phrasemuffin (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
phrasemuffin) wrote2008-08-05 06:10 pm
phrasemuffin) wrote2008-08-05 06:10 pm
Entry tags:
Random Question Time...
... in which fruitarians are required.
Guys, I have a problem. I can't decide whether anthropomorphised food would find cooking shows to be gore-fest horror shows, or something between a fashion show and kinky porn. Or is it a little from column A, a little from column B? Would cooking shows be considered snuff-film-style porn to food?
Now, obviously, you're saying to yourself "David, they slice, dice, roast and/or boil food on cooking shows, to say nothing of the taste-test at the end; how on earth can it be porn when they all die?!". And this is valid. Except... well, first of all they're all already dead, as would be any food watching your television unless you have one out on the farm. Second, for us the purpose of food is to be eaten, but I wonder if food actually wants to be eaten. Is an apple that doesn't feed anyone any less of an apple to all the apples in the orchard that do?
Also, would the state of the food pre-anthropomorphisation (i.e. fresh vs cooked/processed [eg anthro Apple vs anthro Apple Pie) change the way it viewed a cooking show post-anthrop.? I mean, for cooked/processed (depending on the process) it's like a home video of everything from foreplay to conception to the actual birth of a new food, while fresh it's... well, I'm not sure.
I'm serious about this, by the way. I want to know your thoughts.
Guys, I have a problem. I can't decide whether anthropomorphised food would find cooking shows to be gore-fest horror shows, or something between a fashion show and kinky porn. Or is it a little from column A, a little from column B? Would cooking shows be considered snuff-film-style porn to food?
Now, obviously, you're saying to yourself "David, they slice, dice, roast and/or boil food on cooking shows, to say nothing of the taste-test at the end; how on earth can it be porn when they all die?!". And this is valid. Except... well, first of all they're all already dead, as would be any food watching your television unless you have one out on the farm. Second, for us the purpose of food is to be eaten, but I wonder if food actually wants to be eaten. Is an apple that doesn't feed anyone any less of an apple to all the apples in the orchard that do?
Also, would the state of the food pre-anthropomorphisation (i.e. fresh vs cooked/processed [eg anthro Apple vs anthro Apple Pie) change the way it viewed a cooking show post-anthrop.? I mean, for cooked/processed (depending on the process) it's like a home video of everything from foreplay to conception to the actual birth of a new food, while fresh it's... well, I'm not sure.
I'm serious about this, by the way. I want to know your thoughts.
no subject
Hmm. Well, we don't generally get eaten as an everyday sort of thing - we definitely have huge taboos against people eating other people. And we get freaked out when other animals eat us - e.g. bears, wolves, sharks and so on. But bears and so on (and actually Duane addresses this in the context of humans featuring on alien species' cooking shows!) eat us, and they don't angst terribly about eating us.
The direct quote from Diane Duane, in A Wizard Alone, is:
"Is there really a cooking channel, uh, 'about' us?"
"There's lots of them."
"But how is something like that permitted?!"
"You go where you shouldn't go, you find out stuff you shouldn't find out. Like how you taste in a sweet-and-sour sauce with galingale. The universe is full of little surprises."
The "us" being humans, the questioner is the wizard's father and the answer is the wizard. For context, Duane's stuff is YA urban fantasy, where the wizardry is 'magic' with a scientific basis, or as much of a one as 'magic' can have. Such as: it takes a lot of energy to power a spell that takes you to the moon, because you have to clear the Earth's gravity well.