, any other fruit or veggie for a strawberry pineapple mint salsa

Ripe kiwi with lime juice, meyer lemons or green mango with lime juice could add similar sweetness and tartness to pineapple.

Pineapple can be replaced in sauces by kiwi and lime juice, meyer lemons, green mango or mango and lime juice.

Kiwi and lime juice can be used in place of pineapple.

Meyer lemons have a similar sweet tartness to pineapples.

Green mango and mango with lime juice can be used as a substitute for pineapple.


There is a kraut cutter, a wooden board about 2 ft long with a diagonal blade.

We used all the time when I was a child.

We laid it on a large pot.

You cut heads of cabbage in half and push it over the blade flat side down.

Try google or an old fashioned hard ware.

You can be more efficient with a knife than any sort of kitchen aid attachment, which will require lots of prep, and slow going.

A better bet for home use would be the shredder on a food processor.

However, even then, while it will make quick work of shredding, you will have to cut the cabbage into smaller portions to fit into the processor...and, of course, empty the bowl relatively quickly.

Anything more efficient than

that will cost you a few hundred bucks.

Maybe your best bet is some friends and sharp knives.

Haha, we were doing that every fall in my childhood in Siberia.

We used an enamelled bucket and "sechka" https://65.img.avito.st/640x480/4526427565.jpg Splice a head of cabbage in big pieces with a knife, put them into the bucket until it is full, then smash it all with sechka.

- that guy is using another kind of sechka, but the principle is the same.

I was able to fill about 30 three-liter jars in a couple of days being a kid so that's very effective way to deal with a cabbage (not speaking of using any kind of machine).

The device costs around $10-20 in Russia, I don't know if you will be able to find and buy it in your location though.

At least now you know what to look for.

Do you have a food processor?

Most food processors come with interchangeable blades including a blade for shredding.

Put the shredder blade in, lock on the lid, cut the cabbage into wedges that will fit in the feed tube, power on, and feed in the cabbage.

You may have to empty the work bowl a couple times, depending on how much cabbage, but it's the fastest way I know of.

Knife, shmife.

You need a mulcher!

It is a $54 blower / mulcher from Home Depot.

Get a new one so it will be cleanish.

Quarter your cabbages then suck them up.

Your bag will fill with cole slaw-to-be.

Maybe wash it and set it aside for next year?

These things are merciless.

They will chop your cabbages fine.

Even if you use an old one and clean it first, the good thing about cabbage is that the pickling conditions naturally kill any bad germs.

You can make sauerkraut by lining a ditch with hay, putting in the cabbages, then more hay, then covering it up.

This is cleaner than that.

You can buy a cabbage shredder on amazon for $20 Or delis often use a deli slicer to finely slice lettuce

You mentioned a Kitchenaid stand mixer attachment.

Kitchenaid used to make a shredder/slicer attachment that's very good for this usage.

It had a wide hopper that could hold a quarter of a cabbage at once.

Unfortunately, the newer edition of this attachment has a smaller hopper and isn't suitable for cabbage, but the older style is still available from third party sellers.

Here's one example.

I'm good with a knife, and I sometimes use this for a single head of cabbage.

It's definitely faster than hand slicing for anything more than two or three heads, even with setup and cleaning time.

It also produces a very consistent cut.

It's definitely still going to require cutting up the cabbage heads first, and won't be as fast as some of the more expensive options, but it's an affordable alternative to the professional grade options.

Question: I'm growing cabbages in my garden this year and would like to make lots of sauerkraut, to eat and to give as gifts.  Gallons of it.  Is there an efficient way to slice or shred a dozen cabbages at a time?  Using a grater for that much cabbage is going to destroy my arms.  I would buy a one-purpose gadget or an attachment for my Kitchenaid mixer that didn't cost more than ~$60 if that's the right way to proceed.

How to efficiently shred a lot of cabbage?

A knife might be quicker than a kitchen aid attachement requiring time for setup, but possible devices include a kraut cutter, cabbage shredder or just the shredding attachment on your food processor.

The most recommended device for shredding cabbage is a food processor with a shredding blade or a cabbage shredder. Othe options include a kraut cutter, a knife and a mulcher.

Food processors usually come with a shredding blade. You can also buy a cabbage shredder.


while all of the above answers are correct, I want to provide a perspective as a native Chinese.

Rock sugar is better used (than granulated sugar) when you try to make dishes involving coloring the ingredient (by caramelization, dishes like braised pork belly (Hong Shao Rou need this step) mostly because of the shape difference.

Rock sugar has less surface area touching the oil while granulated sugar immerses itself in, which makes it react faster, and more likely to get burnt.

No, it doesn't, really.

Once it is dissolved, it behaves exactly the same.

Eaters won't know the difference when eating the finished product.

So, tastewise, there is no special reason to use rock sugar.

This answer assumes that you are adding sugar to a polar solvent (water, broth, alcohol...).

It doesn't cover techniques of adding the sugar to oil or other occasions where it is not dissolved.

In China, highly refined granulated sugar like we find in US is somehow uncommon.

The most common form of sugar is soft white sugar that is less pure and contains a few percent of syrup and other sugar family substance.

These imperfections sometimes affect cooking.

Rock sugar has a relatively larger market in China than the rest of the world for precisely this reason: over there it's the most common highly purified and refined form of sugar, because if it's not pure, it won't crystalize so large.

Crystalization is the further refinement process.

As a result, if a Chinese chef feel the need for highly purified sugar, he/she calls for rock sugar.

This logic is sometimes carried on by chefs that works with granulated sugar regularly that is truly indistinguishable form crushed rock sugar.

So, if your regular sugar is already crystalized high purity granulated sugar, then no need for rock sugar.

According to this , it is less sweet than regular white sugar which can be used if rock sugar is not available.

Even if it can/ has a brown/golden-ish color, it is not brown sugar which has a more distinct flavor.

My answer is based on experience;I’m not sure of the underlying science.

Rock sugar is not as sweet as granulated sugar.

