Comments on: Who cares about accuracy?

By: Jeff

Jeff — Mon, 11 Jan 2010 11:52:18 +0000

Bailey, I will still read your blog and a couple of others, and will comment whenever the mood takes me! Keep up the good work.

By: MikeMcG

MikeMcG — Sat, 09 Jan 2010 23:18:37 +0000

In my experience, the chap who truly *was* the world’s leading beer authority cared deeply about accuracy *and* entertainment, plus education, enlightenment, politics, history, society, etc, etc.
His name was Michael Jackson.

Another writer once made a detailed description of the production of a historic beer I used to help brew & got numerous details totally wrong (although to be honest, our own brewery tour guide was much, much worse!).

The same writer later edited a beer & pubs guide that (along with a TimeOut guide) described the beers I brewed as filtered, pasteurised and artificially carbonated, when in fact they were none of the above.

I’d have preferred more accuracy, and wrote him a polite letter to invite him to come to see for himself. I didn’t receive a reply.

By: Bailey

Bailey — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 09:32:05 +0000

Hello, Jeff. Glad you’ve not completely abandoned the internet.

By: Jeff

Jeff — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 09:12:41 +0000

I just discovered the whole controversy about Protz’s writing by looking at his blog, and find it quite surprising. The bullethole in his foot is pretty massive.

By: Ten Inch Wheels

Ten Inch Wheels — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 12:58:39 +0000

Accuracy matters, absolutely. Anybody who thinks the ‘man in the street’ ain’t interested in getting the facts right should have a word with Anthony Beevor, Simon Schama or even Bill Bryson.

By: markdredge

markdredge — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 07:27:39 +0000

‘professional writers are too busy and skint to be accurate’ – isn’t this a little like saying doctors are too busy to wash their hands?

And saying ‘no-one but weirdos and nerds care about accuracy anyway — accuracy doesn’t sell to the man in the street’ is completely undermining the reader – only the most educated in that area may spot the inaccuracy, but that’s irrelevant.

I think there’s an obligation to be accurate, unless it’s written as satire. Even the fiction writer needs accuracy. As a reader it’s entirely expected and the book is trusted.

Nice post, interesting!

By: Alan

Alan — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 02:17:01 +0000

PS - more for curiosity than anything else, here are Martyn and I talking about accuracy back in 2003.

By: Alan

Alan — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 02:06:19 +0000

Are some topics not more difficult to be accurate about than others? Martyn’s point about the accuracy of sources begs the question about whether pre-scientific era writings can be expected to be held to a scientific standard of accuracy. I would think that Unger’s work on the taxation of beer in the low countries in the middle ages can be trusted due to the need of the medieval authorities to maximize revenue… but then again, a finger on the weigh scale recorded in the ledger can do wonders in the counting house. What care the literate payees circa 1450 for the illiterate payors?

And while I appreciate Pete’s desire to be the definitive book on IPA, I don’t read it as such because it is in the form of an odyssey. I look at a book like Hornsey’s as a definitive book on brewing history but that is because it is heavy and there are few jokes or at least moments of personal introspection. Ron’s book to be circa 2015 when he synthesizes the research he is sharing with us may be of the same sort but it is a long way from raw data to page 937. Or it may end up as another book entirely – an odyssey about his hunt for the data. That would be a good book, too. But would it be as accurate even if likely more entertaining?

For me the most important thing is the attribution of source. As long as I have footnotes (or their evil cousin endnotes) I can judge the quality as a reader and the author can admit the dependency. This frees us from the tyranny of accuracy as a personal accusation.

By: Zythophile

Zythophile — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 01:03:15 +0000

The big problem is inaccurate sources. There’s a great book called Hobson-Jobson, all about Anglo-Indian words and phrases and written in the late 19th century by a couple of old India hands, which says that Hodgson’s product was only ever known as “beer” in India, not “pale ale” – so I repeated this, because they looked like reliable sources. More recently I’ve read much more stuff from the early 19th century, and the statement is simply not true: Hodgson’s WAS called pale ale by people writing about it in India (though not “India Pale Ale”). Hobson-Jobson is wrong. And I have repeated that error. Which hacks me off. But while your faith can’t be blind, you do have to trust your sources a little, or you’ll have no narrative at all.

By: WoolpackDave

WoolpackDave — Wed, 06 Jan 2010 23:20:21 +0000

Accuracy is very important indeed. If I am ever wrong please will somebody tell me? Nicely and to one side would be nice.

Yes, it has to be entertaining, but we could all slip to the depths of tabloids if we wish and not let the truth get in the way of a good story.