Jump to content
Banner by ~ Ice Princess Silky
  • entries
    363
  • comments
    1,100
  • views
    266,604

Muddle Your Moral: A "Spice Up Your Life" Analysis (Revised)


Dark Qiviut

1,816 views

Author's Note: After publishing it, I felt dissatisfied with what I wrote, so I revised it. This revised analysis was originally published in Canterlot Times on June 14.


Spice Up Your Life is way, way better than Flutter Brutter, but there is a fatal issue in this episode: the moral’s execution.

There are multiple morals in this episode, including how not to let others decide your decision for you and to think for yourself. The overall moral is dealing with criticism in multiple ways. Two of them include properly delivering criticism and learning how to appreciate it. Criticism in itself is an art that way too many people in and out of the fandom take for granted. A good chunk of society loves to stereotype critics and dissuade the art of criticism, sending implications that to think for themselves and critically think of material is meaningless. This classism is echoed here in the brony fandom by how many bash the analysis community or anyone who has good reason to point out the flaws and pan an episode for poor quality.

Simultaneously, Zesty Gourmand proved in Act 1 and the latter half of Act 3 that she’s terrible at her job. As a critic, she’s responsible for analyzing and explaining observations and facts to lead to conclusions of the overall quality of the restaurant. She doesn’t do that and instead lets her taste, opinions, and ego get in the way.

On the other hand, a good moral about criticism has two glaring flaws.

  1. Rarity’s approach into making The Tasty Treat succeed was out of character. Does she have a reason to go about the way she did it? Yes. Every other restaurant in Restaurant Row, despite their low-quality meals and generic decor, are highly successful. Rarity wants The Tasty Treat to succeed and stay in business, and that leads her to believe that in order to do so is to start anew. This rationale is completely understandable; sometimes restaurants don’t succeed the first time, so a complete retooling can improve the restaurant and invite more attention and better success.

    Unfortunately, she was really blind in her approach. Rather than trying to increase the quality of their meals or focus on other more constructive ideas to increase the chance of success, Rarity was completely focused on pandering to Canterlot’s stereotypical snoot, which were reinforced by how much the ponies gave Pinkie and Saffron the cold shoulder when they refused to think of everything except the lack of rating. In other words, she believed the best method for success is to make the entire restaurant as bland and generic as the others. It’s out of character of her, because she takes pride in succeeding via individuality, not conformity. Rather than stripping The Tasty Treat of its Middle-Eastern and/or Indian roots, maybe they could’ve tried to advertise the restaurant better and ask questions about the other restaurants themselves. And maybe ask questions about if Zesty was wrong.
  2. Zesty Gourmand is a complete “tyrannical critic” stereotype. A single-track mind with the expectation of Canterlot to suck up to her and fuel her ego, yet completely inept in actually being a critic. She doesn’t know what makes a restaurant successful. Rather than judging each restaurant on its own merits, she forces them to conform to the way she wants it in presentation, taste, and decor. If you don’t, then it’s a failure. That’s not how to judge the restaurant’s objective quality.

    Yet, when she judged The New Tasty Treat early in Act 3, she was right to slam it. By trying to be successful, Rarity forced Saffron and Coriander to rip off the others in terms of flavor and decor, creating a poor first impression for Zesty, who had every right to call her out for her poor creative choices. And, yes, the service was very substandard. The episode tried so hard to paint her as entirely in the wrong, but screwed up when she was completely justified in her words just before she left the first time.
     
    But rather than make up for what she did, Zesty stayed true to her stereotypical roots when the episode painted her as an even bigger egomaniac than the scene prior. Immediately, she went from being inept to giving her a valid point to instantly invalidating her. Her reintroduction in the resolution entered way too suddenly and thrust in the moral of how to not to let others dictate your taste. There was no gradual buildup into making the moral work.
     
