
#WordlessWednesday: Smoke and Knitting and Sunlight and Nuts

life, the universe, and a few-odd other things


I must have been around nine or ten, reading an article in the yearly Reader’s Digest Youth Anthology about Marie Curie. You know, the famous scientist? First woman to receive a Nobel Prize? First woman to receive multiple Nobel Prizes, in fact? Only person ever to get a Nobel Prize in two different fields? Yeah, her. So inspiring, such a role model.
There’s one sentence that stuck out to me so much I still remember it forty-odd years later. The article was talking about Mme Curie’s life, and it described how she would get ready for her day at the research lab, making sure her two little girls were looked after, putting a stew on the back burner for their dinner. A little while later, she would be in the lab, and, so the article said, “adjusted the flame of her Bunsen burner with the same care that she had used for the flame of the stew pot that morning…”
Ah, thought little pig-tailed nine-year-old me, that’s how it’s done. If a girl wants to be a famous scientist and do life-changing work, she has to make sure that the beef stew for her family back in her kitchen is as well-regulated as the flame of the Bunsen burner in her lab.

This morning, as I was thinking about this in the course of my never-ending struggle with running the multiple tracks of my life, I came up with a phrase to describe this idea: the Parallel Lives Fallacy. It’s the idea that if you only work hard enough, you can, in fact, excel at multiple different roles—you can lead Parallel Lives. Like Marie Curie, who so admirably regulated the flames of her role of housewife and mother and Nobel-Prize-winning scientist.
Parallel Lives: in one life, you’re a full-time award-winning scientist; in another, you’re an excellent housewife and devoted mother (also full-time). Maybe you even add a third one, where you’re a dedicated volunteer and full-time caregiver to your ailing parents. Or, wait, you could be an artist, as well! Write novels, or make pottery to sell at the market, or paint pictures to go in exhibitions!
Full-time jobs, all of them. Several full-time jobs. Wait—full-time. Several full-times. Nothing wrong with that concept, is there? It’s just like, when your plate is full, you can obviously go back to the buffet with it and start loading it up with another plateful’s worth of food, right? Several platefuls.
Yes, I know the image that brings up. “On top of spaghetti / all covered in cheese, / I lost my poor meatball / when somebody sneezed. / It rolled off the table, / it rolled on the floor, / and then my poor meatball / rolled out of the door…”

Marie Curie was amazing. She pulled off the Parallel Lives stunt to admiration, without losing a single meatball, from what I can tell. However, her work eventually killed her, because she didn’t know to protect herself from the fascinating stuff she had discovered. It also killed her daughter, Irène (another Nobel Prize winning scientist working with radiation). Apparently (according to Wikipedia), Marie Curie’s papers—including her cookbooks!—even more than a hundred years later have such a high level of radioactive contamination that they’re kept in lead-lined boxes and are considered too hazardous to handle without protective equipment.
I can’t help but wonder about the state of that stew on the carefully regulated burner—was that contaminated, too?
The Parallel Lives Fallacy is a fallacy. Because unless you’re Marie Curie (and I sure am not), you just can’t pull it off without losing at least one or two of your meatballs off that plate. Which is a patent waste of good meatballs (I have a recipe, if you’re interested). You get one plate, and it only holds one plateful of food. There is only one day in a day, only twenty-four hours in twenty-four hours, and only space for one full-time job in your full time.
The problem with Marie Curie’s Bunsen burner is not that we admire her for her balancing act of flame-regulation. It’s that we (okay, that I) instantly think that that’s the only way to do it, the only way to be a successful and worthy person. That we succumb to the Parallel Lives Fallacy.
The reality is that one plateful of food is enough. One day in a day, one life in a life. If you try to stack more on top, the meatballs go rolling under a bush, and, contrary to the song lyrics, don’t grow into a meatball tree but just attract maggots and rats. At least in my life they do.
So I’m going to turn my back on that Parallel Lives Fallacy. I’m going to try to choose more carefully what I want on my plate, because I really enjoy meatballs and don’t want them rolling under a bush on me. I also like spaghetti noodles, and tomato sauce, and a lovely green salad, and maybe some cooked carrots or a piece of garlic bread… I want to have room for them all on my one plate, so I can enjoy the whole meal, savour it and get nourishment from it. One plate, one plateful.
Oh, but you know what? A little secret: You get dessert. In a separate little glass dish. You don’t have to pile it onto your plate with the meatballs. Make of that what you will.
Life, the Universe, and Marie Curie’s Bunsen Burner. One life to live is enough.
News from Fairy Tale Land! Eight years ago, when I was researching my final project for my MA, I wrote a post on my research blog, quill and qwerty, on the iconic film Three Hazelnuts for Cinderella. It’s a German-Czech production from 1973 that has achieved near-cult status in Germany, and has influenced more than one “Cinderella” movie since then (including the 1998 Ever After and the wonderful 2015 live-action version). At the time, I was bemoaning the fact that there didn’t seem to be an English version of this so very lovely movie. Well, a couple of years ago a reader commented that an English version did exist; she’d watched it on TV in the 70s – and today, she posted the link to it on Youtube!
The quality of the recording isn’t the greatest, and it’s a slightly abridged version (1 hr as opposed to the 1 1/2 hrs of the original), but that doesn’t matter – it’s Three Nuts for Cinderella in English! So now you, too, can go watch it and know what it was that I’ve been raving about all that time. Thank you, Colleen! (Note, the beginning and end of the film are in the original Czech; the English dub starts at 6:34.)
So if you want to indulge in some shameless fairy tale enjoyment, hie thee to a Youtube channel, kick back and watch Three Nuts for Cinderella. You won’t be sorry.
A post from five years ago. I don’t have any Puy lentils at the moment, but I think I have some brown lentils on hand still. I might have to make this soup again soon.

