I enjoyed this and never saw it before. It seems to me that there is a gap between 7 and 8 that is wide. If you feel something is soulless, it's a little hard to imagine being too enthusiastic about it. But 8 seems awfully positive.
Is there a reverse of 7? A soulful rendition that provides great pleasure but is perhaps not undertaken with perfect technique or good ingredients?
Last week, I had a lamb sandwich at the original Snack on Thompson St. It wasn't roast lamb, but rather braised lamb in a typical Greek melange of tomatoes, onions, etc. It was served on a Sullivan St. Bakery ciabatta.
I craved lamb but even given my desire, the sandwich was satisfying in a way that is hard to articulate. The chef was careful in eliminating excess moisture, but it had all the satisfaction of braised meat. It then occurred to me that part of what attracted me to the sandwich was that it reminded me of home leftovers. I've always loved next-day meatloaf sandwiches over the first-night premiere. I guess this sandwich, to me, was stuck somewhere in between your 7 and 8.
re: the gap between 7 and 8, as I said in my note under 8, you (like me) are skewed to be particularly sensitive to the 8 to 10 range, because that's where we live. If you apply this scale to a realm you're less interested in (clothes? broadway musicals? video games?), I think you'll find that the distribution "seems" more even.
But even applying it to food, coming up with this scale forced me to confront a central contradiction in my aesthetic. "Soulfulness" is a cliche in my writing, and I claim to require it for enjoyment. But I really love good potato chips...not just great potato chips (which do have soul), but merely good ones. And there's lots of other essentially soulless stuff I do enjoy and seek out that's essentially made by mechanical (or merely dreary) process, where no one is showering love. Such items never slay me, and they never make me emit a vocal expression of pleasure. They never "8" me. But they're very substantially more enjoyable than "6". So....that's what "7" is: soulless but good. You're happy to make it part of your life. The word "good" in "soulless but good" is not to be disregarded. Anything 7 and up is Good. But the lower range of Good is still soulless.
As for a soulful rendition that provides great pleasure but is perhaps not undertaken with perfect technique or good ingredients, reexamine that statement. "Great pleasure" is "8" (if you're able to analyze those flaws) or "9" (if you're too transported to engage your mind). Nowhere does this scale address skill or technique or ingredients. It's a pleasure-based scale, and a 1-10 scale is inherently about quantitative (not qualitative) pleasure.
As time goes by and you mull this system over and apply it to real world eating (and other activities), you'll find that it really fits quite well - a small group of my friends has done just that for several years now, and it's spreading a bit. If we describe a restaurant meal with this shorthand, it actually yields a surprisingly rich picture of the meal. We imagine ourselves to be focused on a broad range of variables, but pleasure is really the gist of why we eat, and this is a precise system for describing pleasure.
"I craved lamb but even given my desire, the sandwich was satisfying in a way that is hard to articulate."
That's 9: inability to articulate means rational thought broke down. That's always 9. 8 is audible expression of pleasure, but you still process, analyze, and articulate. 9 makes you creamy/blurry.
Maybe from the explanation of the number system, I thought an 8 or 9 was harder to find than I think you meant. I would expect a 9 to be a dish or a restaurant that I wouldn't mind screaming from the rafters about.
I'd recommend the braised lamb sandwich to anyone, but it wouldn't shock me at all if another person gave it a 6 or a 7.
I just thought of a question. What is the widest numerical gap (within your number system) you've ever encountered in one meal at the same restaurant?
----- "Maybe from the explanation of the number system, I thought an 8 or 9 was harder to find than I think you meant. I would expect a 9 to be a dish or a restaurant that I wouldn't mind screaming from the rafters about." -----
A reflexive desire to evangelize indicates a 9.
----- "I'd recommend the braised lamb sandwich to anyone, but it wouldn't shock me at all if another person gave it a 6 or a 7." -----
Well, er, dave, it is conceivable that for some of us, the rational mind breaks down for far less than mammoth deliciousness ;)
----- I just thought of a question. What is the widest numerical gap (within your number system) you've ever encountered in one meal at the same restaurant? -----
At many great meals there are sprinklings of 6s or even 5s (iceberg lettuce salads, packaged crackers with the soup, merely ok baklava, etc), and they don't blow the overall impression that much (unless you're someone who demands that each niggling item be of uniform quality...and I'm not really that way). If you start getting into 4s or 3s, though, that's a real turn-off.
I've never been multiply pummeled by 10-ish items in a single restaurant. A mixture of 8s and 9s makes for a memorable meal. Remember, above 8 and you're involuntarily gasping. 7 or above is good, and 8 or above is GOOD.
I'd like to reiterate that the system applies to many things beyond food. I have friends who have really taken it wide.
