Skip to main content

The three most tedious food debates on the internet.

 I very much only have myself to blame.

One of the less heralded aspects of running a business is that one is, regrettably, obliged to maintain a social media presence, it's just expected. And, if I have to do it, I'm going to do it very much in my own voice, as I don't tend to have time to stop and think when I'm bunging something on Insta. It seems to have worked okay so far. But, as a man better versed on the online world than he would prefer, I should have known better than to stick up a picture of our bread rolls, fresh out of the oven.

In my defence, I did preface said picture by saying "one of the most tedious debates on the internet is what these are called...". Doubtless you've seen the argument somewhere, it's one of the workaday tropes that shithouse FB pages use to drive engagement. Need a few thousand clicks to raise the profile of your godawful local radio station/page about how everything was better in the past/shelter for confused cats? Put a picture of some bread rolls up and say the magic words "lets settle this once and for all...what do you call these?" Cue a slew of replies from people who clearly can't their heads round the concept that things can be called different things in different parts of the country.

To be clear, I don't care what you call them.

It was a steady morning, my prep was mostly boxed off and the young lad who does most of the baking pulled these out, all I wished to do was highlight that we bake our own bread, that was all. Despite me making it clear that I was disinterested in the naming debate, debate still occurred, is still occurring now, a week on. I sighed, and berated myself inwardly. Still, it did the job, we had a busy week, I also put up pictures of our Focaccia and some beer at the same time, both got a smattering of attention, but nothing anywhere near the traction of a picture of some bread rolls.

I....don't understand the fascination. Roll, barm, cob, batch, breadcake (teacake is a bit weird, because that to me is a very specific thing, but if that's what you want to call it, knock yourself out), who gives a monkeys? I assume the roots lie in a particularly English form of parochialism, but it just seems  a giant waste of energy.

Nor, for that matter, do I get terribly exercised on the subject of what constitutes a full English, another argument I inadvertently got caught up in (this time it was Gary Usher of Sticky Walnut fame's fault, I assumed he was trolling to drive engagement, as I inadvertently did with the rolls). Another staple of eye-clawingly dull Internet Discourse is the picture of a cooked breakfast and the question of what's missing and/or needs removing. I am fairly particular about my own cooked breakfasts, mostly because I'm very good at cooking them (and so tend to avoid having one unless I've made it), I've had a fair bit of practice, don't take it personally. But, crucially, I don't care what you have on yours. There is no ideal breakfast everyone will agree on, there are too many variables. Personally I regard hash browns as a war crime, but I won't think less of you for liking them. To my mind the carbs should come from Fried Slice/Bubble and Squeak/Refried Roasties, whereas Hash Browns are abominable Americanisation that look like a scab. But to each their own. I like haggis on mine, and like to fry the mushrooms with a bit of spinach, most won't, that's okay.

One acquaintance of mine expresses his frustration with the Full English as being the expression of a bunch of entitled whining children. As a chef, I'm inclined to agree, breakfast services are always a shitshow, because no two are the same. To black pudding or not to black pudding (OF COURSE YOU SHOULD BLACK PUDDING)? Beans or no beans (Traditionalists are anti-bean, I don't mind them, but wouldn't be upset if they weren't there)? This is before one gets onto the vexed question of eggs (Duck, and poached, please, though I prefer hen for scrambled).

Personally I incline towards the view that we should embrace the variety. I always look forward to trips to Scotland, as tattie scones and haggis are more likely to enter the equation (I remain unconvinced by the square sausages though, that's a thrill which is maybe too cheap for me these days, in much the same way as I can't look doner meat in the eye any more). As an aside to this, I prefer the term cooked breakfast to Full English, which is a little too country specific for my liking. Full British would be more accurate, but that makes it sound like you're about to march on the Cenotaph. I gently took the piss out of this for ten years at my last gaff, where I named the breakfast the Full Lancashire, it sold by the bucketload, which basically proves nothing other than people really like a selection of pork products and egg in various configurations.