It was so cold and miserable yesterday, I had to have something hot for lunch. There weren’t any leftovers, and I didn’t feel like having anything from a can. So I made some lentil soup, from Puy (French) lentils I’ve had in the cupboard for, oh, probably three or four years. (Me in bulk food store: “Oh, look at those lovely [lentils, peas, beans, walnuts, hazelnuts, mixed dried vegetables, chunks of chocolate, etc etc]! I’ve been meaning to try making [lentil/pea/bean soup, nut bread, veg soup, real chocolate cake, etc etc.]” Buy food. Sit food in cupboard. Periodically open cupboard and consider food. “Oh, look, I never did get around to making [lentil/pea/bean soup etc etc]. Must do that.” Close cupboard, forget about food. Months later, open cupboard, consider food…)
Anyway, I just sort of randomly threw this soup together. Lentils have the advantage that they’re the instant-food variety of the legume world, i.e. they cook in under an hour, as opposed to dried beans which have to pre-soak and then simmer away most of the day. So lentils lend themselves relatively well to impulse cooking (haha, see what I did there? Im-pulse).
So here’s what I did:
Lentil Soup
3c stock (I used ham stock I had in the freezer, but I think even water would work)
1/2 c Puy lentils, rinsed
3/4 tsp salt (could have used less)
chopped green onions
1/2 grated carrot
black pepper, pinch of cayenne pepper
1/2 tsp dried lovage, pinch dried oregano, large five-finger pinch frozen parsley
Dump in pot, bring to boil, turn down heat, simmer for about 45 minutes. To serve, I threw in some grated cheese. Very tasty and warming.
I also found out something: for a while now, I had this theory that the words “lentil” and “lent” are related – that perhaps we call lent lent because people used to eat more lentils then; or vice versa. But, alas, I was wrong. “Lentil” comes from Latin lens, meaning, well, “lentil”, while “lent” comes from Old English lencten, meaning “springtime”. I guess eating lentils in lent is just a coincidence. It was a plausible theory though, don’t you think?
Life, the Universe, and Lenten Soup. I think I’ll have the rest of it today.

She took the lid off the sugar bowl and absentmindedly reached in for a sugar cube. She’d really have to get herself some sugar tongs.
“Oy!” cried an indignant little voice from the bowl. “Do you mind?”
She gave a startled glance into the sugar bowl. A tiny man stared up at her from under a pointy blue hat, clutching a sugar cube in front of him which was unsuccessful at hiding the fact that he was butt naked.
“I beg your pardon!” she said politely. “I didn’t realize you were using my sugar bowl for… for… What are you using it for?”


“I’m too tired,” the witch said.
“Aw, c’mon!” the wizard wheedled. “Just once? Just one teeny, tiny time?”
“No.”
“Pleeeeease?” He batted his long, silky eyelashes.
The witch sighed.
“Oh, fine.” She raised her short, stubby black wand. “Bibbety-boppety-booh!”
Sparkles shot out of the end of the wand and rained down on the wizard’s hat.
“Wheee!” he trilled, clapping his fingers together and spinning in the glittering shower.
Reluctantly, the witch gave a smile.

