Ambitious Brew

[lancastermike]

I have just finished reading the book "Ambitious Brew" by Maureen Ogle. A very enjoyable read about the history of beer and brewers in the USA. Ms. Ogle is a historian at Iowa State University and the book is extensively researched and end noted. The narrative flows well and is of the style of other writers of popular fiction such as David McCullough and Doris Goodwin. The book talks about brewers, proabition and other historical factors that have influenced brewing in America.

I am not a flock or anything for her; I simply saw it on the shelf of my library and picked it up. I would recommend it to anyone

[Rich Pawlak]

The book is also POORLY researched and incorrectly noted; she has gotten many significant dates wrong, has no grasp of the craft brewing industry, and took for granted many important facts of the country's brewing hsitory. Also, if you read the book thoroughly, her perspective is almost entirely that of the Midwest, rather than the U.S. Hardly worth the paper that was used to print the book.

[jesskidden]

You know, when I read about her book and the negative reaction it was getting from some especially rabid microbrewing fans, I *hoped* it would be a good book that shattered some of the myths about American beer that've become di rigeur. I first got into beer and brewing history in the 1970's and found that while mis-information and word of mouth rumors/urban legends were plentiful, factual information was hard to come by. Now, with dozens of books in prints (some good, some sloppy) it's amazing to me that this new generation of beer drinkers have their own myths (...if I read somebody say that "... Budweiser is made with rice and should be considered saki..." one more time I might just DRINK my first Bud in 30 years...).

But, I agree, Ogle's book is just as narrow minded in some respects. A variation of the expression "History is written by the winners" kept going through my mind as I read it, since she certainly concentrated on the handful of brewers who survived in the US from the mid-1800's until the 1970-80's "beer wars", regardless of the size or influence of that brewery at any given time. Miller, for one, was a very small player for much of that time (up until Philip Morris' purchase of them), yet it is featured in the book. On the other hand, once huge brewers like Ehret (#1 in 1870's, when A-B didn't even make the top 20), Falstaff, Heileman, Ballantine (#4 in 1870, #3 in the 1950's) were ignored, seemingly because they did "fit" into the neat history of US brewing she decided upon.

In Ballantine's case, she mentioned the brewery only in passing to ridicule a 1950's ad she thought "goofy" because the drinkers of the ale were obviously upper middle class, ignoring both Ballantine's stated desire to appeal to an upscale market AND the fact that just about every other beer print ad (indeed, every consumer product in any LOOK LIFE or POST magazine of the era) featured the same "upscale" characters.

I do think she did a good job with explanation the evolution of adjunct brewing in the US, but I think she bought the concept that "brewers were forced to market lighter and lighter beers due to consumer demand" without much debate. (Her descriptions of US beers that didn't fit that standard- beers that she and no one living ever tasted- are almost hilarious). It's an interesting "chicken-or-egg" question, and one that can't really be factually decided.

Her coverage on the rise of Anchor and then the microbrewery movement was pretty complete, tho', it too, is mostly a "winners" story and she again ridicules any beers or breweries that didn't make it- as if US consumerism and capitalism isn't complex but simply that the best product always wins, and the losers must have lost only because of a bad beer. (She mentions that one of the first micros in the East, Newman's in Albany, and dismisses the beer as having had a shelf life of "about a week" - WITHOUT mentioning the fact that Newman's beer was a natural draft-only product, packaged in plastic "cube-a-tainers").

She stresses that she is a "historian" but seems to accept any written source as gospel, without question. I particularly like this quote about post-Prohibition beer:

"When some Los Angeles residents became ill after drinking bottled beer, the county Health Dept. seized and quarantined the suspect products. Test revealed that much of the brew had been bottled right out of the keg, without being pasteurized or treated with preservatives." Wha?

I suppose I should not have expected much as soon as I read the dust jacket flap calling it "...the first ever history of American beer...". HUH? Um, didn't the publisher even read their author's own bibliography? And, I'd say the book is more a general history of the large US breweries, rather than "beer" itself.

An interesting interview with the author can be found here:

http://www.beerbasics.com/Ogle.htm

Edited January 20, 2007 by jesskidden (log)

[Davydd]

I bought the book Ambitious Brew, but right now it is on my to read later list. Interesting commentary here.

I just finished a book on beers and ales that I enjoyed. That was An Inebriated History of Britain by Peter Haydon. It is a march through history starting with the origins of ale in Britain right up to the modern days.

Another book I read, Beer Blast: The Inside Story of the Brewing Industry's Bizarre Battles for your Money by Philip Van Munching is more contempory and maybe slanted centered around Heinekin's marketing efforts in America.