There's a word that gets tossed around on the Food Network and Top Chef a lot that really bothers me.
"Inedible."
Not an episode of Chopped or Top Chef or any of the competitive food cooking shows goes by without somebody using that word.
And every time I hear it, I wince.
It's almost like reading bad grammar.
Why?
Because it never seems to be used correctly.
Somebody will overcook a piece of steak, so that it'll be well done instead of medium rare, and the head judge will say--
"This is inedible."
The thing is--a well done steak is not inedible. I realize it's not as appetizing as a medium rare steak, but unappetizing and inedible are not interchangeable.
Inedible is a word you use to describe things like plastic and asbestos chips--not poorly cooked food.
It's hyperbolic, and I get that on television shows, that's the point, but it just comes off as incredibly pretentious.
It's as if the judges are saying--"Our palates are so refined that eating a fillet of poorly seasoned salmon is like chewing on cardboard."
Can't they find another word that better suits what they mean?
Isn't the hyperbole getting a little outrageous?
Especially considering the circumstances in which they ask them to prepare food.
"Gina, I don't know why you couldn't give us a decent pasta dish while hanging upside down over a pit of rattlesnakes. What are you? Some kind of amateur?"
Why not have a show where people cook under normal conditions? Wouldn't that be a better way of determining who the best chef is? There are some people who work well under pressure, but what you get from those people isn't always top of the line. Sometimes it's just better than what their competitors came up with, because their competitors are more thoughtful.
I often find myself looking at the "inedible" food given to the judges on these shows, and thinking--
Gee, it doesn't look that bad.
"Inedible."
Not an episode of Chopped or Top Chef or any of the competitive food cooking shows goes by without somebody using that word.
And every time I hear it, I wince.
It's almost like reading bad grammar.
Why?
Because it never seems to be used correctly.
Somebody will overcook a piece of steak, so that it'll be well done instead of medium rare, and the head judge will say--
"This is inedible."
The thing is--a well done steak is not inedible. I realize it's not as appetizing as a medium rare steak, but unappetizing and inedible are not interchangeable.
Inedible is a word you use to describe things like plastic and asbestos chips--not poorly cooked food.
It's hyperbolic, and I get that on television shows, that's the point, but it just comes off as incredibly pretentious.
It's as if the judges are saying--"Our palates are so refined that eating a fillet of poorly seasoned salmon is like chewing on cardboard."
Can't they find another word that better suits what they mean?
Isn't the hyperbole getting a little outrageous?
Especially considering the circumstances in which they ask them to prepare food.
"Gina, I don't know why you couldn't give us a decent pasta dish while hanging upside down over a pit of rattlesnakes. What are you? Some kind of amateur?"
Why not have a show where people cook under normal conditions? Wouldn't that be a better way of determining who the best chef is? There are some people who work well under pressure, but what you get from those people isn't always top of the line. Sometimes it's just better than what their competitors came up with, because their competitors are more thoughtful.
I often find myself looking at the "inedible" food given to the judges on these shows, and thinking--
Gee, it doesn't look that bad.
Comments
Post a Comment