The third one I haven't, fortunately, encountered recently, but seeing as how I was doing the first two I thought I might as well chuck it in. As an exiled Cornishman I am supposed to get exercised about whether jam or clotted cream goes on a scone first (I also don't care how you pronounce scone, differences in regional accents are a thing, please stop arguing about it). Jam first, the Kernewek argue vociferously, Devonians respond with equal passion that no, it's cream first, and actually they invented Cornish pasties, actually. I do cleave to the mother country's view, but I'm not about to get into an argument on the internet about it. It may sound trivial, but it's another little line between us and them, and I've known enough virulently anti-Devon Cornishmen (and vice versa) to know that if you're jaundiced enough, literally anything can be taken as proof of the inherent evil of someone who committed the cardinal sin of being born ten miles down the road from you. I do not understand the impulse to define yourself by what you're not, and I suggest that anyone who does needs to get out more.

There are many others, of course, seeing that steak chart with insults appended to the better done end of the spectrum is an instant unfollow/block/mute/snooze, for example. But those are the three which bore me the most. I understand that arguing about little things means that we don't argue about big things, but it seems such a waste of energy. Plus, for everyone knowingly laughing along haha yes-it's-a-barmcake and-I'll-die-on-this-hill, I suspect there are people who genuinely believe that you're an agent of Satan if you put beans on your breakfast. I like devilled kidneys on mine, so you can make of that what you will. 


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Inedible

"He says it's inedible" said my front of house manager, as she laid the half-eaten fish and chips in front of me, and instantly I relaxed.  Clearly, I observed, it was edible to some degree. I comped it, because I can't be arsed arguing the toss, and I want to make my front of house's lives as simple as possible. The haddock had been delivered that morning. The fryers had been cleaned that morning. The batter had been made that morning (and it's very good batter, ask me nicely and I'll give you the recipe some time). The fish and chips was identical to the other 27 portions I'd sent out on that lunch service, all of which had come back more or less hoovered up, we have have a (justified, if I do say so myself) very good reputation for our chips. But it was, apparently, "inedible". When it comes to complaints, less is more. If you use a hyperbolic word like that, I'll switch off, you've marked yourself as a rube, a chump, I'm not g...

Chop chop

I was completely ignorant of the fuss over the edited Trump speech in an edition of Panorama until, one moment later, I wasn't. And the reasons for my ignorance are instructive. I had no idea that the story was even brewing until the surprise Sunday night news of the resignations of Tom Davie and Deborah Turness. As I'm sure you are by now aware, this was occasioned by a clumsy edit in an old edition of Panorama, which has already been on the iplayer for a year. It's a non-story. Except people decided to make it a story. The reason I'd heard nothing of it until the resignations was that I'm not on X, where, apparently, it was all the media classes had been talking about for a week. It was an obsession of the unholy right-wing trifecta of the Mail, Telegraph and Times (who, given that they sent a bloke just last week to interview the wrong Bill di Blasio, you'd think would wind their necks in over factual inacccuracy). It was big news on GB news, all self-contain...

Creepy old men

I note, somewhat wearily, that creepy old men are back in the news, being creepy. Creepy old men, and their apologists and enablers, who argue that their creepiness is somehow the natural order of things. Old men would have you believe that it is difficult to not be a creepy old man. That it is a task of epic proportions. It is not that difficult. It is a matter of intention. As yet more of the grimness of Epstein unfolds, creepy old men are, sadly, a flaccid topic once again. Whether it be pursuing students thirty years their junior, or simply not asking too many questions about the background of the probably legal young woman who you've just been introduced to by your good pal Jeff. To be clear, I am not referring to criminal creepy old men, the ones who actually committed statutory rape, the ones who fucked trafficked hirls. That is not something which is allowed to get away merely with the contempt of the observer.  That deserves prison.  No , I'm referring to the hinterla...