Malt Does More Than Milton Can

Topic: Hugh Hancock asks What’s So Good About Whisky, Then?

“I like the little things. The way a glass feels in your hand, a good glass – thick, with a heavy base. I love the sound an ice cube makes when you drop it from just the right height. Too high, and it will chip when you drop it. Chip the ice and it will melt too fast in the Scotch…” – Leo McGarry, The West Wing, “Bartlet For America

This is by way of being a preface to a few other essays that I intend to write, in response to several people’s requests about whisky. If I’m going to spend time talking about whisky, I should probably set out my own stall first, as it were. And yeah, I should imagine a few of my friends are looking at that talk of ice in whisky with some horror. I’ll come back to that later.

Whisky ticks a number of boxes for me. Firstly, and most importantly, I love the taste. I love big flavours – red wines, onions, garlic, dark chocolate, butter, cream, coffee, red meat, cigars. (Yes, I am going to die of heart failure. I have made my peace with this.) Whisky, even a comparatively light, floral variety (and they do exist) is a big, big, flavour.

Secondly, there’s probably very little point in pretending it doesn’t also tick my “geek” box. Specialist knowledge? A certain amount of collector mentality? Sign me up!

And lastly, it’s an intoxicant. Let’s be honest here: I like to get drunk on occasion (for occasion read: “at any reasonable excuse, like, say, weekends”). So do any number of people. I especially like to do this in good company. Whisky is practically self-selecting for similar people.

Like McGarry, above, there is a ritual element to it that appeals to me. I like to have the right glass, somthing that varies with my mood – sometimes it’s a good cut glass tumbler, sometimes, like tonight, it’s a proper nosing glass – the common thread, as Leo says, is a good heavy base, a bit of reassuring weight in the hand. I like the pop as the cork leave the bottle, the gentle sloshing sound of the pour, holding the drink to the light to admire the colour, that first sniff of the marvellous smell, and then that first magic sip, rolling the liquid around my mouth…

Which brings me back to taste. And, while I’m here, smell. Let us, for the sake of an example, talk about what I am drinking right now, which is the last of my bottle of Compass Box’s superb blend Spice Tree.

Held up to the light, it’s quick a clear yellow-amber colour, and on first sniff, there’s a sweetness to it, a light sweetness, more like a honey than say, toffee. Going back again there’s strong element of spice to the sweetness, festive spices like clove and cinnamon. Sipping it, and rolling it around the mouth, it’s rich and sweet, with hints of fruit to start with, and it finishes long, and very dry, almost to the point of being astringent. There’s no way you could drink this and not notice that you were drinking something of character. You might not like it, and that’d be fine, because then I could have yours, but there’s no way you could fail to notice the shift in mouthfeel, and the changing range of tastes that come together like liquid magic.

I could write that amount about any of the whiskies in my collection. (By the standards of some people I know, I don’t keep a huge collection – after finishing this Spice Tree, I only have five different bottles on the go at the moment.) And were I to do so, you’d be able to understand the differences between them. Even just in text form, there’d be no mistaking one for another. Now part of that’s the specialist knowledge I was talking about earlier, but part of it just is the sheer variety that’s available. I love the fact that there’s such a range, that every new whisky I try will be different from the others.

My friend Andrew, in his very fine book, Eat Britain, makes the point about whisky that it feels like an elite club, that it requires special training to understand and appreciate. I don’t think it does, but I can understand why it feels that way. I’ve met a few people who get terribly snobby about “wasting good whisky on people who won’t appreciate it”. The technical term for these people is “arseholes”. On a similar subject, I said I’d come back to McGarry’s remark about ice. Firstly, it should be borne in mind that McGarry was talking about Johnnie Walker, a whisky that is more popular in America than anywhere else, a drink that is made with the American palette in mind. And one of the things that’s expected is that it will be drunk over ice, because that’s the normal way to drink whisky in the States. So it’s quite likely that the ice will suit the drink. And secondly: the only correct way to drink whisky is the way that tastes best to you. If you prefer it with ice, have it with ice. If you actually prefer the taste of your 70 year old single malt with coke in it, and have found that a scotch and coke made with a cheap blend just isn’t as good as one with something criminally expensive in it, well, fine by me. As long as you feel you’re getting your money’s worth out of what you’re drinking. Anyone who claims anything else is just wrong.

