Cinemorphosis

Tag: recipes

  • Steak, Asparagus, and Existential Despair

    Steak, Asparagus, and Existential Despair

    In 1994, my friend S—a remarkably successful athletic coach—and his girlfriend L invited my girlfriend M and me over for dinner. The evening began with all the reassuring signs of suburban domesticity: thick steaks, asparagus, baked potatoes, and the pleasant illusion that four adults were about to enjoy an uneventful meal. The illusion lasted roughly as long as it took to butter the potatoes. A minor disagreement flared between S and L. Hoping to extinguish it, S tossed out one of those breezy, dismissive remarks men often mistake for conflict resolution. It had precisely the opposite effect. L’s irritation hardened into outrage. She stood up, marched to the bathroom, and slammed the door with enough force to suggest that diplomacy had officially left the premises. S responded with equal maturity. He retreated to his bedroom, collapsed onto the bed, and stared at the ceiling fan as though it alone understood the tragedy of his existence.

    After checking on S and confirming that he had transformed himself into a martyr for the cause of romantic suffering, I returned to the dining room. M looked at me expectantly.

    “What should we do?” she asked.

    I looked at the steak cooling on my plate.

    “I don’t know,” I said. “I’m hungry.”

    “You can’t eat now.”

    “Why not? They’re the ones having the fight.”

    With that, I carved off a generous piece of steak and continued dinner as if emotional meltdowns were merely another side dish. M looked at me with the sort of disbelief usually reserved for people who clap when airplanes land. She wanted intervention, mediation, perhaps a heartfelt conversation. I wanted medium-rare.

    Fifteen minutes later, having completed my meal with admirable focus, I decided to make one last reconnaissance mission. I peered into S’s bedroom. There he remained, stretched flat on his back, one hand resting dramatically on his stomach, the other draped across his forehead like a silent-film actor portraying terminal consumption. He looked less like a man recovering from an argument than a casualty awaiting the arrival of battlefield medics.

    “I think M and I are going to head out,” I said. “See you later.”

    What emerged from him in response was not a word but a sound—a long, mournful groan so desolate that it resembled the final squeak of a woodland creature meeting an unfortunate end beneath a boot. It was a noise of pure existential surrender, as though every disappointment he had ever experienced had converged into one exhausted exhalation.

    A week later, the four of us met again at a bowling alley. S and L laughed, joked, and behaved as though the disastrous dinner had never occurred. The previous week’s emotional apocalypse had apparently been filed away with the leftovers. A year later they married. Two years after that, following the birth of their daughter, they divorced. S never remarried, though he went on to enjoy a distinguished coaching career and touched countless young lives. Time has blurred many details of those years, but one remains astonishingly vivid. I can no longer remember exactly what started the argument. I can barely remember what we talked about before it began. But I remember that groan. Some sounds become permanent residents of memory because they reveal, in a single involuntary moment, more truth about a person’s inner life than a thousand carefully chosen words ever could.

  • When Dinner Becomes a Competitive Sport

    When Dinner Becomes a Competitive Sport

    Last night I took my family to the wildly popular Din Tai Fung at Del Amo Fashion Center. The restaurant is so sought after that reservations are practically mandatory. We arrived at 5:15, where the hostess handed me one of those vibrating plastic squares whose sole purpose is to inform you that civilization has deemed you worthy of a table.

    The place hummed with confidence.

    While countless restaurants sit half-empty, echoing like abandoned aircraft hangars, Din Tai Fung radiates the quiet swagger of a business that knows people will happily wait an hour for dumplings. Crowds are persuasive. We instinctively trust a line.

    Let me say at the outset that I have nothing but respect for the restaurant. The food was fresh, the service polished, and the operation impressively efficient.

    I probably won’t return.

    The restaurant isn’t the problem.

    We are.

    More specifically, our method of eating.

    The pilgrimage began a month ago when my teenage daughter announced that we had to go. I immediately suspected the true maître d’ behind this reservation.

    TikTok.

    She already had the menu mapped out on her phone like General Patton preparing the invasion of Sicily. We surrendered command without resistance.

    Soon the table filled with cucumber salad, soy noodle salad, chicken dumplings, spicy chicken wontons, garlic string beans, sesame noodles, and spicy noodles.

    Then came dessert.

    Naturally, dessert wasn’t merely consumed.

