As I often do on my several-mile walk to work, I took the opportunity yesterday to listen to my favorite food-oriented (and indeed, favorite) podcast, The Sporkful. The episode I enjoyed that morning pertained to apples and oranges and to a general comparison thereof (even against the strong headwinds of prevailing wisdom).
Photo: Flickr CC/limonada
Now, The Sporkful, I feel, exists in the same food-space as this blog. As Mark and Dan, the gentleman podcasters behind the show articulate, The Sporkful is "not for foodies, it's for eaters."
I feel the same way about Hungry Sam, which is why my posts range from a determination of the categorical imperatives of salad to the recipe for my vanilla chai-infused french toast. Ecclectic? Yes. Insane? Maybe. Interesting? You tell me.
Back to the point. In "Comparing Apples and Oranges" Dan and Win (guest) took the position that oranges are superior to apples for several reasons: the superfluity of apple varieties is absurd; apples' cores are an obnoxious bit of trash; and apples become bruised or blemished while oranges have a pristine wrapper in the form of the peel that keeps the fruit pure and unsullied. I'd like to respond somewhat and involve myself uninvited in this discussion, and then I want to hear what you guys think:
Dear Dan, Mark, and Win,
To begin, thank you for your bravery in addressing apples and oranges. To buck both cliche and society's collective opinion in this way reflects well on your verve and vigor in food-related considerations. The task before you was important, as we can, of course, only be eating one piece of fruit at a time. I'd like to take a moment to address the issue of the peel and add some thoughts on the topic of seeds.
The Peel: Dan and Win argued that the peel, which ostensibly preserves the perfection and integrity of the orange, is sort of the "killer app" of the orange. The apple, unprotected, may become battered or bruised without such protection (since Dan, it would seem, prefers to store his apples at the bottom of a backpack). But the peel serves another, darker purpose -- it prevents the eater from knowing what lies within. Now, I know the rind holds clues to the quality, freshness, and sweetness of the fruit, but it's still an imperfect indicator. We've all had, I know, the experience of laboriously opening an orange to find that the fruit is too dry or not ripe enough or overripe (with a sickly sweet aftertaste) or otherwise unpleasant. With an apple, a simple survey, squeeze, and sniff tells you everything you need to know about that piece of fruit you're relying on as a tasty snack.
Seeds: Here too, apples excel. I know some oranges sell themselves on their purported state of seedlessness, but with apples, you always know when and where to expect the seeds. We're not being sold some tale of perfection -- we know there will be a core filled with seeds, but we know how to avoid it. With oranges, especially the so-called seedless variety (which often aren't), there's nothing worse than popping a big, juicy segment into your mouth, chewing -- and coming across a bitter, unpleasant seed.
In these respects, choosing between apples and oranges is like finding love. Do you opt to seek for some apparently perfect mate, seemingly pristine, but with terrible, unexpected flaws? Or do you appreciate the honesty of a few outward blemishes, but paired with inner wondrousness and predictable but avoidable issues?
Thank you for your time.
Hungry Sam www.HungrySam.com
Ok, dear readers: what do you think? Am I raising valid points? Am I a crazy person for seeing a love-life metaphor, here?