Book: God In A Cup

[Marshall]

I haven't formed my own answer to this question yet. Who reads these books?

Is it the general public the audience? If so, I would tend to agree with the "who cares" comments.

Is it for professionals and fanatics? If so, maybe errors should carry more merit. I'm leaning towards this answer- I have a shelf full of similar books (though not this one yet- birthday's coming up), but I can't think of a single non-coffee-friend that would even borrow mine.

Have no fear. "Uncommon Grounds" has been in print for years and is even less appealing to the general reader. John Wiley is a savvy publisher. There is lots of interest in the coffee wars. People will buy this book.

[trish]

Coupla wrong things:
One time she calls fragrance, aroma and aroma, fragrance. I saw the "Glanville Kyle" that Sarah mentioned, but I looked back and he is introduced by his proper name, so I guess that one was a miss for the proof reader. I also happen to know that this was proofed by a coffee-person.
But as I handed a copy off to a member of my family, I thought I could run all that down for them ahead of time, "Oh and that Duane guy doesn't rollerblade and fragrance is NOT aroma, " etc.
They would have just looked at me like, "who cares?"
As I've mentioned before, I come from Northern Cali and my brother-in-law is a winemaker. He has worked at some pretty badass wineries and he has a tendency to blend amazing reds. Incredible.
After spending the mother's day weekend with him and all, I fell into my usual funk. They hung on his every word about the beverage. He could keep a compare/contrast wine tasting discussion going for a good 20 minutes among all the buffet prep and kids running around screaming.
I said, "Hey! I brought Caribou's winning coffee for us to taste" and they were happy, but that needs no discussion. Just because it's wine it means much more. People need to read this book so they can get a clue. And like I said, I'll just have to deal with the guys guys guys thing along with all the maddening errors.
My brother-in-law saw the book sitting on the counter and he said, "a WHOLE book about coffee, really?" and my 10 year old nephew chuckled in the usual snobby way wine people do. And then I was like, "That's it, you're not coming to Costa Rica with me when your 15 like we planned!"

[onocoffee]

Just because it's wine it means much more. People need to read this book so they can get a clue.

No, it doesn't "mean more" and no, they don't need to read a book to get a clue.

I started visiting the Napa Valley area in 1988 and it was a far cry then from what it had grown into during my last visit (Jan 2005). Back then "California wines" were still regarded with amusement by much of the world. It was stalwarts like Robert Mondavi (amongst others) who believed that what they were doing was important and world-class and they kept pushing.

If the coffee world is going to achieve respect, it's only going to happen because we respect ourselves and our profession enough to demand it from others. Merely dropping a bag of coffee on the table and allowing everyone to ignore it just won't do. There has to be a level of fanaticism - a constant pushing of the expectation in order to teach people that this is a worthy pursuit.

We have to respect ourselves and our craft before we can expect anyone else to do the same.

Write ups in the media and books are the gravy that help to demonstrate to people that maybe we're not as crazy as they think we are.

[James Hoffmann]

What is the difference between fragrance and aroma? (sorry if this is a stupid question but I suddenly feel quite confused.)

[Jeff Givens]

What is the difference between fragrance and aroma? (sorry if this is a stupid question but I suddenly feel quite confused.)

The way it's been explained to me is that fragrance is what you smell from dry, ground coffee and aroma is the smell of brewed coffee.

[Aldo1]

I started visiting the Napa Valley area in 1988 and it was a far cry then from what it had grown into during my last visit (Jan 2005). Back then "California wines" were still regarded with amusement by much of the world. It was stalwarts like Robert Mondavi (amongst others) who believed that what they were doing was important and world-class and they kept pushing.

Ah, youth. Actually, the Paris Wine Tastings in 1976 (iirc) had much to do with it. By 1988, Napa was well regarded comparatively to say, 1975. You shoud have seen Napa in the1970s if you think 1988 had a primitive reputation.

I only bring this up to say that time, longevity, and a longer track record will have much to do with the long-term success of coffee regarded as culinary beverage excellence. The current "third wave" is only a small piece of a history that, added up, could bring coffee to more prominence. The story is compelling.

