The symposium on sucking continues here and there and maybe elsewhere. Regular contributor made this comment and it, too, got me thinking:
I do think all too often writers (beer- and other) are incautious in their use of derogatory terms- superlatives, too. I make it a habit never to hit "publish" on a blog post until I've let it sit overnight + come back to it: good editing practice, but many bloggers don't actually have much in the way of editing--or writing--skills, and that can be a problem. Couple that with not understanding the difference between objective + subjective positions, and you get... well, the majority of squibs on BeerAdvocate + RateBeer, frankly.
Me? I write fast. I am sure it shows but I don't think of whipping off a blog post something that should take more than fifteen minutes. But that is why maybe Ethan is doing something like Community Beer Works in Buffalo and I napped all afternoon. While I'd like to think we both bring a certain style to our chosen tasks, I am pretty sure CBW is going to add more to the life of Buffalo than my lack of consciousness after the morning's dump run is going to add to the life of my town.
Which leads to another observation on the comments about sucking. I am not a big fan of qualifications when it comes to appreciating beer or fret that there is any great divide between objective and subjective experience of beer. It is, after all, only beer. Yet, when I look at who is making the comments, I am more than aware that most of the people who left a thought are, like Ethan, folk far more immersed in thinking about beer than I am. My thoughts only apply to me. So, on the one hand, beer is beer and, rather interestingly, can be enjoyed at many levels by folk of any number of degrees of engagement. On the other, it adapts well to deeper consideration and commitment.
Which means that any instance of beer may suck and not suck at the same time from equally valid but differing points of view.
Comments
Ethan - February 13, 2011 2:48 AM
I like your conclusion, Alan. And, I should qualify my own statement by saying that what's true of the blog posts isn't always so true of *comments on* blogs. That comment, for example, I would like to edit some more. What's with all the "+"?
I read Stan's post & comments, and it reminded me of another problem with throwing down Teh Suck: it's not always easy to know who's to blame for it That beer passed through many hands, warehouses, shelves with direct lighting, and car trunks with sun beating down on em (did you check the date? was there one to check?)... before it got to your ever-loving/hatin' palate. So even if you don't like it--or, "it sucks"--it's not certain that the reason is the brewer, or brewery. Ergo, one good reason to be cautious in your assessment until you really know a brand is that generalizing from N=1 is always fraught with danger.
Alan - February 13, 2011 9:06 AM
[Blame a bug that can reject the "ampersand in the comment" once it gets into the archives, Ethan. This here is a custom built blog platform with all its querks.]
Add to that list the lipsticked dirty glass, a smelly cigarette in the room, the heating outlet near the display. Yet the suck is the experience. And, given the drinking experience is all there is to beer at the end of the day, critical. It takes a few beers for me to label a brewery sucky. But they can. I clearly know of a brewery that "sucks out loud" as the superlative goes.
Which does lead to an interesting observation on the range of utility of suck. "Sucking one back" is high praise.
Gary Gillman - February 14, 2011 9:33 AM
Alan, your last comment in this post sums it up for me. The best way I can explain it in non-beer terms is to consider coffee. I have a couple of friends who are very particular about it. One is a true connoisseur, grinding his own, very into vintage Italian espresso machines, and so forth. When I drink coffee, each cup even from the same bag (when I made it at home) seems different, especially of course when we buy a new kind from Starbucks or elsewhere. But I take little notice of it. Sometimes it is great and I think, I wish I could have this every day. Sometime it is average or even so-so like this morning (watery, too bitter/roasted), but then I still had my morning coffee. Sometimes coffee is too strong for me or too rich, but I'll still drink it and it's fine, and this is probably what people think who drink a good craft or import beer but normally like Canadian or Coors Light. It depends how much of an interest you want to take in it, and there is only so much time...
Sure you can get dishwater or over-stewed coffee and I won't drink that: that's like getting a seriously oxidized or infected beer. But within the broad range of what's generally very good or decent, it's just coffee - to me.
Gary
Gary
Gary Gillman - February 14, 2011 1:00 PM
Just to finish if I may (I was rushed this morning), if someone told me that Tim Horton's coffee sucked, I would have to disagree - for me that is. For him that would be fine, but for me, given how I approach it, no, that coffee suits me just fine. Still, I will suck it up, it's something he has thought about/studied and I have not. Maybe he's right, maybe he's wrong...
By the way in my earlier comment, I wasn't in any way adverting to Trafalgar, whose recent output I find excellent including the Hop Nouveau, Bock and Oatmeal Stout beers. I find the latter two well-made and while more on the refreshing, than the deep rich, side of things, no less valid for that. A stout doesn't always to be huge and rich for example. The Hop Nouveau from Trafalgar this year in particular was one of the best beers I ever had made in Ontario.
Gary
Jordan St.John - February 14, 2011 2:44 PM
I think the coffee analogy is a good one. Tim Horton's is kind of interesting. I find that it's fine if you get it hot and fresh, but if it cools down it gets bitter and nasty. I think it's designed to be a double double. I wouldn't normally drink it, but on balance, if there's nothing else, coffee is better than not coffee.
Gary Gillman - February 14, 2011 6:12 PM
I absolutely agree regarding freshness, if Tim's hasn't sat and is served at the right temperature it is an excellent coffee especially with milk or in a double-double. But these American guys (nice guys for sure and very beer-aware), said, "we know our coffee out here in the North West, so it's not a fair comparison". Maybe, but beer is enough of a puzzle - I'll leave coffee to a reincarnated life if any. And wine for the next one. :)
Gary