Category Archives: humour

Values of Content

Wannabe Guru: “There’s no such thing as free content.”

Literature Major: “Content’s a tale / Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, / Signifying nothing.”

Arts Major: “Content Is in the Eye of the Beholder.”

Entertainer: “There’s no content / like show content / like no content I know.”

Journalist: “Content is my job and I deserve to be paid for what I make, the exact same way that a baker is paid for selling bread. What other people called ‘content’ isn’t really content since it hasn’t been vetted by professionals like my editor. So my role is to create content so that my editor can distribute it through exclusive channels. Other people’s content becomes my content when I secure the rights to it through the use of a clearance service. Comments by people I interview only become content after they sign a release. Everything else is noise.”

Economist: “There are four ways to get paid for content: a) subscription; b) advertising; c) private or public sponsorship; d) sale on media. Since advertising and sponsorship are two aspects of the same model and since consumers epend money on either subscription or media sales, there are two basic models.”

Functionalist (Sociology): “Content serves different goals, both manifest and latent.”
Conflict-Theorist (Sociology): “Providing free content is a way for the ruling class to make the audience into a commodity.”

Interactionist (Sociology): “Content provides meaning to social selves.”

Moralist: “Content Yourself.”

Buddhist: “Content breeds contentment.”

Christian: “Content begat content.”

Geek: “Content Wants to be Free.”

Judge: “Our mission is to balance the rights of content creators with those of content consumers.”

Cop: “There are three forms of content: content that is appropriate for everyone, content which is only appropriate to certain people, and content which isn’t appropriate for anyone.”

Teenage Boy: “Where can I find naked pictures of that cute girl in my class?”

Teenage Girl: “How can I get in touch with that dreamy guy in that video?”

What Not to Tweet

Here’s a list I tweeted earlier.

Twenty Things You Should Never, Ever Tweet for Fear of Retaliation from the Tweet Police

  1. Lists. Too difficult to follow.
  2. Do’s and don’ts. Who died and made you bandleader?
  3. Personal thoughts. Nobody cares what anyone else thinks, anyway.
  4. Anything in a foreign language. It confuses everyone.
  5. Personal opinions. You may offend someone.
  6. Jokes. Same reason as #5.
  7. Links. Too dangerous, since some could be malicious.
  8. Anything in “the second degree.” The bareness of context prevents careful reading.
  9. Anything insightful. Who do you think you are?
  10. Personal replies. Can’t you get a room?
  11. -20: What @oatmeal said you shouldn’t tweet. If it’s funny, it must be true.

In case it wasn’t clear… Yes, I mean this as sarcasm. One of my pet peeves is to hear people tell others what to do or not to do, without appropriate context. It’s often perceived to be funny or useful but, to be honest, it just rubs me the wrong way. Sure, they’re allowed to do it. I won’t prevent them. I don’t even think they should stop, that’s really not for me to decide. It’s just that, being honest with myself, I realize how negative of an effect it has on me. It actually reaches waaaaay down into something I don’t care to visit very often.

The Oatmeal can be quite funny. Reading a few of these comics, recently, I literally LOLed. And this one probably pleased a lot of people, because it described some of their own pet peeves. Besides, it’s an old comic, probably coming from a time when tweets were really considered to be answers to the original Twitter prompt: “What are you doing?” (i.e., before the change to the somewhat more open “What’s happening?”). But I’ve heard enough expressions of what people should or shouldn’t do with a specific social media system that I felt the need to vent. So, that was the equivalent of a rant (and this post is closer to an actual rant).

I mean, there’s a huge difference between saying “these are the kinds of uses for which I think Twitter is the appropriate tool” and the flat-out dismissal of what others have done. While Twitter is old news, as social media go, it’s still unfolding and much of its strength comes from the fact that we don’t actually have a rigid notion of what it should be.

Not that there aren’t uses of Twitter I dislike. In fact, for much of 2009, I felt it was becoming too commercial for my taste. I felt there was too much promotion of commercial entities and products, and that it was relatively difficult to avoid such promotional tweets if one were to follow the reciprocation principle (“I really should make sure I follow those who follow me, even if a large proportion of them are just trying to increase their follower counts”). But none of this means that “Twitter isn’t for commercial promotion.” Structurally, Twitter almost seems to be made for such uses. Conceptually, it comes from the same “broadcast” view of communication, shared by many marketers, advertisers, PR experts, and movie producers. As social media tools go, Twitter is among the most appropriate ones to use to broadly distribute focused messages without having to build social relationships. So, no matter how annoyed I may get at these tweets and at commercial Twitterers, it’d be inaccurate to say that “Twitter isn’t for that.” Besides, “Twitter, Inc.” has adopted commercial promotion as a major part of its “business model.” No matter what one feels about this (say, that it’s not very creative or that it will help distinguish between commercial tweets and the rest of Twitter traffic), it seems to imply that Twitter is indeed about commercial promotion as much as it is about “shar[ing] and discover[ing] what’s happening now.”

The same couldn’t be said about other forms of tweeting that others may dislike. It’d be much harder to make a case for, say, conference liveblogging as being an essential part of what Twitter is about. In fact, some well-known and quite vocal people have made pronouncements about how inappropriate, in their minds, such a practice was. To me, much of it sounds like attempts at rationalizing a matter of individual preference. Some may dislike it but Twitter does make a very interesting platform for liveblogging conferences. Sure, we’ve heard about the negative consequences of the Twitter backchannel at some high-profile events. And there are some technical dimensions of Twitter which make liveblogging potentially more annoying, to some users, than if it were on another platform. But claiming that Twitter isn’t for liveblogging  reveals a rather rigid perspective of what social media can be. Again, one of the major strengths in Twitter is its flexibility. From “mentions” and “hashtags” to “retweets” and metadata, the platform has been developing over time based on usage patterns.

For one thing, it’s now much more conversational than it was in 2007, and some Twitter advocates are quite proud of that. So one might think that Twitter is for conversation. But, at least in my experience, Twitter isn’t that effective a tool for two-way communication let alone for conversations involving more than two people. So, if we’re to use conversation to evaluate Twitter (as its development may suggest we should do), it seems not to be that successful.

In this blog version of my list, I added a header with a mention of the “Tweet Police.” I mean it in the way that people talk about the “Fashion Police,” wish immediately makes me think about “fashion victims,” the beauty myth, the objectification of the human body, the social pressure to conform to some almost-arbitrary canons, the power struggles between those who decide what’s fashionable and those who need to dress fashionably to be accepted in some social contexts, etc. Basically, it leads to rather unpleasant thoughts. In a way, my mention of the “Tweet Police” is a strategy to “fight this demon” by showing how absurd it may become. Sure, it’d be a very tricky strategy if it were about getting everyone to just “get the message.” But, in this case, it’s about doing something which feels good. It’s my birthday, so I allow myself to do this.

Development and Quality: Reply to Agile Diary

Former WiZiQ product manager Vikrama Dhiman responded to one of my tweets with a full-blown blogpost, thereby giving support to Matt Mullenweg‘s point that microblogging goes hand-in-hand with “macroblogging.”

My tweet:

enjoys draft æsthetics yet wishes more developers would release stable products. / adopte certains produits trop rapidement.

Vikrama’s post:

Good Enough Software Does Not Mean Bad Software « Agile Diary, Agile Introduction, Agile Implementation.

My reply:

“To an engineer, good enough means perfect. With an artist, there’s no such thing as perfect.” (Alexander Calder)

Thanks a lot for your kind comments. I’m very happy that my tweet (and status update) triggered this.

A bit of context for my tweet (actually, a post from, meant as a status update, thereby giving support in favour of conscious duplication, «n’en déplaise aux partisans de l’action contre la duplication».)

I’ve been thinking about what I call the “draft æsthetics.” In fact, I did a podcast episode about it. My description of that episode was:

Sometimes, there is such a thing as “Good Enough.”

Though I didn’t emphasize the “sometimes” part in that podcast episode, it was an important part of what I wanted to say. In fact, my intention wasn’t to defend draft æsthetics but to note that there seems to be a tendency toward this æsthetic mode. I do situate myself within that mode in many things I do, but it really doesn’t mean that this mode should be the exclusive one used in any context.

