David Hammond wrote:
What's ridiculous is to assume that any discussion that goes on for this long will not evolve in some way.
Dude, I'm just making an observation. The concept of "ridiculous" (in an exacting sense) involves extreme incongruity. I thought it was rather humorous and vaguely surreal to see a conversation on White Castle morph into quoting Archibald MacLeish's "Ars Poetica" and the purpose of art. Of course I understand the concept of conversational drift. I'm not saying it's bad. I'm just remarking that it's a bit absurd. I'm tensely waiting on tip toes for a rhinoceros to come crashing through this thread.
Anyhow, cocktail conversation theme taken into account, how about a side discussion about the concept of "a guilty pleasure." I posit that one should not feel guilty or ashamed of what they enjoy. Why should one feel "guilty" because they enjoy a taste the "tastemakers" don't approve of? A guilty pleasure rarely has anything to do with personal guilt. Sure, there are guilty pleasures like that big fattening donut you have from time to time when you're supposed to be on a diet. That's not the kind of guilty pleasure I'm talking about. I'm talking about guilty pleasures that come from without--that are based on the approval of a peer group. For example, if you were on a fast food lovers message board, would you describe eating White Castles a guilty pleasure? Of course not. (Unless you're being snarky, Mr. Hammond.) Yet here, on LTH, one might couch it in those terms in order to say "hey, I know you guys don't approve of this, so I'll sheepishly admit that I agree that I'm not supposed to like it, but I do." As the kids say, FTN.
Like what you like, and don't feel guilty about it.
Quote:
Alan, you know I have huge respect for your taste (in music as well as food), but one of the many points that has come up in this wide-ranging discussion is that the attraction to WC sliders has little to do with taste. They're iconic, agreed. They resonate with people's warm memories of family, agreed. But taste? That is a topic that seems frequently not to come up, and I think we all know why.
I've made it clear (I hope) that I love them for their taste, as I have no nostalgic association with them. My parents never bought them growing up. My Hungarian ex loved them, too, without any sort of cultural associations. But, regardless, continuing on the philosophical intellectual cocktail banter track, why is memory NOT a valid component of taste? Our memories and experiences of food shape how we perceive their taste. Taste absolutely has a neurological component to it--look at the studies about cilantro, like
here. It's not just a simple genetic component. Something can taste vile to one person and delectable to another, simply because of their own memories and cultural associations with the stuff, even on a subconscious level. Cilantro tasted like soap to me the first half dozen or so times I had eaten it. Now, I can't get enough of this stuff. So, is cilantro objectively vile and it's just because of my repeated exposures to it and perhaps nostalgic memories of hanging out with my high school friends at the local taqueria that I've just learned to like this stuff? It may be, it may not be, but who cares? For whatever reason, my taste perception of the herb has changed. Does this mean the cilantro hater is the person who is "objectively correct" about the taste of cilantro? Because nobody in their right mind would like something that tastes like soap or stinkbugs, right?