The Lord is (Bitter)Sweet

 Interesting start, comparing perspective vs taste, but ugh, I hate the term umami, especially the definition Fulton gives it. Just call it savory, please. Taste is already subjective enough without slapping the word “delicious” on it.

That particular griping aside, it seems at first as if Fulton is almost demonizing taste, (although this isn’t really the case later on), because of some of her word choices. Beyond taste just being “threatening” (Fulton 170), something about her rhetoric just rubs me the wrong way on pages 172-173. I firmly believe that almost everything deserves to be tried once (within reason, obviously), and the way in which she described tasting things as being potentially dangerous not only because something might be nauseating, but because it might be delicious, I just can’t agree with. Life’s a gamble, regardless of whether you believe in fate, God’s plan, or random chance, and anything could happen at any time, so why the fuck not eat weird shit?

I will admit, I agree completely that I felt “overstimulated…overwhelmed…slightly queasy” (180) after the various examples Fulton gives of the Lord’s sweetness, and can understand why the Lewises used a number of synonyms to translate the one passage: I can appreciate the poeticism of love being like honey, slow to arrive, wonderful when it’s there, and lingering even after it’s gone, but by the same token, it’s nauseating in too high a concentration.

As a self-described chef, I resent the idea that spices hide mistakes: the spices most often are the mistake. I’d also like to mention that, while some of the examples of dishes were a bit wild compared to modern sensibilities, the appearance thing is pretty fucken important. I had a video in mind, but since I can’t seem to find it, this one will have to work: from ABC news, it shows that the color of food actually changes how people perceive the taste of it.


While this is pretty fascinating on its own, in the context of God tasting sweet and “’the old serpent’s poison’” (193) fucking up our perception of what is good for us spiritually and physically, appearances can be extraordinarily deceiving. There’s a lot more I could say about this, but I’d like to pay more attention to my other outside source, because it’s a bit more personal.

https://www.alchemylab.com/guideto.htm

I’ve always been obsessed with this website. It’s actually the source from my presentation, if you want to poke around with it: it’s pretty fun. Not super into practicing alchemy anymore but I always thought it was fascinating and still love the conceptual aspects of it. Cooking, I think I’ve said, is like playing God, but from this lens it’s less a mockery and more ‘imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.’ Trying to make something that’s spiritually and physically good for us, trying to recreate Creation? Pretty fucking sweet.

Comments

  1. "Delicious" is the literal translation of the Japanese word "umami." I definitely see the analogies between alchemy and cooking food, and have even described what I do in the kitchen as a kind of alchemy. Obviously, both the look (e.g., colors, not to mention shapes)) and the flavors (tastes, textures, smells, "mouth-feel") are important components that need to be balanced aesthetically. And all with respect for the taste preferences of the recipients of the food we make.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The most primitive sense

Cannibalism and Symbolism

Wrap-Up Post