That aforequoted tweet was thus a response to my podcast episode on draft æsthetics. “Yes, ‘good enough’ may work, sometimes. But it needs not be applied in all cases.”

As I often get into convoluted discussions with people who seem to think that I condone or defend a position because I take it for myself, the main thing I’d say there is that I’m not only a relativist but I cherish nuance. In other words, my tweet was a way to qualify the core statement I was talking about in my podcast episode (that “good enough” exists, at times). And that statement isn’t necessarily my own. I notice a pattern by which this statement seems to be held as accurate by people. I share that opinion, but it’s not a strongly held belief of mine.

Of course, I digress…

So, the tweet which motivated Vikrama had to do with my approach to “good enough.” In this case, I tend to think about writing but in view of Eric S. Raymond’s approach to “Release Early, Release Often” (RERO). So there is a connection to software development and geek culture. But I think of “good enough” in a broader sense.

Disclaimer: I am not a coder.

The Calder quote remained in my head, after it was mentioned by a colleague who had read it in a local newspaper. One reason it struck me is that I spend some time thinking about artists and engineers, especially in social terms. I spend some time hanging out with engineers but I tend to be more on the “artist” side of what I perceive to be an axis of attitudes found in some social contexts. I do get a fair deal of flack for some of my comments on this characterization and it should be clear that it isn’t meant to imply any evaluation of individuals. But, as a model, the artist and engineer distinction seems to work, for me. In a way, it seems more useful than the distinction between science and art.

An engineer friend with whom I discussed this kind of distinction was quick to point out that, to him, there’s no such thing as “good enough.” He was also quick to point out that engineers can be creative and so on. But the point isn’t to exclude engineers from artistic endeavours. It’s to describe differences in modes of thought, ways of knowing, approaches to reality. And the way these are perceived socially. We could do a simple exercise with terms like “troubleshooting” and “emotional” to be assigned to the two broad categories of “engineer” and “artist.” Chances are that clear patterns would emerge. Of course, many concepts are as important to both sides (“intelligence,” “innovation”…) and they may also be telling. But dichotomies have heuristic value.

Now, to go back to software development, the focus in Vikrama’s Agile Diary post…

What pushed me to post my status update and tweet is in fact related to software development. Contrary to what Vikrama presumes, it wasn’t about a Web application. And it wasn’t even about a single thing. But it did have to do with firmware development and with software documentation.

The first case is that of my Fonera 2.0n router. Bought it in early November and I wasn’t able to connect to its private signal using my iPod touch. I could connect to the router using the public signal, but that required frequent authentication, as annoying as with ISF. Since my iPod touch is my main WiFi device, this issue made my Fonera 2.0n experience rather frustrating.

Of course, I’ve been contacting Fon‘s tech support. As is often the case, that experience was itself quite frustrating. I was told to reset my touch’s network settings which forced me to reauthenticate my touch on a number of networks I access regularly and only solved the problem temporarily. The same tech support person (or, at least, somebody using the same name) had me repeat the same description several times in the same email message. Perhaps unsurprisingly, I was also told to use third-party software which had nothing to do with my issue. All in all, your typical tech support experience.

But my tweet wasn’t really about tech support. It was about the product. Thougb I find the overall concept behind the Fonera 2.0n router very interesting, its implementation seems to me to be lacking. In fact, it reminds me of several FLOSS development projects that I’ve been observing and, to an extent, benefitting from.

This is rapidly transforming into a rant I’ve had in my “to blog” list for a while about “thinking outside the geek box.” I’ll try to resist the temptation, for now. But I can mention a blog thread which has been on my mind, in terms of this issue.

Firefox 3 is Still a Memory Hog — The NeoSmart Files.

The blogpost refers to a situation in which, according to at least some users (including the blogpost’s author), Firefox uses up more memory than it should and becomes difficult to use. The thread has several comments providing support to statements about the relatively poor performance of Firefox on people’s systems, but it also has “contributions” from an obvious troll, who keeps assigning the problem on the users’ side.

The thing about this is that it’s representative of a tricky issue in the geek world, whereby developers and users are perceived as belonging to two sides of a type of “class struggle.” Within the geek niche, users are often dismissed as “lusers.” Tech support humour includes condescending jokes about “code 6”: “the problem is 6″ from the screen.” The aforementioned Eric S. Raymond wrote a rather popular guide to asking questions in geek circles which seems surprisingly unaware of social and cultural issues, especially from someone with an anthropological background. Following that guide, one should switch their mind to that of a very effective problem-solver (i.e., the engineer frame) to ask questions “the smart way.” Not only is the onus on users, but any failure to comply with these rules may be met with this air of intellectual superiority encoded in that guide. IOW, “Troubleshoot now, ask questions later.”

Of course, many users are “guilty” of all sorts of “crimes” having to do with not reading the documentation which comes with the product or with simply not thinking about the issue with sufficient depth before contacting tech support. And as the majority of the population is on the “user” side, the situation can be described as both a form of marginalization (geek culture comes from “nerd” labels) and a matter of elitism (geek culture as self-absorbed).

This does have something to do with my Fonera 2.0n. With it, I was caught in this dynamic whereby I had to switch to the “engineer frame” in order to solve my problem. I eventually did solve my Fonera authentication problem, using a workaround mentioned in a forum post about another issue (free registration required). Turns out, the “release candidate” version of my Fonera’s firmware does solve the issue. Of course, this new firmware may cause other forms of instability and installing it required a bit of digging. But it eventually worked.

The point is that, as released, the Fonera 2.0n router is a geek toy. It’s unpolished in many ways. It’s full of promise in terms of what it may make possible, but it failed to deliver in terms of what a router should do (route a signal). In this case, I don’t consider it to be a finished product. It’s not necessarily “unstable” in the strict sense that a software engineer might use the term. In fact, I hesitated between different terms to use instead of “stable,” in that tweet, and I’m not that happy with my final choice. The Fonera 2.0n isn’t unstable. But it’s akin to an alpha version released as a finished product. That’s something we see a lot of, these days.

The main other case which prompted me to send that tweet is “CivRev for iPhone,” a game that I’ve been playing on my iPod touch.

I’ve played with different games in the Civ franchise and I even used the FLOSS version on occasion. Not only is “Civilization” a geek classic, but it does connect with some anthropological issues (usually in a problematic view: Civ’s worldview lacks anthro’s insight). And it’s the kind of game that I can easily play while listening to podcasts (I subscribe to a number of th0se).

What’s wrong with that game? Actually, not much. I can’t even say that it’s unstable, unlike some other items in the App Store. But there’s a few things which aren’t optimal in terms of documentation. Not that it’s difficult to figure out how the game works. But the game is complex enough that some documentation is quite useful. Especially since it does change between one version of the game and another. Unfortunately, the online manual isn’t particularly helpful. Oh, sure, it probably contains all the information required. But it’s not available offline, isn’t optimized for the device it’s supposed to be used with, doesn’t contain proper links between sections, isn’t directly searchable, and isn’t particularly well-written. Not to mention that it seems to only be available in English even though the game itself is available in multiple languages (I play it in French).

Nothing tragic, of course. But coupled with my Fonera experience, it contributed to both a slight sense of frustration and this whole reflection about unfinished products.

Sure, it’s not much. But it’s “good enough” to get me started.

War of the Bugs: Playing with Life in the Brewery

Kept brewing and thinking about brewing, after that last post. Been meaning to discuss my approach to “brewing bugs”: the yeast and bacteria strains which are involved in some of my beers. So, it’s a kind of follow-up.

Perhaps more than a reason for me to brew, getting to have fun with these living organisms is something of an achievement. It took a while before it started paying off, but it now does.

Now, I’m no biochemist. In fact, I’m fairly far to “wet sciences” in general. What I do with these organisms is based on a very limited understanding of what goes on during fermentation. But as long as I’m having fun, that should be ok.

This blogpost is about yeast in brewing. My focus is on homebrewing but many things also apply to craft brewing or even to macrobreweries.

