This is an exciting time to be a citizen of the world right now, but it's also an abjectly terrifying time.
If you, like me, have largely slept the slumber of apathy for most of the last decade, now is the time to awaken. Important things are happening across the world and here at home. This is the most formative moment in world and national history since the fall of Communism in 1989 or the protests of 1967. At stake is no less than the new world order. If you've ever wanted to change the world, now is your window of opportunity to do so. Change is happening faster than I ever thought possible.
In the last year, three Arab countries have overthrown their government to set up democracies. The European Union is skirting the precipice of either economic collapse or
essentially making the equivalent leap that the United States made from
the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution. Six Tibetan monks have immolated themselves in protest against brutal Chinese rule. In December Hillary Clinton will be the first Secretary of State to visit Burma in over fifty years. USA-Pakistan relations have nearly completely deteriorated. The USA
will be stationing military presence in Australia to counter expanding
Chinese ambitions. Mexican protesters are calling for an end to the war on drugs. WikiLeaks and Julian Assange have been brought to their knees. Activity from Anonymous has exploded. Scores of repressive regimes are making concessions like allowing free elections and rolling back censorship. Scores of countries (including some of the same ones liberalizing) stand on the precipice of civil war. Occupy- and Indignants-inspired protests have spread to 951 cities and 82 countries.
In more local news, Congress has been locked in political gridlock for the last year, apparently completely incapable of changing the budget from a course of economic stagnation and extraordinary debt. Occupy Wall Street is fighting for a complete reevaluation of the structure of American democracy. A bill is going through Congress with evidently enthusiastic bipartisan support that will fundamentally change the relationship between government and internet, allowing the government to block entire websites and making it a felony to stream or view copyrighted material --like listening to a song or watching a clip of a TV show on YouTube. Another bill going though Congress seeks to define America as a warzone and thereby authorize the military to arrest American citizens on American soil and hold them captive indefinitely without trial, making it the natural successor to the PATRIOT Act and step two on the road to authoritarianism.
At stake is freedom, justice and the financial future of the world. Become aware. Raise your voice. Take action. Utilize the enormous mobilizing potential of the Internet. Don't forget to think. Terrible things are about to happen. Amazing things are about to happen. The world stands on the tip of a double-edged sword. Don't forget to think, but by all that is holy, participate!
Wednesday, November 30, 2011
Monday, November 28, 2011
Try Anything Once
When my sister and I were growing up we couldn't stand to eat certain foods. Brussel sprouts, onions and tomatoes were a few of my personal enemies. Our parents would good-naturedly lecture us about how as you get older, your taste buds change and you grow to like things you once hated. While they tolerated and accommodated a certain amount of our stonewalling, at least once a year my mom or dad would say, "Just eat one bite. You can't have dessert until you at least try it." Try we would. Then we usually retched, spit it out or just made a horrible face. With parents satisfied, life would go on.
Somewhere along the line I remember my mom intoning with an unmistakable air of pride that we weren't picky eaters compared to most of our friends. We ate seafood, most vegetables and a host of gourmet and ethnic food that our parents had been gradually introducing us to. Among the mythology of my childhood was a story about me as a toddler, picking apart sushi rolls. When my parents were distracted, my two-year-old-self snatched up a ball of wasabi and swallowed it entirely. My dad still loves to describe the look on my face and how, admirably, I didn't even cry.
Dad instilled in me an enthusiasm for spicy food. I originally approached it as a macho thing. I'd sneer at my sister for complaining about spiciness and load my gumbo with as much Tabasco as I could stand. I remember, in a Chinese restaurant, bravely trying one of those Szechuan peppers after seeing my dad toss a couple back. Sometimes Bri and I would dare each other to eat one. To this day I occasionally eat a Szechuan pepper, just for kicks. The sensation is always one of terrible burning, but you never know if your taste buds have changed. A behavioral psychologist would say that in my family the social dividends of brave experimentalism outweighed the danger of an unpleasant taste.
Once our parents divorced, Bri and I's cultivated non-pickiness became tangibly useful. Our bachelor Dad would take us to Costco for a food run. He'd tell us to "get kid food" and we'd come back with boxes of fruit loops, "granola bars" made mostly of corn syrup and puffed rice and veritable tubs of jelly bellies, gummi worms, etc. Dad would buy it unquestioningly. If dinners weren't consistently a family affair of meat and vegetables, we might have ended up inches shorter than we are today. When the "kid food" ran out, as it inevitably did, we resorted to experimenting with Dad's leftovers or tolerating his offered concoctions, even violating the breakfast-must-be-sweet principle universally understood by children across America as sacrosanct.