    Zesty’s presentation as a stereotype, a straw character, and the only serious professional culinary critic in Canterlot muddles the message.
     
    a. Surely, there are tens or hundreds of culinary critics, both amateur or professional, out there. Why does Canterlot’s fine-dining hinge on one? What about the others out there, if they exist? Did they write their reviews, too? What do they say about the meals, restaurants, and so on? There ought to be more than one reviewer, including ones who are way more competent than her. There are many critics in real life who really comprehend and appreciate the art of criticism.
     
    b. For those who don’t know, straw characters — or straw men/women — are visual fallacies. Their only purpose in the story is to use terrible logic to back up their points in order to be proven completely wrong at the end, while the other side of the argument is entirely supported. One big problem: A majority of the debates have many valid arguments across every point of the snowflake. If you’re going to teach a (gray) moral or conflict, using a straw character is one of the most dishonest, laziest ways to teach it. Zesty Gourmand is the first in the animated show and third overall (the others being Praiser Pan from the Fluttershy Micro and Well-To-Do from Root of the Problem).
     
    To use a straw character/stereotype villainizes one side of the moral on an issue with fifty shades of gray. There are multiple people with multiple tastes with what they like or don’t. Initially, Spice Up Your Life tries to paint both Rarity and Pinkie as equally right and wrong by justifying their worries. Who can blame them? The three-hoof system parallels the Michelin Guide; in France, losing one star can determine whether it will thrive or go out of business. Here, no stars equals no business, so her review can determine whether they’ll have a job or not. But Zesty herself and the rush to paint her as a villain in the resolution results in painting Rarity’s side (which makes sense) as 100% wrong and Pinkie’s 100% right. To generalize one side so broadly hurts the other.
     
    And the fact that this show is supposed to teach lessons to kids makes the stereotype of critics even more damning. Kids are smart, yet easily impressionable by their surroundings. To glorify a stereotype like Zesty can present a false impression of critics and the art of criticism to kids.
     
    c. Zesty’s whole concept comes across as a parody of Anton Ego without understanding his whole purpose. Anton Ego is intelligent with an ego and strong sense of taste. His backwards perspective on Gusteau’s motto about how anyone can cook gave him blind spots. Despite his tough approach to reviewing, he willed to try something new and admit to being wrong. When the ratatouille delighted him, he ate his words and delivered easily the best moral about criticism in entertainment. But the way he spoke about it delivered the message about criticism without being condescending, and the fact that he said it made the moral feel authentic. Unlike Zesty, Ego was the antithesis of a stereotype. Caustic, yet fair. Everypony else delivering the moral for Zesty and Zesty letting her ego get in the way contrives the moral.

What ideas can improve it?

  1. Allow Rarity to handle her half of the solution better early. Going back to Sweet & Elite, the Bearer of Generosity has credentials in Canterlot. Yes, she’s more about fashion design than food, but does that mean she can’t use her status and eye for quality in other material? No. It makes no sense for her to fear Canterlot’s hive-minded mentality. Instead of deciding to rebrand The Tasty Treat, why not write a review herself? Judge the restaurant by the meal presentation, decor, and meal flavor. She understands the food tastes good and, quite possibly, tastes the complexities themselves. Remember, one of her strongest assets is her ability to analyze details so finely. Use it to challenge the stereotypes of Canterlot society and make them reconsider Zesty’s words.
  2. Don’t drag the fate of Canterlot’s fine-dining on one. Culinary criticism is a competing occupation covering multiple magazines, newspapers, books, and TV shows. Again, others equally trusted like Zesty, yet are more competent in their jobs than her, ought to be out there. What do they have to say about Restaurant Row, and what do they recommend? What do they have to say about Zesty herself?
  3. Don’t paint Zesty as a stereotype and bad guy, and rewrite the moral. The “evil critic” is a cliché in and of itself, so it’s very difficult to execute him or her very well. Anton Ego is a well-written villain critic. Instead of writing a stereotypical antagonist out of Zesty, why not allude to the idea of Zesty being the antagonist, but when she decides to show up, she isn’t like what any of the four make her out to be?
     