    It was documented.

    My daughter carefully filmed her chocolate-and-mochi xiao long bao with sea salt cream, followed by a mountain of mango shaved ice, ensuring that posterity—and TikTok—would know she had participated in this important cultural event.

    The food was certainly good.

    But I never experienced the culinary epiphany I had been promised.

    Instead, I found myself eating an astonishing quantity of carbohydrates swimming through enough sauce to lubricate heavy machinery. Every dish seemed to plead for a dinner roll that never arrived. By the end of the meal I was pleasantly full but oddly unsatisfied, as though my body kept asking,

    “Where exactly was the protein?”

    The service, though gracious, occasionally drifted into theater.

    Our server—a delightful young woman—carefully demonstrated how to combine vinegar, soy sauce, and chili oil with the solemnity of a physicist unveiling the double helix. Her instructions were earnest and impeccably delivered.

    I couldn’t help wondering whether I was preparing dumplings or splitting the atom.

    Then came the part I liked least.

    Family-style dining.

    In theory, it is wonderful.

    Everyone samples everything.

    Conversation flows.

    The table becomes a communal celebration.

    In practice, our table resembled an Olympic qualifying event.

    Chopsticks lunged in every direction.

    Bowls crossed paths.

    Sauce migrated across plates, fingers, sleeves, and probably several neighboring ZIP codes. I found myself wishing I’d packed a HAZMAT suit.

    Adding to the chaos, my TikTok-inspired daughter attacked the shared dishes with the urgency of someone preparing for hibernation, leaving her twin sister, my wife, and me politely negotiating whatever remained.

    The meal became less about eating than about strategic timing.

    Should I grab another dumpling now?

    Will there still be string beans in thirty seconds?

    Has anyone actually tasted the sesame noodles, or have they already disappeared?

    After paying the bill, a staggering $200, and we finally arrived home, my wife quietly toasted herself a protein pancake, spread peanut butter on top, drizzled it with honey, and ate what amounted to her real dinner.

    Then she made an observation that explained the entire evening.

    “I never relax during shared meals,” she said. “It always feels like an eating competition, and I end up with the short end of the stick.”

    The moment she said it, I realized I felt exactly the same way.

    The problem wasn’t Din Tai Fung.

    The problem was our assumption that communal eating automatically creates communal joy.

    Sometimes it creates scarcity.

    Scarcity creates competition.

    Competition is not particularly relaxing.

    I’ve reached a simple conclusion.

    Next time, everyone orders their own entrée.

    Everyone eats at their own pace.

    Everyone leaves satisfied.

    Family-style dining remains a lovely idea. It promises abundance, togetherness, and the pleasure of sampling half the menu.

    Sometimes it delivers exactly that.

    Other times it turns dinner into a low-grade food draft where you’re calculating dumpling trajectories instead of enjoying your family’s company.

    When that happens, I can’t help asking myself a simple question.

    Why didn’t I just walk next door to Frida, order a platter of rib-eye tacos, sip a mango margarita, and let everyone else fight over the last dumpling?

  • The Death of Big Ideas

    The Death of Big Ideas

    Last night I dreamed that I had finally discovered the central truth about teaching college writing.

    Our students belonged to a generation too fragile to confront the Big Ideas.

    In the dream, the Big Ideas were never clearly defined. They remained tantalizingly out of reach, like a sacred text written in invisible ink. Yet everyone understood their importance. They were the reason genuine professors entered the profession in the first place. They were the intellectual equivalent of the Holy Grail.

    And therein lay the tragedy.

    The very thing teachers longed to discuss was the very thing students were determined to avoid.

    This revelation struck me with prophetic force. I became convinced that I had uncovered the hidden code explaining the modern educational crisis. Naturally, I assumed the world would be grateful.

    I was wrong.

    Like an itinerant preacher possessed by a dubious revelation, I traveled from place to place proclaiming the Death of Big Ideas. I lectured at colleges. I preached at vacation resorts. I cornered people at spas. I delivered impromptu sermons near construction sites. Everywhere I went, I explained that students no longer wished to wrestle with difficult truths, moral complexity, existential questions, or ideas large enough to rearrange their lives.

    My audiences listened with varying degrees of politeness.

    Some nodded absentmindedly.

    Others stared at me the way one stares at a man enthusiastically describing his collection of antique doorknobs.

