Radical Sandwich Anarchy

6 years ago

A decade ago, I conducted a poll on this topic. It lacked the taxonomical rigor of this chart -- well done!

Previously, previously, previously, previously.
Tags:

20 Responses:

  1. NilJms says:
    6 years ago at 1:24 am

    By this taxonomy, would a structural rebel consider a chicken nugget a sandwich, but exclude smørbrød and it's open-faced cousins?
    • relaxing says:
      6 years ago at 4:41 am

      No way is an open faced sandwich still a sandwich. Otherwise what does sandwich even mean?

      I'm hard pressed to come up with a significant difference between a poptart and breaded meat, but...
      • Mark says:
        6 years ago at 5:55 am

        Sandwich = (bread product which could (in principle) stand on its own) + (something else more substantial than a spread or condiment)

        So chicken nuggets, pop tarts, toast with jam are all not sandwiches, but open faced sandwiches are sandwiches.

        I'm undecided about whether waffles are a reasonable bread product here. But an ice cream taco definitely counts.

        Glad I could clear that up for you.
        • freiheit says:
          6 years ago at 4:21 pm

          I think your definition is a good start, but that the "filling" needs to be contained enough by the bread product that one can easily grasp the sandwich with one hand.

          Toast with jam is a sandwich if there's enough jam to do more than fill the pores of the bread and there's a second slice of bread on top.

          Open faced so-called-sandwiches are just bread with stuff on top. Is Eggs Benedict really a sandwich?
        • Epsz says:
          6 years ago at 1:55 pm

          Is tomato sauce and cheese more substantial than a spread? Or, in other words, is a pizza slice a sandwich? What if it has pineapples?
        • Mark says:
          6 years ago at 4:28 pm

          For further discussion ad nauseam (including questions of pizza and oh so many other things), follow the link. I doubt jwz cares to host a rehash of that entire debate.
  2. Andrew says:
    6 years ago at 5:55 am

    And where does that place the Naked Chicken Chalupa - structure radical rebel (using toppings as structure!), ingredient neutral - but it seems distinct from a traditional taco/burrito. Part of the problem I suppose is trying to place Mexican cuisine on a sandwich taxonomy
  3. Jef Poskanzer says:
    6 years ago at 11:17 am

    I'm interested in the isomorphisms. Taco / hot dog. Calzone / empanada / pasty. All the various foods on a stick.
  4. David Konerding says:
    6 years ago at 1:07 pm

    seems like topology, not ingredients, define a sandwich. The open face sandwich is a degenerate class.
    • pavel_lishin says:
      6 years ago at 1:26 pm

      I would say "trivial" rather than "degenerate".
      • Andrew says:
        6 years ago at 5:37 pm

        step 1: Klein-wich!
        step 3: profit!
      • Philip Guenther says:
        6 years ago at 7:57 pm

        The deepest sin is to be close, but falter at the end. In the eyes of a strict structuralist, an open faced 'sandwich' is the epitome of degeneracy. Those of the closed face faith would certainly expel the open faced schismatics from their comestible communion.
  5. foo says:
    6 years ago at 2:36 pm

    Surely you must have also seen this beautiful thing: the D and D Burger Alignment Chart

    http://zen-master.deviantart.com/art/D-and-D-Burger-Alignment-Chart-592844155
  6. Editer says:
    6 years ago at 5:05 pm

    Actually the Earl of Sandwich was the inventor, so the food is more properly called Sandwich's Monster.
  7. MattF says:
    6 years ago at 5:28 pm

    Is a pile of two slices of bread a sandwich? How about three slices of bread? Four?
  8. David A says:
    6 years ago at 1:44 pm

    Vice has weighed in with an appropriately dumb take.
  9. Elusis says:
    6 years ago at 11:26 pm

    XKCD thinks that we are reaching peak sandwich irony.

Comments are closed because this post is 6 years old.

  • Previously