Why do i love cooking?

Delaqroux Inc Randomness Update... Why do Delaqroux cook?

"I love cooking" - this is basically the answer. Yes, level-3 question of open-endedness feature in great expectation of the recipient to reply with an even broader answer, yet, a simple first-level question that ends everything with a quick fullstop, abrupt, stagnant yet excellent execution fruits a sadistic satisfaction. A wise man will take that as the final answer, to go no more despite of their curiosity. 'Wiser' men, nevertheless, will try to attempt me to speak more of it by declaring a simple question of "Why?" I found this wh- question quite of an annoyance. This question either reflects the owner's curiosity to explore more of my life (without considering whether if they even have the qualification to do so), merely an innocent idea of trying to branch out this conversation for it not get onto a halt instantly, or, perhaps, such ignorance of the owner parallel to his naivety of not expecting any side of the answer he would not expect - yes, a more complex, darker side of why i simply love to cook...

I am not the type to give answers easily, for my answer comes with a price. I admit i am a man of greed, yet money is not enough to stuff my gluttony for satisfaction. I demand a step-by step procedure. Analogically, you, lift-the weight, work to build up your own answer to your own question. I, with most pleasure, will provide the job in forms of hints. Please, pardon me for implying this as a work - it is most likely a game if you wish to view it so. You'll be the ever vigilant detective and i'll be the grinning, waiting, psycopathic criminal. I tell you the answer to your question with an answer to a question of "what do i see in cooking" - please enjoy your part of deciphering.

I see cooking with the colour silver - not of those glimmering and dangling with a pricetag worth more than a life. I'm just talking about the simplistic glitter of pots and pans, tools of every chef hanging ready by their holsters, as of a katana waiting for the next moment for the warrior to use it for his kill. In this case, of course, it will be the chef for his cookings. Next, i see fire. Quite an easy part of the charade isnt it? Of course, it is. Nothing like a constructive fake sense of accomplishment to fuel my dear behavioristic, reward-oriented friends out there to keep them hot on their track in pursuing the answer they are seeking. To those who figured nothing of any sort, i pity, i meant fire on a stove, ever-burning, blue flame of innocence. But hark, hath thy flames always been blue? No, they are red split seconds of wisp at times. Physics tell us that the red burning fire is of a failure - not providing as much heat compared to the blue ones. But, i, in a sense of profuse empathy, adore the failures. For they are the one in the end to succeed to corrupt. They, the red burning spawn of Ifrit's, are the one that blackens the silver pan to nothing but of a disgustful, eternal blackness of color.

Afterwards, i see alchemy in the act of cooking. Of how simple, fresh ingredients strewn together by an invisible string of perception and ideas to make the perfect dish. Yet, does such foolish existence even real? To that of a perfect dish? Nay, it does not. No dish can be perfect. Yet the chef of such blasphemistic persistence continue on cooking, seasoning, perfecting a transparent hope of perfection to such extend to that as of a man possessed by the spirit of evil itself to achieve something humanly possible. Regardless, the ingredients may have mixed together nicely to that an unimaginable state of existence. Who would have thought it? Who would have thought two atoms of hydrogen and one of oxygen can transmute a molecule of water? Who would have thought the innocent yet perplexing mixture of sugar and spices could have give birth to an excellent sensation of sweet and sour? No one. Perhaps, the chef himself but just a "perhaps". He may have planned it or he may have accidentally uncovered such invention of a gourmet.

This is the point of non-explainable entity where the chef suddenly concludes that the dish is ready to be served, possibly due to the taste? Maybe. The texture? Most likely. The colour? The eyes see what the mind wants to see so what possibility can this suggest? Nobody knows for certain but the irony parts draws here. This is when the chef will be judge by the invention he creates. What irony. The Creator will be judge by what he creates. Shouldnt it be the other way around? Not in this religion, my dear friends, neither in this cult of chef and his cooking. Yet, to you, this may seem like the most crucial career moment for the chef. You are partially right, but it goes beyond to that of a pathetic career stream. This moment where the chef serves his invention to the audience, playing the role of selfish critics and self-appointed gourmet experts, represents the balance between chaos and control. In this moment, my dear friends, detectives and readers; I see cooking as a tie between a puppet and its puppeteer. This is when the role of the one in control and the one to be controlled is judged by an almighty unknown element of desire, fulfillment, content and satisfaction. It's fairly simple, if the chef displeases his audience, his audience (though how it may seem of pure irrelevance) have complete control of him. In the blink of the eye, the Creator is made the puppet and the ones critisizing his creation is the puppeteer. The puppet is at the puppeteers mercy now. They have the rights for anything and this includes despising the creation and claiming the chef put so little effort in the preparation, despite the fact that they were never there witnessing how the chef carries his duty. At the point the audience is the Almighty and the chef is surely the most despicable fallen ones short to the glory of the Almighty.

So with such big risk involve, why do i like cooking? Dear friends, i have just revealed to you one side of the coin. To what of the other? What if, on an indistinct line of luck or effort, that the coin lands on the desired side up? What if the chef pleases the audience? The role of the puppeteer is set and, as you have guessed it, the chef is now the puppeteer. His puppet, ranging from possibly one audience to a whole hall of satisfied guests, is at his disposal. They, once the 'wisest' critics coming from all walks in life, is now deafened by the shrill scream of the sizzling gourmet in front of them. Their tongues are now cut off by the sharp blade of satisfying sensation. Their eyes blinded by their own eyelids helplessly forced to be kept shut by an invisible dominating power that demands the sight and all other senses of the audience to be paralyzed, just to make way for the tongue to indulge the sensation of their self-appointed 'good-food'. Yes, the once wise men of wisest criticisms is now nothing but a wooden block of wood carved to be an emotionless puppet as the puppeteers disposal. Of course, you may wonder; if the audience are destined the puppeteer they can throw the lame puppet-chef out - what good if the puppeteer is now made to be the chef?

Simple. Its the sensation of absolute power- strong, Godlike enough for me even to claim that the lives of the audience are nothing more like nimble threads in the chef's right hand, with a pair of sharp sure-cutting scissors in the other. And this power may not seem visible to the naked eye, of course, and this what makes it the most succulent satisfaction ever. And this is why, i, your humble powerless chef, loves cooking. Still believing this claim to be preposterous? Well, alright then. Here is an analogical example to trigger some thoughts. Remember that last delicious food i served you? Are you dying for seconds? I bet you are.


Dark A. Delaqroux 2009
"Why do I love cooking?"
p/s: uhhh... this is just a for-fun article okay? Dont take it too seriously. I havent gone cuckoo (yet) :p