Status of Michael Jackson’s single malt scotch book
June 3rd, 2008I am back from vacation, and I wanted to shed some light on the fate of Michael Jackson’s Complete Guide To Single Malt Scotch (titled Malt Whisky Companion in the UK).
Fellow whisky writer (and a damned good one at that) Dave Broom and I have been in discussions with Michael Jackson’s literary agent for several months now about putting out a new revision of the book. We organized it so that I would review new releases to the U.S., and Dave would review whiskies released outside of the U.S. He and I would divide up the whiskies that go both places.
Unfortunately, I don’t think it’s going to happen. The main point if disagreement was the degree of revision to the book. The books publisher (DK) wanted to put out a relatively minor revision of the book (with a small budget to support it), while Dave and I wanted a major revision of the book to reflect the new releases since the last revision of the book. Essentially, we wanted a revision that Michael would be proud of, not just some patchwork effort.
That’s where we left it, and the discussions have broken down. I don’t know what will be the fate of the book now. All I can say is that I won’t be involved, and I don’t think Dave will either.
Every year I get offers to write a book, but have yet to write one. I turn them down because I have been focusing on my core business (Malt Advocate magazine and WhiskyFest). This is one that I seriously considered.
June 3rd, 2008 at 8:33 pm
It would have been a big step forward (If I have understood correctly) to have both a US and UK view of whisky releases in the same book.
It has always been a challenge to match reviews of whisky with what is actually released in the US. A Jim Murray comment in his Whisky Bible, regarding a Highland Park (1977) that he felt would have been better at something more than the 40% abv it was bottled, illustrates this issue. The same bottle released here in the US had a strength of 43%! The proliferation of single cask releases has only made things worse as, for example, cask #1 is reviewed and rated highly, yet sold in another market while only cask #2 is released in the US. Do you take a chance on this second bottle if you live in the US? Was the next cask as good?
So it is not to be, but that would have been a book I would have looked forward to.
David
June 4th, 2008 at 4:46 am
I hope you won’t take me wrongly if I say I welcome this admittedly short-sighted bean-counting decision by the publisher’s accountants.
I think a new Whisky Bible would be welcome, but Michael is gone, God rest him, and perhaps his evangelical work on behalf of whiskies could be transmitted to the next generation of whisky writers in another way.
There is no doubt that both Dave and yourself are foremost among the next generation writing about whisky, and I would certainly be first in line to read whatever either of you publish on the subject in whatever format.
But I think that it doesn’t have to be a project to update Michael’s work.
June 4th, 2008 at 7:58 am
JC, David:
I see the pros and cons of having writers continue Michael’s work by revising his Malt Whisky Companion. The good thing about Dave and I doing the revision is that I actually feel that we could have done a worthy job of it. With us out of the picture, along with the relatively small budget that the publisher has offered and their desire for only a minor revision, I am concerned about what will become of the book. I would rather see no revision rather than one not worthy of Michael’s legacy.
June 4th, 2008 at 11:11 am
I would like to say that I would buy whatever book you or Dave might publish regarding whisky. I am also sure that both of you would do a great job at any revisions you might do on Michael’s book.
However, in my humble opinion, lets leave Michaels ’s Malt Whisky Companion the way it is. It’s a classic and classics are best kept in their original form.
June 4th, 2008 at 11:20 am
Dave Broom just sent me an email and asked me to pass on that he is completely out of negotiations too.
June 5th, 2008 at 3:47 am
Hi folks
Can I just add to John’s comments. Dave won’t be involved either! Its a long and rather sorry tale but rest assured that something positive will emerge from this in time.
d
June 5th, 2008 at 4:16 am
Mr. Hansell, perhaps it is not such a bad thing that your participation on the MWC has been scotched. Books are slow. The most worthy whiskies are often gone by the time a book goes to press. Your present vehicles of ratings by website and magazine are more timely, although it would be nice to see a summary of whisky ratings every few years in a single volume. If you decide to write a book with Mr. Broom, I will look forward to reading it. I admire both of your reviews as well as Mr. Broom’s efforts to identify counterfeit bottlings.
ET
June 5th, 2008 at 6:40 am
Ewan, for now, I’ll just be rating whiskies in Malt Advocate and on this blog. I am content with this. –John
June 16th, 2008 at 3:18 pm
What a shame! I am disheartned to read that Michael’s life long work will be compromised because of a budget or some other nonsense. I think I write for everyone when I write that whether you are a novice or an expert to malts, if you have read Michael’s Complete Guide, you are a better informed consumer and somewhere in you a spark has been lit.
I disagree with the other blogger writing leave it alone. And here is why, what about new and upcoming things? I think this can be synomous with having children and passing on tradtions, cutomes, recipes, etc. Is the other blogger and the agent essentially saying that we should not continue, just leave everything in tact and remember our forefathers as just that “before” us or should we continue with their tradtions and customs?
My point is . . . if the work is not continued at the same high regard that was entursted by and with Michael, what legacy did he really leave?- a book or two that our future generations may not be able to use as a resource. Maybe the blogger was just trying to make you feel better- depressed me!
We have all been educated on the whisky shortage and how distilleries are “experiementing” with different methods and finishes, and I felt assured that the Companion/Guide would continue. And to even stick my neck out to be honest, I really felt that you, John, would be the one to continue the work. Your analysis is the only one that I trust. Being able to mix my profession with my advocation, I enjoy trying any spirit and I heavily rely on your take on the spirit. From a professional stand point, reading your examination of the product helps me to make buying decisions on a large scale. From a personal side, your thoughts provoke me to purchase or not. I would tend to believe that many people purchased Michael’s Guide or Companion and what he wrote was a deciding factor if a purchase was to be made.
I have grown to enjoy Dave’s writings more and more by the edition. I see where he would be a plus and a must to the project.
I am really bummed about this one! Sure can’t say Cheers!
I do appeciate the work you do and look forward to reading anything that you publish.
With Kind Regards,
Katie
June 16th, 2008 at 3:44 pm
Katie, thank you for taking the time to give us your thoughts. I agree with you that it should be continued, but properly. I would rather see nothing than something half-assed.
I was excited to do it because:
1) I have so much respect for Michael
2) He was a very good friend of mine
3) I learned from him. He was my mentor. Our tasting note writing styles are similar in many respects. And Dave would have done a great job too!
Sometimes endings are not happy ones. — John