    Most seemed annoyed.

    This bewildered me. I possessed what I considered the most important insight of the century, yet people treated it as if I were recommending a new brand of lawn fertilizer.

    Disheartened by the world’s indifference, I suspended my crusade and retreated to a health spa.

    There I took a shower using mashed bananas as body wash.

    I stood beneath the water, coating myself in a thick yellow foam that smelled like a tropical smoothie having a nervous breakdown. The banana lather clung to my arms and chest while I reflected on the fate of civilization.

    As I scrubbed, I could hear construction workers laboring outside.

    These men, I thought, needed the Big Ideas.

    Perhaps they had never encountered them.

    Perhaps they were waiting for me.

    Perhaps I was destined to bring them enlightenment.

    I rinsed off the banana residue, dressed hurriedly, and rushed outside to share my revelation.

    The construction workers were gone.

    Every last one of them.

    Apparently someone had warned them that an agitated college instructor was approaching with grand theories about society, education, and the meaning of life.

    They had wisely chosen to flee.

    I awoke sobered by humanity’s universal rejection of my urgent message.

    At the same time, I found myself strangely curious about whether mashed bananas might actually make an effective body wash.

    One thing was certain: Somewhere along the way, I had completely gone bananas.

  • The Lazy Tax in the Kitchen

    The Lazy Tax in the Kitchen

    A few years ago, my wife and I attempted a moral upgrade. We bought top-tier stainless steel pans—clean, durable, virtuous. The kind of cookware that suggests you’ve finally grown up. What we actually got was a daily demonstration of failure. Meat clung to the surface like it had signed a lease. Eggs fused themselves into modern art. Dinner became a split decision: half of it made it to our plates, the other half calcified into a crust we had to chisel off like archaeologists of our own incompetence.

    So we retreated to ceramic nonstick—the promise of safety without the suffering. And to be fair, it worked. Eggs slid. Meat behaved. For a few months, we lived in a frictionless utopia. Then the decline began. The surface lost its glide, the cleanup grew less effortless, and by the one-year mark, the pan looked like it had survived a minor war. We replaced it. Then replaced it again. Three pans in three years. Smooth sailing followed by predictable decay.

    Now I’m floating a compromise: carbon steel for meat, ceramic reserved strictly for eggs. On paper, it’s elegant. Carbon steel rewards discipline—season it, preheat it, clean it promptly—and in return, it gives you something close to permanence. But the fine print matters. Acidic sauces erode seasoning. One careless move and the pan reverts to its old habits, clinging and punishing. You can follow the rules and still lose.

    If I’m honest, I suspect this experiment will end the same way the others did: with a sigh and another $100 ceramic pan purchased in quiet resignation. I’ve started calling this cycle the Lazy Tax—not because we’re lazy in the crude sense, but because we refuse to turn dinner into a technical exercise. We don’t want to manage a pan like it’s a piece of lab equipment. And yet the alternative is paying annually for convenience that quietly expires.

    That’s the real tension. If something feels like a job and only delivers a marginal improvement, you won’t sustain it. You default to ease. But ease has a cost. It trims your skill set, narrows your tolerance for friction, and charges your credit card for the privilege. In the end, you’re not just buying pans—you’re renting competence.

  • Why Good Salsa Matters

    Why Good Salsa Matters

    In 1967, my father took me to the grand opening of a Taco Bell in San Jose, California. This was my first encounter with fast food as spectacle—and with teenagers as a category of human being. They stood behind the registers in a loose formation, and every one of them appeared to be afflicted with the same alarming facial condition. Spots everywhere. An outbreak.

    I was five. I did the math available to me. Had a disease swept through the workforce? Did Taco Bell exposure cause lesions? Were the refried beans radioactive?

    I asked my father what was wrong with their faces.

    “They’re pimples,” he said. Then, without hesitation, he added, “According to Aristotle, God gives pimples to teenagers to teach them humility.”

    I knew immediately this was untrue. Not because I had read Aristotle—I hadn’t—but because I knew my father. This was him doing what he loved most: inventing authority on the spot. He also harbored a low-grade contempt for teenagers, whom he regarded as overconfident and undercooked. Acne, in his view, was divine pushback. Cosmic slapstick.

