It has come to my attention that some people have been arguing that muffins and cupcakes are indistinguishable. That is evidently ridiculous (see figure 6a). The Platonic forms are as separate as apples and swans. Further, if the the muffin were the jock of the pastry world (which it would be, could we confirm its pastry status), the cupcake would be the effete intellectual smoking on the steps. Smoking candy cigarettes because it doesn't know what's up. And then other really skinny pastries would write songs about it, kind of ironically. That would never happen to the muffin and if he saw the cupcake in an alley he would punch him in the frosting.
The cupcake is certainly the most twee of potential pastries, but I will try not to let that bias my judgment. Its pastry-like qualities include its crumbliness, its sweetness, and its size. Indeed, it has often been remarked upon by pastry analysts the strange coincidence of size of most pastries; just enough to fit on a dessert plate, perhaps. What does this say about the historical evolution of the pastry? Was it once--perish the thought--an after dinner treat? We are, as of yet, inconclusive, but it certainly raises perplexing questions.
The strikes against the cupcake are numerous. It is clearly a dessert (or an ironic snack). It does not flake. You do not eat it for breakfast. To invoke the slippery slope argument again, admitting the cupcake to pastry status would then amount to the admittance of nearly all cakes; a catastrophe for the pastry world.
Further, cupcakes are clearly a product of and for the bourgeoisie. I submit as evidence, (1) cupcakes used as part of cultural appropriation and (2) lots of white people waiting in line to pay $4 for a cupcake. Pastries are of the common people. Nobody waits in line for an apple turnover or a croissant. You buy them at a sidewalk cart.
Cupcakes eaters of the world: you have nothing to lose but your chains*.
*Your chains of insurmountable privilege that prevent you from fully participating in the universe of pastry.
The cupcake is certainly the most twee of potential pastries, but I will try not to let that bias my judgment. Its pastry-like qualities include its crumbliness, its sweetness, and its size. Indeed, it has often been remarked upon by pastry analysts the strange coincidence of size of most pastries; just enough to fit on a dessert plate, perhaps. What does this say about the historical evolution of the pastry? Was it once--perish the thought--an after dinner treat? We are, as of yet, inconclusive, but it certainly raises perplexing questions.
The strikes against the cupcake are numerous. It is clearly a dessert (or an ironic snack). It does not flake. You do not eat it for breakfast. To invoke the slippery slope argument again, admitting the cupcake to pastry status would then amount to the admittance of nearly all cakes; a catastrophe for the pastry world.
Further, cupcakes are clearly a product of and for the bourgeoisie. I submit as evidence, (1) cupcakes used as part of cultural appropriation and (2) lots of white people waiting in line to pay $4 for a cupcake. Pastries are of the common people. Nobody waits in line for an apple turnover or a croissant. You buy them at a sidewalk cart.
Cupcakes eaters of the world: you have nothing to lose but your chains*.
*Your chains of insurmountable privilege that prevent you from fully participating in the universe of pastry.
a swan-apple cupcake would be delicious
ReplyDelete