It has a broader, less intense sweetness which works well in savory dishes.

It lacks a sweet “punch” which is more suited to desserts.

I use the white kind, though I’m sure

the yellow/brown sort has some additional flavor.

Question: Why do some Chinese dishes, namely braises and soups often call for rock sugar instead of regular sugar. Does rock sugar have any properties that would make it behave differently than regular granulated sugar?

Why is rock sugar used in Chinese cooking?

Rock sugar is lower purity and slightly less sweet, but otherwise very similar once dissolved and so you could just use common granulated sugar instead. However, it does have less surface area touchign the oil, which makes it react slower and therfore more suitable in dishes involving coloring the ingredient by caramelization.

Chinese recipes use rock sugar because granulated sugar is uncommon in China. Granulated sugar can be used where available. The taste of the end result will be the same. Rock sugar has the advantage, however, that it is less likely to burn in hot oil.

Rock sugar is better for use in hot oil as it is less likely to burn.

Rock sugar is less sweet than granulated sugar. It does not change the taste of the finall dish.

Granulated sugar is uncommon in China hence they use rock sigar. Rock sugar is not required if granulated sugar is available.


You don't need bread flour to make decent bread, plain flour doesn't generally have as much gluten content

but it has enough to make bread that's perfectly fine.

You won't get the same texture as with bread flour, it won't be as elastic a result.

Gluten is a protein, strong flour has more protein in it than plain flour, but there isn't always that much difference between the two.

It depends on the brand.

In my cupboard my plain flour has 10g of protein and my strong 12.5g, that's not that much more.

In the past I've had plain flour with a lot less, like 6g, so your plain flour may have more gluten than you think.

If your plain is a little weak you can use your strong flour to bulk up the gluten content, a 30/70 mix will give a small boost and a 50/50 mix more so.

But, remember if plain is all you have you can still make bread.

You may want to reduce your hydration a bit with lower protein, and give it a longer proving time to develop the gluten you have.

I agree with @GdD's answer, and it should be the main answer, but I wanted to throw in another bit of advice.

If you find that your all purpose flour does not give you the results that you want, look for vital wheat gluten.

It's less likely that people will be hoarding that.

Adding a bit of wheat gluten should make AP flour act much more like bread flour.

This is the trick bakers use for modern whole wheat and rye breads, as they contain much less gluten per weight.

In fact, wheat gluten is used frequently by low-carb bakers to create bread-like products without adding the starch of flour.

You can find recipes online to work from, but the recommended amount seems to be 1 tablespoon for every 2 cups (about 9 oz / 256 grams) of flour.

If you want to use a recipe you have and are particular, you can calculate how much protein is in the amount of flour in your recipe and add 1/4 as much ( of the protein, not the flour! )

vital wheat gluten by weight.

You may want to decrease the amount of flour by the same amount -- 1 tablespoon or whatever you calculated -- to maintain your hydration level. https://www.cooksillustrated.com/how_tos/5867-vital-wheat-gluten

"Bread flour" (or actually the wheat cultivar used for it) is a North American invention that has spread also to Great Britain.

In most other countries, home bakers are not even aware of the existence of bread flour, and bake bread with the equivalent of all-purpose flour.

You can use all purpose flour almost all your bread recipes without any change.

Only the highest hydrations (85% upward) will give you structural trouble.

If all you have had until now was bread made with bread flour, the new texture will be unusual, but if you approach it with openmindedness, you will soon get used to it.

If you either have too strong an averse reaction to bread that is similar, but

not exactly the way you like it, or want to try new things, I suggest that you simply go for European or Near East bread recipes and make those.

There is a huge variety of breads to be found there, and most of them are traditionally made without bread flour.

Just make sure to not use recipes that American bakers have modified to use bread flour.

You might have to (or enjoy to!)

branching out to breads made with flours from other plants too, not just wheat.

Beside the variety, it seems that the less common grains don't disappear from the supermarket shelf as quickly in a hamster run.

By "plain" I assume you mean AP (all-purpose) flour.

There are many great bread recipes that use AP flour.

There will be less gluten development with AP than with bread flour, so you may want to knead a bit longer depending on your recipe, but it should come out fine in any case.

Making bread is fun and easy, if you have kids, it is a good life skill to show them how to make some.

Yes you can use regular flour

, I use regular unbleached flour.

If you have yeast, then you can make simple no knead bread ; most recipes I've seen use 3 cups of flour, yeast, salt and water.

If you do not have yeast, then you can start to make a sourdough starter .

(disclaimer, I don't have an link with that site, they were the top answer from google).

Yes, plain flour (or mixed) will work.

The resulting loaf will probably not store well, it will become very hard.

No problem when eaten fresh.

Question: So... Since the lock-down everybody turned baker (can't understand why, since there is plenty of bread in the shops) and I can't find bread flour anymore.  Is there a way to use plain flour instead?  I have 1.5kg of strong flour left, can I mix it with plain flour and get decent results?

How to make bread with plain flour?

Bread flour has more gluten and will produce a more elastic texture, but it is perfectly possible to make bread with normal flour and in many countries this is the norm.

American bread recipes call for bread flour but recipes from many other countries use all purpose flour. American recipes make need to be tweaked in order to make them successfully with all purpose flour.

All purpose flour is what most people use to make bread outside North America. Choose a recipe that is not American for a good result.

The texture is not the same as bread made with bread flour so a few changes may be needed to the recipe and it may take time to get used to it.


Kneading in a bowl is time-consuming and doesn't give as good a result as kneading on a flat surface, however I'll concentrate on cleaning.

First, don't let things dry out, it's much easier to clean when things are moist, if you do let it dry out moisten it and let it soften before you try and clean it.

Use cold water as hot water makes starches and proteins stick a lot more.

Next, invest in a curved dough scraper, and use it to scrape out the dough scraps from the bowl into the garbage before you clean it.

A curved plastic one works best as it has a bit of flex, although in a pinch you can use a big metal spoon.

I scrape by bowl pretty much clean before I put it into the sink.