[phaelon56]

What is the difference between fragrance and aroma? (sorry if this is a stupid question but I suddenly feel quite confused.)

I don't think it's a stupid. And if no one educated the author on the coffee world's apparent distinction between the two - it's understandable why she used them interchangeably or had them reversed.

The mainstream definition:

A quality that can be perceived by the olfactory sense

That certainly covers both aroma and fragrance.

[barry]

If the coffee world is going to achieve respect, it's only going to happen because we respect ourselves and our profession enough to demand it from others. Merely dropping a bag of coffee on the table and allowing everyone to ignore it just won't do. There has to be a level of fanaticism - a constant pushing of the expectation in order to teach people that this is a worthy pursuit.

A few years ago, I was going off on an espresso screed at a coffeehouse in the middle of Iowa. My sister looked at me and said, "You're like a Jehovah's Witness for coffee."

The sad part was the coffeehouse people had no interest in what I was saying (which was pretty much a how-to on making a drinkable espresso).


Contrast that with the two hours spent at conference walking a young lady through the steps to making espresso and steaming milk and by her reaction, you've thought I'd just shined a floodlight down the dark and confusing path.

Sometimes we loses; sometimes we wins. That win made my conference.

[Marshall]

A few years ago, I was going off on an espresso screed at a coffeehouse in the middle of Iowa. My sister looked at me and said, "You're like a Jehovah's Witness for coffee."

If your loved ones don't dive under the table when you order a cup of coffee, you're just not doing your job.

[Mark Prince]

A few years ago, I was going off on an espresso screed at a coffeehouse in the middle of Iowa. My sister looked at me and said, "You're like a Jehovah's Witness for coffee."

If your loved ones don't dive under the table when you order a cup of coffee, you're just not doing your job.

Brilliant. I have to remember that quote.

Mark

[Jason Haeger]

A few years ago, I was going off on an espresso screed at a coffeehouse in the middle of Iowa. My sister looked at me and said, "You're like a Jehovah's Witness for coffee."

If your loved ones don't dive under the table when you order a cup of coffee, you're just not doing your job.

Sweet. It's good to know I'm doing what I'm supposed to be doing.

[Jeff Jassmond]

Just got my hands on a copy two days ago and I have to say, besides getting to see friends and associates in the index, it is really anti-climactic. Nice try, but someone can do much better both on substance and proofing.

They have it featured in the new release section at Powells' Books for Cooks right now. I'll check in and see how it's moving in a week or two.

Edit: does anyone else have a hard time not thinking about the snl skit and singing "I put my god in a cup" whenever the book is referenced?

[Andy Schecter]

Just got my hands on a copy two days ago and I have to say, besides getting to see friends and associates in the index, it is really anti-climactic. Nice try, but someone can do much better both on substance and proofing.

Everyone has their personal viewpoint. As someone who's peripherally involved in the industry, I'd have to say that I found the book fascinating. Michaele obviously wasn't writing for industry insiders like you-- why would they need it? Instead she wrote for interested outsiders like me -- of which there are undoubtedly far more.

As far as "proofing" goes, are you aware that journalists have to appear regularly before a review board? If their recent publications do not contain the specified quota of factual errors, they can be blackballed...this is done to protect the majority, of course.

As far as doing better on substance, I eagerly look forward to your book!

[Jeff Jassmond]

Andy-

You are very right, and looking at my post "substance and proofing" comes across as overly harsh. I did not mean to discredit the work she put into the book.

[Alistair Durie]

Mark Prince Podcast with author of God in a Cup: http://www.coffeegeek.com

Author Michaele Weissmann writes about why foodies don't 'get it' on her latest blog entry http://michaeleweissmanwrites.com/godin ... ffee/?p=67

I disagree with her last reasoning that coffee is misunderstood because of its use as a caffeinator, "the rituals and ceremonies that surround coffee drinking, are anti-sensual." Its really up to you how and where you drink your coffee, but I'm very particular about it.

[phaelon56]

I disagree with her last reasoning that coffee is misunderstood because of its use as a caffeinator, "the rituals and ceremonies that surround coffee drinking, are anti-sensual." Its really up to you how and where you drink your coffee, but I'm very particular about it.