    The pimples unsettled me, but they did not interfere with my appetite. I ate my tacos and frijoles under the Taco Bell canopy, admiring the beige stone “Mexican” architecture—the aesthetic equivalent of a sombrero on a filing cabinet. The food itself was a novelty. We didn’t eat Mexican food, and Taco Bell certainly wasn’t Mexican food, but it was a portal. A gateway drug.

    Within a few years, my mother was making tacos, burritos, and enchiladas at home. Our Mexican-American neighbors, Mike and Felice Orozco, made salsa from ingredients grown in our own backyards. The salsa lived on the coffee table in a volcanic tureen, like something sacred and faintly dangerous. You could smell it the moment you walked into the living room—chilies, onions, garlic, alive and unapologetic.

    The color stopped you. A deep ruby red. Not restaurant red. Not industrial red. Real red. I have eaten excellent salsa over the decades, but nothing has ever matched the salsa Felice Orozco taught my mother to make in the late 1960s. Even now, if a Mexican restaurant brings out a pre-meal salsa that approaches that standard—even halfway—I take it as a sign of moral seriousness.

    Felice Orozco’s salsa wasn’t just delicious. It was philosophical. It carried an unspoken argument about what survives and what matters. When families pass down food traditions, they’re saying something quietly radical: some knowledge deserves care, repetition, and fidelity. This isn’t about novelty or performance. It’s not about artisanal swagger or bragging rights. It’s about love made practical. Wisdom with onions.

    So what was Taco Bell to me as a child? A desecration of Mexican food? No. It was a signpost. A crude outpost with a faint aroma of the real thing. It pointed toward a richer city beyond itself—a place where food meant connection, where flavors carried memory and generosity.

    The sign didn’t point south.
    It pointed to Felice Orozco’s house.

  • Bland Is My Brand: Confessions of a Simplicity Addict

    Bland Is My Brand: Confessions of a Simplicity Addict

    All I want is a simple life. Not monk-on-a-mountain simple—just orderly, disciplined, and quietly adult. The kind of life where the tools around me signal that I’ve stopped auditioning for chaos. My shaving ritual is a 1959 Gillette Fatboy and cheap double-edge blades. My coffee comes from freshly ground dark roast, brewed slow enough to qualify as a character-building exercise. On my wrist: a diver on rubber, because I value function over flash. My workouts happen in the garage with kettlebells. My wardrobe is a uniform—black athletic pants, dark T-shirts, sherpa sweatshirts when the temperature drops. My car is a Honda Accord: bland, boring, and unkillable. People mock its white-bread styling. I embrace it. Bland is my brand.

    Food, however, is where simplicity turns into a group project. My own diet dreams of sweet potatoes, steel-cut oats, buckwheat groats, millet, tofu sautéed in Trader Joe’s curry or peanut sauce, nutritional yeast sprinkled like the Parmesan of moral superiority. I’ll toss in tuna or salmon a few nights a week for variety. My family, meanwhile, wants chicken tenders and taco meat—organic, sure, but flown in from Australia and Argentina like first-class beef. I made a sincere pitch for a mostly plant-based household. It failed spectacularly. Democracy has spoken, and it wants ground beef.

    Appliance-wise, I’m at a crossroads of excess. I own a rice cooker I never use and a giant Instant Pot I never use. They sit there like bulky monuments to abandoned ambition. I could use them for oats, groats, rice, and millet—or I could do what my soul really wants: get rid of both and buy one small pressure cooker that doesn’t hog the counter. Two out, one in. The math thrills me. My wife has approved the purchase. Now comes the real drama: do we donate the old machines, exile them to the garage, or perform the ritual drive to Goodwill? These are the kinds of ethical dilemmas that define modern minimalism.

    Of course, I feel a pang of guilt every time I buy something in the name of owning less. Nothing complicates a simplicity quest like consumer remorse. Forgive me my first-world angst. I suspect this whole project—paring down razors, beans, watches, and appliances—is really a coping mechanism. It’s easier to optimize your oatmeal workflow than confront the madness of the world. So here I am, scrolling Reddit, reading debates about rice cookers versus pressure cookers, pretending that the right appliance might finally bring me peace. Spoiler: it won’t. But it might make better millet.

