Writing - Various Genres, From Technical, Cook Books to Fiction, Memoirs, Etc.

[flyinglentris]

Technical writing is far different than fiction writing. Technical documents can be short or bookish. And generally there is both 'how to' and 'what' sections. In a way, cook books are examples of technical writing. But I have to wonder how many cook books are really, recipe books that only describe 'how to' procedures for various meals, snacks, desserts and baked goods. A real cook book would describe three things, 1) cooking gear, 2) cooking methods and technique and 3) recipes. Additionally, a real cook book may include sections that discuss nutrition, calories, flavor matching and even diet related material.

Are your cook books really recipe books?

 

[TastyReuben]

Are your cook books really recipe books?

It’s a mix, really. Some of my larger ones, and my more mainstream ones (like Betty Crocker), contain sections on cooking items/gear, a section on terms, a section on techniques, and even tips on entertaining and how to set a table.

I do have Pepin’s Complete Technique/La Technique, which is flipped around; heavy on technique (thus the title), with a handful of recipes used to show practical applications of certain techniques.

The more specialized and/or less expensive cookbooks I have are simply recipe collections, really.

I’m also reading a Romanian cookbook right now, an apparent labor of love by a home cook who also isn’t a professional writer, and he’s included some specialized techniques, information about certain specific ingredients, culinary history, history in general, and even folklore.

Personally, these types of cookbooks are my least favorite, because there’s a lot of extraneous material to wade through to get to the recipes. That’s what a good editor is for, looking at something with less emotional attachment and separating the wheat from the chaff.

 

[garlichead]

I suspect there would be a few thousand pages of notes and many months or years of investigation before even attempting to write a novel about crime, in general. I mean the more believable anyone can make it and get people invested right away in the first chapter will help set up the last chapter which gets them to buy another novel, pretty basic, but it better be logistically correct if you want an audience, especially an audience that's into crime. imo.

 

[flyinglentris]

I suspect there would be a few thousand pages of notes and many months or years of investigation before even attempting to write a novel about crime, in general. I mean the more believable anyone can make it and get people invested right away in the first chapter will help set up the last chapter which gets them to buy another novel, pretty basic, but it better be logistically correct if you want an audience, especially an audience that's into crime. imo.

Any good novel (and short stories too) begin with a declaration of conflict. That's the first chapter. It's the sink or swim chapter. The declaration of conflict defines much about the novel and it is important for a writer to get that done right. From the declaration of conflict the story evolves, defining antangonists, protagonists, special items used to turn the story, eventually reaching what is called the denouement which sews the various elements of the novel together and combines with a turning point to reach a climax and final conclusion to the story. This is a basic structure which has some variances, like flip flopping sequences of time and space, character viewpoints and narratives, etc. Research? Absolutely. A story is quite literally painted with details and one of the tough literary writing styles demands a style of 'showing' the detail and not telling about it. Next, sentences structures are better when using 'action' verbage and not 'being' verbage. Sentence structure can be varied in many ways and a good writer will have command of this in ways that improves flow of actions through paragraphs that feed from the ending thoughts of one paragraph to the beginning of the next. A good writer doesn't simply tell a story. A good writer does not simply sew together facts garnered from research. A good writer uses a command of what he sews together in a novel via a structure and technique of grammatical style that allows a reader to wade into the story such that every chapter, every page, every paragraph, every sentence and every word is a lure to the next in a way that flows and entices the reader onward.

The many notes is one thing, but as the story is fleshed out, the time gets spent editing and re-editing, modifying the structure, the wordage and the sequencing of events, actions and spaces to make the story a living breathing literary experience. Showing as opposed to telling, action as opposed to being and care not to excessively repeat certain words and sneak in clever use of synonyms, doing a fair trade on character names and pronouns without muddling who or what. A writer may choose to do descriptive things through character dialogue and dialogue between characters, giving them personalities and emotion is another tough effort. This all takes time and sometimes the original plot concept gets changed before the whole manuscript approaches completion. Some writers might be able to stitch together a novel and get it published, but it may not be well written and it will not define them as good writers. I'm am sure that you have encountered literature that you found you had to endure, rather than enjoy. There is a difference. I have been told that my own writing is often found to be somewhat poetic due to the effort I have put in the make the sentences 'breathable' to the reader by giving things a cadence, something that I intentionally attempted to do.

Time is an essential and often, I switch between projects when I get stymied and that adds even more time.

 

[flyinglentris]

It’s a mix, really. Some of my larger ones, and my more mainstream ones (like Betty Crocker), contain sections on cooking items/gear, a section on terms, a section on techniques, and even tips on entertaining and how to set a table.

I do have Pepin’s Complete Technique/La Technique, which is flipped around; heavy on technique (thus the title), with a handful of recipes used to show practical applications of certain techniques.

The more specialized and/or less expensive cookbooks I have are simply recipe collections, really.

I’m also reading a Romanian cookbook right now, an apparent labor of love by a home cook who also isn’t a professional writer, and he’s included some specialized techniques, information about certain specific ingredients, culinary history, history in general, and even folklore.

Personally, these types of cookbooks are my least favorite, because there’s a lot of extraneous material to wade through to get to the recipes. That’s what a good editor is for, looking at something with less emotional attachment and separating the wheat from the chaff.

What I called recipe books are often called cook books, none the less.

I did some digging for what some chefs relate to be one of the best 'cooking and food science' books, Harold McGee's "On Food and Cooking."

Photo courtesy of Wikipedia

I also found that the Culinary Institute of America (CIA) has several interesting books to consider.