escardos: (quatorze.)
flat "literal cryptid" escardos ([personal profile] escardos) wrote in [community profile] irisnetwork2020-01-05 08:53 am

un: 46692 ; text

so imagine you're making ratatouille and you don't like tomatoes. you don't like the taste, the texture, the putting them in water and the peeling them-- ugh! so you say to yourself "lookit, this whole dish is nothing but vegetables, so what does it matter if i leave the tomatoes out?" a seemingly innocuous decision on the surface, but 2 hours or whatever later when you're done cooking, you open the oven to find a complete mess! just a pot full of baked vegetables, none of them congealed or somehow unified. what happened to your beloved ratatouille?! so you take to google and find that the tomatoes are an essential ingredient of ratatouille, as they forma a "sauce" of a certain kind that makes the whole thing work. and so a seemingly innocent decision has destroyed the very foundation of the established order with disturbing ramifications towards the whole. in this essay i will examine how martin luther's 95 theses lead to protestants being more boring than catholics.
giornata_gloriosa: (elegant)

[personal profile] giornata_gloriosa 2020-01-05 04:26 pm (UTC)(link)
Si, from Napoli in particular.

People have a choice, yes, but those choices are limited. And at the same time, they are always marked as 'different' from their counterparts. For example you cannot have pizza margherita without it being made with a tomato sauce, and anyone you ask to do so will tell you "then it's no longer pizza margherita". So while there are options they are not always equal and not always given the same value, because they don't include what everyone has been raised to consume, and have as a part of their day to day life for so long.

In this same way, can you call you're allegorical ratatouille a ratatouille, considering the outcome?
Edited 2020-01-05 16:29 (UTC)