I think this is one of the more naive articles I have ever read about beer:
“The story is critical because it’s what differentiates a beer from any other beer,” Calagione told me. Still, he added, “just because you hear of some creepy group of Norwegians that 300 years ago put the blood of virgins into beer doesn’t mean you should replicate it. You have to have a story, but can you have a story and also make a world-class beer?”... In a way that other drinks often don’t, these beers explicitly convey the distinctive tastes of distinctive pasts. “I can write stuff and bang on about, ‘Oh, the beers were very different back then,’ but people don’t listen very well,” says Pattinson, who is now trying to bring back Scottish India pale ales. “If you give them a bottle of something to drink, they’ll understand.”
Spot the difference? Chalk and cheese. "Story" can mean many many things but it is rarely used in relation to beer to mean something that is actually true. How many "modern interpretations" have anything to do with sitting about the big mid-eastern clay pot and sucking through a straw? How many celebrate American colonial corn beer? Damn few. Yet we seldom see anyone really asking whether what is being foisted is authentic.