More? What the Dickens are you talking about?

[kelber at mindspring.com]

The writer seems to discount that little old thing called corruption, whereby delivered food supplies might never actually reach the table.

Laura

-----Original Message-----
>From: Dave Monroe <against.the.dave at gmail.com>
>Sent: Dec 19, 2008 11:58 AM
>To: Pynchon-L <pynchon-l at waste.org>
>Cc: Tim Strzechowski <dedalus204 at comcast.net>
>Subject: More? What the Dickens are you talking about?
>
>More? What the Dickens are you talking about?
>Thu Dec 18, 2008 2:03pm EST
>
>
>LONDON (Reuters) - Oliver Twist wouldn't have needed any more gruel in
>real life, scientists said Thursday.
>
>The picture painted by Charles Dickens of starvation rations in an
>1830s workhouse north of London is wide of mark, according to an
>analysis of menus and other historical evidence.
>
>Dickens' eponymous hero famously asked for more of the "thin gruel"
>doled out three times daily in the grim institution for the poor where
>he grew up.
>
>In fact, contemporary recipes suggest such workhouse gruel was
>substantial, with each pint containing 1.25 ounces of best oatmeal,
>and servings supplemented by wholesome coarse bread.
>
>Historical data also shows large quantities of beef and mutton were
>delivered to workhouses, pediatric dietician Sue Thornton of
>Northampton General Hospital in central England and colleagues wrote
>in the British Medical Journal.
>
>Such a diet, comprising three pints of gruel a day, would sustain
>growth in a nine-year-old child like Oliver, unless he was
>exceptionally active.
>
>"Given the limited number of food staples used, the workhouse diet was
>certainly dreary, but it was adequate," they concluded.
>
>http://www.reuters.com/article/oddlyEnoughNews/idUSTRE4BH60N20081218