The proof is in the pudding
Today in The Daily Beast, the new Tina Brown web magazine — because Lord knows we needed one of those — I offer my thoughts on Fireproof, the Christian blockbuster starring Kirk Cameron.
Naturally, the "most insular Christian audiences" that I refer to in the piece have already started accusing me of Christian bashing (If only! I hear many of you, my cynical secular friends, saying).
Of course my real point is that crap like Fireproof does a disservice to Christianity. In that, I was strongly influenced by Thom Parham's essay, Why do Heathens Make the Best Christian Films? I probably could have deflected some heat by linking it in the piece, but I don't really need to deflect heat, being fireproof and all.
Comments
From Safire's On Language last Sunday:
Her reaction was expressed in these words: “The proof is in the pudding. They can watch the debate.” And sure enough, she played the moderating role commendably straight.
But the “pudding” — the debate — was not what supplied the proof. Ifill, like most who use that “old saying,” shortened it in a way that leached out its historic meaning. The saying is not “the proof is in the pudding,” but “the proof of the pudding is in the eating.” Same thing, no?
No.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 21, 2008 1:45 PM
Hmm. I always thought the longer expression was "the proof of the pudding is under the crust." In which case the shortened form does makes sense. I'm surprised Safire doesn't even mention that. Googling shows it's not as common as I thought, but I didn't invent it.
Posted by: radosh | October 21, 2008 1:56 PM
Heh. Apparently I got that from a Charlie Brown TV special. Suck it, Bill.
Posted by: radosh | October 21, 2008 2:23 PM