Well, I didn’t expect to be called out – or, rather, have my suspicions confirmed – by the east coast media establishment. I did say that I expect this to be a slow project from day one. Nonetheless, Clay Risen’s observations at The Atlantic today on the state of beer writing are well worth reading, including these:
Newcomers to wine can follow a reliable guide like Asimov or the Wall Street Journal’s Lettie Teague; good luck finding their equivalents (i.e., deeply knowledgeable but layman-accessible) in the world of beer…
Such absences would matter more if the book pretended to objective universality; as a companion guided by Oliver’s subjective perspective, their absences are points for debate…
The Wiki has only about 40 entries, and most of them deal with matters of interpretation. In a book that may have upwards of 100,000 factual statements in it, the presence of a few dozen errors, while regrettable, is pretty impressive…
It’s a shame that would-be critics have spent their entire time fact-checking the precise rules of the Royal Court’s brewing guidelines under Henry VIII (subject of one catch), because they’ve overlooked the achievement of the book as a whole — though, given their vehemence, it’s a good bet they weren’t going to give it a chance in any case. Thoroughly illustrated and beautifully typeset, the book is precisely what a companion should be: an engaging, subjective, erudite guide to the interested novice and, at the same time, a quick reference for the initiated…
Secret: one of my reasons for setting up the wiki was the suspicion that my concern with the date that lager beer was introduced to Canada was a blip. Fortunately, the wiki is intended – can only be intended – to give the book more than a chance. It’s a way of examining the text but it will take a lot of time. Feel for poor Stan who almost lost his marbles just working his way to the entry for “Thomas Jefferson” in order to start filling in the Index to Entries by Author. I have started to load his efforts… but that will take time, too. Might get done by Christmas.
This pace in turn is giving me more patience with the book. Oxford University Press chose my “throwing the book against the wall” sentence for their marketing but I might have been too rash. Garrett indicated in an email when we discussed the wiki that there was a chance for small corrections or additions between printings and that the wiki might be useful for that. I hope it is. Criticism can be useful. Even for those books in those subject areas of the library or the shop… or Amazon, I suppose… where not enough, as Risen suggests, has yet been written.
[Original comments…]
Bailey – November 1, 2011 6:31 AM
http://boakandbailey.com
I’m finding this repeated claim about the “vehemence” of critics a bit weird. I’d say the majority of those commenting on the book or adding to the Wiki are being anything but vehement.
We could have written a really nasty review — we didn’t, because we recognised the positives. Ditto The Reluctant Scooper and various others. Other than Martyn and Ron’s, even the very negative reviews have been unemotional and balanced.
But I guess there’s no story in “bloggers and beer writers react largely positively and constructively to ambitious book which isn’t perfect”.
braukerl – November 1, 2011 7:55 AM
http://twitter.com/#!/braukerl
What a fatuous article. Pretty sure the majority of people offering criticism have either ordered or bought the book with, you know, their own money. What more support can a publisher expect?
The tenor of Clay Risen’s piece seems be “hush up peons or you’ll never be treated like grownups”. Fine, but isn’t he the member of the established media wagging the finger and telling the ingrates to shape up? Bit of a self fulfilling prophecy.
The robust debate about the OCB is surely a sign of the health of the beer community (sorry Alan) at large. I’ve certainly learnt a variety of interesting stuff from it and I haven’t even received the book yet. Maybe i’ll even make some additions to the wiki.
jesskidden – November 1, 2011 9:39 AM
https://sites.google.com/site/jesskidden/jk%27smisc.beerpages
I’ve tended to keep my OCB wiki entries to factual ones and “additional” comments and, I suppose, some could be said to be “matters of interpretation” but the claim that the book is “Thoroughly illustrated” kicks in my desire to give some opinions.
Almost all of the historical illustrations, for US breweries and many others, are from one source- the Pike Microbrewery Museum. Their addition seems to be more of an afterthought and just “pretty pictures” rather than any having any relevance to the entries themselves.
With US label reproductions, most are noted as being “circa 1933” which strikes me as a way to say, “These are from after Repeal but we’re not going to bother with any research beyond that”.
A P. Ballantine & Sons recipe pamphlet is listed as “circa 1933” but the company did not even re-open after Repeal until 1934.
The important ale and lager brewer C. Feigenspan of Newark, NJ has 3 illustrations but no other entry in the book.
One UK label is damaged. Hundreds of thousands of old labels exist in collections, and they chose a damage one?
16 color plates- but not one of a current or historic brewery- some of the most beautiful industrial architecture ever . Instead, there are generic looking photos of ingredients, a close up of sprouting barley and a Getty Image of a homebrewer pouring malt syrup into a pot?
If one wants an example of a “thoroughly illustrated” beer book, Michael Jackson’s World Guide to Beer should be the template.
Jeff Alworth – November 1, 2011 2:12 PM
http://beervana.blogspot.com/
Second Bailey. And I was offered up as the example of the “intramural” carping typical of the degenerate blogosphere, which was a bit harsh. (My review was certainly not an assault.) The worst thing is that he refused to use my name. Double harsh.
Bailey – November 1, 2011 3:29 PM
http://boakandbailey.com
Jeff — and as I read your comments, you weren’t suggesting that it was wrong for the book to be selective about which breweries were covered, just that the criteria for selection didn’t seem consistent/sensible.
Alan – November 1, 2011 11:01 PM
Great point at Outside the Beltway:
“…It’s not so much that wine’s high cost and therefore relative exclusivity supports a snobbish interest in writing about it but rather that beer’s relative affordability makes reading about it less necessary…”
Does that cause less need for beer guides?
Gary Gillman – November 2, 2011 9:33 AM
Gosh, it really is all relative. To me there has been a sustained wave of beer-writing since the 1970’s, if one takes into account too “brewspapers” and magazines. Every year numerous books are published on beer travels, beer ratings and indeed, or increasingly, beer and brewing history. Just to pick one in the ratings/palate description area, Ben McFarland’s book of a few years ago really stood IMO, with good geographical scope and a distinctive writing style.
Gary
Alan – November 2, 2011 10:19 AM
Quite right, Gary. I kinda think Mr. Risen no more attuned himself to the state of beer writing than he did to the purpose of the wiki before he threw that column up on to the magazine’s website.