Use the flat of the scraper to clear most of the dough and flour from your countertop, then spray down with water, let it soak for a few minutes, then scrape again.

Once you have it scraped well sponge it down.

Alternatively (with respect to @GdD's answer), let it dry out completely .

Totally dry dough doesn't stick all that well to many surfaces (glass, plastic, non-stick).

It then chips/scrapes off quite easily.

If I get it on my oak worktops and don't notice immediately, that's what I do, scraping with a plastic scraper or a butter knife, even a fingernail on the last bits; the same approach works on my stand mixer bowl and dough hook.

With some containers you may need to soak a few stubborn bits especially if they're caught in corners, but oiled wood doesn't like that.

If you are clearing up wet, very wet is the way to go, and a brush clogs less than a sponge.

I hand-work my dough either on a pastry mat or if that's dirty non-stick sheet (which isn't non-stick against dough unless well-floured, but cleans easily).

These are both fairly easy to wash up.

Amazed nobody else has given the easiest answer, which is to soak it in warm soapy water for a while (at least a few minutes, up to an hour) before scrubbing it out.

It makes everything soft and partially dissolved and it just wipes away.

For handwashing: Use a dishwand instead of a sponge (the dough won't stick to the plastic bristles).

Use warm rather than hot water, to avoid 'cooking' the starch onto things - but no need to use cold water.

Alternatively: Scrape as much of the dough as you can into the bin with a plastic spatula.

Then put it the bowl in the dishwasher.

and any sponge I use for it gets ruined afterwards

I had the same problem until I started to use a brush like this one (courtesy of Ikea https://www.ikea.com/fr/fr/p/rinnig-brosse-a-vaisselle-vert-90407811/ )

It really makes a difference: cleaning the brush is much easier, including greasy/oily substances (in addition to sticky substances like dough in your case)

Question: I've been making my first steps in baking recently. I usually knead the dough in the same large bowl I mix the dough in to minimize the mess but it's still a pain to wash the bowl and any sponge I use for it gets ruined afterwards.Any advice on how to make washing off dough?

How to clean up after kneading dough?

It is easier to clean dough before it dries, so first scrape as much dough away as possible with a spatula or dough scraper before soaking in warm (but not hot) water, which will loosen the dough without cooking it onto the bowl surface. When cleaning, use a brush rather than a sponge, as this will clog much less easily.

When cleaning bread dough from surfaces, the first step is to scrape away as much dough as possible, using a readiil available scraper. The next step is to clean while the dough is still wet. There is some debate as to whether hot or cold water is best. A brush is better for cleaning than a sponge.

Clean bread dough while still wet. There is a debate about whether warm or cold water is best.

Use a brush rather than sponge for cleaning.

Scrape as much of the dough off the surafce before washing. Specially scrapers are available for this purpose.


Since the events of the 2009 movie take place in an alternate timeline to that of the original series, there is no logical problem with it being canon.

The hows and whys are detailed here: Bob Orci Explains How The New Star Trek Movie Fits With Trek Canon (and Real Science)

Being an "official" product, and given the fact that Gene has passed --

Yeah, I would consider it canon.

Like it or hate it (I enjoyed it myself)

it does conveniently "reboot" the timeline in a manner that lets it remain canon without making any of the previous films inaccurate to the new storyline.

It's probably best to think of it as "new" canon.

They rewrote history so continuity with the old series doesn't matter.

Which lets them play with those tensions, of course--those of us who know the old material can enjoy the changes to the universe, a sort of meta-level of writing for the "in crowd".

It has its own canon.

It's not the same as Gene Roddenberry's canon.

I was surprised at seeing Spock's love story with Uhura in the reboot because they're not the way I know the characters.

Uhura appears to be attracted to Spock in 'The Man Trap' (Who isn't) and tries to flirt with him

and he has no idea what she's doing

and she gives up really quickly while making a quip at Spock.

She's attracted to him.

There's no indication that she's in love with him.

Spock doesn't appear to be any close to Uhura than he is to Sulu or Chekov or Scotty.

Uhura even says that Kirk is the "closest thing [Spock] has to a friend.

" When Spock dies in Wrath of Khan

it's Kirk who is at the glass.

Uhura isn't mourning more than anybody else.

Kirk is the one who risks everything in Search for Spock to bring him back.

In other words, they are not together in TOS canon after 79 episodes and 6 movies and even in the reboot Spock Prime (Who is from the TOS timeline).

Now, the writers may have thought about having Spock and Uhura pursue a romance and it may have been because of racism as they didn't, but the point is that they scrapped the idea and they weren't even shown to be that close.

There have always been fans who think Spock would work well with Uhura but it wasn't an official relationship in TOS and Spock was actually a lot closer and more affectionate toward Captain Kirk.

People may tease K/S "slasher" and say that this isn't canon either but the characters are still a lot closer.

I was surprised by the pairing in the reboot because it was against the relationship that had been (Or hadn't been) established for over 40 years.

But then people always point out that it's an alternative reality/timeline.

In THAT canon, Spock has a pre-existing affectionate relationship with Uhura before he befriends Kirk.

At the time of the first movie Uhura appears to be his only friend, she is a respected student and apparently (Although not really stated clearly) a lover.

Part of the reason I felt a bit let down by the romance (Despite good acting and good chemistry) was because they had taken a very interesting character like Spock and made him almost into a typical archetypal male hero.

Cool thing about Spock was that he could be a strong male character without constantly chasing chicks the way Kirk did.

Also, Uhura is the only frequent female character.

It doesn't seem particularly creative to match Spock with the only female around and also have Kirk chasing her to create a love-triangle.

In TOS Uhura was a respected member of the crew and she wasn't automatically turned into a love interest for all the males around her.

Now one of Uhura's main plotlines is that she's pining over Spock.

Despite my disappointment, it IS a different timeline and people will point that out.

But then they'll go ahead and claim that Abrams making Spock-Uhura a canonical relationship in the reboot makes it canonical in the alternative timeline.