In a manner of speaking, this is a #ThrowbackThursday post. Not that it’s been posted before, but I started writing it exactly two years ago, on our last trip out of the country. Somehow, with the lockdown and everything, I never had the heart to finish it, but now, on the second anniversary of the trip, it seemed like a good time to dust it off and put it up. Now that things are opening up again, maybe it’ll be possible to go back there soon?
I was just on another jaunt to the Old Country. As I’ve said before, while living halfway across the globe from your family can be a pain in the neck (literally – those long flights are uncomfortable), a visit also makes for good opportunities to get in some sightseeing.
This time, I got to see the Dickens Museum at 48 Doughty Street in London*. Charles Dickens (whom, courtesy of Roald Dahl and his BFG, I am now always thinking of as Dahl’s Chickens) lived in this house in Bloomsbury from 1837 – 1839, at the very beginning of his writing career. He moved in as an unknown 25-year-old with a wife and one baby, and moved out two years later as a popular writer with two more children and an established name.

Now, I’m not a die-hard Dickens fan – truth be told, I’ve only read about half a dozen of his books so far. But this museum was fascinating in a way that wasn’t even directly about him. The house is a testament to the life of a middle-class family in the very earliest years of Victoria’s reign.
The Dickens family consisted of one young man (Twenty-five! He was just twenty-five!), his wife, her sister, and one-two-three babies. They had: on the ground floor, a dining room and morning room (basically Mrs Dickens’ office or place to hang out); on the first floor a drawing room and Dickens’ study; on the second floor two bedrooms (one for the Dickenses and one for sister-in-law); on the third floor, the nursery and servants’ bedroom; in the basement, the kitchen, scullery, and wash house (laundry room). That’s it.

“Oh, but of course the bathrooms, too,” you say? No. No bathrooms. No toilets**. No sinks, no places to wash hands, except for one stone sink in the basement scullery. So where did they do their, you know, business?
On chamberpots (ceramic bowls large enough to sit on) and commodes, which are basically chairs with a hole in the seat and a potty under it. And you guessed it: somebody had to empty them out. Somebody had to carry porcelain bowls full of smelly, stinky, gross you-know-what down three flights of stairs and dump them.

And that same somebody also got to lug pots full of hot water up the stairs every morning so the family could have a wash. In fact, if Mrs Dickens wanted a bath, she had it in front of the fire in her bedroom. The tub on display at the museum is a little hip bath – small enough that it can be carried while full. Let me repeat that: a tub full of water—let’s say, at a minimum five to ten gallons, or twenty to forty litres/kilos—carried down three flights of stairs. With how small people were in those days, that’s probably half the body weight of the person who had to do the carrying.

The maid who had to do the carrying. Because it sure wasn’t Mr Dickens himself, or his wife, or his sister-in-law.
Hence the servants’ bedroom on the third floor. The young Dickens family in that Doughty Street house, an ordinary middle class family whose sole wage earner was at the beginning of his career, consisted not only of Mr, Mrs, Miss, and Babies, but also a cook, a house/parlour maid, and a nanny. And they needed those servants, because without them, things would have been pretty darn uncomfortable. Servants’ wages and room and board were a normal part of the expenses of any middle class household; not having servants, i.e. having to do the work yourself, was the very definition of “working class.”
I had never really thought about that before. Indoor plumbing with hot and cold water at the push of a button is something we take for granted today; central heating and electric stoves and washing machines and vacuum cleaners are something we don’t even think about.
But in Dickens’ time, indoor plumbing was provided by the servants carrying jugs and buckets and tubs full of water and sewage up and down stairs. Heat to keep you warm and to cook with (Every. Single. Cup of tea!) and hot water to wash or bathe in were supplied by the servants lighting and stoking and cleaning out and re-lighting fireplaces. The scrubbing action and spin cycle of the washing machine came from the servants rubbing and plungering and wringing laundry in the cold stone-flagged wash house in the basement, and the vacuuming of carpets was accomplished by the servants lugging them out back and beating the dirt out of them with a carpet beater.

