Comparing Writing and Cooking

Imagine if knowledge and written works are a buffet. Where people reading are going down a table of assorted words placed on platters, each with unique ideas and flavors.

Arguably a library is an all-you-can-read, buffet.

The Chef or writer would think their work is good. Or else, why cook or publish it? And of course both Chefs and Writers produce slop sometimes, it’s inevitable to fail at some point in the act of pursuing anything in a long enough timeline.

However, Forcing your food into other people’s mouths, would be unethical and rather immoral depending on your relationship. If you did this to society at large, you’d be a menace. If you did this for your own baby that has to grow up and learn of the world, no one would bat an eye as long as you’re relatively gentle. I pose to you, dear reader, that the parallels between food and writing are similar.

As such, people like reading and interpreting works at their own pace with their own opinions. They don’t like being forced opinions down their throat unless they blindly trust the source for being a good chef (an expert), even if it’s Taco Bell (which I think has degraded over the years). Some people look for new ‘thought leaders’ to join a hive mind to have to not critically think and be informed of what to think and their own opinions. This is natural crowd dynamics and it occurs in every tribe and political spectrum.

Point is, generally speaking, people who are critical thinkers would rather be eased into information with jokes or insights and options than be told blatant facts. Critical thinkers like wrestling with ideas and want to critically think. Most Readers want food with flavor and appeal, a nice book cover, a nice thumbnail video to click, a unique presentation for the luxury experience of information or knowledge that’s contained here within.

If I serve you a steak on a flimsy paper plate withe plastic utensils, it would be akin to giving you a rough draft of writing that hasn’t been edited or reviewed. It’s raw and the work speaks for itself.

People want to either confirm their biases or critique opposing opinions. Rarely do they feel reluctant and willing to let go of their current beliefs or values, because we humans tend to get very attached to our precious things, even if those things are immaterial ideologies.

After which, people would rather argue about semantics or specifics by attacking bold claims or other people’s interpretation of the work in the comments section. I mean, how many people out there argue about fast food? A lot. So there’s this sort of fandom and anti-fandom for fame and infamy towards any food or writing or work. It has it’s own duality and ecosystem, critiquing the flavor or context.

Arguably, if you read anything about Philosophy re-interpretations (why would you? I don’t) it’s a bunch of people with degrees arguing made up words (while having different made up definitions) over what some dead person might have said cross referenced with what some other dead person -also might have- said.

And this is philosophy manifest. It’s a meta-physical forum akin to an online forum, where people post their works and then post their works in the comments to argue for and against works while cross posting other people’s works. Just like the annals of time, people die and leave chat, and then their works are finalized and interpreted as if their works transcended the person (in a way it did, since it outlived them).

As such, I’m not saying we shouldn’t cross reference or refer to other people and works, -heck- I do that. No man is an island upon themselves. But we also have to say something unique or original and add to the critique, and not a block of text quoting a dead guy then cross referencing their work with more blocks of quotes and then pretending that the reader came to the exact same conclusion as you did.

Even if what you’re saying is not completely unique, you still have the chance to add something authentically necessary to the conversation, even if it turns out to be wrong later. That’s how things go.

As a side tangent, you might see that I have great disdain for philosophers in this context. I love philosophy, but I qualm and quibble with the quips of philosophers.

So the point

Of this article, was to drive home the idea that as a writer, you’re making your work as if it’s a meal. To draw a comparison between writing and cooking. As they say ‘Let Him Cook’.

An essay or story has courses. For simplicity; a beginning, middle, and end could be viewed akin to a daily breakfast lunch and dinner, or even a three course meal- appetizer, main dish, and dessert. This could also relate to a trilogy in a book. A typical novel, saga, or multi-work series, might even have seven or more parts or chapters to it. As such, you could make it like a fancy seven course or ten course meal.

The aim of a meal is to fill a stomach, but it can also be tasty and nutritious and visually appealing.