IT DOESN'T.

If it's a different canon, then it's a different canon.

End of story.

The canon overlaps when Spock Prime comes into the reboot universe but the character's stories are different.

What happens in the reboot timeline only happens in the reality of the reboot.

If we're so obsessed with canon to the point of making fun of "slash fangirl" then we shouldn't be claiming that an alternative timeline effects the canon of the original timeline.

By that logic, Spock's mother is dead at the beginning of TOS, which we clearly see that he isn't, and Vulcan has been destroyed

which it clearly hasn't and Kirk has not brother called Sam which he clearly does.

After my little rant, the reboot has A canon

but it isn't the same as Gene Roddenberry's canon.

Pine's Kirk is BASED on Shatner's Kirk

but he's the alternative timeline Kirk.

He's not exactly the same guy as TOS Kirk.

The Uhuru/Spock love story could be canon if you take into consideration the timeline was altered as soon as George Kirks ship encountered the anomaly at the beginning of the movie, from that point in time an alteration to the timeline has occurred.

Whatever the consequences of that were, they occurred in such a way that it facilitated sometime in the future a relationship between Uhuru and Spock that would not have occurred otherwise.

Question: While I think the  Star Trek  (2009) movie was pretty cool looking, its story-line wreaks total havoc with all the existing post original series content.  I know that Gene Roddenberry was very strict about what was considered canon in the past, basically anything he didn't like well (like the animated series).  But now, since his death, it seems like all the later series are considered canon.  Is the latest  Star Trek  (2009) considered canon?

Is the Star Trek (2009) movie considered canon?

Since the events of the 2009 movie take place in an alternate timeline to that of the original series, there is no logical problem with it being canon.   It's probably best to think of it as "new" canon.

Star Trek 2009 can be considered as a new canon or as having its own canon, since the events take place in an alternate timeline to the original series.


Star Trek, Various, 1966 (earliest occurrence) P=NP in the Star Trek universe, but the people there aren't aware of it.

Evidence:

There is encryption but it is always breakable.

P

=NP will let you crack everything but one-time pads but the Federation stubbornly continues to use NP-based ciphers.

The efficacy of the universal translator.

P

=NP would make learning new languages a breeze, at least for a computer.

Learning systems would be so simple and straightforward to implement that there wouldn't be a linguist left with a job.

The efficacy of the bio-filter.

The transporter routinely filters unknown organisms, viruses and other hazards when crewmen are beamed aboard ship.

But "bio-filter" is a misleading term as it brings to mind some sort of sieve that catches all the bad stuff and passes only the good.

In reality running such a "filter" over transport data would be the mother of all induced subgraph isomorphism problems , as you would have to identify all virus-sized structures in an organism chock-full of such structures.

P

=NP magicks away the input-related exponent that makes such problems intractable even for small graphs.

Self-aware machine intelligence is created with ease.

Wesley Crusher created one by accident.

So did Richard Daystrom.

The Enterprise D computer cooked up Moriarty in its spare cycles, Dr. Farallon created the Exocomps, and so on.

All you seem to need to do is build something equivalent to a theorem proving system and let it run long enough to stumble over the proof that P or some other tractable class is equivalent to NP and the system is off to the races.

Or perhaps the Star Trek denizens are collapsing the polynomial hierarchy by technological means.

The Federation, Borg, etc. seem to have ready access to time machines, wormholes, exotic matter, and superluminal signalling, so they could be using closed time-like curves for computation.

This

according to Scott Aaronson would allow them efficiently solve PSPACE-complete problems.

Antibodies, Charles Stross, 2000 A short story that hinges on the fact that solving P=NP is a required prerequisite for developing a computer intelligence.

It's available in his book Toast .

Stross has put the full text of this book online.

( This link will take you directly to the story.)

And according to Stross's site, the story was: Published in Interzone #157; republished in "The Year's Best Science Fiction #18" (ed.

Gardner Dozois).

Mentioned in Locus' "

Recommended Reading List" for 2000.

Shortlisted for the 2001 Theodore Sturgeon Award (lost to Ian MacDonald's "Tendoleo's Story").

The other Stross book that deals with this is The Atrocity Archives , where Alan Turing solved P=NP, but they then found that doing so allowed access to the Cthonic Realms, so now an entire branch of Government exists to prevent this discovery becoming public knowledge.

In Vernor Vinges "Zones of Thought" series ("The Blabber", A Fire Upon the Deep , A Deepness in the Sky and the forthcoming The Children of the Sky ), computation is easier in some parts of the galaxy, allowing for things like artificial intelligence and FTL travel.

It has been speculated (but there's no direct evidence in the books) that P=

NP in these zones.

In the fanfic Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality by Eliezer S. Yudkowsky, Harry gets a time machine and tries to factor the product of two large prime numbers using this machine, with a somewhat weird result.

So it is not completely given that NP=P , but seems probable.

The Roaring Trumpet by Spague de Camp and Fletcher Pratt, published in May 1940 in Unknown.

Here, psychologists posit that schizophrenics are actually mentally accessing alternate universes, and by applying the proper equations, one could travel to that alternate universe and bring the persons mind back to our universe.

It was an intellectual exercise which the main protagonist Harold Shea decides to test out.

He jokingly refers to travel via syllogismobile, but it involves studying and constructing the logic of the universe destination and reciting it out loud.

This generally begins with "if P is equal to not P..." And goes from there.

The entire Enchanter series has them universe hopping through mythology and fairy tale and classical works by doing so.

I suspect, never having given it any real thought, that by prefacing with P=NP, they were distinguishing the universe as one in which magic functions.

Nemesis, Isaac Asimov, 1989

It talks about imposibilities and the implications of an universe where the laws of physics doesn't apply

The practice effect , David Brin, 1984

This seems a likely candidate.

In the depicted universe, a robotic probe from our universe starts to self-optimize both physically and mentally while the human intelligence remains unaltered.

Also physical objects tend to self-optimize: a wooden sleigh develops lubricant to easily slide on the road.