I don’t feel that I’ve had special training, and I don’t think does take any training beyond maybe sampling a few different whiskies, just to find out what you like. A basic understanding of the differences takes less time than you’d think – in any reasonably well stocked pub, I could sit you down with four or five whiskies, and take you on a quick tour of malts that, even if you’d never tasted a whisky before in your life, would all taste distinct and different. They’d unquestionably have something in common – that huge, rich, explosive taste, but I promise you, you’d be able to tell the difference. And you could probably find a preference, and a place to start exploring for yourself from. That’s what I did, after all. You don’t need to try everything to find something you like, and there’s no shame in finding something you like and sticking with it. Whisky may seem elitist, but actually, it’s open to anyone who is willing to buy a bottle or two, and share it with friends. If you’re enjoying what you’re drinking, it can’t possibly be a waste.

And it really is such an enjoyable drink.

Fuck You, The Public

This is a small thing, but it is a perfect illustration of why the public should not be allowed to vote for things, ever.

The 2008 Bloggies were announced the other day, and I may write more about them later, if I can be arsed to form some opinions on the others, but I just wanted to comment on this result.

Best photography of a weblog: I Can Has Cheezburger? (I’m not fucking linking to it.  You all know it anyway.)

Also Nominated: Smitten Kitchen, Dooce, The Sartorialist, 101 Cookbooks

Of that lot, only one of them consistently produces a reasonable range of different kinds of photography. Dooce. Who, fair enough, probably couldn’t have carried another award home. But I find it tremendously frustrating that not one single dedicated photoblog even got nominated, and most especially that the one that never fucking features any good photography, is the one that won.

If you saw most of those fucking photos without text, they’d just be yet another shitty fucking photo of someone’s mangy fucking fleabag, cluttering up the internet. With the text, some of them are occasionally funny. But they’re still shitty photos, and often not original.

I get that despite the name of the award, which would seem to me to imply a certain level of expected quality, the full explanation of it is “Photoblogs and other weblogs that regularly feature photography” . But still, why in fuck, given how popular photoblogging is and how much seriously *good* photography there is out there, must they honour what is basically a joke that has long since ceased to be novel? Surely a little fucking quality control wouldn’t be out of the question?

(FWIW: Of those five, I think The Sartorialist is probably the most deserving winner. The photography isn’t top quality, or terribly interesting simply as images, but it’s of a standard, has a clear voice, and is unquestionably what the blog is about.  Personal taste would probably have had me voting for 101 Cookbooks, but I thing The Sartorialist is the one that would have most deserved the win.)

Links For Wednesday 12th March 2008

My Computer Cheats At Backgammon

So, one of the things I’ve been trying to do recently is improve my backgammon game, to which end I have downloaded a backgammon game for the Mac. And it’s been working, in a frustrating kind of way. But I have been forced to conclude that the fucking things cheats. I can even provide pictorial evidence. Here is the position as we got into the endgame of the match I have just played.

I was playing the darker brown. Those of you who play backgammon might conclude that I was in a pretty strong position, there. Not perfect, but enough that at that point, I was pretty sure I had the game in the bag. But no.

I did not, in playing out the close of the game, at any point, make any stupid mistakes – at no point was there anything exposed that would have allowed the computer to hit any of my pieces. No, I just had to sit there and watch as out of the remaining ten or so turns left in the match, the fucking thing rolled 6 doubles, while I couldn’t seem to roll anything higher than a three for the duration.

This isn’t an isolated incident, either. Something like this almost always happens. Bastard thing. I’m going back to the Royal Game of Ur. I was good at that.

I’m going to bed to sulk now. Night, all.

A Useful Little Meme.

Lifted from a few people:

Everyone has things they blog about. Everyone has things they don’t blog about. Challenge me out of my comfort zone by telling me something I don’t blog about, but you’d like to hear about, and I’ll write a post about it.

All answers will go to fuel my “one long post of some kind a week” attempt.

Links For Monday 10th March 2008

For the first time since I don’t know how long, all of the following statements are true.

1) I have no plans for today.
2) I got a decent amount of sleep, and have no hangover or anything like that to contend with.
3) I have no deadlines of any kind to worry about.
4) I am not ill. Well, I have the tail end of a slight cold. Doesn’t count.

I have a completely free Sunday, and the ability to enjoy it. Oh, added bonus: I have the house to myself for most of the evening. Don’t know when that last happened.

What the fuck do I do now?