There’s supposed to be a saying that “brewers make wort, yeast makes beer.” Whether or not it’s an actual saying, it’s quite accurate.

“Wort” is unfermented beer. It’s a liquid containing fermentable sugars and all sorts of other compounds which will make their way into the final beer after the yeast has had its fun in it. It’s a sweet liquid which tastes pretty much like Malta (e.g. Vitamalt).

Yeast is a single-cell organism which can do a number of neat things including the fine act of converting simple sugars into alcohol and CO2. Yeast cells also do a number of other neat (and not so neat) things with the wort, including the creation of a large array of flavour compounds which can radically change the character of the beer. Among the four main ingredients in beer (water, grain, hops, and yeast), I’d say that yeast often makes the largest contribution to the finished beer’s flavour and aroma profile.

The importance of yeast in brewing has been acknowledged to different degrees in history. The well-known Reinheitsgebot “purity law” of 1516, which specifies permissible ingredients in beer, made no mention of yeast. As the story goes, it took Pasteur (and probably others) to discover the role of yeast in brewing. After this “discovery,” Pasteur and others have been active at isolating diverse yeast strains to be used in brewing. Before that time, it seems that yeast was just occurring naturally in the brewing process.

As may be apparent in my tone, I’m somewhat skeptical of the “discovery” narrative. Yeast may not have been understood very clearly before Pasteur came on the scene, but there’s some evidence showing that yeast’s contribution to brewing had been known in different places at previous points in history. It also seems likely that multiple people had the same basic insight as LP did but may not have had the evidence to support this insight. This narrative is part of the (home)brewing “shared knowledge.”

But I’m getting ahead of myself.

There’s a lot to be said about yeast biochemistry. In fact, the most casual of brewers who spends any significant amount of time with online brewing resources has some understanding, albeit fragmentary, of diverse dimensions of biochemistry through the action of yeast. But this blogpost isn’t about yeast biochemistry.

I’m no expert and biochemistry is a field for experts. What tends to interest me more than the hard science on yeast is the kind of “folk science” brewers create around yeast. Even the most scientific of brewers occasionally talks about yeast in a way which sounds more like folk beliefs than like hard science. In ethnographic disciplines, there’s a field of “ethnoscience” which deals with this kind of “folk knowledge.” My characterization of “folk yeast science” will probably sound overly simplistic and I’m not saying that it accurately represents a common approach to yeast among brewers. It’s more in line with the tone of Horace Miner’s classic text about the Nacirema than with anything else. A caricature, maybe, but one which can provide some insight.

In this case, because it’s a post on my personal blog, it probably provides more insight about yours truly than about anybody else. So be it.

I’m probably more naïve than most. Or, at least, I try to maintain a sense of wonder, as I play with yeast. I’ve done just enough reading about biochemistry to be dangerous. Again, “the brewery is an adult’s chemistry set.”

A broad distinction in the brewer’s approach to yeast is between “pure” and “wild” yeast. Pure yeast usually comes to the brewer from a manufacturer but it originated in a well-known brewery. Wild yeast comes from the environment and should be avoided at all costs. Wild yeast infects and spoils the wort. Pure yeast is a brewer’s best friend as it’s the one which transforms sweet wort into tasty, alcoholic beer. Brewers do everything to “keep the yeast happy.” Though yeast happiness sounds like exaggeration on my part, this kind of anthropomorphic concept is clearly visible in discussions among brewers. (Certainly, “yeast health” is a common concept. It’s not anthropomorphic by itself, but it takes part in the brewer’s approach to yeast as life.) Wild yeast is the reason brewers use sanitizing agents. Pure yeast is carefully handled, preserved, “cultured.” In this context, “wild yeast” is unwanted yeast. “Pure yeast” is the desirable portion of microflora.

It wouldn’t be too much of an exaggeration to say that many brewers are obsessed with the careful handling of pure yeast and the complete avoidance of wild yeast. The homebrewer’s motto, following Charlie Papazian, may be “Relax, Don’t Worry, Have a Homebrew,” when brewers do worry, they often worry about keeping their yeast as pure as possible or keeping their wort as devoid of wild yeast as possible.

In the context of brewers’ folk taxonomy, wild yeast is functionally a “pest,” its impact is largely seen as negative. Pure yeast is beneficial. Terms like “bugs” or “beasties” are applied to both but, with wild yeast, their connotations and associations are negative (“nasty bugs”) while the terms are applied to pure yeast in a more playful, almost endeared tone. “Yeasties” is almost a pet name for pure yeast.

I’ve mentioned “folk taxonomy.” Here, I’m mostly thinking about cognitive anthropology. Taxonomies have been the hallmark of cognitive anthropology, as they reveal a lot about the ways people conceive of diverse parts of reality and are relatively easy to study. Eliciting categories in a folk taxonomy is a relatively simple exercise which can even lead to other interesting things in terms of ethnographic research (including, for instance, establishing rapport with local experts or providing a useful basis to understanding subtleties in the local language). I use terms like “folk” and “local” in a rather vague way. The distinction is often with “Western” or even “scientific.” Given the fact that brewing in North America has some strong underpinnings in science, it’s quite fun to think about North American homebrewers through a model which involves an opposition to “Western/scientific.” Brewers, including a large proportion of homebrewers, tend to be almost stereotypically Western and to work through (and sometimes labour under) an almost-reductionist scientific mindframe. In other words, my talking about “folk taxonomy” is almost a way to tease brewers. But it also relates to my academic interest in cultural diversity, language, worldviews, and humanism.

“Folk taxonomies” can be somewhat fluid but the concept applies mostly to classification systems which are tree-like, with “branches” coming of broader categories. The term “folksonomy” has some currency, these days, to refer to a classification structure which has some relation to folk taxonomy but which doesn’t tend to work through a very clear arborescence. In many contexts, “folksonomy” simply means “tagging,” with the notion that it’s a free-form classification, not amenable to treatment in the usual “hierarchical database” format. Examples of folksonomies often have to do with the way people classify books or other sources of information. A folksonomy is then the opposite of the classification system used in libraries or in Web directories such as the original Yahoo! site. Tags assigned to this blogpost (“Tagged: Belgian artist…”) are part of my own folksonomy for blogposts. Categories on WordPress blogs such as this ones are supposed to create more of a (folk) taxonomy. For several reasons (including the fact that tags weren’t originally available to me for this blog), I tend to use categories as more of a folksonomy, but with a bit more structure. Categories are more stable than tags. For a while, now, I’ve refrained from adding new categories (to my already overly-long list). But I do add lots of new tags.


Going back to brewers’ folk taxonomy of yeast strains…

Technically, if I’m not mistaken, the term “pure” should probably refer to the yeast culture, not to the yeast itself. But the overall concept does seem to apply to types of yeast, even if other terms are used. The terms “wild” and “pure” aren’t inappropriate. “Wild” yeast is undomesticated. “Pure” yeast strains were those strains which were selected from wild yeast strains and were isolated in laboratories.

Typically, pure yeast strains come from one of two species of the genus Saccharomyces. One species includes the “top-fermenting” yeast strains used in ales while the other species includes the “bottom-fermenting” yeast strains used in lagers. The distinction between ale and lager is relatively recent, in terms of brewing history, but it’s one which is well-known among brewers. The “ale” species is called cerevisiae (with all sorts of common misspellings) and the “lager” species has been called different names through history, to the extent that the most appropriate name (pastorianus) seems to be the object of specialized, not of common knowledge.

“Wild yeast” can be any yeast strain. In fact, the two species of pure yeast used in brewing exist as wild yeast and brewers’ “folk classification” of microorganisms often lumps bacteria in the “wild yeast” category. The distinction between bacteria and yeast appears relatively unimportant in relation to brewing.

As can be expected from my emphasis on “typically,” above, not all pure yeast strains belong to the “ale” and “lager” species. And as is often the case in research, the exceptions are where things get interesting.

One category of yeast which is indeed pure but which doesn’t belong to one of the two species is wine yeast. While brewers do occasionally use strains of wild yeast when making other beverages besides beer, wine yeast strains mostly don’t appear on the beer brewer’s radar as being important or interesting. Unlike wild yeast, it shouldn’t be avoided at all costs. Unlike pure yeast, it shouldn’t be cherished. In this sense, it could almost serve as «degré zéro» or “null” in the brewer’s yeast taxonomy.

