THE RARE... THE RAW...

[This blog is dedicated to Clark & Mulysa (Linesteppa the Second)...]

Ladies and gentlemen, fellow bloggers, and anybody else who has stumbled onto [or into] this insignificant section of the World Wide Web...

I have said this many times, and I will say it again: There is nothing too trivial... There is nothing too trivial for the Internet. I believe that anything, whether fact or fiction, truth or lie, degenerate or uplifting, horrifying or beautiful, can be found somewhere on the Internet. I MEAN ANYTHING...

That being said, the case before us today is the RAW VS RARE issue.

RAW VS RARE...

For those of you could care less about this topic, stop reading now, for this is trivia and the trivial at its best. The inane at its finest. If your curiousity has been piqued, then read on...

------------------------------------------

Some Background
I love a rare steak. I LOVE A RARE STEAK!!. [Not sirloin, though...BLEH!!] A New York strip, a rib-eye, or prime rib, with just the right amount of seasoning... still reddish-pink on the inside... perhaps with some fried onions and mushrooms and aujoir sauce or horseradish. To me, it's a beautiful sight. To my eyes, my nose, my stomach... To me, a rare steak is a work of art.

My love of rare is relative. Not everybody loves rare. I don't expect everybody to love rare. All I ask is that the concept be acknowledged as a separate stage of cooking.

But there are those who are repulsed by any pinkish or reddish hue within a steak. There are those who gag, scoff, ridicule, jeer, scorn, scowl, or roll their eyes at rare steak lovers like me.

There are those who believe that RARE = RAW.

RARE = RAW
RARE EQUALS RAW
RARE IS RAW
RARE IS THE SAME AS RAW
RARE IS EQUAL TO RAW

I say HRRMPH!! This debate has gone on long enough.

Ladies and Gentlemen, my goal is to convince you that there is enough difference between raw and rare that they are not the same. I will attempt to disprove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, this equation: RAW = RARE.

--------------------------------------

Argument #1
A thesaurus is basically a dictionary of synonyms. A synonym is a word that has a meaning identical or very similar to that of another word in the same language. I looked up the words RAW and RARE in three different thesauruses. Neither of them cross-referenced each other. If RAW = RARE, wouldn't RARE be a synonym for RAW and vice versa? This does not appear to be the case.

--------------------------------------

Argument #2
I looked in several dictionaries and came up with the following definitions:

• 
  RAW - Not cooked; uncooked.
• 
  RARE - Cooked so that the inside is still red; having a portion relatively uncooked; not cooked through; cooked a short time to retain juice and redness.
• 
  COOK - To prepare food for eating by means of heat; prepare food.

Now, you may believe I have lost the argument because the word "uncooked" appears in the definition of RARE. Taken out of context, you might be able to make a case, but taking things out of context is a cheap way to try to make a point. However, if you look at the spirit of the definitions, you will see a distinct difference between RARE and RAW. RAW is NOT COOKED. The definition of RARE contains the word "cooked". Even though the words "uncooked" and "not cooked through" appear, these are relative. The definition of RARE implies that some cooking has already taken place. Perhaps not all the way through, but the fact that the outer parts of the steak have been cooked means the steak can no longer be considered RAW. For something to be RAW, it must be uncooked. For something to be RARE, it must be cooked to some degree.

-----------------------------------------------

Argument #3
Whenever I order a steak at a restaurant, I am always asked: "How would you like your steak?" My obvious answer is: "As rare as you can legally make it." By definition, I am not asking for a raw steak. And in all my years of eating out, I have never been to a restaurant where the choices for steak were: RAW, RARE, MEDIUM, WELL. The fact that RAW is excluded from the choices shows that it is not the same as RARE. If you try to argue that RAW is not included because it is the same as RARE, then I challenge you to order a steak and ask for it RAW. Not RARE, but RAW. I would be interested in the outcome of such a transaction. I would also hope you take a picture of the server's facial expression(s). Actually, I should mention a certain incident that took place at a restaurant. I was with HotFudge, Mulysa (Linesteppa II), and Lotus. When I tried to order a rare New York Strip steak, the waitress told me I'd have to sign something stating I would not hold the restaurant responsible if I got sick. As unique as the situation was, it has no bearing on the issue at hand. But I felt it worth mentioning nonetheless.

--------------------------------------------------

Is it possible for a steak to be part cooked and part raw? Sure. Of course. But once that steak touches that heated pan or grill, and that first (thin) layer of meat gets cooked, that steak can no longer be called raw. Even if most of the steak is still raw, the fact that part of it is already cooked negates the raw argument. It might not be edible. It might not be safe to eat, but a partially cooked steak cannot be considered raw anymore.

Now, my arguments assume a certain amount of logic and reason. For example, I assume that any steak I order will be cooked on a grill or stove or some other device that is meant to cook. I would not expect my steak to be cooked in someone's armpit, or on the hood of a car with the engine running, or on the sidewalk in direct sunlight. No, one must assume a certain amount of sanity and rationale.

-----------------------------------------------

If you agree, excellent. If you found my arguments sound, outstanding.

If you are still not persuaded, if you found my position weak, then the debate is on...


Let the good fight begin.....