Correction To An Earlier (Much Earlier) Post

Christina Engelbert, co-founder, with her father Douglas Engelbert, of the Doug Engelbart Institute, has kindly corrected a factual error on a blog entry I wrote some months back.

The error was in Part 7 of Kids, Beer, and the 1960s (one of the entries in my First Draft Follies series): Douglas Engelbart and Hewitt Crane) worked at the Stanford Research Institute, not Stanford University.

Anyone who's hung around this blog for more than ten minu

tes knows that I'm obsessive about accuracy, so I am grateful to Ms. Engelbert for taking time to note and correct the error. In response to her information, I also changed the live link in that piece so that "Douglas Engelbert" leads to the DBI rather than to the wikipedia entry. (I use wikipedia with caution, and you should, too: many entries are riddled with errors. And in any case, wikipedia should be a first resort for "research," and never a last one.)

Again, my thanks to Ms. Engelbert.

Inside the Anheuser-Busch InBev "Beer Lab"

Via Jeremiah McWilliams of Lager Heads, this piece about a fellow reporter's tour of the A-B InBev "beer lab" in St. Louis.

1. Piece reminds me so much of all those "your reporter was taken on a tour of the brewery" pieces written back in the 19th century (whenever Adolphus or Frederick wanted to drum up news, they invited reporters around and got what they wanted: gushy, but detailed, descriptions of the brewery facilities).

2. Why am I thinking the A-B brew lab won't last much longer? It's precisely the kind of money sink that new owners InBev (and especially Carlos Brito) hate.

Hey! Non-Fiction Is Writing, Too! (And, Ya Know, Sometimes Even "Literary")

Well, well. Just as I decide that my 13-part rant/saga/ramble had run my blog brain-well dry for the week, a rant-ready topic presents itself.

Earlier today at Twitter, Rebecca Skloot noted a website that listed authors who use Twitter. So I visited the site to see what was what. Found a long list (100 authors total) --- nearly all of them fiction writers. The teensy pinch (not even, friends, enough to qualify was a handful) of non-fiction writers appeared at the end as "miscellaneous." As Tom, Dick, and Harry would say: Gimme me a fucking break.

Non-fiction is "miscellaneous"? I don't think so. Alas, however, I was not surprised. I learned several years back, when I first launched

my write-for-the-people career that many good citizens --- and fiction writers --- don't regard non-fiction as "real" writing. That point was driven home some years back when I first ventured on to the internet. I found a website devoted to reading and writing (I refrain from mentioning its name, it being a staggeringly snooty, snobby forum).

One of the forums at the site was for writers, and I was looking for company for my misery as a learning writer, so I started reading posts and trying to add posts of my own. (*1)

A discussion developed among the "regulars" about fiction versus non-fiction (nearly all of them wrote fiction). "Oh," said one woman, "I don't count non-fiction as real writing. I mean, how hard can it be? You just gather a bunch of facts and write them down."

Ouch. And ugh. (*2) Yeah, that's what I do alright. I round up a buncha pesky facts and then I just write them down on a piece of paper. You betcha. Piece  o' cake. Leaves me plenty of time for manicures, bonbons, soap operas, and other activities.

As I say: gimme a fucking break. (Yes, am going for a personal best in the number of times I use the word "fuck" in one blog entry.)

Never mind the thousands of hours spent gathering the facts. Never mind that the facts have little or no meaning until the author fashions them into a coherent narrative. Never mind the agonizing hours spent staring at the wall or prowling the dictionary and/or thesaurus struggling to find the right word. Never mind the even longer hours spent pondering arrangement of words, sentences, paragraphs into a lively narrative. Never mind . . . .

Oh, never mind. I feel soooooo much better now. By the way, the best rebuttal to inane attitudes toward non-fiction is Barbara Tuchman's essay on "verity" in her book Practicing History. (I'm pretty sure the essay is in that collection.)

_________

*1: My visits to the site didn't last long. Not long after the encounter described in the anecdote above, another new arrival commented that none of the others at the forum ever replied to or commented on her posts. One of the "regulars" informed her, and I quote "We were here first. We don't really need any newcomers." It was a public forum, for fuck's sake! 'Twas enough for me. I departed the premises. (First, however, I tried hanging around the readers' forums, because of course I'm a reader, too. Whew. Snobby? I'd never met such condescending people. Lots of use of the word "masses," typically with dripping derision, as in "Oh, Stephen King. He's not a literary writer. He writes for the masses." Or "Just read New Novel X. Brilliant prose. Not for the masses.") (I may be many things --- bitchy, foul-mouthed, opinionated --- but snobby I am not.)