Then, there are yeast strains which are usually considered in a negative way but which are treated as pure strains. I’m mostly thinking about two of the main species in the Brettanomyces genus, commonly referred to as “Brett.” These are winemakers’ pests, especially in the case of oak aging. Oak casks are expensive and they can be ruined by Brett infections. In beer, while Brett strains are usually classified as wild yeast, some breweries have been using Brett in fermentation to effects which are considered by some people to be rather positive while others find these flavours and aromas quite displeasing. It’s part of the brewing discourse to use “barnyard” and “horse blanket” as descriptors for some of the aroma and flavour characteristics given by Brett.

Brewers who consciously involve Brett in the fermentation process are rather uncommon. There are a few breweries in Belgium which make use of Brett, mostly in lambic beers which are fermented “spontaneously” (without the use of controlled innoculation). And there’s a (slightly) growing trend among North American home- and craft brewers toward using Brett and other bugs in brewing.

Because of these North American brewers, Brett strains are now available commercially, as “pure” strains.

Which makes for something quite interesting. Brett is now part of the “pure yeast” category, at least for some brewers. They then use Brett as they would other pure strains, taking precautions to make sure it’s not contaminated. At the same time, Brett is often used in conjunction with other yeast strains and, contrary to the large majority of beer fermentation methods, what brewers use is a complex yeast culture which includes both Saccharomyces and Brett. It may not seem that significant but it brings fermentation out of the strict “mono-yeast” model. Talking about “miscegenation” in social terms would be abusive. But it’s interesting to notice which brewers use Brett in this way. In some sense, it’s an attitude which has dimensions from both the “Belgian Artist” and “German Engineer” poles in my brewing attitude continuum.

Other brewers use Brett in a more carefree way. Since Brett-brewing is based on a complex culture, one can go all the way and mix other bugs. Because Brett has been mostly associated with lambic brewing, since the onset of “pure yeast” brewing, the complex cultures used in lambic breweries serve as the main model. In those breweries, little control can be applied to the balance between yeast strains and the concept of “pure yeast” seems quite foreign. I’ve never visited a lambic brewery (worse yet, I’ve yet to set foot in Belgium), but I get to hear and read a lot about lambic brewing. My perception might be inaccurate, but it also reflects “common knowledge” among North American brewers.

As you might guess, by now, I take part in the trend to brew carefreely. Even carelessly. Which makes me more of a MadMan than the majority of brewers.

Among both winemakers and beer brewers, Brett has the reputation to be “resilient.” Once Brett takes hold of your winery or brewery, it’s hard to get rid of it. Common knowledge about Brett includes different things about its behaviour in the fermentation process (it eats some sugars that Saccharomyces doesn’t, it takes a while to do its work…). But Brett also has a kind of “character,” in an almost-psychological sense.

Which reminds me of a comment by a pro brewer about a well-known strain of lager yeast being “wimpy,” especially in comparison with some well-known British ale yeast strains such as Ringwood. To do their work properly, lager strains tend to require more care than ale strains, for several reasons. Ringwood and some other strains are fast fermenters and tend to “take over,” leaving little room for other bugs.

Come to think of it, I should try brewing with a blend of Ringwood and Brett. It’d be interesting to see “who wins.”

Which brings me to “war.”

Now, I’m as much of a pacifist as one can be. Not only do I not tend to be bellicose and do I cherish peace, I frequently try to avoid conflict and I even believe that there’s a peaceful resolution to most situations.

Yet, one thing I enjoy about brewing is to play with conflicting yeast strains. Pitting one strain against another is my way to “wage wars.” And it’s not very violent.

I also tend to enjoy some games which involve a bit of conflict, including Diplomacy and Civilization. But I tend to play these games as peacefully as possible. Even Spymaster, which rapidly became focused on aggressions, I’ve been playing as a peace-loving, happy-go-lucky character.

But, in the brewery, I kinda like the fact that yeast cells from different strains are “fighting” one another. I don’t picture yeast cells like warriors (with tiny helmets), but I do have fun imagining the “Battle of the Yeast.”

Of course, this has more to do with competition than with conflict. But both are related, in my mind. I’m also not that much into competition and I don’t like to pit people against one another, even in friendly competition. But this is darwinian competition. True “survival of the fittest,” with everything which is implied in terms of being contextually appropriate.

So I’m playing with life, in my brewery. I’m not acting as a Creator over the yeast population, but there’s something about letting yeast cells “having at it” while exercising some level of control that could be compared to some spiritual figures.

Thinking about this also makes me think about the Life game. There are some similarities between what goes on in my wort and what Conway’s game implies. But there are also several differences, including the type of control which can be applied in either case and the fact that the interaction between yeast cells is difficult to visualize. Not to mention that yeast cells are actual, living organisms while the cellular automaton is pure simulation.

The fun I have playing with yeast cells is part of the reason I like to use Brett in my beers. The main reason, though, is that I like the taste of Brett in beer. In fact, I even like it in wine, by transfer from my taste for Brett in beer.

And then, there’s carefree brewing.

As I described above, brewers are very careful to avoid wild yeast and other unwanted bugs in their beers. Sanitizing agents are an important part of the brewer’s arsenal. Which goes well with the “German engineer” dimension of brewing. There’s an extreme position in brewing, even in homebrewing. The “full-sanitization brewery.” Apart from pure yeast, nothing should live in the wort. Actually, nothing else should live in the brewery. If it weren’t for the need to use yeast in the fermentation process, brewing could be done in a completely sterile environment. The reference for this type of brewery is the “wet science” lab. As much as possible, wort shouldn’t come in contact with air (oxidization is another reason behind this; the obsession with bugs and the distaste for oxidization often go together). It’s all about control.

There’s an obvious reason behind this. Wort is exactly the kind of thing wild yeast and other bugs really like. Apparently, slants used to culture microorganisms in labs may contain a malt-based gelatin which is fairly similar to wort. I don’t think it contains hops, but hops are an agent of preservation and could have a positive effect in such a slant.

I keep talking about “wild yeast and other bugs” and I mentioned that, in the brewer’s folk taxonomy, bacteria are equivalent to wild yeast. The distinction between yeast and bacteria matters much less in the brewery than in relation to life sciences. In the conceptual system behind brewing, bacteria is functionally equivalent to wild yeast.

Fear of bacteria and microbes is widespread, in North America. Obviously, there are many excellent medical reasons to fear a number of microorganisms. Bacteria can in fact be deadly, in the right context. Not that the mere presence of bacteria is directly linked with human death. But there’s a clear association, in a number of North American minds, between bacteria and disease.

As a North American, despite my European background, I tended to perceive bacteria in a very negative way. Even today, I react “viscerally” at the mention of bacteria. Though I know that bacteria may in fact be beneficial to human health and that the human body contains a large number of bacterial cells, I have this kind of ingrained fear of bacteria. I love cheese and yogurt, including those which are made with very complex bacterial culture. But even the mere mention of bacteria in this context requires that I think about the distinction between beneficial and dangerous bacteria. In other words, I can admit that I have an irrational fear of bacteria. I can go beyond it, but my conception of microflora is skewed.

For two years in Indiana, I was living with a doctoral student in biochemistry. Though we haven’t spent that much time talking about microorganisms, I was probably influenced by his attitude toward sanitization. What’s funny, though, is that our house wasn’t among the cleanest in which I’ve lived. In terms of “sanitary conditions,” I’ve had much better and a bit worse. (I’ve lived in a house where we received an eviction notice from the county based on safety hazards in that place. Lots of problems with flooding, mould, etc.)

Like most other North American brewers, I used to obsess about sanitization, at every step in the process. I was doing an average job at sanitization and didn’t seem to get any obvious infection. I did get “gushers” (beers which gush out of the bottle when I open it) and a few “bottle bombs” (beer bottles which actually explode). But there were other explanations behind those occurrences than contamination.