Thus it was that open-mindedness established itself as not only a source of pride for Bri and I, but as a necessity for survival. Experimentalism became a sort of religion for us, a direct product of our father's influence. Chicken feet, pig's ear, pigeon, escargot, beef tongue, raw oysters (<3!) and all forms of sushi were things we not only ate, but actively sought out to try. By the time I was in high school, our open-minded food tastes were integral to our self-identities and our family culture.
It was about that time that my dad organized a multi-week backpacking trip to Wyoming with his longtime friend Jack Kisslinger. For that trip, we treated him as family. In restaurants, when Bri or I requested a taste of Jack's meal, we had no expectation that he might refuse. We took it for granted that everyone was entitled to a bite of each other person's meal. Agreeable Jack gracefully adapted to this after a few nights of confusion. Bri and I would also angrily squabble amongst ourselves and, in the case of Jack or Dad, diplomatically implore about what dish the other person should order. You see, we wanted to maximize the number of dishes we got to taste of the restaurant's. If two people got the same dish, we would only have three unique entrees to try rather than four. So it was that Bri and I would identify the most intriguing dishes and often fight about who got to order the most-desirable of the remaining dishes after the adults' choices (in the most memorable example, this came between meat loaf and baby back ribs, so you can understand the passion). During those next few weeks, Jack's presence and semi-voluntary inclusion into our family culture elucidated our culture's uniqueness to Bri and I, which increased our family food culture importance in our identities.
My dad loved to regale us with his adventures traveling the world. He almost never turned down bizarre local delicacies, but he did tell of one restaurant in China that he turned down. He and his friend looked into the window and watched as a spider monkey was clamped by its head to a tray, the top of its skull was popped off with a knife and its quivering brains were eaten with spoons as the monkey screamed its head off (pardon the pun) and thrashed in evident agony, trying to escape. My dad told his friend, "let's eat somewhere else". Thus did I learn the limitations of my dad's considerable zeal for adventure.
In his stories of travel adventures, I made the inevitable connection between trying food and trying things more generally. The quote, "try anything once" may have originally been made by him in reference to food, but it was a short leap to apply it to everything. "Try anything once" was the refrain running in my head as I ran out of a pool in Utah to roll in the snow, rode Supreme Scream, jumped off a sea cliff, ate a peanut worm whole, hopped a fence to go night swimming in my school's rec pool and consumed enough cyanide to flush my face and quicken my breathing. The principle cemented by that Szechuan pepper a decade earlier became the rallying cry for a broader life philosophy in my late teens. I still remember the look of betrayal my father gave me as I took a puff of his friend's offered Cuban cigar at age nineteen. Evidently, it hadn't occurred to him that "try anything once" might be taken farther than he had taken it.
This isn't to say that I had entirely missed the principles that counterbalanced my dad's experimentalism. I know perfectly well why he, unlike most of his family, didn't smoke, why he refused to join his school football team or was glad to avoid the Vietnam draft. The message that there was a difference between bravery and stupidity came through loud and clear. In college I didn't shy away from trying cigarettes, but I made certain that I would never become addicted to them. I won't ever touch heroin or meth, but it's not because my experimental drive doesn't implore me to try them, it's because they entail unacceptable risk.
Somewhere along the line, my "try anything once" philosophy was augmented by a corollary-- the fact that many tastes need to be acquired necessitates trying some things more than once. I think of this as the "Pixies principle" because it took me many times hearing the Pixies before I started to like them, but they ultimately became one of my favorite bands. It could just as easily be called the "Big Star principle", the "beer principle" or the "scary movie month principle". In all cases, demanding that something be immediately gratifying would have denied me great joy. Patience and an open mind eventually paid dividends.
This principle implies its own corollary, though. You can't appreciate many things unless you approach them with the right attitude, so this principle also necessitates an amount of self-policing. Do you genuinely want to like something? Do you possibly dislike something because you want to dislike it for outside reasons? I mean, how could any hipster honestly say that they don't like Nirvana? Every American our age has been sufficiently exposed to Nirvana, those with a taste for indie and alternative rock styles like the sound, and Nirvana is patently awesome. The best explanation for indie hipsters who claim they don't like Nirvana is that they don't like Nirvana because they don't want to like Nirvana. It's a terrible tragedy for somebody to not appreciate Nirvana, so we must fight this mind-over-matter selectivity in ourselves. Thus we have the "Nirvana principle".
Two of my best friends don't like things for transparently mental reasons. The first, a nonpracticing Jew, hates the smell and taste of pork. The second, an ex-Mormon, hates the smell and taste of coffee. These are intelligent, thoughtful people, but I have never met a single person who disliked pork free of religious or near-religious (aka vegetarian) motives. This is a depiction of the mind's potent effect on our perception of smell and flavor, akin to how a person can't stand the smell of a liquor they overindulged in the night before. When, the day after a night of lots of beer and puking, beer smelled like vomit, I said to myself, "don't be a bitch" and I finished the beer I'd opened in spite of my revulsion. By the next day I could enjoy beer again because I had refused to be slave to my own mind.