    Early on, Coriander and Saffron admit to disliking her for hearing bad things she allegedly spewed about the restaurant and staff. But when she shows up, expectations crash. She’s intelligent, can easily analyze the textures and flavors, and doesn’t talk down to anybody. She wanted to give The Tasty Treat a chance, but had to leave due to an emergency, but in earshot muttered angry things about a restaurant next door that had a history of abusing the staff. As for the poor quality of the other meals, they were very good last year, but apparently, the meal quality degraded since then. So she gives The Tasty Treat a fair chance, likes it, and encourages others to write reviews for all the restaurants. The fate of everyone’s occupation shouldn’t have to be pinned down to one person. Just because some of the customers here may not be professional critics doesn’t mean they’re incapable of thinking critically of the overall quality of the meal, too.
  4. While Pinkie and Saffron try to convince others to come into the restaurant, Coriander tells Rarity to renovate the restaurant against her best judgment. Graphic design is her best field; she can critique color theory, ideas, originality, and the details far better than the other seven. It goes against her best judgment to willingly change the decor and not realize doing so is a terrible idea. To make her change it as she trepidates allows her to change the decor without derailing her character.
  5. Streamline the conflict. I talked with a good friend on Skype yesterday, and he explained to me about how SUYL suffers from an identity crisis. In many corners of the episode, the episode indicates decision to want to teach one thing, only to attempt to teach something else, only attempt to teach something else. This episode crammed way too many ideas in one episode. The moral it spouts is not be a sheep to critics, but its whole lesson is to appreciate the art of criticism as a whole, but the ideas within the presented conflict came and went, helping damage the credibility of the morals it was trying to teach. One conflict while showing it in objective detail and not using a stereotype of critics can really improve the quality of the episode.
  6. Don’t write Canterlot as a hivemind. Hundreds of individuals live in Canterlot. No one pony will think the same as the other or snub it just because it doesn’t have a rating. Chances are at least one from Canterlot ate there, and some ponies there might’ve heard about it and planned to visit for lunch or dinner. To make them think and step away from the city’s most unlikable trait from the get-go subverts the expectation that Canterlot’s a robotic, pompous society.

Rather than trying to suggest appreciation for the art of criticism, it implicates that criticism deserves abandonment. While that’s not what they’re trying to say, there’s a difference between what they’re trying to say and what they’re saying. SUYL suggests appreciating criticism, but Rarity’s poor characterization, Zesty herself, and the rushed ending suggest the opposite. In short, it’s a below-average episode with a good moral hurt by sloppy execution.


Source: S06:E12 - Spice Up Your Life

  • Brohoof 5

4 Comments


Recommended Comments

 

 

Rather than judging each restaurant on its own merits, she forces them to conform to the way she wants it in presentation, taste, and decor. If you don't, then it's a failure. That's not how to judge the restaurant's objective quality.

 

Yeah, I would have preferred the approach to have Rarity strikeout trying to get Zesty to try out the Tasty Treat, and then use her Canterlot influence to write her own review on the restaurant while Pinkie advertises.

 

When the other Restaurant Row ponies start to see how you can have success and commit to revert to their beloved methods, you could have one of the city ponies comment that they would love to right their own reviews.

 

In this situation, Zesty is now a cautionary tale regarding the flaw of having all the focus and power vested with one individual, while championing the the idea that community reviews are some of the best ways to discover (or avoid) something untested or new. 

  • Brohoof 1
Link to comment

Well, you can say that it seems odd that Canterlot all believes just one food critic when there's most likely hundreds out there, but then again, the same could be said in real life in many ways. In the game industry, there's only three or four critics anyone goes to for the most part. When you think of a game reviewer, you instantly think of IGN/Gamespot/etc. Sure, they have different reviewers on board, but it's still somewhat similar.

Link to comment

Well, you can say that it seems odd that Canterlot all believes just one food critic when there's most likely hundreds out there, but then again, the same could be said in real life in many ways. In the game industry, there's only three or four critics anyone goes to for the most part. When you think of a game reviewer, you instantly think of IGN/Gamespot/etc. Sure, they have different reviewers on board, but it's still somewhat similar.

Ha you don't trust actual game reviewers, they are paid to be positive no matter how shitty a game is. While open minded gamers write more fair reviews an acutal give more unbiased reviews.

 

I havn't seen this episode yet but now I kind of don't want to considering ONE pony reviewer...yeah Canterlot HAS been shown to be sheep like to be fair.  -Green isn't your colour- -Secret of my sucess -(rarity in canterlot episode can't remember the title) but each and every time, sheep like...Fany pants likes the mane 6 and poof all the nobels there are like "oh I like them too now." 

of course that just nobels not the average joe on the street.

Link to comment

I find it faintly ironic that they cast Rarity in the role of "remake this restaurant into standard issue" when S5 E14: Canterlot Boutique went out of its way to establish that "conforming to the popular trend" is bad... a misuse of Rarity, for sure.

  • Brohoof 1
Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Join the herd!

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...