I thought fish sticks with tartar sauce or tuna fish salad on white demonstrated why we ate fish in the first place? I'm pretty sure I didn't start eating seafood by eating sashimi or smoked salmon. I had to learn to appreciate these dishes by first eating the more processed examples cited above.
Burgundy, Ruwer, NE Italy
- Thread starter Rahsaan
- Start date
I thought fish sticks with tartar sauce or tuna fish salad on white demonstrated why we ate fish in the first place? I'm pretty sure I didn't start eating seafood by eating sashimi or smoked salmon. I had to learn to appreciate these dishes by first eating the more processed examples cited above.
a) Smoked salmon is pretty processed. I love it, but it tastes very much of the process. More so than sushi tastes of vinegar. At least to me.
b) Fish sticks and tuna salad may be gateway seafood for some people, but surely that is not a reason to consider them exemplars of fish.
Scott Kraft
Scott Kraft
you must be eating pretty crappy smoked salmon, rahsaan. have you tried the tardieu-laurent?
I read "in the first place" to mean archetypal seafood rather than exemplars of seafood. In that sense, I meant to say that most of the fish people first consume and are more likely to continue to consume tend to lean towards the more breaded/mayoed/processed variety. Sashimi and smoked salmon,, while certainly delicious, tend to be too exotic to be archetypal examples of what seafood is, at least in America (but even in Japan, I suspect most people, when asked to consider what dish represented why they ate seafood in the first place, would probably consider grilled fish or some type of fish soup as the reason why they eat seafood rather than sashimi).
Now we're getting into some good pedantic territory!
Semantically, archetypal and exemplar have always meant pretty much the same thing to me. So I'm not sure how you are distinguishing between the two concepts.
For my understanding, they both refer to the 'ideal' or the 'classic' version of something. And I'm still not sure how you can claim that breaded processed fish is the ideal/classic version of fish. First exposure for some people, sure. But ideal? Not for me!
And even for those who started out eating fish sticks (I liked them when I was a small child, could never swallow mysterious mayonnaised tuna salad), I doubt it was the fish sticks that made them love fish. If they ever did come to love real fish.
Levi Dalton
Levi Dalton
Does the ideal archetype of smoked salmon wag its tail?
scottreiner
scott reiner
I thought of archetypal to mean the "original" or "prototypical" rather than the "ideal." Thus, ones original conception of seafood is based on the dishes one has been first exposed to or has been most often exposed to.
I agree that fish sticks and tuna salad aren't particularly good (though I do occasionally still enjoy a tuna salad for lunch), but, for many, I imagine those dishes would be the reference of comparison for other, most likely superior, seafood dishes.
Scott Kraft
Scott Kraft
There are more things in heaven and earth, Rahsaan,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
Ken Schramm
Ken Schramm
From here on in, I'm calling it Homeland Health Security. Increases the appeal to the blind loyalty set. I say we're at Orange Plus.
Scott Kraft
Scott Kraft
Yeah fucking over-rated that guy.
Larry Stein
Larry Stein
I just did. I'm still living and breathing. What am I supposed to make of that?
Jonathan Loesberg
Jonathan Loesberg
I'm late to this but archetypal and exemplar do not mean quite the same things. An archetype is the original form, thus connected to ideal or essence by being the version before history has wrung its changes. An exemplar is a perfect example. The concept is more nearly empirical except that the concept of a perfect example reproduces the idea of an ideal form from another direction. Nevertheless, although probably in this context, the words are near synonyms, they are importantly different in meanings.
Jeff Grossman
Jeff Grossman
Is it fair to say that "archetypal" highlights the original way in which thing X differed from the things that came before it, while "exemplar" gives the best current example of thing X (in all its Xness)?