I've found that the best way to deal with the open-endedness of the Nirvana principle is to assume that deep down everyone's the same. Of course, we're not the same. To what extent is up for debate, but at the very least we know that some people have or lack specific taste receptor genes. Broccoli tastes qualitatively more heinous to some people than to other people. Some men are wired to be exclusively attracted to men instead of to women, etc. I think that's where our fundamental differences end. I think that, unlike taste receptors, our brains are complex enough that we have the capacity in us to enjoy just about anything. If somebody else can enjoy something, so can I. At the very least, common humanity is a worthy assumption.
But where do I draw the line? Am I obligated to like everything or to die trying to like everything? Well, no. It is a legitimate question, though, and one without a perfect answer. The way we should choose what to try to like lies in practicality. Because my musical enculturation was grounded in classic rock and classical music, it is easier for me to acquire a taste for, say, new wave than for reggae. Assuming that I will derive the same joy from new wave as reggae, it is simply practical to choose the easiest one to acquire. I am also more likely to find friends eager to talk about new wave music, which is again a purely practical consideration.
I'm not arguing that obstacles to appreciating things do not exist, but that such obstacles are quantitative rather than qualitative. That is, that the question isn't whether or not it is possible to overcome an obstacle, but rather how much effort and time are required to overcome something. What I disagree with is the defeatism of "this is just how I am" and "I can't change who I am". Tastes may define a person's persona, but they do not define one's personality. Personality is a far more slippery quality.
For both vanity and personal-compatibility reasons I prefer confident women unafraid to speak their minds. For natural reasons I prefer more attractive women, but nature does not specify what kind of beauty I should like. Most of my preferences for women's appearance, other than attractiveness, exist because they correlate with personal compatibility. I'm more likely to get along with a girl who typically wears little-or-no makeup than one who wears a lot. I'm more likely to enjoy the company of a girl who wears sensible, fashionable clothes than one who wears either tacky or markedly conservative garb. These sorts of judgements are ideally where my prejudice ends, however, because I have a vested interest in considering the maximum range of women for romance. I can be picky later. Sometimes the process of determining my taste involves thoughtful self-analysis. I can acquire a taste for a "type" of woman if I want to and I generally want to if I think it will increase my range of options without significantly decreasing the quality of my options in terms of likelihood for personal compatibility.
Once you realize how very much control you have over your own tastes, you can consciously broaden your tastes to suit your needs. The way to find out to what degree you can is to try. Try not just with your physical actions, but with your mind and soul. Have a little faith in me and a little faith in your common humanity. Remember, there is no specific taste receptor for pork.
It is to my abiding shame that I cannot like raw tomato, but I am proud of having shame for a shortcoming of taste. I suspect it's a result of some rogue taste receptor gene of mine, but I cannot be sure, and every year or so still, I try a bite of good, raw tomato. I haven't yet been able to enjoy it, but I lose nothing in trying it.
All of this is to say, don't be picky. Don't be a slave to your mind, because you can like whatever you set your mind to like (except maybe broccoli or tomato). As important as it is to know your own limitations, it is also important to search out and eliminate false limitations. Open yourself up to the world as much as you can stand and do your best to appreciate it in all its glory. You will be rewarded. This, I promise you.
And when you're eating at a restaurant with me and I ask for a bite of your meal, say yes. Please also ask for a taste of mine. We can discuss our food. It will make me happy.
Somewhere along the line I remember my mom intoning with an unmistakable air of pride that we weren't picky eaters compared to most of our friends. We ate seafood, most vegetables and a host of gourmet and ethnic food that our parents had been gradually introducing us to. Among the mythology of my childhood was a story about me as a toddler, picking apart sushi rolls. When my parents were distracted, my two-year-old-self snatched up a ball of wasabi and swallowed it entirely. My dad still loves to describe the look on my face and how, admirably, I didn't even cry.
Dad instilled in me an enthusiasm for spicy food. I originally approached it as a macho thing. I'd sneer at my sister for complaining about spiciness and load my gumbo with as much Tabasco as I could stand. I remember, in a Chinese restaurant, bravely trying one of those Szechuan peppers after seeing my dad toss a couple back. Sometimes Bri and I would dare each other to eat one. To this day I occasionally eat a Szechuan pepper, just for kicks. The sensation is always one of terrible burning, but you never know if your taste buds have changed. A behavioral psychologist would say that in my family the social dividends of brave experimentalism outweighed the danger of an unpleasant taste.
