I took these lentil balls to a potluck this weekend. Although they were prominently labeled "VEGAN," they were quickly devoured. I got the recipe from a Turkish food blog. The Turkish name for them is Kırmızı Mercimekli Köfte.They are good warm or cold.
If you want to make them spicy, the traditional ingredient to use is harissa, a chili paste from Morocco - but any hot sauce or chili paste will do. When I went to the Middle Eastern store they had a whole shelf of various chili sauces from around the world, including sriracha (which actually would probably not be good in this dish, because of the sugar.) But their harissa was much more expensive than the other chili pastes, so I went home and used the hot sauce I already had.
Ingredients
2 cups water
1 cup split red lentils (sometimes called Egyptian lentils or masoor dal.)
1/2 cup fine bulghur (look for it at Middle Eastern stores)
1/4 cup olive oil
1 clove of garlic, minced
1 large onion, chopped finely
1 teaspoon of tomato paste (optional) and/or chili paste
1 teaspoon cumin (whole or ground)
1 teaspoon paprika
½ teaspoon salt
1/4 teaspoon black pepper
1/2 cup fresh, chopped flat-leaf parsley
1/2 cup green onions (scallions)
lettuce leaves (I prefer to use Boston lettuce, because it forms natural "cups." Endive might also be good.)
Directions
Bring two cups of water to boil in a pot, and add the lentils. Cook on low heat until the water is absorbed, and the lentils are mushy, about 20 minutes. Turn off the stove, and stir the bulghur into lentils. Let the mixture rest for 15 minutes to allow the bulghur to soften and expand.
In the meantime, fry the cumin seeds, finely chopped onion and minced garlic in olive oil until lightly browned. Add tomato paste at the last minute, stir and turn off the stove.
Stir the fried onion and garlic into the lentil mixture along with the spices and salt. Taste, and adjust salt and spices. Stir in the parsley and green onions. Oil your hands and shape the mixture into egg-shaped balls. Sprinkle with paprika, and place the balls in lettuce leaves. Pick up a lettuce leaf and enjoy!
Tuesday, April 24, 2012
Tuesday, April 3, 2012
Mythological Musings
I think I've mentioned before that I love mythology. It's fascinating to contemplate the fact that these ancient, stripped-down stories still have resonance for so many people today. What makes them eternal?
And although we have only the bare bones of each story, still it often happens that mythology contains concepts which our modern civilization has forgotten about.
The term "hermaphrodite" comes from a Greek myth in which the deities Hermes and Aphrodite had a child together, who, as they say, "combined the attributes of both genders." One encyclopedia of mythology describes this child as "a female boy," as if everyone knows what that is. According to another source, The Dictionary of Classical Mythology, Religion, Literature, and Art (available online):
And although we have only the bare bones of each story, still it often happens that mythology contains concepts which our modern civilization has forgotten about.
The term "hermaphrodite" comes from a Greek myth in which the deities Hermes and Aphrodite had a child together, who, as they say, "combined the attributes of both genders." One encyclopedia of mythology describes this child as "a female boy," as if everyone knows what that is. According to another source, The Dictionary of Classical Mythology, Religion, Literature, and Art (available online):
The fable probably arose from the inclination, prevalent in the Eastern religions, towards confusing the attributes of both sexes. In Cyprus, for instance, a masculine Aphroditos, clad in female attire, was worshipped by the side of the goddess Aphrodite. Figures of hermaphrodites are common in art.
Friday, March 16, 2012
I watched Birth of a Nation.
The Birth of a Nation, as you may know, is a silent film about the Civil War and its aftermath that was made in 1915 by famed director D.W. Griffith. His father was a Confederate soldier, and his film glorifies white supremacy. Many people have said that it is a "great" film, not because of its racist content but because of its film-making techniques. Having finally seen the film, I feel ambivalent about that viewpoint. It is a stirring piece of propaganda, no question. It draws you in. I assume that Griffith not only felt strongly about the end of African-American slavery, but also had the skills needed to present his feelings accurately on film. Both the passion and the knowledge are required: in this case, I don't see how you can separate them.
This film is a peerless exercise in world-building: the construction of an alternate reality. There is nothing sloppy or superficial about it. As a Yankee, I've never really been exposed to these concepts before - certainly not with such heartfelt conviction. And sadly, I now see echoes of the film in our modern race relations. For example, if you believe that the sole purpose of the KKK was self-defense against marauding blacks, then there is a direct link between that and the recent killing of Trayvon Martin. (As it happens, the town where that killing took place traces its history of racial tension all the way back to 1911.)
But back to the film. Birth of a Nation is three hours long; the first hour depicts the war itself, and the next two hours cover Reconstruction and the rise of the Klan. The first hour moves quite slowly (the war scenes especially are not what we've come to expect in a war movie) but after that it picks up and gets more exciting. I like silent films, so I perhaps have more tolerance for old-fashioned film techniques than most people. One of the interesting things about silent film is that the characters talk all the time - you see them having conversations, you just don't hear what they're saying. And in this film especially, it would have been nice to know what was being said in some of those scenes. Did the actors have lines to learn?
There is no way I can convey the scope of this film, the breadth and depth of its fearful imagination and sheer implausibility. I can only focus on a few things that most struck me:
This film is a peerless exercise in world-building: the construction of an alternate reality. There is nothing sloppy or superficial about it. As a Yankee, I've never really been exposed to these concepts before - certainly not with such heartfelt conviction. And sadly, I now see echoes of the film in our modern race relations. For example, if you believe that the sole purpose of the KKK was self-defense against marauding blacks, then there is a direct link between that and the recent killing of Trayvon Martin. (As it happens, the town where that killing took place traces its history of racial tension all the way back to 1911.)
But back to the film. Birth of a Nation is three hours long; the first hour depicts the war itself, and the next two hours cover Reconstruction and the rise of the Klan. The first hour moves quite slowly (the war scenes especially are not what we've come to expect in a war movie) but after that it picks up and gets more exciting. I like silent films, so I perhaps have more tolerance for old-fashioned film techniques than most people. One of the interesting things about silent film is that the characters talk all the time - you see them having conversations, you just don't hear what they're saying. And in this film especially, it would have been nice to know what was being said in some of those scenes. Did the actors have lines to learn?
There is no way I can convey the scope of this film, the breadth and depth of its fearful imagination and sheer implausibility. I can only focus on a few things that most struck me:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