I agree with you completely. She's really missing the point and I'm shocked that someone who appears to have spent a fair amount of time learning about specialty coffee would have this perspective. She does make a good point that most restaurant coffee is "blech" but IMHO that's why many people don't bother with coffee in a restaurant - not to mention that some of us tend not to consume caffeine in the evening.

Then again.... one of my pet peeves is journalists who don't know enough about spelling to correctly spell words such as "impresario" (NOT "empressario"). And don't get me started about the use of "pallette" when "palate" is the correct word. How can you do food or beverage related "journalism" and not know which of those two words is correct in the context?

[Marshall]

Then again.... one of my pet peeves is journalists who don't know enough about spelling to correctly spell words such as "impresario" (NOT "empressario"). And don't get me started about the use of "pallette" when "palate" is the correct word. How can you do food or beverage related "journalism" and not know which of those two words is correct in the context?

Because she's a smart person and a bad speller? This sort of petty ad hominem (ad feminem?) criticism may be one reason for her "revenge of the nerds" observation.

[Peter G]

Perhaps we are at a place for a thread-split here....

While Michaele's "Why Foodies Don't Get It" blog post is interesting, I also disagree with her reasoning that wine is what you drink when you are slowing down and savoring life, and coffee is about the caffeine.

That's a funny argument. Let's be real, here: wine is about the alcohol, just as coffee is about the caffeine. Wine is what you drink when you are slowing down and savoring life, sure; but coffee is what you drink when you are becoming aware and are ready to experience life. The drug effects of both of these products are part and parcel to their enjoyment. Find me a oenophile who is not completely fascinated with the drug effect of wine. I have often postulated that wine conossieurship is an elaborate rationalization for alcohol dependency.

(tangentially speaking- the biggest problem with the "coffee is like wine" analogy is that even wine isn't like wine. Most wine is drunk indiscriminately and thoughtlessly, without savoring the terroir or varietal. Most consumers gulp bad wine along with their dinner, just as most consumers gulp bad coffee along with their breakfast. But I digress.)

I think Michaele makes some good points about why coffee isn't as embraced in the food world as it should be. She mentions that the "fair trade" discussion polarizes and frightens consumers; I would argue that it is instead the history of coffee as a colonial crop, with roots in exploitation that irks consumers. That history is why the fair trade movement exists; the controversy is a symptom. Chocolate, tea, and rum have similar histories.... are they relatively more or less embraced by the food community?

I disagree strongly with her contention that differences in coffee quality are imperceptible by normal consumer palates. We run consumer cuppings every week, and 90+% of consumers, even those cupping for the first time, can identify the berry in the Natural Ethiopian, the earth in the Sumatran, and the citric acid in the washed Central.

As for the coffee subculture being alienating to outsiders, well, I suppose we have to accept that criticism from an interested person who has spent the past two years getting inside our industry. It's a point we would be well advised to pay attention to.

[phaelon56]

Then again.... one of my pet peeves is journalists who don't know enough about spelling to correctly spell words such as "impresario" (NOT "empressario"). And don't get me started about the use of "pallette" when "palate" is the correct word. How can you do food or beverage related "journalism" and not know which of those two words is correct in the context?

Because she's a smart person and a bad speller? This sort of petty ad hominem (ad feminem?) criticism may be one reason for her "revenge of the nerds" observation.

I'd feel the same way regardless of what the topic is and whether it was a man, woman or space alien doing the writing. Being a bad speller simply isn't an excuse for not using a dictionary rather than just a spell checker - when you're operating as and presenting yourself as a professional journalist. There's been a tendency in recent years to employ lazy journalistic techniques - and it's been reinforced by blogging.

It's not difficult to do your research diligently and check your facts before going to print. That includes properly using nouns, adjectives and verbs and also verifying things such as the correct spelling of the names of people discussed in a book or article.

Admittedly... I could have expressed the thought more delicately but I will stand by my position.