Once our parents divorced, Bri and I's cultivated non-pickiness became tangibly useful. Our bachelor Dad would take us to Costco for a food run. He'd tell us to "get kid food" and we'd come back with boxes of fruit loops, "granola bars" made mostly of corn syrup and puffed rice and veritable tubs of jelly bellies, gummi worms, etc. Dad would buy it unquestioningly. If dinners weren't consistently a family affair of meat and vegetables, we might have ended up inches shorter than we are today. When the "kid food" ran out, as it inevitably did, we resorted to experimenting with Dad's leftovers or tolerating his offered concoctions, even violating the breakfast-must-be-sweet principle universally understood by children across America as sacrosanct.
Thus it was that open-mindedness established itself as not only a source of pride for Bri and I, but as a necessity for survival. Experimentalism became a sort of religion for us, a direct product of our father's influence. Chicken feet, pig's ear, pigeon, escargot, beef tongue, raw oysters (<3!) and all forms of sushi were things we not only ate, but actively sought out to try. By the time I was in high school, our open-minded food tastes were integral to our self-identities and our family culture.
It was about that time that my dad organized a multi-week backpacking trip to Wyoming with his longtime friend Jack Kisslinger. For that trip, we treated him as family. In restaurants, when Bri or I requested a taste of Jack's meal, we had no expectation that he might refuse. We took it for granted that everyone was entitled to a bite of each other person's meal. Agreeable Jack gracefully adapted to this after a few nights of confusion. Bri and I would also angrily squabble amongst ourselves and, in the case of Jack or Dad, diplomatically implore about what dish the other person should order. You see, we wanted to maximize the number of dishes we got to taste of the restaurant's. If two people got the same dish, we would only have three unique entrees to try rather than four. So it was that Bri and I would identify the most intriguing dishes and often fight about who got to order the most-desirable of the remaining dishes after the adults' choices (in the most memorable example, this came between meat loaf and baby back ribs, so you can understand the passion). During those next few weeks, Jack's presence and semi-voluntary inclusion into our family culture elucidated our culture's uniqueness to Bri and I, which increased our family food culture importance in our identities.
My dad loved to regale us with his adventures traveling the world. He almost never turned down bizarre local delicacies, but he did tell of one restaurant in China that he turned down. He and his friend looked into the window and watched as a spider monkey was clamped by its head to a tray, the top of its skull was popped off with a knife and its quivering brains were eaten with spoons as the monkey screamed its head off (pardon the pun) and thrashed in evident agony, trying to escape. My dad told his friend, "let's eat somewhere else". Thus did I learn the limitations of my dad's considerable zeal for adventure.
In his stories of travel adventures, I made the inevitable connection between trying food and trying things more generally. The quote, "try anything once" may have originally been made by him in reference to food, but it was a short leap to apply it to everything. "Try anything once" was the refrain running in my head as I ran out of a pool in Utah to roll in the snow, rode Supreme Scream, jumped off a sea cliff, ate a peanut worm whole, hopped a fence to go night swimming in my school's rec pool and consumed enough cyanide to flush my face and quicken my breathing. The principle cemented by that Szechuan pepper a decade earlier became the rallying cry for a broader life philosophy in my late teens. I still remember the look of betrayal my father gave me as I took a puff of his friend's offered Cuban cigar at age nineteen. Evidently, it hadn't occurred to him that "try anything once" might be taken farther than he had taken it.
This isn't to say that I had entirely missed the principles that counterbalanced my dad's experimentalism. I know perfectly well why he, unlike most of his family, didn't smoke, why he refused to join his school football team or was glad to avoid the Vietnam draft. The message that there was a difference between bravery and stupidity came through loud and clear. In college I didn't shy away from trying cigarettes, but I made certain that I would never become addicted to them. I won't ever touch heroin or meth, but it's not because my experimental drive doesn't implore me to try them, it's because they entail unacceptable risk.
Somewhere along the line, my "try anything once" philosophy was augmented by a corollary-- the fact that many tastes need to be acquired necessitates trying some things more than once. I think of this as the "Pixies principle" because it took me many times hearing the Pixies before I started to like them, but they ultimately became one of my favorite bands. It could just as easily be called the "Big Star principle", the "beer principle" or the "scary movie month principle". In all cases, demanding that something be immediately gratifying would have denied me great joy. Patience and an open mind eventually paid dividends.
This principle implies its own corollary, though. You can't appreciate many things unless you approach them with the right attitude, so this principle also necessitates an amount of self-policing. Do you genuinely want to like something? Do you possibly dislike something because you want to dislike it for outside reasons? I mean, how could any hipster honestly say that they don't like Nirvana? Every American our age has been sufficiently exposed to Nirvana, those with a taste for indie and alternative rock styles like the sound, and Nirvana is patently awesome. The best explanation for indie hipsters who claim they don't like Nirvana is that they don't like Nirvana because they don't want to like Nirvana. It's a terrible tragedy for somebody to not appreciate Nirvana, so we must fight this mind-over-matter selectivity in ourselves. Thus we have the "Nirvana principle".
