Gordon Strong's New Book

[jfowler1]

Yeah, I was planning on downloading The Session, just have not gotten around to it yet.

I have heard GS interviewed on the BN before, and that line in the sand attitude is nothing new. I guess it can be a little polarizing, but it really doesn't bother me.

 

[dantheman13]

Is anyone going for the slippery slope argument that by extension, you need to be growing and malting your own barley and growing your own hops to *truly* make your beer?

"In order to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe." - Carl Sagan.

 

[ayoungrad]

I just got my copy of the book delivered today.

I have only read the introduction, but it makes the discussion of extract and judgmentalism seem kind of amusing. The portion of the introduction before the quoted passage reiterates that his book is about opinions and that brewing is different for everyone. We all make choices and they may be vastly different from the ones he made.

Then he gives a strong opinion about extract. Prefaced and presented as opinion - not as fact.

This book is not a textbook and is not intended to be. But I'm looking forward to reading more.

 

[boo boo]

I have mine ordered.

 

[Shooter]

Does he mention how to make beer that tastes like grapefruit?

 

[MalFet]

I've read most of the book now. It's a light read and occasionally interesting, but I suspect it will soon go onto a shelf somewhere and never get picked up again. Ironically, the problem is that the book is astonishingly unopinionated. Here's a quote, from a randomly-flipped to page and a randomly-fingered paragraph:

There are several types of airlocks; all work. Pick the ones you like, and don't let them run dry. My one airlock-related tip is to get "universal stoppers" instead of numbered stoppers; they can't be pushed into the carboy, and they fit a wider range of openings.

The problem is, it's all like this: platitudes about how it's important to be mindful of your system, vague statements about the impacts of various decisions, definitions that should be familiar to anyone who has been brewing for more than a few batches, and the occasional handy tip that should be obvious to anybody with access to a homebrew store.

Every ten pages or so, he'll mention something that makes me think, but the bulk of it is stuff I have heard a dozen times before. That's about the information/time density that I get just flipping through the "New Posts" section here. At best, I was hoping that this book would be an interface between the technical books out there (Fix/Briggs/Bamforth/etc) and the homebrew scale ("Okay, so what does trehalose do for me?"). At least, I figured it would be like a brew-session-in-book-form with an extremely experienced brewer.

I don't mean to be harsh, and perhaps I'm missing the point. But the book just seems kind of...empty.

 

[StMarcos]

Not really, because you'd be a malster if you malted your own barley, and you'd be a farmer if you grew your barley. Not a brewer.

Right, and you'd be a masher if you mashed your own grains. GS is talking about having more control over the final product. And you'd be a microbiologist if you propagated your own yeast from slants using an autoclave.

But really though, I am being facetious. I brew exclusively all-grain, and do suggest to my extract friends that they do the same, in order to have more control over the product. Strictly speaking, the line doesn't really get drawn there though. Some folks here do malt their own grain, at least some of the time. Would they have an argument that GS is microwaving a pie by not doing the same? I don't think so.

 

[Montanaandy]

So anti-extractism is the new anti-semitism, eh? Yeah, I can see that. I hear the Westboro Baptists now hold up signs reading "God hates LME" at funerals.

Not that I agree with the him, but comparing Gordon Strong to Mel Gibson is a mite harsh, no?

Now that is funny...

 

[doctorRobert]

Right, and you'd be a masher if you mashed your own grains. GS is talking about having more control over the final product. And you'd be a microbiologist if you propagated your own yeast from slants using an autoclave.

But really though, I am being facetious. I brew exclusively all-grain, and do suggest to my extract friends that they do the same, in order to have more control over the product. Strictly speaking, the line doesn't really get drawn there though. Some folks here do malt their own grain, at least some of the time. Would they have an argument that GS is microwaving a pie by not doing the same? I don't think so.

Really? There are mashers? Id love to just be a masher. Not a big fan of the boil.

 

[AnOldUR]

So, we’ve all heard the microwave analogy and the cake mix analogy. Has brewing compared to painting been used much? I think it comes a lot closer than the first two mentioned.

From paint-by-number to sitting in a field starting with a blank canvas, it’s all art and can end up being something wonderful or something hideous. Using quality supplies makes a difference, but is no guarantee. You have the option to stick to the numbers and lines, or just use them as guidelines and be as creative as you please. You can take one of the classics and try to “clone” it freehand or attempt a masterpiece of you own.

There will always be the snobby types who look down on what they consider to be lesser techniques, but if you end up with a piece of artwork on your wall that you’re proud of, that’s all that should really matter to you.

 

[remilard]

I don't mean to be harsh, and perhaps I'm missing the point. But the book just seems kind of...empty.

