It is what it is called.

"The test of the pudding is in the eating"


But what is being tested? Is it merely the taste of the pudding itself? How does one define a good pudding? How do you agree on a universal definition of a good pudding? If, by some method predetermined by a faculty of intellectual pudding bodies, there is a standard set in order for a good pudding to be considered "good", does it then render you wrong for finding something that deviates from that taste as being "good"?

But what of the person tasting the pudding itself; what is there to be tested? His knowledge and experience in identifying the standards met by the pudding he is testing? Perhaps we could take a look at his mannerisms at the same time.

If the pudding were bad, and he spits it out, what does that say about his character? Or how about if it is so good that he gobbles everything down with no recollection of his blood sugar levels, or the hungry child pawing at his side?

I worry that the true test is not in the hardship, but in the hidden pleasures of being at ease; that we are fooled to think that we are indeed going through challenges when in truth it is only that speckle of sand.