Two of my best friends don't like things for transparently mental reasons. The first, a nonpracticing Jew, hates the smell and taste of pork. The second, an ex-Mormon, hates the smell and taste of coffee. These are intelligent, thoughtful people, but I have never met a single person who disliked pork free of religious or near-religious (aka vegetarian) motives. This is a depiction of the mind's potent effect on our perception of smell and flavor, akin to how a person can't stand the smell of a liquor they overindulged in the night before. When, the day after a night of lots of beer and puking, beer smelled like vomit, I said to myself, "don't be a bitch" and I finished the beer I'd opened in spite of my revulsion. By the next day I could enjoy beer again because I had refused to be slave to my own mind.
I've found that the best way to deal with the open-endedness of the Nirvana principle is to assume that deep down everyone's the same. Of course, we're not the same. To what extent is up for debate, but at the very least we know that some people have or lack specific taste receptor genes. Broccoli tastes qualitatively more heinous to some people than to other people. Some men are wired to be exclusively attracted to men instead of to women, etc. I think that's where our fundamental differences end. I think that, unlike taste receptors, our brains are complex enough that we have the capacity in us to enjoy just about anything. If somebody else can enjoy something, so can I. At the very least, common humanity is a worthy assumption.
But where do I draw the line? Am I obligated to like everything or to die trying to like everything? Well, no. It is a legitimate question, though, and one without a perfect answer. The way we should choose what to try to like lies in practicality. Because my musical enculturation was grounded in classic rock and classical music, it is easier for me to acquire a taste for, say, new wave than for reggae. Assuming that I will derive the same joy from new wave as reggae, it is simply practical to choose the easiest one to acquire. I am also more likely to find friends eager to talk about new wave music, which is again a purely practical consideration.
I'm not arguing that obstacles to appreciating things do not exist, but that such obstacles are quantitative rather than qualitative. That is, that the question isn't whether or not it is possible to overcome an obstacle, but rather how much effort and time are required to overcome something. What I disagree with is the defeatism of "this is just how I am" and "I can't change who I am". Tastes may define a person's persona, but they do not define one's personality. Personality is a far more slippery quality.
For both vanity and personal-compatibility reasons I prefer confident women unafraid to speak their minds. For natural reasons I prefer more attractive women, but nature does not specify what kind of beauty I should like. Most of my preferences for women's appearance, other than attractiveness, exist because they correlate with personal compatibility. I'm more likely to get along with a girl who typically wears little-or-no makeup than one who wears a lot. I'm more likely to enjoy the company of a girl who wears sensible, fashionable clothes than one who wears either tacky or markedly conservative garb. These sorts of judgements are ideally where my prejudice ends, however, because I have a vested interest in considering the maximum range of women for romance. I can be picky later. Sometimes the process of determining my taste involves thoughtful self-analysis. I can acquire a taste for a "type" of woman if I want to and I generally want to if I think it will increase my range of options without significantly decreasing the quality of my options in terms of likelihood for personal compatibility.
Once you realize how very much control you have over your own tastes, you can consciously broaden your tastes to suit your needs. The way to find out to what degree you can is to try. Try not just with your physical actions, but with your mind and soul. Have a little faith in me and a little faith in your common humanity. Remember, there is no specific taste receptor for pork.
It is to my abiding shame that I cannot like raw tomato, but I am proud of having shame for a shortcoming of taste. I suspect it's a result of some rogue taste receptor gene of mine, but I cannot be sure, and every year or so still, I try a bite of good, raw tomato. I haven't yet been able to enjoy it, but I lose nothing in trying it.
All of this is to say, don't be picky. Don't be a slave to your mind, because you can like whatever you set your mind to like (except maybe broccoli or tomato). As important as it is to know your own limitations, it is also important to search out and eliminate false limitations. Open yourself up to the world as much as you can stand and do your best to appreciate it in all its glory. You will be rewarded. This, I promise you.
And when you're eating at a restaurant with me and I ask for a bite of your meal, say yes. Please also ask for a taste of mine. We can discuss our food. It will make me happy.
Thursday, November 17, 2011
Beer Styles: Amber Ale
Amber Ales are the most center-field beer style in the world of American craft beer. They are the Goldilocks of craft beer-- malty but not heavy, hopped but not abrasively bitter. Their moderate alcohol and flavor make them the most sessionable major style of American ale. The style is extremely flexible, but because Ambers represent one of the most understated styles in the American beer pantheon, they rarely receive attention from the beer elite.
