M&M’s
Fun Fact: Jon Lovitz was the original voice of the red M&M
Recommended T.O.E.: The 1980’s, apparently
“As a critic, I’ve never felt more irrelevant.”
I know this is a sensitive topic. This past weekend when I walked into the office and tossed a freshly-purchased box of M&M’s onto Kevin’s desk, I was told to step back, and I believe not get “too excited.” This isn’t the kind of candy you just eat and write about as if it’s nothing. They’re to elementary school playgrounds as cigarettes are to the pen. I remember one day in fourth grade I traded Jimmy Bovino eighteen reds for his foil Blastoise.
So how do you review a snack that’s more than just a snack? Do I really need to tell you how much this candy means to so many people? The biggest moment of my entire life was in 2002 when Mars declared that purple had beaten turquoise and pink, and would be the newest addition to M&M’s already all-star lineup of colors. The following two days were the hardest I have ever, and probably will ever party.
But what if I told you that despite all this history, all this glamor, M&M’s aren’t actually that good? Does it matter at this point? If my asshole friend says that Star Wars is overrated, who gives a shit? While working on this review I’ve had to ask myself a lot of questions I’d never before considered. As a critic, I’ve never felt more irrelevant.
So, yes, M&M’s are perhaps undeserving of their fame and cultural significance. I’m not denying that they’re good, but all this hoopla over some chocolate with a candy coating? I support simplicity in cooking, but for snacks, and candy specifically, I enjoy it when chefs get a little more excited and creative. But you’ll love them anyway.
-Zvi Finklestein
August 7th, 2008 at 10:10 am
Have you already forgotten about the light brown M+M???
Do you not remember the announcement that blue would replace the light brown M+M???
Or the time when they officially changed the name from “Plain” to “Milk-Chocolate”???
Now those were parties…