The practise of sanitizing everything in the brewery had some significance in other parts of my life. For instance, I tend to think about dishes and dishwashing in a way which has more to do with caution over potential contamination than with dishes appearing clean and/or shiny. I also think about what should be put in the refrigerator and what can be left out, based on my limited understanding of biochemistry. And I think about food safety in a specific way.

In the brewery, however, I moved more and more toward another approach to microflora. Again, a more carefree approach to brewing. And I’m getting results that I enjoy while having a lot of fun. This approach is also based on my pseudo-biochemistry.

One thing is that, in brewing, we usually boil the wort for an hour or more before inoculation with pure yeast. As boiling kills most bugs, there’s something to be said about sanitization being mostly need for equipment which touches the wort after the boil. Part of the equipment is sanitized during the boiling process and what bugs other pieces of equipment may transfer to the wort before boiling are unlikely to have negative effects on the finished beer. With this idea in mind, I became increasingly careless with some pieces of my brewing equipment. Starting with the immersion chiller and kettle, going all the way to the mashtun.

Then, there’s the fact that I use wild yeast in some fermentations. In both brewing and baking, actually. Though my results with completely “wild” fermentations have been mixed to unsatisfactory, some of my results with “partially-wild” fermentations have been quite good.

Common knowledge among brewers is that “no known pathogen can survive in beer.” From a food safety standpoint, beer is “safe” for four main reasons: boiling, alcohol, low pH, and hops. At least, that’s what is shared among brewers, with narratives about diverse historical figures who saved whole populations through beer, making water sanitary. Depending on people’s attitudes toward alcohol, these stories about beer may have different connotations. But it does seem historically accurate to say that beer played an important part in making water drinkable.

So, even wild fermentation is considered safe. People may still get anxious but, apart from off-flavours, the notion is that contaminated beer can do no more harm than other beers.

The most harmful products of fermentation about which brewers may talk are fusel alcohols. These, brewers say, may cause headaches if you get too much of them. Fusels can cause some unwanted consequences, but they’re not living organisms and won’t spread as a disease. In brewer common knowledge, “fusels” mostly have to do with beers with high degrees of alcohol which have been fermented at a high temperature. My personal sense is that fusels aren’t more likely to occur in wild fermentation than with pure fermentation, especially given the fact that most wild fermentation happens with beer with a low degree of alcohol.

Most of the “risks” associated with wild fermentation have to do with flavours and aromas which may be displeasing. Many of these have to do with souring, as some bugs transform different compounds (alcohol especially, if I’m not mistaken) into different types of acids. While Brett and other strains of wild yeast can cause some souring, the acids in questions mostly have to do with bacteria. For instance, lactobacillus creates lactic acid, acetobacter creates acetic acid, etc.

Not only do I like that flavour and aroma characteristics associated with some wild yeast strains (Brett, especially), I also like sour beers. It may sound strange given the fact that I suffer from GERD. But I don’t overindulge in sour beers. I rarely drink large quantities of beer and sour beers would be the last thing I’d drink large quantities of. Besides, there’s a lot to be said about balance in pH. I may be off but I get the impression that there are times in which sour things are either beneficial to me or at least harmless. Part of brewer common knowledge in fact has a whole thing about alkalinity and pH. I’m not exactly clear on how it affects my body based on ingestion of diverse substances, but I’m probably affected by my background as a homebrewer.

Despite my taste for sour beers, I don’t necessarily have the same reaction to all souring agents. For instance, I have a fairly clear threshold in terms of acetic acid in beer. I enjoy it when a sour beer has some acetic character. But I prefer to limit the “aceticness” of my beers. Two batches I’ve fermented with wild bugs were way too acetic for me and I’m now concerned that other beers may develop the same character. In fact, if there’s a way to prevent acetobacter from getting in my wort while still getting the other bugs working, I could be even more carefree as a brewer than I currently am.

Which is a fair deal. These days, I really am brewing carefreely. Partly because of my “discovery” of lactobacillus.

As brewer common knowledge has it, lactobacillus is just about everywhere. It’s certainly found on grain and it’s present in human saliva. It’s involved in some dairy fermentation and it’s probably the main source of bacterial fear among dairy farmers.

Apart from lambic beers (which all come from a specific region in Belgium), the main sour beer that is part of brewer knowledge is Berliner Weisse. Though I have little data on how Berliner Weisse is fermented, I’ve known for a while that some people create a beer akin to Berliner Weisse through what brewers call a “sour mash” (and which may or may not be related to sour mash in American whiskey production). After thinking about it for years, I’ve done my first sour mash last year. I wasn’t very careful in doing it but I got satisfying results. One advantage of the sour mash is that it happens before boiling, which means that the production of acid can be controlled, to a certain degree. While I did boil my wort coming from sour mash, it’s clear that I still had some lactobacillus in my fermenters. It’s possible that my boil (which was much shorter than the usual) wasn’t enough to kill all the bugs. But, come to think of it, I may have been a bit careless with sanitization of some pieces of equipment which had touched the sour wort before boiling. Whatever the cause, I ended up with some souring bugs in my fermentation. And these worked really well for what I wanted. So much so that I’ve consciously reused that culture in some of my most recent brewing experiments.

So, in my case, lactobacillus is in the “desirable” category of yeast taxonomy. With Brett and diverse Saccharomyces strains, lactobacillus is part of my fermentation apparatus.

As a mad brewer, I can use what I want to use. I may not create life, but I create beer out of this increasingly complex microflora which has been taking over my brewery.

And I’m a happy brewer.


C’est un billet un peu difficile à écrire, mais je crois que c’est important pour moi de le laisser sortir.

La difficulté provient du fait que mon ton va probablement sonner opiniâtre. Pire, je risque de froisser la sensibilité de certains. Et pour rendre les choses presque tragiques, je vais parler de façon négative de certains individus. C’est vraiment pas mon genre. Et il n’y a aucun jugement de valeur sur les personnes impliquées. Je pense à des comportements que je trouve quelque peu déplacés et je me sens un certain devoir d’honnêteté et de franchise, à ce sujet. Mais je sais déjà que ça peut paraître insultant.

Les personnes que j’ai choisies sont des «personnalités publiques», habituées à la brûlure de l’opinion publique. Si elles aboutissent sur ce billet, elles le concevront comme un de ces commentaires critiques mal digérés qu’elles ont l’habitude de recevoir, dans leur courrier des lecteurs. Je ne m’inquiète donc pas pour leurs réactions. Les gens qui apprécient ces personnes auront probablement avoir une réaction similaire à celle de leurs idoles. Elles n’auront sans doûte pas l’envie de revenir sur mon blogue, mais je cherche pas à me bâtir un lectorat extensif. Par contre, ce qui m’embête un peu, c’est que mes propos risquent de modifier un peu l’opinion de certaines personnes à mon égard. C’est un risque à prendre mais mes os ne sont pas de verre et le jeu en vaut la chandelle.

Mais avant d’accuser des gens, une mise en contexte.

Comme c’est probablement évident, je réfléchis ces temps-ci aux «intellectuels», à la perception de l’intelligence et à divers personnages sociaux. Le présent billet s’inscrit en continuité assez directe, dans mon esprit, avec trois billets que j’ai écrits au cours des deux derniers mois, dont deux en anglais et un en français.

Dans une certaine mesure, le présent billet me trottait dans la tête pendant que j’écrivais ces autres billets. Je peux entrer dans le vif du sujet: ce qu’est un «intello», selon moi.

Non, je n’utilise pas «intello» comme simple diminutif d’«intellectuel». Et ce n’est pas même une question de préciser des connotations négatives ou positives. Je parle de personnages sociaux distincts. Pour être le plus franc possible, je m’assume en tant qu’«intellectuel» mais je souhaite ardemment ne pas être un «intello». Pour moi, l’«intello» n’a de l’«intellectuel» que l’apparence et non la substance. En somme, l’intello est un «pseudo-intellectuel».

Vous me voyez probablement venir, mais je veux être précis. Je ne parle pas ici de «mauvais intellectuels» ou d’intellectuels que je juge comme inférieurs. Je parle de personne qui adoptent un comportement qui fait appel au personnage de l’intellectuel par pur désir de positionnement social. Bref, des imposteurs.

