And Then Moving Back To Beer and the Eternal "What's Good" Debate . . .

More thought-provoking ruminations from Jeff at Beervana.

The Guiness post he refers to, which contains the Velveeta comment from Patrick Emerson, is here. I took my own stupid stab at this here. But here's an entry that links back to the origins of the "good in relation to price" commentary from Jeff and Patrick. (By the way, apparently Patrick also has a separate beer economics blog.) (WHERE do people get their energy? And may I have some of it?)

Every "group," by the way, has its running debate about what's "good" and what's not.

Eg, writers will debate the meaning of "good writing" all the way to the pearly gates: Is a "good" writer one who creates lush, evocative strings of words, even if those strings of words don't produce a particularly compelling narrative? Or is a "good writer" one who produces rolloping great stories? (Yes, I made up the word "rolloping." It sounds good.)

Eg, frankly, J.K. Rowling wouldn't know evocative prose if it smacked her in the face, but, yowza! she can keep the reader's eye glued to the page with her plots and pacing. (If you're curious, by the way: I fall into the "good story" camp. Nuthin' I hate more than some "writer" who is in love with his/her own "voice" and whose characters are boring and plots non-existent.) (It's why I like Anthony Trollope: by god, he could craft lush, evocative strings of words, AND his characters and plots are addictive.)

(And I have to wonder: is it possible for me to post a blog entry without yammering on and on and on???????????)