Oliver fires back at Cornell, critics of The Oxford Companion to Beer
However, last week I was pointed to a blog post in which the blogger Martyn Cornell suggested that the OCB was a “dreadful disaster”, owing to “errors” which he claims to have found in various entries as he scanned through them on Amazon. He says that I and my 166 colleagues simply “made things up”. In this post, Mr. Cornell, in essence, refers to me as a dupe, a cretin and a liar, piloting a project populated by lazy idiots. All this about a person whom he has not met or had so much as a conversation with, and about a book that he has not actually seen.
In my 22 years in brewing, this most convivial of professions, it is the most intemperate and inconsiderate thing I have ever seen a member of the beer community say about any of his peers. I do not agree with or believe everything I read in Mr. Cornell’s books either, but it would never have occurred to me to vilify him in public.
via OCBeerCommentary – Garrett Oliver on The Oxford Companion to Beer.
Pingback: Whosisbrew » Yikes.
I’ve been following this development closely. Linked your post on my blog, and discussed it a bit http://whosisbrew.com/?p=1874
It’s getting a little silly. Cornell’s a respected beer historian, he knows what he’s talking about, but I do understand Oliver’s point that historical documents can be interpreted differently. No one is going to see eye to eye on the accuracy of “The Oxford Companion to Beer.” But it’s clear that revisions are necessary, especially in certain areas.
I believe the kids today call Garrett’s post what do you say…”owned”. Cornell comes of us a petulant brat.
off as
Oliver has actually met Martyn, as Martyn states in the comments. Martyn is actually an author of two books, so he is more then a “blogger”. The books he authored were actually about beer history (and not about beer and food pairings). If Oliver had just left it at the first two sentences and then answered the questions it would have been a PR win, but as it stands it reads petty on Oliver’s part. Then again this guy has been worshiped for his beer and food book, so he’s probably not that used to criticism.
Since we are speaking in “kids speak”. Martyn’s rebuttal (i.e. comment at A Good Beer Blog) “owns” Oliver’s post.
Can’t wait for the BJCP to start qualifying beers as “owning” a style.
Owned? You can hardly say Oliver owned him. Read the whole statement… In one paragraph he basically says, “well, maybe we can’t offer evidence of that, but they had to be making mead and cider, people fermented everything they could get their hands on back then!”
If that’s what you want to call scholarly work… it shows an extreme lack of care in presentation of history.
And others rebuttals have shown he’s pretty much wrong on all his letter points. I don’t think people are trying to vilify him, just scholars tend not to take kindly to false information being presented as fact in a scholarly environment. I don’t think it was personal and Oliver seems to be a little defensive in that he’s taking it that way. The piloting lazy idiots comment is far removed from the actual discourse and says a lot.
Definitely agree with you Jolly Rodger.