a crispular sandwich, yesterday

a crispular sandwich, yesterday

I doubt very much if there is a sandwich in existence that wouldn’t be improved by the addition of crisps.

If this here blog malarkey were anything approaching a scientific endeavour, I would have taken the trouble to go out and buy a wide variety of sandwiches, and a wide variety of crisps, and tested all the different permutations, perhaps tabulating the results into some kind of ranking system accompanied by tasting notes: “a gentle, well-balanced sandwich, with the tuna and sweetcorn offset by autumnal hints of pickled onion Monster Munch”, or some such shit. I am, however, going to do no such thing. I can note instead that that Sainsbury’s prawn sandwich/steak-flavoured Walker’s Deep Ridged combo I enjoyed at lunchtime today was excellent, and indeed more than the sum of its parts: prawn sandwiches and Deep Ridged Crisps are both comestibles that require, nee demand, respect, but in combination they command something closer to reverence.

Or not. But it was pretty good, I have to say.

(I should note, and I don’t know if this is of any significance whatsoever, but the last two times I typed the word ‘ridged’ I initially misspelt it as ‘rodged’. I don’t know what, if anything, ‘deep rodged’ means, but I suspect it would not be suitable for the family-friendly food blog we pride ourselves on being.)

Now, if Karl Popper taught us anything, it was the idea that scientific inquiry proceeds not by means of verification, but by falsification: theories stand or fall according to whether anything comes along to call them into question, and it is these things we should be looking for in seeking to test out a theory. I therefore call upon our humble reader(s) to test out the Crisp-Sandwich Hypothesis: can you find a combination that disproves the theory that all sandwiches are improved by the addition of crisps? I have admitted that I am far too lazy to do this myself (or even, as will become apparent, to think about it with anything approaching philosophical rigour), so let me deal with some prima facie cases, that I thought of off the top of my head:

Number One: you might say, wily Socratic interlocutor that you are: “ahh [puffs pipe], but what about chocolate spread sandwiches? Or jam sandwiches? Surely crisps would ruin these.” I would reply that these sandwiches are shit to begin with, and couldn’t possibly be made worse. If you are the kind of person that likes these sandwiches, then you are either a small child or a cretin. Go and read NME or something, and get off this blog.

Number Two: “but what about French Fries? These are terrible crisps, and would therefore ruin most sandwiches.” To which I should add a clarification to my initial hypothesis. I am sure there is a complex way of making this point with the symbols and terminology of formal logic, but it goes something like this in plebspeak: I am not saying that all sandwiches would be improved by the addition of just any crisp; I am saying that all sandwiches are such that there exists some crisp or other that would improve them. Suck on that, Wittgenstein.

So come on then. Test the hypothesis, and write to us at the usual address.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s