This practice effect can be boosted by a special state of trance where the solution appears immediately by itself, hence inanimate objects perform a wide-range evolution within non-polynomial time (Seeking a near infinite array of posible solutions within a short period of time).

This universe actually transcends P=NP.

In the story Starshield Sentinels by Margaret Weis and Tracy Hickman, there were computers/artificial intelligences that could answer any question instantly by sending the question back in time to itself, giving it 'time' to solve it.

The only hiccup to this was that the computer had to be 'awake' long enough to solve it (something like Deep Thought from The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy needing 10 million years to solve the question to life, the universe, and everything).

While I don't know if this exactly pertains to everything P = NP, it does solve the variable/solve clause in the question.

Of course the computers all go nuts and try to kill everyone in the story.

Can't we stop trying to invent killer robots now?

Question: I wonder whether anyone has written a novel set in a universe where  P=NP , in the event that there is more than one, which was the first?   In this universe all problems that could be verified in polynomial time (NP) (given the solution) could also be solved in polynomial time (P).

Which was the first novel set in universes where P=NP?

Works set in universes where P=NP are said to include The Practice Effect, by David Brin (1984); Antibodies (2000) and The Atrocity Archives, by Charles Stross (2000). P=NP in the Star Trek Universe in 1966.

There are 3 possibilities for where  the first novel was set in universes where P=NP - 'Star Trek Various 1966, 'Antibodies' by Charles Stross 2000, and 'The Practice Effect by David Brin 1984.


One thing about Discworld that is important to realize, in the 35+ or so books there are really 5+ different threads that hardly cross at all.

The witches stories (which later expand further into his children's series -

The Tiffany Aching series).

The wizard stories featuring Rincewind, Archechancellor Ridcully and friends, of which some of the Rincewind stories could possibly even be another group.

The City Watch stories featuring Vimes, Nobby, Colon and the patrician.

The City stories featuring Moist Von Lipwig, the more recent Going Postal and Making money .

The Death stories featuring Death and his granddaughter Susan.

There are also 2 or 3 that just hang out by themselves, like Omnia of Small Gods, and Pyramids, just they happen to occur on Discworld.

Some people just fall in love with one of those themes and don't really like the others, so if you read one and don't like witches, maybe switch ahead.

I love them all, but personal favorite is the city watch, and the character of Commander Vimes.

This image from the lspace page really sums it up nicely.

Note - image kept up to date on this Pinterest page

Order of writing is fine, and pretty much matches the internal chronology.

You can find it here .

But bear in mind that the first two, The Colour of Magic and The Light Fantastic , were written before Pratchett really found his voice, and are lighter and more uneven in tone.

You might want to start with Equal Rites and then work back to the first two later.

Note also that it's Discworld, not disk-world.

Pratchett is English, and that's how we spell "disc".

I've edited your question to reflect this.

Recently there was a reading guide released for Discworld.

note: the website seems to regularly be inaccessible, and there are some noticeable typos in the infographic as of January 2016 (see second answer for a semi regularly updated/corrected fan alternative) For order of publication start at the triangle point leading to "The Color of Magic."

For topic specific reading order, there is a color coded guide to follow various characters / groups.

Wizards - Purple Witches - pinkish purple?

Witches /

Tiffany Aching - pink Death - blue Ancient Civilizations - lime green City Watch - green Industrial Revolution - orange Science Novels - yellow

There are recommendations as to multiple possible starting places at Discworld Reading Order Guides and there are annotations to the various books in that general vicinity at The Annotated Pratchett File, v9.0

If you have already read some and you intend to read all of then

I woulds suggest reading in the order of publication.

It is likely that you might then want to go back and re-read some groups together but the as-published order gives a nice variety of content and also lets you see TP's style evolve, and it does change a lot as the series goes along.

I would say that for the first 10 books or so there is an objective improvement and later it diverges in terms of themes so you may find that there are some stories which appeal to your more.

I still rate Lords and Ladies as one of the all time best.

for me the real classics are : Pyramids Lords and Ladies Men at Arms Hogfather Jingo

The Truth Thief of Time Night Watch

The Wee Free Men Going Postal Thud

Question: I've read some of the Discworld books, and they were referencing each other in an order different than what I've been reading.  If I wanted to maintain chronology, and get all of the back references, which order should I be reading the books in?

What order should I be reading the Discworld books in?

There are recommendations as to multiple possible starting places at  Discworld Reading Order Guides  and there are annotations to the various books in that general vicinity at  The Annotated Pratchett File, v9.0. However, some people suggest reading the books in the order of publication.

There are various recommendations for reading order and starting point for Discworld. However, reading them in the order of publication is also recommended.

There are recommendations for different orders of reading Discworld and different starting points.

Reading in the order of publication is a good option.


Because at the time, the Alliance of 4 races was fighting the Goa'uld.

They wouldn't necessarily have the spare resources to fend them off and go chase after one lone planet that had rebelled a while back.

It's unclear when the Alliance ceased, but I assume by then, there was little reason to take over Earth and other planets that had fought off Goa'uld rule.

This explains why SG-1 were able to find so many diverse civilizations in their explorations.

The Goa'uld believed the Ancients were protecting Earth This very question was addressed in the 2013 SG-1 novel Moebius Squared , which explores the altered past of Season 8's Moebius two parter.

The novels are considered to be in official continuity with the TV show.

* Daniel explains that he found records of other human uprisings aside from Egypt, such as one in Japan against a Goau'ld subservient to Ra.

Most of these rebellions had the direct aid of the Ancients (and their immediate descendants), who were refugees from Atlantis.

After many such uprisings and the one that finally drove out Ra from Egypt, he decided to stay away to avoid taking further losses at the hands of the Ancients.

By that point, the Goa'uld had enough humans on other worlds that they no longer required a supply from Earth.

In the events of the book itself, In 2800 B.C., a symbiote is stolen from Abydos so that Teal'c from the Moebius timeline can live, and Ra realizes the thieves are from Earth.