  • Stir-Free Peanut Butter and the Slow Death of Self-Control

    Stir-Free Peanut Butter and the Slow Death of Self-Control

    Frictionless Consumption is the pattern by which ease replaces judgment and convenience overrides restraint. When effort is removed—no stirring, no waiting, no resistance—consumption accelerates beyond intention because nothing slows it down. What once required pause, preparation, or minor inconvenience now flows effortlessly, inviting repetition and excess. The danger is not the object itself but the vanished friction that once acted as a governor on behavior. Frictionless consumption feels like freedom in the moment, but over time it produces dependency, overuse, and decline, as appetite expands to fill the space where effort used to be. In eliminating difficulty, it quietly eliminates self-regulation, leaving users wondering how they arrived at excess when nothing ever felt like too much.

    ***

    For decades, I practiced the penitential ritual of mixing organic peanut butter. I wrapped a washcloth around a tablespoon for traction and churned as viscous globs of nut paste and brown sludge slithered up the sides of the jar. The stirring was never sufficient. No matter how heroic the effort, you always discovered fossilized peanut-butter boulders lurking at the bottom, surrounded by a moat of free-floating oil. The jar itself became slick, greasy, faintly accusatory. Still, I consoled myself with the smug glow of dietary righteousness. At least I’m natural, I thought, halo firmly in place.

    Then one day, my virtue collapsed. I sold my soul and bought Stir-Free. Its label bore the mark of the beast—additives, including the much-maligned demon, palm oil—but the first swipe across a bagel was a revelation. No stirring. No resistance. No penance. It spread effortlessly on toast, waffles, pancakes, anything foolish enough to cross its path. The only question that remained was not Is this evil? but Why did I waste decades of my life pretending the other way was better?

    The answer arrived quietly, in the form of my expanding waistline. Because peanut butter had become frictionless, I began consuming it with abandon. Spoonfuls multiplied. Servings lost their meaning. I blamed palm oil, of course—it had a face, a name, a moral odor—but the real culprit was ease. Stir-Free was not just a product; it was an invitation. When effort disappears, consumption accelerates. I didn’t gain weight because of additives. I gained weight because nothing stood between me and another effortless swipe.

    Large Language Models are Stir-Free peanut butter for the mind. They are smooth, stable, instantly gratifying, and always ready to spread. They remove the resistance from thinking, deliver fast results, and reward you with the illusion of productivity. Like Stir-Free, they invite overuse. And like Stir-Free, the cost is not immediately obvious. The more you rely on them, the more your intellectual core softens. Eventually, you’re left with a cognitive physique best described as a pencil-neck potato—bulky output, no supporting structure.

    The promise of a frictionless life is one of the great seductions of the modern age. It feels humane, efficient, enlightened. In reality, it is a trap. Friction was never the enemy; it was the brake. Remove it everywhere—food, thinking, effort, judgment—and you don’t get progress. You get collapse, neatly packaged and easy to spread.

  • Breakfast Grains and Other Existential Threats As I Embark Upon a Two-Month Vacation

    Breakfast Grains and Other Existential Threats As I Embark Upon a Two-Month Vacation

    Today is my last day of class before I’m loosed into a two-month intermission—a stretch of time that must be handled like a late-arrival character in a film. This visitor has a history with me, knows my flaws, and demands that I greet him with something better than the usual slouch and shrug.

    Naturally, I’ll rehab the shoulder, write, and play the piano. Exercise will take care of itself; addiction is nothing if not reliable. Food, however, is the saboteur lurking in my blind spot. My emotional attachments to breakfast grains would make a Freudian blush: buckwheat groats, steel-cut oats, rolled oats, vanilla protein powder, cinnamon, berries, nuts. The whole wholesome choir. Trouble is, those virtuous bowls can turn caloric faster than a Hallmark plot twist.

    These cereals, if I’m honest, are less about hunger and more about the psychic umbilical cord. They point back to Mother, the Womb, or—in Phil Stutz’s terms—the Comfort Zone, the Warm Bath. Linger too long in that morning porridge spa, and the scale begins to stage an intervention. Add in my peculiar habit of finding solace in true-crime documentaries—an activity best described as athletic only in its couch commitment—and the trajectory is clear: weight gain, sloth, entropy.

    Fortunately, I do maintain countermeasures. Kettlebells and the Schwinn Airdyne stand ready like loyal foot soldiers. Reading, writing, and piano practice also help stave off the creeping rot. And yes, I’ll continue shaving, if only to avoid becoming the bearded oracle wandering the streets muttering about glycemic index.

