Gaucherie

One of my standout characteristics is a certain (un?)appealing social gaucherie. I may not have risen to the height of being pointed out by parents with the commentary, "Do exactly the opposite of what he does and you cannot go wrong", but that is about the only height that I have not conquered in this area.
Rest assured that I am not about to talk about how my dress puts to shame a vagabond greeting the morning from the gutter; or about how that 'Srrrr' noise heralds that fact that I have not merely put the cup of tea to my lips without imbibing the fluid; or the fact that I think of the forks and knives as being put in place by the restaurant merely to provide obstacles to resting my elbows on the table and getting to work with my hands, and finishing off by licking my fingers clean; or...well, you get the picture. Oh! No! No! No! I do not mean that I do not DO all these things. I only mean that I do not intend talking about them now.
Gaucherie is apparently 'unsophisticated', 'awkward' or 'tactless'. To me, it has always meant that the way I do things is not the accepted way of doing things. I mean, once upon a time, it was quite all right to eat with your hands and lick them clean right up to the elbows. No-one would have considered it any of those three words above. Then!
Of all the ways in which I deviate from 'accepted' behavior, I think that the most injurious to my reputation is the fact that I never really learnt the right way to give praise OR negative criticism. The problem is, as usual, because I failed to understand that some lessons are just meant to be preached but never practiced. So, I took 'Reprimand in private; Praise in public' too literally.
What? You say that THAT is correct? That the chap who tells you in the middle of all your guests that your roti is underdone, follows you to the kitchen, gets his mouth as close to your ear-wax as he can, and whispers in dulcet tones, "The aloo-mutter was lip-smackingly good" is NOT your favorite guest? Really? As I have had occasion to mention before in this blog, who is the guy for whom you will take the most pains the next time - the guy who praised your food in public OR the one who criticized? (Ah! Do not tell me that the latter guy will never get an invitation again. You do not keep and discard people only on the basis of how they act as guests.)
In any case, it is not ONLY the cook's reaction that determines the social respect. All those admiring guests around will be only too impressed with the guy's discerning tongue. "He is a man who knows his food", they probably say, as they wend their way home. Or "A man who knows his music" or "A man who knows his movies" or whatever he has been critical about. And the chap who praised your aloo-mutter in public and told you in the kitchen that the roti was underdone? Is he the acknowledged guru of cooking? Fat chance.
So, one lesson wrongly learnt and I lost my chance of social respect. Of course, I compounded the error further by the WAY in which I gave praise and negative criticism, as well.
"Wow! That was a wonderful aloo-mutter." is the way I used to communicate my praise. Quite the wrong thing to do. Even the hostess only simpers and takes it for her due and you for a fan. If you want social respect, the last thing you need is to be counted a fan. If you HAVE to give praise in public, the better way to put it would be, "Hmm! All things considered, the aloo and..hmm...the mutter too were well-cooked. The sauteing too was, perhaps, quite acceptable. Overall, a very decent aloo-mutter." There you go, you are the discerning critic. In short, it does not do to be too enthusiastic when you hand out praise.
Comes to criticism, I again make a mistake. "Maybe if you had cooked the roti a couple of seconds more...just a teeny bit more...it would have been perfect. At least, so it seemed to me." is the way I tend to put it, if I have to be critical in public. Quite wimpy and not at all the picture of a man who knows what he is talking about. The best way to do it is, "This roti is totally inedible. It is very much under-cooked." There is the man who knows what he is talking about.
In short, Praise should be grudgingly given and in private. Criticism should be unstintingly given and in public. You doubt my lessons? Let me ask you one question. If there is a person who says, "That was a good movie" what is the probability that someone says, "You liked THAT?" AND what is the probability that the first one will defensively explain, "No actually...the hero did a decent job...the story, of course, could have been better..." etc.? On the other hand, if someone said, "That was ONE shitty movie", how many would dare say,"WHAT? I loved it." and, if you found one such brave soul, what are the odds that the first one will retort, "Well! If you choose to watch such shit, be my guest"? You see, it takes less courage to blame than to praise. After all, you WANT to be looked up to as a person of taste and you can hardly get there unless you dislike far more than you like - in public, at least.
There is this difference between knowledge and wisdom, in my opinion. You dredge knowledge up and check up its applicability, getting confused about it all the while, and use it rarely. When you are wise, you act instinctively on what you have learnt. Unfortunately for me, what I have outlined above is only knowledge for me. Maybe because I also never learnt that "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" was another of those preach-but-not-practice lessons.
I put this out in the hope that some of you will convert this to wisdom.
P.S: I would prefer, of course, that someone changed the mores of acceptable behavior so that I can become 'sophisticated' without any effort on my part but that is too much to ask, I suppose!