Question Answered

Mark Thompson in reply to Burt Likko says:

I am wholly torn on this question, though I must re-emphasize that what is served in Chicago is not pizza but rather tomato pie. It is not the thickness of the crust that alters its character, but rather the order in which the ingredients are placed. It is possible to have a thick crust pizza or a thin crust tomato pie (see, e.g., Justice Alito’s favorite restaurant, DeLorenzo’s, formerly of Trenton but now of Robbinsville, which serves only delicious, delicious thin crust tomato pies). To say that a tomato pie is a pizza because it has the same ingredients is to say that a burrito is a taco is an enchilada, which is clearly not the case.

As for the issue at hand, I am likewise initially inclined to agree with Likko, C.J. that it is the between-ness that distinguishes a sandwich from a roll, though I do not agree that the outer substance need specifically be a bread, but may instead be any product which follows the formula of A(B-X)A and in which the “A” would be capable of being gripped by the hands while held parallel to the ground without the (B-X) being squished out the sides (the rear being a different subject). When something is between two items of another thing, we describe it as being “sandwiched,” and thus I do not believe that the nature of the exterior substance is necessarily important, except as a matter of engineering.

In Austria, for instance, the word “hot dog” refers not to the type of meat that goes in the exterior substance, but rather to the fact that the meat (most frequently a delicious, delicious Kasekrainer, the world’s most Wunderbar form of wurstel) is placed within a tunnel cut into the center of a whole loaf of bread. I think we would all agree that this is not a sandwich, delicious as it is (and really it is the best meat in tube form/bread combo in all the world, without any doubt).

And yet, even if we were to ignore the use of the word “hot dog” to refer to the bread itself and instead replace the Kasekrainer with an inferior American Hot Dog, we would still all agree that it was an acceptable way of eating a hot dog. Indeed, even in America, hot dogs are often not served on a bun (and the use of the word “on” to describe its relationship to a bun should alone be dispositive here), but instead are sometimes served in often disgusting but nonetheless common other forms – on a stick, or within a greasy pretzel-like substance, or even within a phyllo-like pastry.

Were we to serve hot dogs between two flat pieces of bread, they would simply roll out, though, so ordinary sandwich form is the one way in which we absolutely cannot serve a hot dog.

Similarly, we might also consider that we call lobster filling served on a bun a “lobster roll,” rather than a lobster sandwich, which would be a reference to lobster meat served between two slices of bread.

And that form is critical, rather than merely a matter of aesthetics. If the product must be eaten in an enclosed form, or within the spaces of a “V,” then there is no order to how we experience the flavors involved. In a proper sandwich, the food hits the tongue in layers, but in a half-split roll, or fully enclosed starch tube, the filling hits the tongue simultaneously with additional starch.

As for the hoagie/sub/torpedo question….properly made, such things are quite clearly sandwiches, as the bread is often wholly sliced and separated. But even if it is not sliced in that manner, but it is otherwise properly made, it will still be designed to be held parallel to the ground such that only trace amounts of starch are contained in the same layer as the filling when it reaches your tongue.Report