Choose Your Own Comics Company

Topic: Alasdair Stuart has very generously given me an unlimited budget, and access to every comic creator on the planet, and the remit to build a company that publishes comics and OGNs, and asked what I would do.

Obvious answer #1: embezzle the budget, live out the rest of my days in luxury.

Clearly, what he meant is that money’s no object, but I do have to turn a profit on it.

Obvious answer #2: Hire top grade talent, then get out of the way.

Except I’m not 100% convinced of the viability of that. I think everyone, absolutely everyone will do their best work if there is someone set over them with the authority to tell them that their work isn’t up to scratch, and that they’ve got to go back and do it again, or at least, tighten the damn thing up, and make sure it fucking sings. However much I like a creator, I tend to remember Bill Drummond’s views on Julian Cope – that Cope is undeniably a monstrous and vitally important talent, but that the single greatest blight he’s suffered is that post-The Teardrop Explodes there was no-one to tell him to get back in the studio and try again, because what he’d just produced wasn’t up to the level of his own ability.

(On the other hand, if there had been, he might not have evolved into the hugely interesting auto-didact of ancient sites and religions that he is, and I might never have gotten Cope’s “Discover Odin”, of of the best albums I own. So you know, swings and roundabouts.)

Obvious answer #3: Hire the usual predictable list of names. Moore, Morrison, Ellis, Rucka, Ennis. Equivalent grade artists. (Obviously, I am still all about the clever writing.)

And you know, I probably would. The deal is straightforward: create me two properties – the creators can decide if they’re ongoing, OGNs, whatever, so long as they are (to within 10% or so) the same number of pages in length, and I can reasonably expect similar production and distribution costs for both. One of them, the one that is published first, the company gets a 50% stake in, across all media, and tie ins (and yes, gets approval on the tie ins – this is the company’s cash cow), and will attempt to shop around, and will shoulder 50% of the marketing costs. The other 50% of the profit will be split among the creators as they dictate.

The other, is 100% creator owned. I’m not going to shop it about or anything (well, I might, if the opportunity arose, but I’m not going to look too hard for ways to exploit it), as all the profit from it, and from any other media sales at all, that all goes to the creators – all my company takes are any production/marketing costs. If it fails to cover costs, any losses it makes are recouped by my company from the cash share of the profits from the first that that creator makes.

There’d need to be a bit more fine print (to allow for then running the one I see cash from into the ground with production/format costs, while coining it in off the 100% creator owned one), but you get the idea. A genuine, honest to god, codified “one for the studio, one for the love of the art” (or you know, whatever reason the creators have to make their book, anyway) system. (Should creators wish to do more that two books, I’m delighted. Extra books are still done in pairs, on the same basis.) Creators are completely free to ask for a page rate up front for either book, and I’ll pay more or less what they demand, but their page rate is a production cost for the book, and gets deducted before profits.

All of this, contains the caveat: I am not going to bankroll anyone’s project that is obviously not going to make us both a profit. Anyone demanding a page rate/production values that are likely to have a net effect of rendering both books together unprofitable will be told to piss off.

So there you have it. Is it earth shattering? No. But Al gave me as much money as I could possibly want, didn’t he? Well, yeah, in that case, there’s other things I’d add to it. This would be aimed at making a profit over a five-to-ten year period, because apparently, I’m well capitalised enough to work like that. And the initial ad campaign would cost a fucking fortune, because it’d need to do a Playstation-grade job of branding these things as aimed at hip 20-somethings, not mouth-breathing nerds, and it would need to raise the level of awareness of them to something quite huge. So I’d be looking to launch with a line of 12 Watchmen-length (and hopefully Watchmen-quality) OGNS, none of them featuring superheroes. And I’d attempt to support it with interviews in mainstream press – Esquire, GQ, hell, even FHM and Loaded, including buying enough fucking ad space with the relevant magazines that I could be sure of having these things and these people treated as cool, rather than getting “Biff! Bang! Pow! Comics Are Back!” treatment. The point being: I have time, and I am explicitly intending these things as long term investments, like Watchmen, or Sandman. Because I am very rich, it turns out, and can afford to.

Of course, that last paragraph isn’t much besides a lovely pipe dream. You really do need absurdly deep pockets and a willingness to take a huge risk in order to run something like that. And very occaisionally, you do find a publisher with one of those two things, but you’ll never find one with both.