As punishment, he takes his mothership to Earth and invades once again.

Ra captures O'Neill and assumes he's an Ancient since he has the Ancient gene, which he is concerned about since Myrdin (Merlin) aided in the rebellion against him before.

Ra assumes that the Ancients are going to try to drive him off the planet again, yet believes they are in decline and no longer have the ability to protect Earth.

By the end of the book, O'Neill devises a plan in which three puddle jumpers cloak and decloak in order to pretend that they have an entire armada.

With the help of the Tok'ra queen Egeria, Ra is incapacitated during the battle and is led to believe that the Ancients were more powerful than he thought.

Ultimately, Ra decides that having underestimated the strength of the Ancients, and being driven off once again, he ought to leave Earth alone for good.

The Goa'uld had enough humans on other worlds, so there is no strategic reason to invade again.

* Author Jo Graham, who wrote many of the Stargate novels, stated that because every word of the novels was extensively reviewed by MGM and intended to integrate with the show, the novels are canon , although they had the right to disregard them in the future if they like.

Back then it was just some backwater planet, Ra had already mined what Naquadah that was on Earth, So when they rebelled and buried the gate he just cut his losses and never bothered to go back.

Giving Earth time to develop on it's own.

Also as seen in SG:

Atlantis the ancients spend time there in the middle ages (Merlin)

so they might have shielded the Earth from any other Goa'uld who might have had their eye on it.

First of all, the Goa'uld seem to have taken over the galaxy around 5000 BC.

Certainly, it hadn't been for any appreciable amount of time.

I think it's not inconceivable that while the Goa'uld had stargate travel, they had little to no spaceflight capacity 5000 years ago.

Specifically, it is stated in the finale of season 1, the Goa'uld took years to get from one system to another.

Given that timescale, it's no wonder they wouldn't want to attack Earth.

Further more, they likely didn't have as strong as an army as they clearly possessed in the time of the movie and SG-1.

Therefore, I don't think it's inconceivable that they couldn't attack Earth from space.

For reasons listed in this question , they couldn't use the Beta Gate either.

By the time of the Rebellion on Earth there were probably hundreds of worlds populated by human slaves lorded over by hundreds of System Lords all vying for power.

Earth was also Ra's personal domain, so to poach humans on his world probably would be frowned upon violently,

only the most powerful or desperate Goa'uld would attempt such an affront.

At that point it was no longer a vital resource, with comparably poor mineral resources, and no Naquadah, it lost all strategic significance.

The conflict with the other 4 Alliance races, plus any internal fighting would make it a non priority for years.

And after a while it is just an embarrassment to Ra.

By the time he was no longer occupied elsewhere to deal with it it would have been a blow to his prestige.

Better to be forgotten and covered up.

scifi.stackexchange.com/users/4751/Tyson of the Northwest

Question: Why didn't the Goa'uld simply send a ship to Earth after Earth's rebellion?  This came up after looking at the following question: " why they didn't attack Earth through the Beta Gate ".

Why did the Goa'uld not send ships to attack Earth after Earth's rebellion?

The Goa'uld believed the Ancients were protecting Earth.  This very question was addressed in the 2013 SG-1 novel  Moebius Squared , which explores the altered past of Season 8's  Moebius  two-parter. At that point it was no longer a vital resource, with comparably poor mineral resources, and no Naquadah, it lost all strategic significance. In addition, at that time, the Alliance of 4 Races was fighting the Goa'uld.

The Goa'uld had other wars to fight and believed the Ancients were protecting the Earth. Moreover, the Earth was a minor backwater and not worth their attention as it no longer had vital resources.

The Goa'uld believed the Ancients were protecting the Earth.

The Earth was a minor backwater not worth the attention, with no vital resources.


There's a loose link.

Some variation on the events in the movie preceded the first episode of SG-1.

There have been several jokes that suggest that the O'Neil in the movie isn't the O'Neill of the show, however, the O'Neill of the show was on Abydos.

The planet Abydos is on the other side of the universe in the movie, but is in the Milky Way in the show, relatively close to Earth.

The Abydosians spoke a variant of Egyptian in the movie, almost everyone in the galaxy speaks English in the shows, and the Abydosians get more proficient in it each time they appear.

The Stargate on Abydos in the movie has different symbols than the Earth gate, but in SG-1 all the gates in the galaxy have the same symbols, except for the point of origin.

In the movie the Stargate just connects Earth to Abydos and back.

In SG-1 they generalized the idea into a galaxy-wide network of gates.

In the movie they don't show how they dialed the gate on Abydos, the shows invented the Dial Home Device (DHD) to simplify this.

If all you've seen is the movie, and you haven't sat down to watch any of the shows, start with SG-1.

The first episode of that picks up where the movie left off, and the first season will familiarize you with the basics of the Stargate universe.

Stargate Atlantis started airing at the same time as season 8 of SG-1, so they're happening at the same time, but with minimal interaction between the two shows.

Stargate Universe started after Atlantis ended, and can be watched after you've started Atlantis if you want to be up to speed (they recently had an Atlantis regular show up on Universe for an episode).

There are definitely several links.

Here's a few of the main ones: Daniel Jackson Jack O'Neill

The pyramid-shaped starships The teleporter rings The resurrection chambers.

The Goa'uld (They aren't mentioned by name in the movie, but they do exist) Use of Egyptian Mythology

The staff weapons Abydos, and several of the people from Abydos (Sha're, Skara, and Yasuf, among others).

Major Kawalski from the original SG team is featured in the pilot and second episode and has some minor cameos in certain episodes.

Just for completeness, here's some major differences: In Stargate SG-1, most people speak English.

In the movie, most people speak Goa'uld, which is a variant of ancient Egyptian.

The actors who play all of the common characters are different, only Yasuf and Skara are played by the original actors from the movie.

The stargates on each planet had a different set of symbols in the movie.

In SG-1, they share the same set of symbols, for the most part.

The movie seems to take place in another galaxy, while the TV series indicates that Abydos is relatively close to Earth, only 25,000 light years.

