Nigella - because I can
So, in another contender for the most useless way in which our mmoney is being squandered, a new Government study
has been published that examines the style of English used in cookbooks. First things first - what the bloody hell are they playing at? What on earth makes them think we should be paying for their opinions on the literary styles of chefs? Secondly, the report is really the most astonishingly patronising rubbish.
They may look easy enough, but the recipes of Nigella Lawson and Delia Smith are actually very tricky to follow, a Government study has found.
Crikey! How tricky?
The long sentences, complex measurements and complicated words mean aspiring chefs must be equipped with GCSE standard reading and numeracy skills in order to understand them.
GCSE reading eh? Positively prohibitive standards of literacy required then.
According to the research, Gordon Ramsay's language is so easy to read that his cooking methods could be followed by a seven-year-old.
He'd have to be a particularly profane seven year old I'd have thought. The point appears to be that while male chefs like Ramsay or Jamie Oliver concentrate on making their recipes as straightforward as humanly possible, presumably so that men will be able to follow them, Nigella Lawson and Delia Smith are criticised for, God help me, having too many different stages to her instructions and using unnecessary adjectives. Lord preserve me from unnecessary adjectives.
Some fathead from the Plain English campaign (who should clearly be drizzled with aromatic olive oil, and then slow roasted over a medium flame for approximately 1 hour and 25 minutes, basting occasionally) spouted the following fatuity:
People just want to know how to cook a basic recipe without all the little anecdotes. Sometimes chefs are guilty of trying to tart up a very easy recipe by adding a few adjectives here and there to make it look more difficult.