If you wanted a book that wasn't too technical and told you exactly what to do to make great beer, Greg Noonan already wrote it. It would be silly for Gordon to try write that book too.

The best point the book makes is that once you are a good brewer all you can do is start to accumulate small nuggets of info from a lot of sources and figure out what to incorporate.

One of the best things I ever did to get from being a good to, let's say, very good level is methodically read every HBD post George Fix made. If Gordon's book was only the equivalent of of a bunch of internet postings he has made or might have made in one indexed and organized place, it was worth the price. I think it is quite a bit more than that.

 

[Homercidal]

I've read most of the book now. It's a light read and occasionally interesting, but I suspect it will soon go onto a shelf somewhere and never get picked up again. Ironically, the problem is that the book is astonishingly unopinionated. Here's a quote, from a randomly-flipped to page and a randomly-fingered paragraph:



The problem is, it's all like this: platitudes about how it's important to be mindful of your system, vague statements about the impacts of various decisions, definitions that should be familiar to anyone who has been brewing for more than a few batches, and the occasional handy tip that should be obvious to anybody with access to a homebrew store.

Every ten pages or so, he'll mention something that makes me think, but the bulk of it is stuff I have heard a dozen times before. That's about the information/time density that I get just flipping through the "New Posts" section here. At best, I was hoping that this book would be an interface between the technical books out there (Fix/Briggs/Bamforth/etc) and the homebrew scale ("Okay, so what does trehalose do for me?"). At least, I figured it would be like a brew-session-in-book-form with an extremely experienced brewer.

I don't mean to be harsh, and perhaps I'm missing the point. But the book just seems kind of...empty.

No, I agree with you. There is not a lot that I don't "know" already, but then I think if you've hung out here for a year or two, you have probably already heard the same old discussions ans arguments about the different methods and whatnot. I think the book is geared towards those who do not hang out on a web forum all day. There are plenty out there.

I don't think it would be used as a reference for future brews, but if you were up to doing a an AG batch or two and had lots of questions, then this book would be handy as a way of getting you to think about what YOU want to do with your system.

 

[MalFet]

No, I agree with you. There is not a lot that I don't "know" already, but then I think if you've hung out here for a year or two, you have probably already heard the same old discussions ans arguments about the different methods and whatnot. I think the book is geared towards those who do not hang out on a web forum all day. There are plenty out there.

I don't think it would be used as a reference for future brews, but if you were up to doing a an AG batch or two and had lots of questions, then this book would be handy as a way of getting you to think about what YOU want to do with your system.

Absolutely. There's nothing wrong of course with a book for which I'm not the target market, but I'm not really sure who the book is for. It is captioned as "master lessons for advanced homebrewers", but "How to Brew" goes into considerably more depth on just about every topic. I'm not suggesting that I'm too advanced from this book...far from it; I am a lot closer to a novice than to Gordon in my brewing knowledge. Nor am I suggesting that this should have been Palmer v2, Noonan v2, Fix v0.5, or any other particular book, but it feels very fluffy.

Another randomly flipped-to quote:

When brewing a recipe again and trying to hone it, start by varying ingredients or processes one at a time. That's the basis of experimentation; you have to be able to compare your experiment with a control (something you know for sure; a reference). As you get more experience, you should be able to change multiple variables at once and still be able to determine the outcome. If you make multiple changes and can't identify the cause of a certain outcome, you can always try the experiment again with fewer changes.

That is of course a correct sentiment, but he doesn't take it any where. The whole book reads like this. "When building recipes, don't be afraid to do research", but then no discussion about research. "As you gain experience and build confidence, you need to own your recipes. Whether they work or not is totally your responsibility", but no sense of what that should look like. I found a dozen or two nuggets that I made me think, and likewise I'm glad I read it. But the bulk of the book reads like Chicken Soup for the Brewer's Soul. Nothing wrong with that, but it certainly wasn't how the book was billed.

If you wanted a book that wasn't too technical and told you exactly what to do to make great beer, Greg Noonan already wrote it. It would be silly for Gordon to try write that book too.

No, that's not what I wanted.

 

[remilard]

That is of course a correct sentiment, but he doesn't take it any where. The whole book reads like this. "When building recipes, don't be afraid to do research", but then no discussion about research. "As you gain experience and build confidence, you need to own your recipes. Whether they work or not is totally your responsibility", but no sense of what that should look like. I found a dozen or two nuggets that I made me think, and likewise I'm glad I read it. But the bulk of the book reads like Chicken Soup for the Brewer's Soul. Nothing wrong with that, but it certainly wasn't how the book was billed.