The personality of O'Neill in particular is very different, the movie he is a much harsher person than the TV series.

Daniel Jackson seems to have fewer problems with allergies in the TV series than the movie.

As it's been said, the link is tenuous.

It's almost better to think of the show as happening in a slightly different universe from the movie - there are some significant changes which don't really go against what the movie said or showed, but do go against what it implies.

They share the same basis, and the events of the movie ARE considered to have occurred prior to the start of the series.

The characters of the series would likely, if they watched the movie, consider it a dramatization of their (revised) official reports on the mission.

Another difference not mentioned in the answer above is the nature of the Goa'uld: In the movie, IIRC, Ra is "the last?

member of a dying race".

In the show, he was just one of the Bad Guys.

In the movie, it looks like Ra, looking sorta like a real quadrupled (gray man stereotypical alien), "merged" with the host body, seemingly like a ghost?

This is based on the scene where the nuke blows up Ra's ship in the end of the movie.

In the series, Goa'uld are parasite snake-like creatures living inside hosts' bodies.

There are also no Jaffa in the movie, they seem to use humans as slaves rather than the Jaffa as the guards have no head tatto.

But they do in the first season of SG-1.

So the Jaffa don't come into play till the pilot episode.

Question: I rewatched the Stargate movie recently, and it got me wondering about what I've been missing with regards to the TV series that have been spun off.  I enjoy reading people's opinions on which series is better, but I'm curious about what I'll be getting myself into when I start watching the episodes.  Is there any link between the movie and the shows, other than the namesake?

What sort of linkage is there between the Stargate movie and television universes?

The link is said to be loose and tenuous.  Some say that it is almost better to think of the show as happening in a slightly different universe from the movie. However, they share the same basis, and the events of the movie are considered to have occurred prior to the start of the series.

There are several tenuous links between the Stargate movies and the series. The series appears to be in a slightly different universe. However, the events of the movie are considered to have occurred prior to the start of the series.


The earliest novel-length published work with Elves in a recognizable "modern fantasy mode" is most likely Le Morte d'Arthur , by Sir Thomas Mallory, finished around 1470, and first published in 1485.

While Le Morte is literally nothing new, even when written, it's one of the earliest written works with recognizable, embodied fae in human shape, and armed and armored as men.

Note that Le Morte draws heavily on many tales and stories later recorded elsewhere

; it comes together, however, as the definitive Arthurian tale, and the Fair Folk within are credited as inspiration for many later versions of Aelfdom...

The name elf has been borrowed from mythology, so the term itself has been used for perhaps several thousand years.

However the term refers to different kind of beings depending on time and place.

The wiki page on elves gives an introduction to the concept of elves in different mythologies.

In mythologies they are either treated as Semi-divine and powerful magical beings; or Small, mischievous beings (i.e. a subset of fairies) Note that in the first case, they are either divided into light and dark elves, or represent light with dwarves representing the dark.

In fantasy, they have been popularised by Tolein into a very standard image, but people still use some alternate representations for them.

This is discussed in detail at this wiki page - Elves in fantasy fiction and games .

A summary of the article states that The fantasy genre in the 20th century grows out of 19th century Romanticism.

19th century scholars such as Andrew Lang and the Grimm brothers collected "fairy-stories" from popular folklore and in some cases retold them freely.

A pioneering work of the genre that would come to be known as "fantasy" was The King of Elfland's Daughter, a 1924 novel by Lord Dunsany.

The Hobbit by J. R. R. Tolkien (1937) is seminal, predating the lecture On Fairy-Stories by the same author by a few years.

In the 1939 lecture, Tolkien introduced the term "Fantasy" in a sense of "higher form of Art, indeed the most nearly pure form, and so (when achieved) the most potent".

Elves played a central role in Tolkien's legendarium, notably The Silmarillion.

Tolkien's writing has such popularity that in the 1960s and afterwards, Elves speaking an Elvish language similar to those in Tolkien's novels (like Quenya, and Sindarin) became staple non-human characters in high fantasy works and in fantasy role-playing games.

Post-Tolkien fantasy elves (popularized by the Dungeons & Dragons role-playing game) tend to be more beautiful and wiser than humans, with sharper senses and perceptions.

They are said to be gifted in magic and mentally sharp and are characterized as lovers of nature, art, and song.

A hallmark of fantasy elves is their long and pointed ears (a convention begun with a note of Tolkien's that the ears of elves were "leaf-shaped").[22] Also note that in popular culture, Christmas elves are very different from Tolkienian elves, and are closer to fairies.

I don't think there's going to be a definitive answer to this...

Elves have been a part of folklore since long before any 'modern' books, and quite possibly before books even existed.

Brewer (17th Ed): Elf [...] Originally a dwarfish being of Germanic mythology, possessed of magical powers which it used for the good or ill of mankind.

And then goes on to quote Shakespeare.

So in answer to: what's the earliest book that featured Elves?

A Midsummer Night's Dream is 1595 (strictly not a book on that date) so likely earlier.

I think faeries and elves came out of Irish mythology.

The Tuatha De Danann who are their gods were powerful beings skilled in magic.

Then the Christians (there's never any peace with them around) converted the Irish.

But the people still believed in the gods, only as faeries.

The idea of Elves may be very, very old.

Hesiod (a contemporary of Homer) mentions the waves of the Golden race, Silver race, Bronze race.

Tolkien's chronology associates elves with the Silver race (as does the linguistic similarity: silver--silvan).

But the idea my also be autochthonous.

There's an Inuit legend about a village of petite people who had the power of making their bodies lighter or heavier at will.

Question: Elves are a common appearance in many worlds in Fantasy. From Tokien, to Harry Potter, to Dungeons and Dragons, and Eragon. Many works feature Elves in some way, all with many common characteristics. But, I'm kind of curious, what's the earliest book that featured Elves?

What is the first appearance of Elves in fantasy?

