[Vocabulary] Porridge vs. Gruel

Porridge vs. Gruel

I know all about the suffering orphans in Dickens subsisting on gruel. It has a bad rap.
Gruel, as I understand it, is more watery with thinner consistency. But, do people still call it gruel or do they gentrify it to porridge?

If I said "I had gruel for breakfast this morning", would people think I had something incredibly unappetizing?

I would also appreciate BrE vs. AmE perspectives.

Thank you for your replies.

freezeframe said:

Porridge vs. Gruel

I know all about the suffering orphans in Dickens subsisting on gruel. It has a bad rap.
Gruel, as I understand it, is more watery with thinner consistency. But, do people still call it gruel or do they gentrify it to porridge?

If I said "I had gruel for breakfast this morning", would people think I had something incredibly unappetizing?

I would also appreciate BrE vs. AmE perspectives.

Thank you for your replies.

Click to expand...

It's always 'porridge' in AusE.

freezeframe said:

Porridge vs. Gruel

I know all about the suffering orphans in Dickens subsisting on gruel. It has a bad rap.
Gruel, as I understand it, is more watery with thinner consistency. But, do people still call it gruel or do they gentrify it to porridge?

If I said "I had gruel for breakfast this morning", would people think I had something incredibly unappetizing?

I would also appreciate BrE vs. AmE perspectives.

Thank you for your replies.

Click to expand...

If you said you had gruel for breakfast, then I would think you had either had a very watery porridge or, like you said, had something unappetizing (which gruel is thought of being - I have yet to hear gruel used in a positive way!).

As a Brit, I would also add gruel also has a connotation of being mistreated. Something that is fed to people as it costs very little (like in Oliver Twist).

Gruel is still used, but only very rarely, people wouldn't gentrfy it to porridge. This is because when people want to say gruel they use it in a negative sense, in my opinion anyway.

As far as I know, people regularly and happily eat porridge while gruel would be found in a prison or similar institution. Nobody makes gruel for themselves to eat.

Mr_Ben said:

Nobody makes gruel for themselves to eat.

Click to expand...

Sure they do. There are many ways to make gruel out of different kinds of flour with different kinds of milk.

My question was about the connotation of the word. Whether people who make gruel call it porridge because of negative connotations of the word gruel.

shroob said:

Gruel is still used, but only very rarely, people wouldn't gentrfy it to porridge. This is because when people want to say gruel they use it in a negative sense, in my opinion anyway.

Click to expand...

Thank you for your reply.

My question was whether they call what is essentially gruel porridge thus gentrifying "it".

I've never in my life heard the word gruel used. I don't think calling something porridge is a matter of gentrification. It's just that the word gruel has fallen out of use with most people.

If you said that you had gruel I would feel sorry for you. I haven't heard porridge gruel, but that would still sound bad. Gruel is associated with desperate poverty and inhuman prisons; I can't see any way of gentrifying it, and as Mr_Ben says, it's not something you make at home. Porridge has positive, healthy associations to me, as long as it's not made with salt. (BrE speaker)

freezeframe said:

There are many ways to make gruel out of different kinds of flour with different kinds of milk.

Click to expand...

I have never met anyone who has ever made any sort of gruel. I associate it only with times past and/or people living in povery.

fivejedjon said:

I have never met anyone who has ever made any sort of gruel. I associate it only with times past and/or people living in povery.

Click to expand...

OK, fair enough.

I make porridge out of flakes like oat flakes or barley flakes. I cook it until it's mushy, then I add milk so its consistency is more like a soup (very liquid-y). What would you call that?

freezeframe said:

I make porridge out of flakes like oat flakes or barley flakes. I cook it until it's mushy, then I add milk so its consistency is more like a soup (very liquid-y). What would you call that?

Click to expand...

I'd probably call it 'porridge', adding some adjective such as 'thin', 'weak' or 'watery'. I know 'watery' is inaccurate here, but I still might use it.

What about soup made out of corn-flour. For example mamaliga. In the article a watery variety is referred to as gruel made out of cornmeal (we also ate something like that where I grew up).

Also, when I was little, I was given soup made out of flour when I was ill. It was very simple peasant food, but we didn't make it because we were poor or there was no food to eat.

I'm not trying to argue, (fivejedjon :-D); I'm just curious about the connotations of the word gruel English speakers have.

It seems, so far, that the connotations for native speakers are always negative.

Even though, in my opinion, there's nothing negative in it strictly speaking. I mean, I can make a very disgusting filet mignon if I use very bad quality ingredients and take no care in preparation.

Anyway, thank you for your responses everyone. :up:

I think what we're saying is that you can make porridge as gruelly as you like, but if you call it "gruel" it has those Dickensian connotations of inferiority, even it's made perfectly out of the Goode Gruel Cookbooke.

Raymott said:

I think what we're saying is that you can make porridge as gruelly as you like, but if you call it "gruel" it has those Dickensian connotations of inferiority, even it's made perfectly out of the Goode Gruel Cookbooke.

Click to expand...

Am I not saying the exact same thing?

shroob said:

I... I have yet to hear gruel used in a positive way!).

As a Brit, I would also add gruel also has a connotation of being mistreated. Something that is fed to people as it costs very little (like in Oliver Twist).

...

Click to expand...

I've never met 'gruel' used with any hint of a positive connotation. Like many other 'gr-' words it suggests grim and grievous treatment - not for the GReedy, nor indicative of GRacious living!

b

freezeframe said:

Am I not saying the exact same thing?

Click to expand...

I understood you were the OP asking the question.
In the post I replied below, you wrote "I'm not trying to argue, (fivejedjon ); I'm just curious about the connotations of the word gruel English speakers have."

That is the connotation I have. I think the essential difference between our statements was that yours was a question, whereas mine was an answer, but I concede that we probably now have the exact same understanding.

Oh, if you're asking whether my reference to Dickens was not a plagiarism of your first post, I used "those Dickensian connotations" specifically as a reference to your first post and agreement with it, not as an attempt to usurp your imagery in any way.

Hi,

I agree with everything discussed so far, but here in the southern US, nobody would say they had porridge for breakfast. They would say oatmeal, or grits, or Cream of Wheat.

Raymott said:

not as an attempt to usurp your imagery

Click to expand...

Two thumbs up on word usage! :up::up:
Gave me a chuckle.

Heh. )
Can't imagine anyone actually saying Gruel anymore, except in a book.

I don't think any American uses "porridge" outside of reciting nursery rhymes to their children.