It is my not-so-humble opinion that there is a beer for every occasion and that every style can boast some great beer. While many Ambers (read: almost all brewpub versions) are made simply, thoughtlessly and according to style protocol, the best are subtle and quietly innovative. Reputable Ambers are a thinking man's session beer that pairs well with most brown-colored foods especially those with meaty, spicy, nutty or strong vegetable flavors like hummus or gumbo. Because of their flexibility and understated nature, Ambers stand as one of my three favorite beer styles, along with North German Pilsner and Strong Dark Belgian-Style Ales.
Before I get into the heart of what makes an Amber Ale, I'd like to address Red Ale, which is often treated as synonymous with Amber Ale. Red Ales have more in common with Red IPA's, Double/Imperial Reds and even American Pale Ales because they are all built on the common paradigm of clear, caramelly malt (unmuddied by roasted, biscuity or earthy malt flavors) playing off of fruity yeast esters and a strong hop flavor and bitterness. Red Ales are typically higher in alcohol than Amber Ales and, crazily enough, are copper-red rather than brownish-amber. It is true that there are examples of intermediate beers (as well as mild British-style Red Ales, which are painfully boring), but as style distinctions go, this is not a hard call. Red Ales rarely use herbal or earthy hops and never use roasted or dark crystal malts. It's very simple: Reds thrive on fruitiness and zestiness.
There are some excellent Red Ales available. Lagunitas's Censored runs to the malty end of the style, but still is prominently fruity, boozy and estery in ever-so-delicious ways. More classic examples of good Reds are North Coast's Red Seal Ale and Mad River's Jamaican Red Ale. They both run about 6% ABV, sport a fruity nose and an exquisite balance between hop bitterness and sweet malt backbone. Pyramid's Juggernaut fits perfectly within this style, but Juggernaut is uninteresting swill. Frankly, I consider the striking difference between Red Seal and Juggernaut the clearest testament to the talent and quality brewing required to make good ale.
True Amber Ales, because of their more complex malt profile, can never achieve that razor's edge sensation when it comes to balancing sweetness with hop bitterness. Breweries that have tried to do this have only ever succeeded in spite of rather than because of the attempt to hop an Amber-style malt base up to the brink.
Most Amber Ales use hops with herbal and earthy flavors that add another dimension to a complex malt profile. These hops typically play a supportive role rather than competing with the malts for the spotlight. Just like Red Ales, Ambers are built on a caramel malt backbone, but good Ambers also have small amounts of darker specialty malts that contribute dark fruit, toffee, nutty, biscuit, chocolate and roasted flavors.
Below are reviews of the most memorable Amber Ales I have tried:
Fat Tire- The flagship of New Belgium, this is one of the most widely available craft beers on the market and most peoples' introduction to Amber Ale. Fat Tire is also one of the best Ambers, but the trouble with Fat Tire is that it is not typical of American Amber Ale. Unlike most American Ambers, who trace their descent from English Amber Ale, Fat Tire is an American take on Belgian Amber Ale. Fat Tire is lighter in body and alcohol, which makes it disturbingly easy to toss back. Rather than making it weak or flavorless, the lightness allows the beer to sit back and let its considerable malt complexity rise to the fore. Toasty, earthy, warm and with a hint of raisin, no other American beer manages to simultaneously be so mesmerizingly malt-driven and light on its feet.
Boont Amber- This is the flagship of Anderson Valley Brewery and at least in Northern California it seems to be the go-to Amber Ale. Boont is a quintessential American Amber, and among the best. It has a richer malt body than Fat Tire. The malt is balanced by modest bitterness. The overall effect refreshes when it's hot and sticks to your ribs when it's cold. Two things separate Boont from the ubiquitous brewpub Amber: a cleaner alignmeent of flavor (essentially, brewing and ingredient quality) and a nutty, almost a buttery flavor in the malt that characterizes Anderson Valley's whole lineup. My friend Myranda gets credit for suggesting it as a breakfast beer at an English pub brunch. I have discovered few better beer pairings than Boont with greasy eggs, potatoes and sausage.
Full Sail Amber- Like Anderson Valley, Full Sail's Amber is characterized significantly by the Brewery's unique trademark style, which in this case means that it's built on a rich, light, ebullient malt base that's set off by a dry, roasted flavor in the malt. The hops set off that roasted flavor, making the overall effect one of balance between hearty-but-light-colored malt and the dark, dry bitterness of the hops and roasted malt. This sits on the heavier end of the Amber spectrum and would be perfect for the Christmas season.
Rogue American Amber- I have an enormous hard-on for Rogue Brewing. Like Boont, theirs is a quintessential Amber Ale that sports its brewery's trademark spin. Rogue American Amber has that air of delicacy associated with their proprietary yeast strain "Pacman". The malts subtly play off one another, the hops and that characteristic yeast nose. This is not their best beer, but it is among the best Amber Ales. Were it priced competitively with Boont and Fat Tire, it would be my Amber of choice.