Le mot est fort mais il me semble d’autant plus approprié qu’il est utilisé pour désigner ce que les coachs de vie appellent «le syndrome de l’imposteur» (“impostor syndrome” ou “imposter syndrome”, en anglais). Je m’intéresse beaucoup à cette notion d’imposture parce que la plupart des descriptions qui en sont faites semblent correspondre très précisémment à quelque-chose que je ressentais de façon très forte jusqu’à tout récemment. D’ailleurs, c’est en passant à travers cette impression d’imposture que j’ai réussi à atteindre de nouveau la sérénité.

C’est quoi, ce «syndrome de l’imposteur»? Eh bien, déjà, c’est pas vraiment un «syndrome». C’est plutôt une façon de décrire un ensemble de phénomènes psychiques qui semblent affecter certaines personnes, surtout celles qui semblent réussir.

La base, c’est un sentiment que notre réussite n’est pas basée sur des capacités concrètes, liées à nos réussites, mais sur la chance, le charme ou une espèce d’inertie. «Si j’atteins ce niveau c’est parce que les gens m’assignent des qualités que je n’ai pas, parce que je suis bien tombé(e), ou parce que je suis simplement resté(e) assez longtemps dans cette position.» Les recherches originales sur ce phénomène, par Clance et Imes, portaient sur des «femmes qui réussissent» (“high achieving women“). Mais le même phénomène se produit chez des hommes.

Après avoir pu identifier ce phénomène chez moi, j’ai non seulement effectué certaines réflexions introspectives mais j’ai eu l’occasion d’en discuter avec plusieurs personnes. Les réactions varient passablement, d’une personne à l’autre. Une personne dont le parcours académique me semble le plus intéressant m’a récemment avoué avoir longtemps souffert de cette impression d’imposture (et je parle de quelqu’un avec beaucoup de prestige). Plusieurs autres personnes ont parlé de ce phénomène comme étant inévitable ou du moins très courant, surtout dans le milieu académique. D’autres encores ont eu une attitude somme toute assez condescendante à l’égard de celles et ceux qui sont affecté(e)s par cette impression d’imposture. Et plusieurs personnes, y compris des psychologues, m’ont permis de trouver une issue personnelle à la paralysie que cette impression semble provoquer.

Et c’est vraiment tout simple: les vrais imposteurs ne se posent pas la question s’ils sont ou non imposteurs.

Je sais pas si c’est une affirmation si valide. Mais cette simple idée m’a beaucoup aidé à comprendre que ce sentiment d’imposture était, du moins dans mon cas, basé sur des critères inappropriés.

Pour revenir à l’intello comme imposteur. D’après moi, l’intello est celui (ou celle, il y a certaines femmes comme ça) qui ne se pose pas de question par rapport à son imposture intellectuelle. Ça semble simpliste, comme définition. Mais, en contexte, ça fonctionne.

Et ça me fait penser à plusieurs représentations de cet intello. Peut-être ma préférée, c’est dans une chanson de Brel sur Les paumés du petit matin (version vidéo, à partir de 3:25). Mon interprétation des paroles de cette chanson tourne autour du fait que les personnages décrits sont des intellos, qui font semblant d’être des intellectuels. Le passage qui me semble le plus pertinent à cet égard:

Ils se racontent à minuit
Les poèmes qu’ils n’ont pas lus
Les romans qu’ils n’ont pas écrits
Les amours qu’ils n’ont pas vécues
Les vérités qui ne servent à rien

Tout de suite, je me mets à me poser toutes sortes de questions par rapport à mes propres agissements. «Ai-je fait ça, moi?» J’ai beau être sorti de l’impasse, j’ai encore certains réflexes. Et le fait est que j’ai déjà discuté de chacun de ces sujets sans en avoir d’expérience directe. Par contre, même si je suis honnête au sujet de mon expérience indirecte, je continue à me poser des questions. Selon mon interprétation de cette chanson de Brel, ceux qu’il décrivait n’étaient ni honnête ni porté à la remise en question.

Un passage, plus tôt dans la chanson, sonne comme une description très directe de ce que craignent ceux qui se croient imposteurs:

Elles elles ont l’arrogance
Des filles qui ont de la poitrine
Eux ils ont cette assurance
Des hommes dont on devine
Que le papa a eu de la chance

La différence, encore là, entre les vrais imposteurs et ceux qui craignent de l’être, c’est dans l’attitude: l’arrogance et l’assurance. Rien de mal avec l’assurance, c’est une attitude qui peut être révélatrice d’une saine estime de soi. Et l’arrogance n’est pas un crime. Mais ce genre d’attitude est la base même de ce que j’ai décrié dans des billets précédents.

Donc, contrairement à l’intellectuel, l’intello fait preuve d’arrogance ou d’assurance excessive. Ça semble clair. Mais est-ce suffisant?

Je sais pas. Surtout que j’ai acquis pas mal d’assurance, au cours des derniers mois, et mon attitude a balancé d’un côté moins humble, pendant un certain temps. C’était une des bases de mon billet sur l’égocentrisme. Je crois par contre être revenu à mon attitude usuelle qui, sans être excessivement humble, n’en est pas arrogante pour autant. Du moins, selon moi. Peut-être ai-je tort et je serais dans ce cas un intello. Soit. Mais, au moins, je réfléchis sérieusement à la question et si je m’assume en tant qu’intellectuel ce n’est pas pour m’affubler d’un titre mais bien pour accepter une étiquette qui m’a collé à la peau toute ma vie.

On revient finalement à ceux que j’accuse d’être des intellos. Et c’est la partie difficile de ce billet, malgré toutes mes précautions. Je n’ai pas encore décidé combien de personnes il me serait approprié de nommer, dans ce contexte. Mais je vais commencer avec deux. Je n’ajouterai pas de liens vers leurs profils parce que mon but n’est pas d’attirer leur attention. Tel que mentionné plus haut, j’ai pas non plus peur qu’elles puissent lire ce billet.

Donc, vous voulez des noms?

[Roulement de tambour…]

Richard Martineau et John C. Dvorak.

Voilà, c’est dit.

Bon, pour ceux qui me connaissent, c’est peut-être pas très surprenant. Et ce sont deux journalistes assez controversés, ce qui m’empêche de craindre de leur causer du tort. Mais, vraiment, je perçois ces deux personnages comme des intellos: des imposteurs de l’intellect.

Martineau me rend la tâche facile. Pour les Québécois francophones, surtout ceux qui connaissent beaucoup de vrais intellectuels, la preuve de l’imposture de Martineau est dans son comportement-même. Pour ceux qui ne le connaissent pas, Richard Martineau peut être décrire comme un chroniqueur au style provocateur qui se prononce sur divers sujets d’actualités à travers diverses tribunes. En d’autres termes, c’est un de ces journaleux qui sont à la fois gueulards (Martineau s’est longtemps affublé du titre de «grande gueule») et susceptibles. C’est le type qui gueule, qui a des propos à l’emporte-pièce, qui se moque des gens et qui ne supporte pas la moindre petite critique, même justifiée et constructive.

Du moins, son personnage. Je parle pas vraiment de Richard Martineau lui-même, que je n’ai jamais rencontré. Je parle de sa persona, du masque social qu’il s’est créé. Tout comme ceux qui craignent d’être imposteurs, Martineau semble avoir des problèmes d’estime de soi. Mais contrairement à ceux qui parlent de souffrir de l’impression d’être des imposteurs, Martineau semble n’avoir s’assumer dans le personnage. Il raconte «des vérités qui ne servent à rien» en revendiquant le droit de le faire. Ce qui fait de lui un personnage désagréable mais qui n’implique rien sur sa personne. Si c’est un rôle qu’il joue, il le joue avec brio et je l’en félicite.

Mon choix de Martineau comme cible de l’étiquette d’«intello» n’est pas complètement anodin. Un des rares propos personnalisé et désobligeants (des «mots d’esprits» à la Ridicule) que j’ai vraiment apprécié, c’est cette phrase de Dany Laferrière:

Richard Martineau vit intellectuellement au-dessus de ses moyens, un jour, il va faire faillite.

