Mistaking The Real Deal For An Imitation

At a country fair there was a Buffoon who made all the people laugh by imitating the cries of various animals. He finished off by squeaking so like a pig that the spectators thought that he had a porker concealed about him. But a Countryman who stood by said: “Call that a pig’s squeak! Nothing like it. You give me till tomorrow and I will show you what it’s like.” The audience laughed, but next day, sure enough, the Countryman appeared on the stage, and putting his head down squealed so hideously that the spectators hissed and threw stones at him to make him stop. “You fools!” he cried, “see what you have been hissing,” and held up a little pig whose ear he had been pinching to make him utter the squeals.


The Buffoon and The Countryman, “Men often applaud an imitation and hiss the real thing.”

I know it's not a perfect example, but this Aesop Fable reminds me of food critics. More often than not, it's subjective and it wouldn't surprise me if they reject an authentic dish for an imitation.

We've all heard about how wine or beer snobs get fooled or people who think they can tell the difference between tap and bottled water. Even stock pickers get fooled. How many, to take another track, singers have made it big despite not having a voice that matches their fame while someone with an angelic one is almost destitute? People get fooled by all sorts of things.

A critics report (and to be sure, some critics are valuable) is usually accompanied with a numerical rating; to try and bring some objectivity to something subjective. I'm not big on "ratings." That a restaurant has 'four Michelin' stars means squat to me; even less when a Chef commits suicide over them. Seems to me we put too much emphasis on what critics think. How did they get so powerful? Chefs critiquing other chefs I can digest better. But listening to a 25 year-old writer from The New Yorker is a little much for me. 

Sometimes I've watched movies where I feel a 'group think' mentality sets in deeming it "great" but when you see it you wonder what the fuss was all about. It happens from time to time. Place like Rotten Tomatoes reduce the "volatility beta" of subjective rating by taking a global average from many critics. Food, and in particular channels like The Food Network, have yet to perfect their craft. I mean, I'm not there to taste the food myself therefore I'm left to put complete trust into a complete stranger. That they are "famous" is not comfort to me.

Furthermore, that a blog post gets 4 stars means squat to me also. Is the person rating it on the content or do they disagree with it? Makes a difference to me. I can rate something favorably even if I disagree with it as long as it's properly supported and coherent, but I doubt it's like that for some.

That a student gets 90% in history means squat to me. All it tells me is they were able to ace the curriculum but it's possible they come understanding little about history as an artistic discipline.