Stone Levitation- As you might imagine coming from Stone, this is the most bitter Amber Ale I've yet to try. Of course, it's impeccably balanced. It manages to firmly stand as an Amber even with an inverted (hop>malt) paradigm. If you're the kind of beer-drinker who demands the teetering bitter edge, this is the Amber for you. It may even be the only Amber for you, because I know how stubborn you hop heads are.
Ballast Point's Calico Copper Amber Ale- Befitting it's San Diego origins, this is also a relatively bitter Amber. Rather than inverting the paradigm or attempting a "bleeding bitter edge" brew, Calico is simply a combination of strong hopping with a strong and diverse malt base. This sacrifices the natural give-and-take dynamism of Amber Ale for forceful flavor. I have had a few Ambers brewed in such a maximalist style from smaller breweries on the West Coast, but this is the first one to not suck.
Drake's Amber- This is more of a Brown Ale than an Amber because it has a high ABV, substantial hop bitterness, a medium-full creamy body and an abundance of rich malty flavors. Treated as an unusual Amber, it has greatest resemblance to the maximalist school of Amber Ale. This is a solid beer in terms of concept and harmony, but it wasn't especially complex. That's a criticism I could level more broadly at most Brown Ales, even respectable ones.
Red Tail Ale- This Mendocino flag ship is an even lighter Amber than Fat Tire. It is labelled as an "American Ale", but this beer's aesthetic definitely aligns it with the Amber camp and I'm pretty sure "American Ale" is made-up. Like classic Ambers it's laid back and malt-driven. There's some malt complexity, but I don't think the flavors really gel into a compelling greater whole. This is a good session beer that I'm unlikely to ever buy again because it's short of amazing in a world of amazing craft beer. I imagine some people will really like this beer and this brewery, so it's worth trying, but it's not the beer/brewery for me and I'm willing to wager that it's not the beer/brewery for most beer people.
Budweiser American Ale- Again, "American Ale" is code for lightweight Ambers. As you can imagine, coming from Budweiser, this is insipid. It serves as a pointed reminder that (with the solitary exception of Coors' Blue Moon lineup) macros should stay the hell away from craft styles.
I am aware that I have already reviewed some of these beers in previous posts, but these reviews treat them in the context of their style. Plus, my palate has matured. :P
It is my not-so-humble opinion that there is a beer for every occasion and that every style can boast some great beer. While many Ambers (read: almost all brewpub versions) are made simply, thoughtlessly and according to style protocol, the best are subtle and quietly innovative. Reputable Ambers are a thinking man's session beer that pairs well with most brown-colored foods especially those with meaty, spicy, nutty or strong vegetable flavors like hummus or gumbo. Because of their flexibility and understated nature, Ambers stand as one of my three favorite beer styles, along with North German Pilsner and Strong Dark Belgian-Style Ales.
Before I get into the heart of what makes an Amber Ale, I'd like to address Red Ale, which is often treated as synonymous with Amber Ale. Red Ales have more in common with Red IPA's, Double/Imperial Reds and even American Pale Ales because they are all built on the common paradigm of clear, caramelly malt (unmuddied by roasted, biscuity or earthy malt flavors) playing off of fruity yeast esters and a strong hop flavor and bitterness. Red Ales are typically higher in alcohol than Amber Ales and, crazily enough, are copper-red rather than brownish-amber. It is true that there are examples of intermediate beers (as well as mild British-style Red Ales, which are painfully boring), but as style distinctions go, this is not a hard call. Red Ales rarely use herbal or earthy hops and never use roasted or dark crystal malts. It's very simple: Reds thrive on fruitiness and zestiness.
There are some excellent Red Ales available. Lagunitas's Censored runs to the malty end of the style, but still is prominently fruity, boozy and estery in ever-so-delicious ways. More classic examples of good Reds are North Coast's Red Seal Ale and Mad River's Jamaican Red Ale. They both run about 6% ABV, sport a fruity nose and an exquisite balance between hop bitterness and sweet malt backbone. Pyramid's Juggernaut fits perfectly within this style, but Juggernaut is uninteresting swill. Frankly, I consider the striking difference between Red Seal and Juggernaut the clearest testament to the talent and quality brewing required to make good ale.
True Amber Ales, because of their more complex malt profile, can never achieve that razor's edge sensation when it comes to balancing sweetness with hop bitterness. Breweries that have tried to do this have only ever succeeded in spite of rather than because of the attempt to hop an Amber-style malt base up to the brink.
Most Amber Ales use hops with herbal and earthy flavors that add another dimension to a complex malt profile. These hops typically play a supportive role rather than competing with the malts for the spotlight. Just like Red Ales, Ambers are built on a caramel malt backbone, but good Ambers also have small amounts of darker specialty malts that contribute dark fruit, toffee, nutty, biscuit, chocolate and roasted flavors.
