Categories
Beer history Blogging and writing opinion

Update on the Oxford Companion to Beer

Since we wrote this somewhat positive but reserved review, there’s been plenty going on.

In a stroke of genius, Alan at A Good Beer Blog has set up a wiki so that readers of the Companion can identify and record errors. What’s particularly helpful, we think, is that he’s asked people to focus on just the facts, ma’am, and not to make it personal. This needn’t be narky, sarky nitpicking — it could be something really constructive and useful.

In fact, hippies that we are, we were hoping this whole discussion would turn into a kind of beer commmunity collaborative love-in.

Unfortunately, what he’s read so far has made Martyn Cornell angry (a bit too angry, maybe). Garrett Oliver, who edited the companion, seems to have taken it personally (it wasn’t, but then the book is his baby) and has responded with sarcasm and a point-by-point rebuttal. And Martyn has come back to that in the comments here. Yeesh. This could run and run.

Meanwhile, all this discussion has been met with cries of “pedantry” and “spoil-sports!” on Twitter and forums.

And we continue to find both bloopers and entries which give us hope. Ron Pattinson might not have much time for Horst Dornbusch, but Herr Dornbusch and Mr Oliver’s article on porter in the Companion cites Ron’s mini-book on the subject and (based on a quick read) gets the basics right. Most importantly, it refers to the story of Ralph Harwood inventing porter as a substitute for three threads as a myth, in no uncertain terms.

We still think the book is a good read as long as you read critically and don’t do anything daft like base an academic paper on its contents; and we certainly still think it’s a big step forward in terms of ambition for books about beer.

But our view has hardened a bit: it’s not pedantry, nitpicking or spoil-sport behaviour to expect a book which costs quite a lot of money to get the history right. Yes, maybe some of those pointing out errors could be a bit more gracious and take less obvious glee in finding them but, really, no-one should publish a book with some claim to academic rigour and be surprised when academics and historians challenge it. It’s all in the game.

18 replies on “Update on the Oxford Companion to Beer”

I take no personal glee at all in finding errors in the OCB. It’s extremely depressing to find errors repeated in a book that will provide the basis for thousands of articles, marketing campaigns, bottle labels and the like. I’ve dedicated a fair chunk of the past 15 years to trying to find an accurate version of the history of beer, and to find stuff like – and this is from literally the first page I hit using Amazon’s ‘Look Inside – surprise me’ feature –

“There are about 9,000 managed pubs in the UK. These are pubs owned by a brewery.”

just makes me think: “WTF?”

Martyn — that pint bottle thing is particularly weird. The last pint bottle I saw was from Sam Smith, six months ago. I can only assume someone is confused and has assumed 500ml bottles are pint bottles because, give or take, they fill a pint glass.

On gleefulness/angriness, I suppose what we’re saying is that the old cliche re: more flies being caught with honey than vinegar rings true to us. Sarcasm and vitriol make it easy for people to say “sour grapes” or “crank” and ignore the content.

it’s not pedantry, nitpicking or spoil-sport behaviour to expect a book which costs quite a lot of money to get the history right.
This, this, a trillion times this.

I’d like to think that when I’m an internationally-renowed authoritative beer writer, and someone points out that something I’m standing over doesn’t actually hold up to scrutiny, that my response will be more “Oh, that’s very interesting, I’ll have a look and I’ll know for again”. Rather than “DON’T YOU KNOW WHO i AM AND HOW MUCH WORK I’VE PUT INTO THIS?!”

TBN — there is never a situation where “Oh, that’s interesting, sorry you’re not happy, thanks for the feedback” does any harm, as far as we can tell. Makes you look big and clever.

Instead, Oliver’s done one of these.

“but Herr Dornbusch and Mr Oliver’s article on porter in the Companion cites Ron’s mini-book on the subject…’

By no means is ‘Porter!’ by Ron a mini-book. That’s like saying Joyce’s Ulysses is chick-lit suitable for that lazy beach holiday. ‘Brown Beer’ is the mini-book.

Sorry, I’m a bit of a pedant.

Dominic — *grits teeth* Oh, that’s interesting, sorry we got this wrong, thanks for the feedback. (Grumble, moan.)

I think the “next link” you posted on Twitter is perfectly relevant here.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-15428024

An early article about the Companion (sorry, can’t find a link) noted it ripped through the first printing because it is being bought by companies to use in training sales people. Sales people love stories, because stories are a great way to sell.

Here’s another link:

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/10/how-friends-ruin-memory-the-social-conformity-effect/

It seems as humans we aren’t “wired” to naturally get things right. We’ll take a good story over the facts any time.

Stan — and (at the risk of having things thrown at me) if that’s what the book is about, I’d certainly rather hear a barman say that “porter was invented by Ralph Harwood in the early 18th century” than “it’s kinda like Guinness only more watery, sort of like Budvar Dark, like a kind of dark lager, if you like darker lagers,”, etc. etc..

But, for the second edition, we need snappy stories and pithy summaries which are *also* factually accurate.

TIW — never be ashamed of your typeface nerdery. Where would we be without our typeface nerds? We’d have books with Comic Sans on the cover; we’d be struggling to read illegible signs in display faces at railways stations; and our beer labels would *all* look like Pumpclip Parade candidates…

I’m a consumer of this stuff. How do I read it ‘critically’? Either it gets the history right or it’s chopped off at the ankles. Or don’t take history on…

Sid — by reading it critically we mean with a healthy side salad of blogs and other more scholarly books; and not quoting it at anyone to win an argument (on history at least) without first checking another source.

As Barm says in the comments here, if you haven’t got an absolutely superfluous £35 burning a whole in your pocket, you might be better off just buying books by Ron, Martyn and Charles Bamforth and cutting out the middle man.

“I’d certainly rather hear a barman say that “porter was invented by Ralph Harwood in the early 18th century” than “it’s kinda like Guinness only more watery”

I like the second one better, but it is Guinness that’s watery these days.

Comments are closed.