Looking for something small, mundane and meaningless to anger your friends? Try celebrating National Doughnut Day, which is coming up on Friday, while humming "It's Hip to be Square."
It's also litigious to be square, as it turns out. Rival bakeries in Indiana are locked in a law suit over the use of the name "square doughnut" to describe their four-sided pastries with holes in the center. The dispute started when both companies tried to get a trademark for the term.
Not to glaze over things — we prefer them covered with chocolate and candy sprinkles, actually — but we have to wonder if this whole legal skirmish is misguided in the first place. The question on the table (so to speak): Can a doughnut be square? Or is it something else entirely?
Let the Lincoln-Douglas Debate of our era commence.
The con
The doughnut did not evolve into a ring shape. It didn't start out octagonal and get perfected by generations of pastry chefs seeking some Platonic ideal. It was flat-out straight-up invented in 1847 by Hanson Gregory. As the story goes — something we often say when we're 65 percent sure it's false — he was unhappy with the state of "doughnuts." They were greasy, misshapen and had raw centers because they weren't sufficiently cooked. He said he punched out the middle, and voilà, there's your doughnut.
It's a great anecdote. Unfortunately, there's some evidence to the contrary. An 1800 cookbook had a recipe for "dow nuts," but that doesn't mean they were circular. Washington Irving's 1809 account of New York traditions describes "dow nuts" as something we now call doughnut holes, that strange item whose mass is described by a term suggesting an absence of mass. But as long as its origins are shrouded in the mists of history, we might as well go with the Hanson Gregory origin, since it establishes the essential attributes of a doughnut:
1. It has a hole.
2. It is round.