I think you are still missing the point that if you are good nobody can give you an algorithm to be great. You have to figure it out on your own and a big part of that is figuring out who to listen to and what to take from what they told you.

I'm the top NHC qualifier out of Dallas (and with more entries and points than anyone from Denver as I judged there and heard the results read) and I felt I got a lot out of it. I would say you are either using it wrong or you aren't ready for it yet or your expectations are unreasonable.

I'm actually not sure the book simply echoes what is written on this forum. Almost nobody here does cold steeping for example (not a new idea or Gordon's idea, btw). Also Gordon says the same things about autolysis (you only think it doesn't happen because you don't know what to look for) and long primaries (that if you want the best quality, don't leave the beer sitting on the primary yeast too long) that I say here and get called an idiot.

 

[MalFet]

I think you are still missing the point that if you are good nobody can give you an algorithm to be great. You have to figure it out on your own and a big part of that is figuring out who to listen to and what to take from what they told you.

I'm the top NHC qualifier out of Dallas (and with more entries and points than anyone from Denver as I judged there and heard the results read) and I felt I got a lot out of it. I would say you are either using it wrong or you aren't ready for it yet or your expectations are unreasonable.

I'm actually not sure the book simply echoes what is written on this forum. Almost nobody here does cold steeping for example (not a new idea or Gordon's idea, btw). Also Gordon says the same things about autolysis (you only think it doesn't happen because you don't know what to look for) and long primaries (that if you want the best quality, don't leave the beer sitting on the primary yeast too long) that I say here and get called an idiot.

I'm not really sure where you're getting this idea that I want an algorithm for brewing. That couldn't possibly be further from the truth, and if there's anything in particular that reads like that let me know so I can change it.

The cold steeping and the autolysis were actually precisely the two things that popped into my mind when I said that there were several interesting nuggets, and I'm very inclined to agree with him (or at least willing to test on my own system) on both counts. If more of the book were like those two paragraphs, I would have loved it.

I didn't say (and don't think) that he echoed the content of what is said here, but that his book has the information density of the New Posts section of this website. For a 300 page book, it felt very, very light on content and very heavy on important but repetitive simplifications.

I'm glad you liked it. I did too, and I would score it a 31 out of 50. Nothing wrong with that, but my expectations were (perhaps unfairly) higher. Rather than just telling me that I'm using the book wrong, perhaps you could tell us what you liked about it?

 

[StMarcos]

Has anybody actually learned anything from the book? I'm all for a good read, even if it just reinforces what I already know, but prefer to gain new knowledge. I can read Fix over and over, and still pick up new tidbits. How to Brew, much less so. Both are very good, and I'm glad I own both.

 

[MalFet]

Has anybody actually learned anything from the book? I'm all for a good read, even if it just reinforces what I already know, but prefer to gain new knowledge. I can read Fix over and over, and still pick up new tidbits. How to Brew, much less so. Both are very good, and I'm glad I own both.

Absolutely, I did. I don't mean to imply otherwise. My complaint, if it is even that, is that it was a lot less than I learned from other books. To my mind, it was 95% fluff, but the remaining 5% was informative.

 

[carnevoodoo]

I'm actually not sure the book simply echoes what is written on this forum. Almost nobody here does cold steeping for example (not a new idea or Gordon's idea, btw). Also Gordon says the same things about autolysis (you only think it doesn't happen because you don't know what to look for) and long primaries (that if you want the best quality, don't leave the beer sitting on the primary yeast too long) that I say here and get called an idiot.

I don't know how you can stand reading this board. It drives me nuts that people are so wrong so often here, and it is just "fact" because someone with more posts said it. I can't really tolerate it much anymore, but I get bored.

 

[sonetlumiere85]

I read this book in most of one night and returned it the next day. To me, there's nothing new in it.

I know it was a few pages back, but just because someone enters some ridiculous number of beers into competitions doesn't mean anything to me. The dude clearly has a narrow view of brewing that is centered around getting as much praise and adoration from "lesser" homebrewers as possible. Lame.

 

[wildwest450]

I read this book in most of one night and returned it the next day. To me, there's nothing new in it.

I shake my head in disbelief.



All I know is I ♥ Bob and this book. That is all.


_

 

[remilard]

I read this book in most of one night and returned it the next day. To me, there's nothing new in it.

I know it was a few pages back, but just because someone enters some ridiculous number of beers into competitions doesn't mean anything to me. The dude clearly has a narrow view of brewing that is centered around getting as much praise and adoration from "lesser" homebrewers as possible. Lame.

Haters gonna hate.

 

[stanley1271]

I am about half way through this book now. Since I am new to AG brewing (and really new to brewing period) I have learned a lot. However, I can see where some of you guys that have been doing AG brewing for years would find this not really an advanced book. I had imagine that this book would go more into the science of brewing and thought that I would try and read it and then put it back on the shelf till I was more experienced.

