The Non-Cook Manifesto
First Installment
July, 2011
First Installment
July, 2011
WORKING DEFINITION OF THE TERM NON-COOK
A non-cook is a person who does not think of herself or himself as a cook.
A non-cook is a person who does not think of herself or himself as a cook.
NOTES ON THE TERM NON-COOK As an umbrella term, non-cook is general, neutral, and non-judgmental. It is natural, neither cozy nor standoffish, and neither dull nor overly catchy. Non-cook is inoffensive. And perhaps above all, non-cook is inclusive. When in the market for an umbrella term, a number of candidates will come to mind. Then if you start to dig around, you’ll find a few more. Once the completely impractical, cumbersome, or naughty candidates have been discarded it’s time to weigh the merits and de-merits of those remaining. Following are some notes concerning the options: Although “not-cook,” could be a legitimate candidate, it does seem to be a little awkward, slightly geeky or abrupt, and lacking grammatical elegance. The choice of “anti-cook” certainly has an appealing force of conviction, but the political -- or combative -- feel might not suit everyone; “reverse cook” is too convoluted; “phobic cook” is way too specific: a diagnosis rather than a general term and also, it’s skewed in the wrong direction, belonging more properly to a catalog of types of cooks, so definitely cross that one right off the list. As a possibility, “contra cook” seems promising at first blush, but then you remember about contra dancing, and then you don’t feel like it’s really fair to muscle in on somebody else’s hobby. Another tempting candidate is “un-cook” – but alas it is not practical because it sounds too much like an actual cooking term or technique (as in “un-cook half of the eggs and add to dry ingredients…”). Ditto “no-cook,” which sounds too much like, and in fact is, the name for a category of food (as in “no-cook cookies” or “no-cook icing”). And finally, the clunkers that must be mentioned so they can be politely avoided: “beginner cook,” which is bad, and “reluctant cook,” which really will not do at all. These are the patronizing and presumptuous terms certain meddling non non-cooks have adopted in an attempt to co-opt non-cook sentiment and energy. It is a usurping of identity! This term applied to cooks or even potential cooks would be fine. But that is not the case here! Not to sound defensive or paranoid, but from the non-cook’s perspective, it’s irritating to be smugly encouraged and expected to evolve and flourish into a cook. Being a non-cook really isn’t a stage you pass through on the way to becoming non-reluctant in the kitchen. Being a non-cook is a lifelong commitment (unless, of course, you change, becoming a Reformed Non-Cook). Some might remark that it’s a shame to label yourself like that, and encouragingly suggest that you’re not really a non-cook, you’re just learning, or you just never learned. I think these people can politely be told that you actually really like categories, especially accurate, descriptive ones. Down with ridiculous misnomers and using perfectly good, even noble verbs – like learn – to obscure and twisty-tangle the legitimate practice of the non-cook. |
|