*2: Insult to injury: A couple of years ago, the National Endowment for the Arts published a long study of Americans' reading habits and concluded that reading was on the decline. Its data, however, included only the reading of fiction. That's right: the analysts didn't ask people about what, if any, non-fiction they'd read. I guess someone forgot to tell them that 85% of the books published in the U.S. are, you guessed it, non-fiction. See NEA reports here and here.

Jeff Alworth: Seriously Impressive Guy

Seriously. He's impressive. He's living proof of the way change happens. Yes, okay, the bill may die before it lands on the desk of the Oregon governor, but holy shit, he and the bill are impressive. I'm big on hope. And Jeff's desire for an honest pint is an example of hope in action. Plus, he's a good writer. Damn, what's NOT to like about this guy?

Read more here and here and here.

Filmmaking, Writing, Beer, Insularity, History, and Other Topics More-Or-Less Related to “Beer Wars,” Part 13

Part 1 --- Part 2 --- Part 3 --- Part 4 --- Part 5 --- Part 6 --- Part 7 Part 8 --- Part 9 --- Part 10 --- Part 11 --- Part 12 --- Part 13

NOTE: When I moved to a new site, this "Beer Wars" series was mangled/destroyed during the move. I've reconstructed it by copying/pasting another copy of the original posts. I also lost the comments in their original form. I've copied/pasted the comments, but had to do so under my own name. So although it looks as though I'm the only commenter, I'm not. In each case, I've identified the original commenter.

_______________________________

Gloomy story, eh? Not entirely. American winemakers have shown that it’s possible to convey a different message.

Prior to the 1960s, the American wine industry was almost non-existent. Sure, a few families in California made a handful of wines, which was consumed by a tiny consumer audience. But the operative words are “few,” “handful,” and “tiny.” During the 1960s, however, a handful of wine enthusiasts began building an American wine industry. (*1) They built an audience for their product by promoting it specifically as a beverage for everyday use in the most common of all events: eating.

Unlike brewers, who marketed beer as the handmaiden of professional sports and young men, and unlike distillers, who didn’t do much marketing at all (in part for legal reasons that made it very difficult to advertise any kind of spirits), winemakers touted wine as a beverage to enjoy every day, especially with food.

The wine industry also lobbied for laws that legalized on-premise sales at their wineries, which enabled vineyards to become “tourist” destinations, and maintained a coherent message about wine’s role in daily life: It tastes good with food. Drink it with your meal instead of coffee, tea, or milk. (*2)

Put another way, they un-demonized wine. The winemakers also worked together as an industry to craft a single, coherent message. As a result, wine has become a staple ingredient in the American home. When I was growing up, I don’t remember anyone having wine in the house. By the time I was in my 20s (in the 1970s), wine had become common even in “low end” restaurants.” By the 1980s, wine had become a staple in grocery stores and in the American home.

But again, wine is the exception to the rule. And of the three categories of alcohol — wine, beer, and spirits — brewers have the longest road to travel to change beer’s image from drink-of-frat-boys to sophisticated beverage best enjoyed with food.

Yes, I know that craft brewers are working hard to create a new image. Craft brewers avoid advertisements designed around babes in bare skin, and promote beer/food pairings. But they’ve got a long way to go.

In my opinion, and as I’ve said here before, their best bet is to appeal to consumers’ ecological concerns.

A compelling discussion about how to do that is in Daniel Goleman’s new book Ecological Intelligence. For example, consumers will respond to a “drink local” message, but they need to see/hear that message at the point-of-sale rather than in nebulous advertisements that appeal to concerns about image or status.

In the meantime, brewers will, I hope, begin thinking about the 3-tier system less as some insitutional evil than as a symptom of a deeper problem.

And with that, dear (and patient!) readers, I bring this rambling discourse to an end.

___________

*1: A truly good cultural history of the American wine industry is waiting to be written, but one place to start is Paul Lukacs, American Vintage: The Rise of American Wine.

*2: Winemakers lobbied for those laws in California in partnership with the half dozen or so craft beer makers, who wanted to sell beer at their “brewpubs.”