Non seulement c’est bien trouvé, mais c’est une analyse pénétrante (“insightful”). C’est aussi très insultant.

Oui, je sais, il y a eu toute une polémique à ce sujet. Mais je n’essaie pas de m’immiscer dans cette polémique. D’ailleurs, c’est pour cette raison que je n’ajoute aucun lien vers les multiples billets de blogues traitant de cette polémique. Mais je crois que ça aide à cerner le concept d’intello: comme un frimeur qui s’achète une bagnole qu’il n’a pas les moyens de s’acheter, l’intello se rend propriétaire d’idées qu’il ne peut soutenir. Je sais pas pour vous, mais je trouve ça très parlant, comme concept. Et même si je trouve que le «Martineau le personnage» est un bon exemple de cette crise intellectuelle, je pense plutôt à des comportements dangereux.

Bon, ma deuxième cible, maintenant: John C. Dvorak. Il est probablement moins connu des Francophones que Martineau qui, lui-même, tient sa notoriété au «Paysage audiovisuel québécois». C’est donc une cible relativement peu risquée pour moi puisque ses fans sont surtout anglophones. Mais je connais personnellement des gens qui l’apprécient, y compris des gens qui liront peut-être ces lignes. Alors il y a quand même un certain risque.

Donc, qui est Dvorak? Pour simplifier, c’est un chroniqueur américain sur les nouvelles technologiques. Un type qui aime bien provoquer en tenant des propos frôlant l’absurdité. Il a parfois été assez explicite sur ses intentions: il provoque les gens pour attirer les lecteurs ou pour obtenir plus de traffic. Dans la logique journaleuse, c’est légitime, mais je crois que c’est aussi une marque d’imposture.

Tout comme avec Martineau, je ne parle pas de l’individu mais bien du personnage. J’ai rien contre Dvorak, que je ne connais pas personnellement. Je le trouve pas spécialement attachant mais j’imagine que j’aurais du plaisir à le rencontrer. Mais je trouve son comportement irrespectueux, méprisant, arrogant et, simplement, inapproprié.

Je pense surtout à ses apparitions sur la baladodiffusion de Leo Laporte, This Week in Tech (TWiT). Mais pas exclusivement. «Dvorak le personnage» est le même, peu importe le contexte. Du moins, c’est l’impression que j’en ai. Sa présence à TWiT est l’objet de discussions, parfois motivée par mes propres réactions. L’idée, c’est que comme Martineau, le personnage est controversé. Ce n’est pas une question de prendre position, pour moi. Mais d’établir un concept.

Comme Martineau, Dvorak est à la fois «grande gueule» et susceptible. Un peu comme Martineau avec Laferrière, Dvorak a eu des difficultés avec Jason Calacanis. Pourtant, Calacanis n’a pas été aussi désobligeant à l’égard de Dvorak que Laferrière a été à l’égard de Martineau. La différence tient peut-être au contexte linguistique (les Anglophones accordent moins d’importance aux «mots d’esprit») mais, aussi, je perçois Calacanis comme quelqu’un de très respectueux et un vrai humaniste. Toujours est-il que, selon ce que j’ai pu comprendre, Dvorak refuse de participer à TWiT si Calacanis est présent. Je crois que le contraire n’est pas vrai: Calacanis semble n’avoir aucune animosité par rapport à Dvorak. Tout au plus, Calacanis s’amuse parfois à imiter Dvorak, ce que Dvorak lui-même fait à l’occasion.

Dvorak est un bougon. C’est un peu le «schtroumpf grognon» de l’actualité technologique. Il participe à une émission intitulée Cranky Geeks, et le terme “cranky” correspond plus ou moins à «irritable» en français. En d’autres termes, il a un «mauvais caractère». Mais cette dimension du personnage n’a que peu d’importance, pour moi, même si c’est un peu la cible de mon billet sur les “curmudgeons”. C’est une attitude que je trouve désagréable et j’ai de la difficulté à lui trouver une valeur positive. Mais je peux accepter cette attitude.

Tant qu’elle n’est pas méprisante.

Selon moi, Dvorak est méprisant et imbu de lui-même. Bien au-delà du style conversationnel à haut engagement (“high involvement style”) dans lequel la parole de l’un peut chevaucher avec la parole de l’autre, John C. Dvorak s’accapare les tours de parole d’une façon si agressive qu’il m’est difficile de croire qu’il ne se prend pas pour l’analyste le plus fin de l’assemblée. Et s’il prétend ramener les intervenants à l’ordre, lors de This Week in Tech, c’est souvent lui qui fait dévier la conversation sur les sujets les plus tangentiels. Oh, j’aime bien les tangentes. Mais la façon dont Dvorak impose ces tangentes me semble littéralement malhonnête.

Et pour revenir au statut d’intello. Dvorak a probablement une intelligence tout à fait raisonnable, selon notre définition de l’intelligence. Je n’ai pas l’impression qu’il manque d’intelligence. Mais, comme Martineau, j’ai l’impression que le personnage comporte une surévaluation de l’intelligence du bonhomme. Dans le cas de Dvorak, c’est surtout une question de faire des prédictions (à l’emporte-pièce), ce qui est parfois considéré comme glorieux quand elles se réalisent (et peut-être pas si désastreux quand elles ne se réalisent pas). Comme Dvorak a fait à peu près n’importe quelle prédiction possible, il devient difficile de le prendre au sérieux. Pas que c’est si important, selon moi, d’être pris au sérieux. Mais, bon, puisque Dvorak parle régulièrement de tout ce qu’il a déjà dit, le personnage donne l’impression que le sérieux est important dans son cas.

Comme avec Martineau, je ne me préoccupe pas tellement de l’individu. Je pense au personnage dans un contexte presque allégorique. Dvorak représente une abstraction de l’intello, celui qui énonce sans écouter. Dvorak est d’ailleurs si insultant et méprisant que le fait de le mettre en parallèle avec Martineau semble insultant pour Martineau. Mais, ça, c’est un personnage.

Un personnage d’intellectuel qui est usurpé par un intello. C’est pas un crime, mais ça mérite un billet.

Et maintenant que je l’écris, ça va me faire plaisir de le publier, sans même le relire, ce billet. C’est exaltant de pouvoir s’exprimer de la sorte.

Bien entendu, je m’attends à recevoir toutes sortes de commentaires désobligeants. Mais je peux vivre avec ça. Encore une fois, mes os ne sont pas de verre.



Bilingual Ottawa bilingue

Too bad I don’t have a camera. This sign, seen in front of a building at 240 Catherine St. in Ottawa, would have been a good target for the Flickr treatment. (Emphasis mine: it should be «citoyenneté», not “citozennete.”)

Dommage que j’aie pas d’appareil photo parce que cette affiche, vue au 240 rue Catherine à Ottawa, aurait mérité le traitement Flickr. (Italiques ajoutées.)

Citizenship and Immigration Canada
Citozennete et Immigration Canada
Infocentre du Nouvel Arrivant
Newcomer Information Centre

Apologies and Social Media: A Follow-Up on PRI's WTP

I did it! I did exactly what I’m usually trying to avoid. And I feel rather good about the outcome despite some potentially “ruffled feathers” («égos froissés»?).

While writing a post about PRI’s The World: Technology Podcast (WTP), I threw caution to the wind.

Why Is PRI’s The World Having Social Media Issues? « Disparate.

I rarely do that. In fact, while writing my post, I was getting an awkward feeling. Almost as if I were writing from a character’s perspective. Playing someone I’m not, with a voice which isn’t my own but that I can appropriate temporarily.

The early effects of my lack of caution took a little bit of time to set in and they were rather negative. What’s funny is that I naïvely took the earliest reaction as being rather positive but it was meant to be very negative. That in itself indicates a very beneficial development in my personal life. And I’m grateful to the person who helped me make this realization.

The person in question is Clark Boyd, someone I knew nothing about a few days ago and someone I’m now getting to know through both his own words and those of people who know about his work.

The power of social media.

And social media’s power is the main target of this, here, follow-up of mine.