Below are reviews of the most memorable Amber Ales I have tried:
Fat Tire- The flagship of New Belgium, this is one of the most widely available craft beers on the market and most peoples' introduction to Amber Ale. Fat Tire is also one of the best Ambers, but the trouble with Fat Tire is that it is not typical of American Amber Ale. Unlike most American Ambers, who trace their descent from English Amber Ale, Fat Tire is an American take on Belgian Amber Ale. Fat Tire is lighter in body and alcohol, which makes it disturbingly easy to toss back. Rather than making it weak or flavorless, the lightness allows the beer to sit back and let its considerable malt complexity rise to the fore. Toasty, earthy, warm and with a hint of raisin, no other American beer manages to simultaneously be so mesmerizingly malt-driven and light on its feet.
Boont Amber- This is the flagship of Anderson Valley Brewery and at least in Northern California it seems to be the go-to Amber Ale. Boont is a quintessential American Amber, and among the best. It has a richer malt body than Fat Tire. The malt is balanced by modest bitterness. The overall effect refreshes when it's hot and sticks to your ribs when it's cold. Two things separate Boont from the ubiquitous brewpub Amber: a cleaner alignmeent of flavor (essentially, brewing and ingredient quality) and a nutty, almost a buttery flavor in the malt that characterizes Anderson Valley's whole lineup. My friend Myranda gets credit for suggesting it as a breakfast beer at an English pub brunch. I have discovered few better beer pairings than Boont with greasy eggs, potatoes and sausage.
Full Sail Amber- Like Anderson Valley, Full Sail's Amber is characterized significantly by the Brewery's unique trademark style, which in this case means that it's built on a rich, light, ebullient malt base that's set off by a dry, roasted flavor in the malt. The hops set off that roasted flavor, making the overall effect one of balance between hearty-but-light-colored malt and the dark, dry bitterness of the hops and roasted malt. This sits on the heavier end of the Amber spectrum and would be perfect for the Christmas season.
Rogue American Amber- I have an enormous hard-on for Rogue Brewing. Like Boont, theirs is a quintessential Amber Ale that sports its brewery's trademark spin. Rogue American Amber has that air of delicacy associated with their proprietary yeast strain "Pacman". The malts subtly play off one another, the hops and that characteristic yeast nose. This is not their best beer, but it is among the best Amber Ales. Were it priced competitively with Boont and Fat Tire, it would be my Amber of choice.
Stone Levitation- As you might imagine coming from Stone, this is the most bitter Amber Ale I've yet to try. Of course, it's impeccably balanced. It manages to firmly stand as an Amber even with an inverted (hop>malt) paradigm. If you're the kind of beer-drinker who demands the teetering bitter edge, this is the Amber for you. It may even be the only Amber for you, because I know how stubborn you hop heads are.
Ballast Point's Calico Copper Amber Ale- Befitting it's San Diego origins, this is also a relatively bitter Amber. Rather than inverting the paradigm or attempting a "bleeding bitter edge" brew, Calico is simply a combination of strong hopping with a strong and diverse malt base. This sacrifices the natural give-and-take dynamism of Amber Ale for forceful flavor. I have had a few Ambers brewed in such a maximalist style from smaller breweries on the West Coast, but this is the first one to not suck.
Drake's Amber- This is more of a Brown Ale than an Amber because it has a high ABV, substantial hop bitterness, a medium-full creamy body and an abundance of rich malty flavors. Treated as an unusual Amber, it has greatest resemblance to the maximalist school of Amber Ale. This is a solid beer in terms of concept and harmony, but it wasn't especially complex. That's a criticism I could level more broadly at most Brown Ales, even respectable ones.
Red Tail Ale- This Mendocino flag ship is an even lighter Amber than Fat Tire. It is labelled as an "American Ale", but this beer's aesthetic definitely aligns it with the Amber camp and I'm pretty sure "American Ale" is made-up. Like classic Ambers it's laid back and malt-driven. There's some malt complexity, but I don't think the flavors really gel into a compelling greater whole. This is a good session beer that I'm unlikely to ever buy again because it's short of amazing in a world of amazing craft beer. I imagine some people will really like this beer and this brewery, so it's worth trying, but it's not the beer/brewery for me and I'm willing to wager that it's not the beer/brewery for most beer people.
Budweiser American Ale- Again, "American Ale" is code for lightweight Ambers. As you can imagine, coming from Budweiser, this is insipid. It serves as a pointed reminder that (with the solitary exception of Coors' Blue Moon lineup) macros should stay the hell away from craft styles.
I am aware that I have already reviewed some of these beers in previous posts, but these reviews treat them in the context of their style. Plus, my palate has matured. :P
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