A lot of us (myself included) have this nostalgia for the days of the past, would like to spend our imaginary lives back in the days “when life was simple,” want to hang out with Elizabeth Bennet and Mr Darcy and Ebenezer Scrooge (once he got his head screwed on straight). But life “in those days” actually wasn’t simple—it was quite complex. And it was almost entirely human-powered. We measure a car’s engine in horsepower—maybe we should measure indoor plumbing and electric washing machines in human-power (“This latest model of Maytag has a 5hu-p/day capacity and is able to draw 8hu-p of hot water in less than two minutes…”).
I’m not going to give up mentally living in the past, but visiting the Dickens Museum has given me a whole new appreciation for just how privileged we are today. Next time you flush the toilet in your second-floor bathroom or crank the handle in the tub to instantly have hot water raining on your head, give a thought to that unnamed woman who, 185 years ago, carried enormous buckets full of water and slop up and down the steep stairs of a small London house, so that a gifted young man could sit in his study and write wonderful stories about Oliver Twist and Nicholas Nickleby that are still with us today.
Life, the Universe, and Indoor Plumbing. Charles Dickens would have been nothing without his servants.
*I can highly recommend the website of the Dickens Museum at https://dickensmuseum.com. Lots of interesting information, and you can take a whole virtual tour of the museum, including admiring the hip bath by the bedroom fire!
**2022 addition: Apparently, as I just found out, there was actually one “water closet” (toilet) on the ground floor and one in the basement, but firstly, that was a new and unusual thing for the day, and secondly, the servants still had to carry all the wash water and chamberpot waste up and down the stairs to the upper floors.
I made a pot of borscht the other day. Because, winter, and beets that needed cooking, and deliciousness. And I was reminded of this blog post from eight years ago, February 6, 2014, written while the Winter Olympics were on in Sochi, Russia. It being the Winter Olympics again, I thought you might like to read it and maybe cook your own borscht.
In honour of the Russian Olympics, I thought I’d cook me a pot of borscht. Well, actually, no, it’s not in honour of the Olympics at all, it’s in honour of the fact that I found a borscht recipe I really like and I wanted some. I hadn’t really ever made borscht before that one, as the man and most of the offspring wouldn’t be into eating it; but I’m on a bit of a food emancipation kick – I want to try new stuff, particularly new vegetable dishes – so I made some. A friend who happened to come by that day ate a bowlful and declared it good borscht, and as she’s of Ukrainian extraction, I feel this soup has received the stamp of approval.
The issue with making anything that involves beets is, of course, that it requires some pre-planning. You can’t just stick your head in the fridge half an hour before you want to eat, and go “Oh, there’s some beets, let’s make something with them” – they take far too long to cook for that. However, cooking them is really easy, and they keep cooked in the fridge for quite some time, so you can pre-cook them one day, and do your spontaneous borschting later in the week. To cook, just wash them off, dump them in a big pot, cover with water, put them on to boil, and bubble-bubble-toil-and-trouble for about an hour (depending on how fat they are – I don’t think you really can overcook beets, so better longer than shorter. Poke the biggest one with a sharp knife, and if the knife slides in easily, they’re done.). Drain them, let them cool (I fill up the pot again with cold water just to cool them off, because I’m too impatient to wait for them to cool on their own), and peel them. Peeling beets is funny – when they’re well-cooked, they slip right out of the skin, with sort of a sloosh kind of noise. I’d highly recommend wearing an apron and/or clothes you don’t care that much about, as your hands and the sink and everything around it will look like a bloodbath (I suppose it is, too – beet blood. Muahahahah!).
Okay, now you’ve got your beets cooked. So here’s the recipe (I got it from the More-With-Less Cookbook by Doris Janzen Longacre, which was the first cookbook I bought myself after I was married. If you can get a hold of that book, I highly recommend it. No, you can’t have my copy; it’s falling apart, anyway.)
Quick Beet Borsch (they spell it without the t. Apparently you can also spell it borshch, which is closer to the Ukrainian/Russian pronunciation. But it looks weird that way.)
1 c cabbage, finely chopped
1 onion, finely chopped
2 c water
cook 10 minutes. Add:
2 c stock or broth
2 medium beets, cooked and chopped
1/2 c beet juice (I leave that out)
1/2 t salt
dash pepper
1 T lemon juice.
bring to a boil, serve with sour cream.
Which is exactly what I’m going to do right now – serve it. Even if it’s just to myself.
Life, the Universe, and Borscht. Do they have cookoffs in the Olympics?
Note on the 2022 edition: these days, I don’t bother with the exact steps of this recipe. I grate/chop the vegetables, dump them in the pot with the seasonings and water or stock (whichever I have available), and simmer it for half an hour or so, until the veggies are soft. I also don’t put in lemon juice, but add some herbs (dill is good, or lovage). If you don’t have sour cream or want to make this a lighter dish, plain yogurt works really well, too. Guten Appetit!