As I clumsily tried to say in my previous post on WTP, I don’t really have a vested interest in the success or failure of that podcast. I discovered it (as a tech podcast) a few days ago and I do enjoy it. As I (also clumsily) said, I think WTP would rate fairly high on a scale of cultural awareness. To this ethnographer, cultural awareness is too rare a feature in any form of media.

During the latest WTP episode, Boyd discussed what he apparently describes as the mitigated success of his podcast’s embedding in social media and online social networking services. Primarily at stake was the status of the show’s Facebook group which apparently takes too much time to manage and hasn’t increased in membership. But Boyd also made some intriguing comments about other dimensions of the show’s online presence. (If the show were using a Creative Commons license, I’d reproduce these comments here.)

Though it wasn’t that explicit, I interpreted Boyd’s comments to imply that the show’s participants would probably welcome feedback. As giving feedback is an essential part of social media, I thought it appropriate to publish my own raw notes about what I perceived to be the main reasons behind the show’s alleged lack of success in social media spheres.

Let it be noted that, prior to hearing Boyd’s comments, I had no idea what WTP’s status was in terms of social media and social networks. After subscribing to the podcast, the only thing I knew about the show was from the content of those few podcast episodes. Because the show doesn’t go the “meta” route very often (“the show about the show”), my understanding of that podcast was, really, very limited.

My raw notes were set in a tone which is quite unusual for me. In a way, I was “trying it out.” The same tone is used by a lot of friends and acquaintances and, though I have little problem with the individuals who take this tone, I do react a bit negatively when I hear/see it used. For lack of a better term, I’d call it a “scoffing tone.” Not unrelated to the “curmudgeon phase” I described on the same day. But still a bit different. More personalized, in fact. This tone often sounds incredibly dismissive. Yet, when you discuss its target with people who used it, it seems to be “nothing more than a tone.” When people (or cats) use “EPIC FAIL!” as a response to someone’s troubles, they’re not really being mean. They merely use the conventions of a speech community.

Ok, I might be giving these people too much credit. But this tone is so prevalent online that I can’t assume these people have extremely bad intentions. Besides, I can understand the humour in schadenfreude. And I’d hate to use flat-out insults to describe such a large group of people. Even though I do kind of like the self-deprecation made possible by the fact that I adopted the same behaviour.



So, the power of social media… The tone I’m referring to is common in social media, especially in replies, reactions, responses, comments, feedback. Though I react negatively to that tone, I’m getting to understand its power. At the very least, it makes people react. And it seems to be very straightforward (though I think it’s easily misconstrued). And this tone’s power is but one dimension of the power of social media.


Now, going back to the WTP situation.

After posting my raw notes about WTP’s social media issues, I went my merry way. At the back of my mind was this nagging suspicion that my tone would be misconstrued. But instead of taking measures to ensure that my post would have no negative impact (by changing the phrasing or by prefacing it with more tactful comments), I decided to leave it as is.

Is «Rien ne va plus, les jeux sont faits» a corrolary to the RERO mantra?

While I was writing my post, I added all the WTP-related items I could find to my lists: I joined WTP’s apparently-doomed Facebook group, I started following @worldstechpod on Twitter, I added two separate WTP-related blogs to my blogroll… Once I found out what WTP’s online presence was like, I did these few things that any social media fan usually does. “Giving the podcast some love” is the way some social media people might put it.

One interesting effect of my move is that somebody at WTP (probably Clark Boyd) apparently saw my Twitter add and (a few hours after the fact) reciprocated by following me on Twitter. Because I thought feedback about WTP’s social media presence had been requested, I took the opportunity to send a link to my blogpost about WTP with an extra comment about my tone.

To which the @worldstechpod twittername replied with:

@enkerli right, well you took your best shot at me, I’ll give you that. thanks a million. and no, your tone wasn’t “miscontrued” at all.

Call me “naïve” but I interpreted this positively and I even expressed relief.

Turns out, my interpretation was wrong as this is what WTP replied:

@enkerli well, it’s a perfect tone for trashing someone else’s work. thanks.

I may be naïve but I did understand that the last “thanks” was meant as sarcasm. Took me a while but I got it. And I reinterpreted WTP’s previous tweet as sarcastic as well.

Now, if I had read more of WTP’s tweets, I would have understood the “WTP online persona.”  For instance, here’s the tweet announcing the latest WTP episode:

WTP 209 — yet another exercise in utter futility! hurrah! —

Not to mention this puzzling and decontextualized tweet:

and you make me look like an idiot. thanks!

Had I paid attention to the @worldstechpod archive, I would even have been able to predict how my blogpost would be interpreted. Especially given this tweet:

OK. Somebody school me. Why can I get no love for the WTP on Facebook?

Had I noticed that request, I would have realized that my blogpost would most likely be interpreted as an attempt at “schooling” somebody at WTP. I would have also realized that tweets on the WTP account on Twitter were written by a single individual. Knowing myself, despite my attempt at throwing caution to the wind, I probably would have refrained from posting my WTP comments or, at the very least, I would have rephrased the whole thing.

I’m still glad I didn’t.

Yes, I (unwittingly) “touched a nerve.” Yes, I apparently angered someone I’ve never met (and there’s literally nothing I hate more than angering someone). But I still think the whole situation is leading to something beneficial.

Here’s why…

After that sarcastic tweet about my blogpost, Clark Boyd (because it’s now clear he’s the one tweeting @worldstechpod) sent the following request through Twitter:

rebuttal, anyone? i can’t do it without getting fired. —

The first effect of this request was soon felt right here on my blog. That reaction was, IMHO, based on a misinterpretation of my words. In terms of social media, this kind of reaction is “fair game.” Or, to use a social media phrase: “it’s alll good.”

I hadn’t noticed Boyd’s request for rebuttal. I was assuming that there was a connection between somebody at the show and the fact that this first comment appeared on my blog, but I thought it was less direct than this. Now, it’s possible that there wasn’t any connection between that first “rebuttal” and Clark Boyd’s request through Twitter. But the simplest explanation seems to me to be that the blog comment was a direct result of Clark Boyd’s tweet.

After that initial blog rebuttal, I received two other blog comments which I consider more thoughtful and useful than the earliest one (thanks to the time delay?). The second comment on my post was from a podcaster (Brad P. from N.J.), but it was flagged for moderation because of the links it contained. It’s a bit unfortunate that I didn’t see this comment on time because it probably would have made me understand the situation a lot more quickly.

In his comment, Brad P. gives some context for Clark Boyd’s podcast. What I thought was the work of a small but efficient team of producers and journalists hired by a major media corporation to collaborate with a wider public (à la Search Engine Season I) now sounds more like the labour of love from an individual journalist with limited support from a cerberus-like major media institution. I may still be off, but my original impression was “wronger” than this second one.

The other blog comment, from Dutch blogger and Twitter @Niels, was chronologically the one which first made me realize what was wrong with my post. Niels’s comment is a very effective mix of thoughtful support for some of my points and thoughtful criticism of my post’s tone. Nice job! It actually worked in showing me the error of my ways.

All this to say that I apologise to Mr. Clark Boyd for the harshness of my comments about his show? Not really. I already apologised publicly. And I’ve praised Boyd for both his use of Facebook and of Twitter.

What is it, then?

Well, this post is a way for me to reflect on the power of social media. Boyd talked about social media and online social networks. I’ve used social media (my main blog) to comment on the presence of Boyd’s show in social media and social networking services. Boyd then used social media (Twitter) to not only respond to me but to launch a “rebuttal campaign” about my post. He also made changes to his show’s online presence on a social network (Facebook) and used social media (Twitter) to advertise this change. And I’ve been using social media (Twitter and this blog) to reflect on social media (the “meta” aspect is quite common), find out more about a tricky situation (Twitter), and “spread the word” about PRI’s The World: Technology Podcast (Facebook, blogroll, Twitter).

Sure, I got some egg on my face, some feathers have been ruffled, and Clark Boyd might consider me a jerk.

But, perhaps unfortunately, this is often the way social media works.


Heartfelt thanks to Clark Boyd for his help.