I enjoyed this and never saw it before. It seems to me that there is a gap between 7 and 8 that is wide. If you feel something is soulless, it's a little hard to imagine being too enthusiastic about it. But 8 seems awfully positive.
ReplyDeleteIs there a reverse of 7? A soulful rendition that provides great pleasure but is perhaps not undertaken with perfect technique or good ingredients?
Last week, I had a lamb sandwich at the original Snack on Thompson St. It wasn't roast lamb, but rather braised lamb in a typical Greek melange of tomatoes, onions, etc. It was served on a Sullivan St. Bakery ciabatta.
I craved lamb but even given my desire, the sandwich was satisfying in a way that is hard to articulate. The chef was careful in eliminating excess moisture, but it had all the satisfaction of braised meat. It then occurred to me that part of what attracted me to the sandwich was that it reminded me of home leftovers. I've always loved next-day meatloaf sandwiches over the first-night premiere. I guess this sandwich, to me, was stuck somewhere in between your 7 and 8.
Anyway, I await your next post.
re: the gap between 7 and 8, as I said in my note under 8, you (like me) are skewed to be particularly sensitive to the 8 to 10 range, because that's where we live. If you apply this scale to a realm you're less interested in (clothes? broadway musicals? video games?), I think you'll find that the distribution "seems" more even.
ReplyDeleteBut even applying it to food, coming up with this scale forced me to confront a central contradiction in my aesthetic. "Soulfulness" is a cliche in my writing, and I claim to require it for enjoyment. But I really love good potato chips...not just great potato chips (which do have soul), but merely good ones. And there's lots of other essentially soulless stuff I do enjoy and seek out that's essentially made by mechanical (or merely dreary) process, where no one is showering love. Such items never slay me, and they never make me emit a vocal expression of pleasure. They never "8" me. But they're very substantially more enjoyable than "6". So....that's what "7" is: soulless but good. You're happy to make it part of your life. The word "good" in "soulless but good" is not to be disregarded. Anything 7 and up is Good. But the lower range of Good is still soulless.
As for a soulful rendition that provides great pleasure but is perhaps not undertaken with perfect technique or good ingredients, reexamine that statement. "Great pleasure" is "8" (if you're able to analyze those flaws) or "9" (if you're too transported to engage your mind). Nowhere does this scale address skill or technique or ingredients. It's a pleasure-based scale, and a 1-10 scale is inherently about quantitative (not qualitative) pleasure.
As time goes by and you mull this system over and apply it to real world eating (and other activities), you'll find that it really fits quite well - a small group of my friends has done just that for several years now, and it's spreading a bit. If we describe a restaurant meal with this shorthand, it actually yields a surprisingly rich picture of the meal. We imagine ourselves to be focused on a broad range of variables, but pleasure is really the gist of why we eat, and this is a precise system for describing pleasure.
"I craved lamb but even given my desire, the sandwich was satisfying in a way that is hard to articulate."
That's 9: inability to articulate means rational thought broke down. That's always 9. 8 is audible expression of pleasure, but you still process, analyze, and articulate. 9 makes you creamy/blurry.
Maybe from the explanation of the number system, I thought an 8 or 9 was harder to find than I think you meant. I would expect a 9 to be a dish or a restaurant that I wouldn't mind screaming from the rafters about.
ReplyDeleteI'd recommend the braised lamb sandwich to anyone, but it wouldn't shock me at all if another person gave it a 6 or a 7.
I just thought of a question. What is the widest numerical gap (within your number system) you've ever encountered in one meal at the same restaurant?
-----
ReplyDelete"Maybe from the explanation of the number system, I thought an 8 or 9 was harder to find than I think you meant. I would expect a 9 to be a dish or a restaurant that I wouldn't mind screaming from the rafters about."
-----
A reflexive desire to evangelize indicates a 9.
-----
"I'd recommend the braised lamb sandwich to anyone, but it wouldn't shock me at all if another person gave it a 6 or a 7."
-----
Well, er, dave, it is conceivable that for some of us, the rational mind breaks down for far less than mammoth deliciousness ;)
-----
I just thought of a question. What is the widest numerical gap (within your number system) you've ever encountered in one meal at the same restaurant?
-----
At many great meals there are sprinklings of 6s or even 5s (iceberg lettuce salads, packaged crackers with the soup, merely ok baklava, etc), and they don't blow the overall impression that much (unless you're someone who demands that each niggling item be of uniform quality...and I'm not really that way). If you start getting into 4s or 3s, though, that's a real turn-off.
I've never been multiply pummeled by 10-ish items in a single restaurant. A mixture of 8s and 9s makes for a memorable meal. Remember, above 8 and you're involuntarily gasping. 7 or above is good, and 8 or above is GOOD.
I'd like to reiterate that the system applies to many things beyond food. I have friends who have really taken it wide.