That has not happened. I actually understand ever he has said up to this point. I would say this is not an advanced book, but more along the lines of an intermediate level. That's just my $0.02 worth though.

-Stanley

 

[sonetlumiere85]

Haters gonna hate.

Great contribution to the thread!

 

[remilard]

Great contribution to the thread!

Likewise!

 

[stubbornman]

I'm about halfway through this book, and I think it's easily one of the best I have read on the subject. Not a textbook, but a long conversation with one of the best home brewers in the game. Money well spent IMO.

 

[wonderbread23]

Finished the book last night. Frankly, I wasn't as impressed by it as I have other books coming from Brewer's Publications. It is largely a series of loosely tied together essays many of which don't seem to present much real interesting information. The book doesn't have a lot of cohesion, and could have benefited from some self-editing (I don't really need to know that Gordon drinks Propel to avoid hangovers). Additionally, the book seems somewhat self-indulgent. That being said, seeing his point of view on several topics was interesting (bottle filling, cold steeping, competitions), and I appreciate his attempt at producing a book that is more centered on the art / theory / zen of brewing and less on the technical aspects. I think he has good ideas in his head, but was not capable of expressing them in book form to the point that they really became interesting and something that makes you become more introspective on the topic. There are many books in my brewing library I refer to time and time again. I don't see myself going back to this book.

On a side note, I have read a ton on the topic so perhaps that is why I didn't find a lot of meaningful new information in the book.

 

[ayoungrad]

I am about half way through this book now. Since I am new to AG brewing (and really new to brewing period) I have learned a lot. However, I can see where some of you guys that have been doing AG brewing for years would find this not really an advanced book. I had imagine that this book would go more into the science of brewing and thought that I would try and read it and then put it back on the shelf till I was more experienced.

That has not happened. I actually understand ever he has said up to this point. I would say this is not an advanced book, but more along the lines of an intermediate level. That's just my $0.02 worth though.

-Stanley

You should read the introduction again (assuming you read it to begin with). Your comments do not gel with the aim of the book. Without an understanding of the introduction, you do not have an understanding of everything he has said.

 

[stanley1271]

You should read the introduction again (assuming you read it to begin with). Your comments do not gel with the aim of the book. Without an understanding of the introduction, you do not have an understanding of everything he has said.

Ok I have re-read the intro and I am not sure what it is that you believe does not gel with the aim of the book. I do admit from what I have read of the book there is lots I do not understand, but that is why I am reading it. What I said in my previous post on this book was just my opinion and what I thought (before starting to read the book) it would be like. I still believe this is more of an intermediate book and not an advanced one. My assumption that it would be more about the science was corrected when I started reading the book.

Perhaps you should take my post for what it really was, my opinion on what I thought the book would be and what I think it is now.

-Stanley

 

[ayoungrad]

I just got my copy of the book delivered today.

I have only read the introduction, but it makes the discussion of extract and judgmentalism seem kind of amusing. The portion of the introduction before the quoted passage reiterates that his book is about opinions and that brewing is different for everyone. We all make choices and they may be vastly different from the ones he made.

Then he gives a strong opinion about extract. Prefaced and presented as opinion - not as fact.

This book is not a textbook and is not intended to be. But I'm looking forward to reading more.

I was mostly referring to this post of mine from earlier. His book is not presented as a textbook or technique book but a book about his experiences and helping others through their experiences. His book is not a do this then that book but it is a guide through learning all-grain homebrewing.

I'm not saying its perfect but I'm saying that your critique seems to be that you were disappointed because you were expecting something different from what the book was intended to be.

 

[stanley1271]

I was mostly referring to this post of mine from earlier. His book is not presented as a textbook or technique book but a book about his experiences and helping others through their experiences. His book is not a do this then that book but it is a guide through learning all-grain homebrewing.

I'm not saying its perfect but I'm saying that your critique seems to be that you were disappointed because you expecting something different from what the book was intended to be.

Actually before I got the book I did think of it as more of a textbook or at least something similar. And yes I am disapointed in the book in some way that it is not what I had expected. I do not blame the publisher or the writer, as that was my assumption. To me the title "Brewing Better Beer" says that he would get more into the details of brewing. This is, in my opinion, how you brew better beer, by knowing more about the processes.

I would like to clarify that I have learned a lot from this, if not on the science of the subject as I had first thought I would, but instead on what he does to brew his beer. Overall I like the book so far, but I had hoped for more. I guess a lot of that is what I anticipated from hype I had heard from others about the book and the author.

-Stanley