Oh boy. While I’m not really surprised that there is some level of controversy around the Oxford Companion to Beer, just how much, and how polemic it’s become is a bit shocking.
The Oxford Companion to Beer - Tome or Tomb? Okay, that makes no sense. Sorry.
If you haven’t been following along, let me set the scene for you. Garrett Oliver, as the Editor in Chief, released the long-awaited Oxford Companion to Beer. Immediately, beer geeks started reporting errors/inaccuracies in the text. With our handy friend the internet, this is not remotely unexpected (Worst.Article.On.Isovaleric.Acid.Ever) Notably, for instance, the exclusion of Centennial hops, when pretty well every other variety is listed. Alan McLeod, of A Good Beer Blog (and Canadian to boot!), set-up a wiki, to address errors in the book, with an eye to the second edition. Martyn Cornell, blogger at http://zythophile.wordpress.com/, writer and noted beer historian came out with a post really tearing into the Companion, which lead to an equally impassioned response by Garrett on Alan’s blog, and a subsequent follow-up by Martyn on that post (this is getting confusing…). Now, just about everybody in the beer scene seems to have an opinion, and in many cases, it looks like battle lines are being drawn.
First off, I want to say, I have nowhere near the level of knowledge, especially in terms of beer history, to really take a side in the historical part of the debate. It does sound in many cases that Garrett is willing to defend some of the so-called errors. I have no idea if he is right.
Garrett himself identified that in a book with the scope of the Oxford Companion to Beer, there was bound to be inaccuracies. He also rightly notes that the Oxford Companion to Wine has undergone fairly major revision in it’s subsequent editions, some due to changes/advances in the wine world, and some due to error correction. I totally agree that the tone of his response was, at times, too aggressive and sarcastic. To be fair, if I had invested the time and energy that Garrett had, my response might have been much worse.
While I understand Martyn’s reaction – he has done huge amounts of research and writing in an effort to clarify and correct aspects of beer history, particularly in the UK – his analysis of the book, based off reading pages of it on Amazon seems unfair from the start. Yes, he identified some errors in the text. Martyn himself says:
If this is the general level of the historical entries in the OCB….
But he has not taken the time to check whether or not it is before writing the post. Looking through the entries on Alan’s wiki, many of the historical errors reported seem to be fairly small comparatively. “It’s says X happened in 1879, it was actually late 1878″.
Is that frustrating for an author who has published well-researched histories of beer? Sure. But it is unfortunate, given the contribution he has made to our current understanding of beer history, that rather than using this as an opportunity to further participate in beer education, he would choose to simply dismiss it as a “dreadful disaster”. To be fair, Martyn does note that he will be adding corrections to Alan’s wiki, so I it appears he hasn’t totally bailed on the Companion, even if it is a dreadful disaster.
That it appears that people are digging in for a long, partisan fight over this is probably the worst part. I honestly believe that neither Garrett nor Martyn want people to line-up behind them. Neither one “needs” that kind of support. They are both well-read writers who have made excellent contributions to the beer world. Having somebody say “Martyn is a genius and Garrett isn’t” hardly does anything to improve then general understanding of beer’s history, and what it means to us today. And while I’m sure they both appreciate compliments on their work, angry words from random people in blog comments and on forums is hardly going to lead them to any serious self-examination.
Alan’s response, incidentally, the most proactive in my opinion, has also been the most balanced. In the introduction of the wiki, he says:
The purpose of this wiki is to collectively make comments, add annotation, identify errata and suggest further sources to the text of The Oxford Companion to Beer. Members are asked to avoid comment about the authors, the structure of the text or other extraneous matters
Not a call to arms, but rather a call to helpful action. There is no need for personal accusations. No us-vs-them type of rhetoric. If you are interested in seeing the Oxford Companion to Beer become better, here is how you can help. If you’re only interested in mud-slinging (for either side), that’s your prerogative. Will it help the general growth of understanding beer history? Not at all, but that’s the nature of our society. The rest of us will be supporting the project however we can.
In the meantime, I will continue to reach for the Companion, nearly daily, as I have since I got it at the start of September. Is it possible I will reference an error? For sure. But that can be said of many of the beer books I have used up until now in my writing. If I were writing my thesis, I would definitely back-check the accuracy of the references I used. For a blog that deals mainly with beer reviews and events around Toronto, I think the Companion will do nicely.
Many thanks to everyone who is taking part in the on-going work with the Oxford Companion to Beer.
3 Comments