    This two-month hiatus is really a dress rehearsal for retirement, which is now only eighteen months and three semesters away. It would be dishonest to pretend the prospect doesn’t rattle me. Maintaining purpose without the scaffolding of a teaching schedule is its own moral test. I’m fortunate to have reached this threshold, but fortune alone won’t keep me from misusing it. All I can do is stay awake, practice discipline, and ask my Maker for the humility to spend the limited time left with intention rather than drift.

  • How to Shut Up a Yacht Critic: Feed Them Into Oblivion

    How to Shut Up a Yacht Critic: Feed Them Into Oblivion


    My wife and I have been watching the current season of Below Deck Mediterranean and have been impressed with the consistent food preparation of the eccentric chef Josh Bingham. He stormed off the boat when one of the charter guests, Carlos, lectured Josh on his inferior vegan fare. Too much starch, not enough creativity, not enough this, not enough that. One of the excruciating pleasures of this show is watching people whose expectations run so high that they become obnoxious. They spent so much money, they feel entitled to push the chef and other crew members to extremes in order to justify the price of a premium yacht adventure. 

    Josh’s food on this charter looked disappointing, a melange of mediocrity. The meals had no identity. He was trying to please too many palates. 

    One thing occurred to me: There are always a few vegans who charter these yachts. Some are more fake than others. They want the vegan halo but not the vegan austerity. In other words, they want rich, decadent meals, just as inviting as steak and lobster. They crave butter-rich sauces, glazed proteins, and seductive textures, only delivered via tofu and oat milk so their consciences remain stainless.

    Therefore, if I were Josh or any chef on one of these luxury yachts, I would have an emergency toolkit of go-to rich and decadent vegan meals. One that immediately comes to mind would be Thai peanut Satay with fried tofu and white rice. Serve it with Sichuan green beans and broccoli lacquered in sesame oil, give them some fresh sesame rolls dipped in olive oil and garlic, and that would surely shut them up and induce them into a long, satisfying nap. 

    If I were a chef on this show, I would want to create food so luxurious, decadent, and soothing, it would induce the charters into a deep sleep and thereby allow me and my fellow crew members to take a well-deserved break. 

  • Essay Prompt: Innovation, Identity, and the Meaning of “Authentic” Food

    Essay Prompt: Innovation, Identity, and the Meaning of “Authentic” Food

    In Chef’s Table: Pizza, Ann Kim rebuilds her life after a failed acting career by reinventing pizza through the lens of her Korean-American identity. Her dishes fold together memory, rebellion, shame, pride, and the complicated love between immigrant parents and their children. Yet the moment she alters traditional recipes or refuses rigid cultural expectations, she steps into a debate that surrounds many immigrant chefs:
    Does innovation honor one’s heritage—or distort it?

    In this 1,700-word argumentative essay, you will explore that tension by comparing Ann Kim’s story with the themes found in Ugly Delicious (Season 1, “Tacos”), selected episodes of The Taco Chronicles, Gustavo Arellano’s “Let White People Appropriate Mexican Food,” and Kelley Kwok’s “‘Not Real Chinese’: Why American Chinese Food Deserves Our Respect.” Your goal is to craft an argument that responds to the following question:

    When immigrant chefs remix, adapt, or modernize traditional dishes, are they betraying cultural authenticity—or creating a new form of belonging that honors their past in a more personal way?

    To answer this question, analyze how each show or essay portrays the cultural meaning of food—its connection to heritage, shame, pride, memory, and the immigrant experience. Pay close attention to visual rhetoric (music, tone, pacing, imagery), and consider how these choices shape our sense of what counts as “authentic.”

    Include at least two scholarly secondary sources on food studies, cultural identity, or immigrant narratives to deepen your analysis. These sources should help you place the shows and essays within broader academic conversations about authenticity, assimilation, and innovation.

    Your essay must include a counterargument-rebuttal section. Address the view that innovation leads to “tourist food” or watered-down Americanization, and explain whether these cases justify a purist stance toward food traditions—or whether purity itself is an illusion shaped by nostalgia, nationalism, or fear of cultural loss.

    Ultimately, your task is to show how food becomes a form of storytelling—and to argue whether storytelling requires faithful preservation, bold revision, or something in between.