The aim of a writing is to tell a story, but it can also be informative and enticing and enjoyable. The after taste is the cathartic release of emotions or reflection that transcends the work and peers into your life. Like watching a movie, reading, or hearing a story that makes you think deeply about it long after the story ends.

Writing in comedy or romance is like adding in spices. Writing in a historical version of history in dry language is bland as plain oatmeal (A necessary staple in life but not so fun). There’s a certain synergy that can combine a lot of the flavors to make something unique. Something both informative and appealing, something tasty and filling.

Some people eat to lose weight, some people eat to gain weight. Some people eat to just eat while some eat because they’re bored.

Some people read to gain something, others read to read, while some enjoy reading copy-pasta slop in novels or manga like a guilty pleasure of junk food to subside their boredom. Like a sugar filled cake, some things are enjoyable and sweet but rot your teeth as much as the content may rot your brain.

I don’t know about you, but to me- pizza is very visually appealing and tasty, but I always feel bad afterwards. I think it’s the bleached white flour and the American diet and grease, but I’m not sure. As such, some things, food and writing, can leave a bad feeling long after the story ends. A sort of regret, like watching Game of Thrones to have the last season end in a way that it made everyone not talk about Game of Thrones.

I mean, if the meal was spiked with poison or laxatives, I’m sure you wouldn’t trust the chef. That’s also if you survive. As such, a writer has some leeway to write, but the writer (or director) isn’t immune to the most egregious offenses that can bury their story or story telling.

Ideally, a Chef would taste their own food, maybe by making a copy of it. And a writer ought to read their own writing, to review and reflect on it. If the Chef or Writer wouldn’t want to taste or read their own work, then they’re not putting something genuine in the world. It’s rather soulless.

Ultimately, you can’t cook for everyone and be the best for everyone’s flavor palate. So you have to define the audience, either write or cook for yourself or for a target ideal archetype or demographic. Ideally both, yourself and the archetype that you’re in.

In my reflection

I like connecting dots, so I write more for informational content for informational readers. I don’t write the necessarily objective truth, but rather conjectures that are neither right or wrong in most cases. My notes are turned into a sort of story or dialogue that I revisit from time to time to address statements or ideas- or to draw inspiration from like each article is a bucket of water in my well that I’m filling and refilling.

My main focus is on words and logotherapy, which also evolves into writing and dissecting language as well as customs and traditions that evolve from language. Essentially I’m writing about everything, because it’s all connected. But perhaps it’d be better to niche down? Maybe. I think I am being authentic and true to myself when my writings and scrawling are mad and wide in range and scope.

I sprinkle a few jokes, a few references, some poetry, some shadow work, some esoteric stuff, some religious and spiritual jazz, and more. It’s a unique blend and I am refining it all to deliver the point of this entire website, that Words Mean Things.

Epilogue

I paint for you a picture -with words- comparing two ideas of writing and cooking using words as the bridge of communication.

In this, I hope you can be a better writer, and cook, by taking account the meal you’re making and the audience you’re making it for.

Hopefully this also draws parallels so that if you’re also a chef that wants to write their own book, or a writer that cooks, then you can draw even more connections between these two ways or Daos. The Dao of writing and the Dao of cooking. (Personally, I think Alchemy would be a better connection for Cooking).

Even if you’re not a writer, your writing is a reflection of your thoughts, and thus you can apply the lessons you may find here to your own thought process. I personally think writing is a good idea to put thoughts down and reflect on those thoughts and revise them, but you are free to write or not write. I, as the author of this piece, don’t have authority over your authorship of your life. You do.

I hope my random writings and scrawling isn’t junk food to you, a guilty pleasure. But I also won’t be mad if that’s the case. Life is full of cosmic horrors and cosmic joys, so sometimes it’s preferred to consume a tried and trusted bland and safe comforting piece to weather out the storm. It is what it is. Afterall,

Words Mean Things