Last week I found myself with a pile of brown bananas (no central air + high 90s = accelerated decomp of fresh produce on the counter), a flat of blueberries from Costco, and a hankering for an old favorite: banana bread. Since the spring I've really tried to devote myself to healthy eating as I'm getting a prediabetic diagnosis under control. Instead of going for the old standby bread recipe with tons of butter and sugar, I toyed around with some healthier options. And what fantastic results! The basis of the banana bread is Martha Stewart's Blueberry Banana Muffins, and I made a few very small adjustments ( fresh v. frozen fruit, some wheat germ, yogurt with the butter). I highly suggest trying it... I've got a second loaf in the oven right now (I've resorted to turning on the oven only after 10:00PM) to eat for snacks this week and cannot wait for it to come out. I used three bowls to prepare it, so I broke the recipe down into bowls.
Bowl 1: Beat
1/4 c. butter
1/8 c. plain yogurt
1/3 c. granulated sugar
1/3 c. packed brown sugar
After these ingredients are light and fluffy, add in two eggs. Crack the eggs one at a time and beat well after each addition.
Bowl 2: Whisk
1 c. flour, spooned and leveled
3/4 c. whole wheat flour, spooned and leveled
1/4 c. wheat germ
1 tsp. baking soda
1/2 tsp. salt
Bowl 3: Mash!
2-3 over ripe medium bananas (you'll want about 3/4 c)
1 tsp. vanilla
My kitchen aid mixer is my prized possession, and I got bowl number one spinning and then let the mixer do the work while I worked on bowls 2 and 3. Once the butter and sugar and eggs are good and fluffy, you'll add bowls 2 and 3 to bowl one. Alternate the additions, and begin and end with the flour mixture.
Finally, toss in some blueberries. The original recipe called for 1 c. frozen berries, but I've used fresh berries both times. I also never measure the berries, just toss them until it looks perfectly tasty.
The original recipe is for muffins, but I've had no problems putting the batter in a loaf pan. My oven has a mind of its own, so I just keep an eye on the loaf until I can stick a toothpick in and it comes out clean, about 15-20 minutes for me.
PS: I kept trying to add a picture, but it wouldn't upload for some reason. Hmmmm... help?
Sunday, July 11, 2010
Wednesday, July 7, 2010
The Classics
One of Sean's favorite ways to poke fun at me is to call me an literary snob. We both read "The Kite Runner" from Khaled Hosseini waaaaaay back in undergrad and when it came up at dinner one night I said something to the effect of its foreshadowing crossed the lines from hinting to clobbering, and that the ironic twists were no longer tantalizing but gut-wrenching. I'm not one to mince words. I finished the tirade by stating it had clearly been written for the masses. He's followed that up by never letting me live my "nose in the air" moment down. Ah, well...
So imagine his shock and surprise that I, for one, LOVE the Twilight series. Talk about written for the masses, and not just any masses, but the 13-17 year old masses. I know I've mentioned its downfalls before, but I can't help it... they just suck me in. I own all four books, have read them each several times now, have already seen Eclipse. Twice. (A few of my students work at the local movie theater and one young man took my ticket at both showings. His response: "Seriously, Shoe? You seemed smarter than that.") I've downloaded all three soundtracks. I'm mostly team Jacob-- and I am SO thankful Taylor Lautner is finally 18 so I feel a little less like a pedophile as I ogle him.
All of my Twilight-lovin' aside, however, I had a disturbing thought yesterday:
Jane Austen is often touted as THE author of the 19th century, as a beacon for the advent of the woman writer. After all, she wrote under her own name in a time when women were best seen but not heard (or read). But when Jane Austen was writing, she was perhaps the Danielle Steele of her era. Ok... that's a bit harsh... maybe the Jodi Piccoult of her time. A fantastic author, yes, but again-- no contender for the Booker here. She entertains us. That's why we remember her now.
But what about William Shakespeare? The Bard of Avon. The hero of hopeless romantics everywhere, the plague of high school English students. We collectively revere him now as the best playwright of all time, but hunt through that iambic pentameter and 16th century English, and you've got smut! Attending The Globe was the equivalent of turning on a sitcom. He wrote to please the masses, literally. The nobility in the box seats, the peasants in the penny pit, he had to entertain them all. And entertain them he did. This is why we remember him now.
Here's where I'm going with this-- what if in another century or two, generations of teenagers and college students pour over the Twilight series. They'll complete a literary analysis of biblical allusions (particularly from the LDS standing, these continually surprise me); pull apart the tenuous ties holding Bella to both Edward and Jacob; and wonder-- what elements of "human" nature transcend all beings? Who do the Volturi, with their power hungry ways, truly satirize? What is the author trying to tell us? "Meyer" will become as common as "Hemingway" or "Byron".
Not to knock ol' Stephenie, but this makes me a little worried. Of course, it won't stop me from re-reading Breaking Dawn by the pool today. Ahhhhhh, summer.
So imagine his shock and surprise that I, for one, LOVE the Twilight series. Talk about written for the masses, and not just any masses, but the 13-17 year old masses. I know I've mentioned its downfalls before, but I can't help it... they just suck me in. I own all four books, have read them each several times now, have already seen Eclipse. Twice. (A few of my students work at the local movie theater and one young man took my ticket at both showings. His response: "Seriously, Shoe? You seemed smarter than that.") I've downloaded all three soundtracks. I'm mostly team Jacob-- and I am SO thankful Taylor Lautner is finally 18 so I feel a little less like a pedophile as I ogle him.
All of my Twilight-lovin' aside, however, I had a disturbing thought yesterday:
Jane Austen is often touted as THE author of the 19th century, as a beacon for the advent of the woman writer. After all, she wrote under her own name in a time when women were best seen but not heard (or read). But when Jane Austen was writing, she was perhaps the Danielle Steele of her era. Ok... that's a bit harsh... maybe the Jodi Piccoult of her time. A fantastic author, yes, but again-- no contender for the Booker here. She entertains us. That's why we remember her now.
But what about William Shakespeare? The Bard of Avon. The hero of hopeless romantics everywhere, the plague of high school English students. We collectively revere him now as the best playwright of all time, but hunt through that iambic pentameter and 16th century English, and you've got smut! Attending The Globe was the equivalent of turning on a sitcom. He wrote to please the masses, literally. The nobility in the box seats, the peasants in the penny pit, he had to entertain them all. And entertain them he did. This is why we remember him now.
Here's where I'm going with this-- what if in another century or two, generations of teenagers and college students pour over the Twilight series. They'll complete a literary analysis of biblical allusions (particularly from the LDS standing, these continually surprise me); pull apart the tenuous ties holding Bella to both Edward and Jacob; and wonder-- what elements of "human" nature transcend all beings? Who do the Volturi, with their power hungry ways, truly satirize? What is the author trying to tell us? "Meyer" will become as common as "Hemingway" or "Byron".
Not to knock ol' Stephenie, but this makes me a little worried. Of course, it won't stop me from re-reading Breaking Dawn by the pool today. Ahhhhhh, summer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)