Faeries and elves are said to come from Irish mythology, so the idea of elves is very old. Elves have been a part of folklore since long before any 'modern' books, and quite possibly before books even existed.  However, the earliest novel-length published work with Elves is most likely  Le Morte d'Arthur , by Sir Thomas Mallory, finished around 1470, and first published in 1485.   A Midsummer Night's Dream  is 1595 and Hesiod (a contemporary of Homer) mentions the waves of the Golden race, Silver race, and Bronze race.

Elves have been part of folklore, mythology and legend for an extremely long time, long before books were invented. Earliest publish works referring to Elves include Shakespeare's A Midsummer Night's Dream, 1595 and Le Morte d'Arthur, published in 1485.

A number of old books mention Elves, including A Midsummer Night's Dream, datingfrom 1595. A contemporary of Homer also mentioned the Golden race.

The idea of Elves may be much older than books. They may stem from ancient mythology, folklore and legends.


This is how it has broken down so far (more or less): Season 1 (2011): A Game of Thrones Season 2 (2012): A Clash of Kings Season 3 (2013): The first half of A Storm of Swords (aka Steel and Snow )

Season 4 (2014)

: The second half of A Storm of Swords (aka Blood and Gold ) Season 5 (2015): Both A Feast for Crows and A Dance with Dragons and new material Season 6 (2016): Both A Feast for Crows and A Dance with Dragons and new material

We also know: Season 7 (2017):

Unpublished material and new material Season 8 (2018): Unpublished material and new material Seasons 1 and 2 were a book each, but it was changed for Season 3, which became the first half of Storm of Swords , and Season 4 became the second half.

The producers then, somewhat surprisingly, managed to squeeze the next two books, A Feast for Crows and A Dance with Dragons , into Season 5, by removing lots of what many people saw as extraneous plot lines.

It's worth noting that there has has been some overlap.

Certain events have drifted into different seasons, so the above isn't always strictly true -- just mostly true.

Season 6 took most of its story from The Winds of Winter (although there were some unused things from A Feast for Crows and A Dance with Dragons that appeared in it).

George RR Martin confirmed this in a Vanity Fair article (" George R.R. Martin Has a Detailed Plan For Keeping the Game of Thrones TV Show From Catching Up To Him ").

That's the plan.

Seasons 1 and 2 (so far) are a book each.

Though this might change for book 3 (Storm of Swords), which is a lot bigger than the first two.

In this interview , George R. R. Martin admits that its going to be hard to fit book 3 into a standard season.

Relevant quote follows:

The real crucial point comes with the third season with Storm of Swords.

Storm of Swords is a monster of a book, a gigantic book.

It's 500 pages longer in manuscript than Clash of Kings was.

And Clash of Kings was 100 pages longer than Game of Thrones.

You cannot do Storm of Swords in 10 hours.

I think they need to make two seasons out of that.

For a more exhaustive chapter-to-episode breakdown derived from Joel Geddert's Game of Thrones episode chapter coverage interactive table (Note: contains chapter titles with POV character names): Season 1 A Game of Thrones: 69 of 73 chapters A Clash of Kings: 1 of 70 chapters Season 2 A Clash of Kings: 55 of 70 chapters A Storm of Swords: 5 of 82 chapters Season 3

A Clash of Kings: 1 of 70 chapters A Storm of Swords: 44 of 82 chapters A Dance with Dragons: 1 of 73 chapters Season 4 A Storm of Swords: 20 of 82 chapters A Feast for Crows: 1 of 46 chapters A Dance with Dragons: 2 of 73 chapters Season 5 A Storm of Swords: 3 of 82 chapters A Feast for Crows: 17 of 46 chapters A Dance with Dragons: 25 of 73 chapters

The Winds of Winter: 2 of ??

chapters Season 6 A Storm of Swords:

1 of 82 chapters A Feast for Crows: 6 of 46 chapters A Dance with Dragons: 2 of 73 chapters The Winds of Winter: 1 of ??

chapters

Note that some book chapters have not been covered on the TV show either because events were changed or cut from the TV show, and that the more the show has continued, the more it has invented new material of its own.

For another good reference, the Boars, Gore, and Swords podcast is experiencing the TV show before the books and they have been doing a book club after each season.

Check out their episode guide .

Now that season 4 has ended as well, it would be good to point out that the third book, A Storm of Swords has been broken in two seasons: season 3 and 4.

But also, in those two seasons (especially the fourth one), there were a lot of chapters from the fourth and fifth book; like for instance the chapters with Reek and some of Brienne's.

I remember reading somewhere that this is indeed the plan: each season is roughly equivalent to one book.

It used to but it doesn't anymore.

The first 3 seasons and the first two book + part 1 of the third line up almost perfectly.

Season 4 is still kinda the second half of the third book.

After that

no.

It's a mix and match of the 4th book, 5th book, their own material perhaps based on Martins hints and maybe of the 6th book which we wont know until 2020 or later since that's when it'll be out.

Maybe (yeah official date is sooner but every time we get close to it

it's moved up by

a year so).

Season 7 and 8 will be a small part of the 4th and 5th books (for example the whole fake Targeryan), whatever Martin told them, whatever they made up and whatever spoilers for the last two books they have.

How much Book 7 will match anything is a stupid question for now.

Try asking in 2035.

Question: Does each current  Game of Thrones  season roughly equal one  A Song of Ice and Fire  book? And do we know which future seasons will cover which books?  I am planning to read the first book after the TV show has finished depicting the events in the first book. I would like to know if after each TV season ends I can expect to be able to read a book covering the events depicted on screen?

Does each season of Game of Thrones roughly equal a book?

Seasons 1 and 2 are equivalent to one book each. The third book has been split between seasons 3 and 4.

The Game of Thrones series matched books to seasons for the first 3 seasons. After Book 3 was too large to be fitted into one season and had to be split into 2, the matching became less clear.

The plan with Game of Thrones was to match a season of the series to a book. This was the case for seasons 1 to 3.

Book 3 was so big it had to be split into 2 seasons, and from then on, the seasons do not match the books so clearly.