[James Hoffmann]

I disagree with her last reasoning that coffee is misunderstood because of its use as a caffeinator, "the rituals and ceremonies that surround coffee drinking, are anti-sensual." Its really up to you how and where you drink your coffee, but I'm very particular about it.

You may be very particular about it, but most people are not. If it weren't about caffeine then how do we explain the fact that 95% of cups of coffee drunk globally don't taste very nice? We all stand aghast unable to understand how a friend, family member or loved one can consume instant coffee with relish, but most people don't see coffee as anything complicated or complex. They see the "gourmet" and "luxury" uses of coffee being more about absurd desert in a cup recipes.

I am not saying that you - Alistar, or any other reader of this board - sees coffee this way. But most people do, and I find it very hard to argue against that. Even those of you whose businesses have had great success at changing the attitudes of their customers must still see a huge number more people walking by, oblivious, drinking the same old 12 second, stale robusta filled shot (sometimes as a straight shot!) and wonder "how can they drink that?"

[Marshall]

I disagree strongly with her contention that differences in coffee quality are imperceptible by normal consumer palates. We run consumer cuppings every week, and 90+% of consumers, even those cupping for the first time, can identify the berry in the Natural Ethiopian, the earth in the Sumatran, and the citric acid in the washed Central.

Almost anything that isn't life-threatening is "imperceptible," if we arent trained or at least reminded to perceive it. The great designer, George Nelson, wrote a wonderful book called "How to See." It was about how most of us walk around failing to really "see" the beauty that is all around us, and how to train yourself to see it.

Two months ago I organized a lunch at LaMill with a dozen L.A. food writers and publicists. Food was the bait, but we were served four flights of coffees, each brewed by a different method. Jon Gozbekian gave detailed explanations of each coffee's source and what flavors and aromas might be found in it. It was a revelation for the writers, because they had never focused their attention on coffee the way they had on food. Several wrote articles afterwards.

So, my point is, we have to keep reaching out and focusing people's attention on the coffee. Eventually they will get it. Even foodies.

[sweetmarias]

I skimmed the book, and then started reading it. I chuckle regularly, then gasp, then guffaw, then become emotional. It's a rollercoaster for sure. I enjoy meeting friends I never thought I knew, and now i know them all too well. I will need to pay special attention to the dark curls and deep, intense eye color of Geoff, Duane and Peter next time I see them. I just never noticed, but thanks to the author, now I do. I truly can't believe that nobody had written a tabloid-history + adventure + "motivational entrepreneurial techniques" book about coffee until now. In retrospect it seems inevitable. When I read it i feel I am one of these "coffee guys" who don't mind riding 6 hours on a dirt road in a truck with bad shocks or even sleeping in hammocks, all for the love of coffee. It's about the love. Everyone in the coffee trade who grabs life by the balls, lives hard and plays hard, and takes it to the limit, exceeds the limit, does business outside the lines, and basically raises the roof REALLY deserves this book. Others will just have to suffer it's existence. I must admit, I too met Michaelele in Nicaragua, where she represented herself as an NYT reporter, which apparently she isn't, and received much flattery from some of the panel. In fact I think I saw George giving her a foot massage! Who knew at the time that she would be a boy-band FREEK and general "backstage coffee groupie supreme". Did anyone interviewed for the book have a clue it would turn out this way? And what's with the omission of Rod Lazar? Sorry folks, lots of acidic coffee on the cupping table this am...

[Mark Prince]

At the time she was in Nicaragua, she was indeed working on a NY Times piece, so I'm not sure if she misrepresented herself - it may have been more of a miscommunication?

Mark

[phaelon56]

At the time she was in Nicaragua, she was indeed working on a NY Times piece, so I'm not sure if she misrepresented herself - it may have been more of a miscommunication?

Mark

Obviously I wasn't there and don't know what was really said. But representing yourself as a "NYT reporter" or instead telling people that you're "working on a piece for the NYT" are vastly different. I know a number of people who have worked on pieces for the NYT and had them published by same but none are NYT reporters - and it's not just semantics.

[Peter G]

When in Nicaragua, Michaele was very clear about her status, a freelance journalist working for the New York Times. She did not misrepresent herself to anyone.