For the Japanese, eating sushi is like eating a peanut butter sandwich: it comes so naturally, the etiquette rules - on how to eat sushi - are part of their DNA.
What Japanese people would consider “normal” Sushi we call Nigiri.
The implication that “we” don’t consider nigiri to be normal sushi doesn’t match my experience at all. Among the people I’ve dined with, normal sushi is nothing like the “jam packed inside out rolls” you described. In other words, I think you’re overgeneralizing.
Normal is not defined as what you seek out, but what’s most common in the area.
That’s one sense of the word, sure. And in the areas where I’ve had sushi, the more traditional style is more common than the stuff you described. (It might be easy to miss, though, especially if you only notice restaurants with significant advertising budgets.)
I mentioned what I seek out not as a definition of “normal”, but to demonstrate a response to what was already considered “normal” before I came along. I have rephrased that comment to try to make this more obvious.
“Among the people I’ve dined with” This is where you’re going wrong. You cannot judge “normal” off your own little circle. You may think the word has other meanings, but they do not apply when talking about what’s “normal” in terms of food.
Link me three sushi places in your area that do not serve rolls besides maki and don’t cost $100 a head, I’ll wait.
I have never been to a place that sold sushi and didn’t have the option to order just nigiri. Other than the packed sushi at the supermarket.
I’d agree that most people here think of maki when you say sushi, but nigiri is absolutely not considered “not normal” and california rolls are called california rolls and are rarer than maki.
I was responding mainly to this:
The implication that “we” don’t consider nigiri to be normal sushi doesn’t match my experience at all. Among the people I’ve dined with, normal sushi is nothing like the “jam packed inside out rolls” you described. In other words, I think you’re overgeneralizing.
That’s one sense of the word, sure. And in the areas where I’ve had sushi, the more traditional style is more common than the stuff you described. (It might be easy to miss, though, especially if you only notice restaurants with significant advertising budgets.)
I mentioned what I seek out not as a definition of “normal”, but to demonstrate a response to what was already considered “normal” before I came along. I have rephrased that comment to try to make this more obvious.
“Among the people I’ve dined with” This is where you’re going wrong. You cannot judge “normal” off your own little circle. You may think the word has other meanings, but they do not apply when talking about what’s “normal” in terms of food.
Link me three sushi places in your area that do not serve rolls besides maki and don’t cost $100 a head, I’ll wait.
It is not wrong. It is a counterexample, much like some of the other replies you are receiving.
I am not going to dox myself to satisfy your quarrelsome self-importance. Good day.
Anecdotal data is not data.
You have nothing.
Pick any “western” city and give me three, I don’t give a shit where you live.
I have never been to a place that sold sushi and didn’t have the option to order just nigiri. Other than the packed sushi at the supermarket.
I’d agree that most people here think of maki when you say sushi, but nigiri is absolutely not considered “not normal” and california rolls are called california rolls and are rarer than maki.