The New York Times' Proof Blog - have you read it?
It's kind of like White Castle, in a way: I really want to like it, but something about it leaves me feeling a bit off.
The blog purports to look at "the role of alcohol in American society — drinking culture and celebrations, alcoholism and its treatment." Noble subjects, all. The problem is, I kept thinking, that it doesn't really do much of anything but the latter.
As one commenter put it (referring to a pro-drinking post about an American-produced artisan eau de vie):
"Great post. This is actually what I thought the blog was going to be about, alcohol as opposed to the posts about people not drinking anymore."
The problem must be one of balance, right? I mean, as the comedian Bill Hicks said (and I'm paraphrasing here): "You watch the news, and every story about drugs is about some idiot who took acid, thought he could fly, and jumped off a building. But, wait a second, isn't the news supposed to objective? I've had some great times on drugs. Where are those stories?"
(He goes on to note that anyone who thinks they can fly is advised to try taking off from the ground, because "it's not like you see ducks lining up to grab an elevator to the top of the Empire State building." God I love Bill Hicks' humor.)
But, looking over the blog with an eye towards the issue, I've found balance is not really the problem (at least, not recently). The last 10 articles stack up thusly: Six about the pleasures of drinking, two about the dangers of drinking, one about moderation, and one undecided (a clever tale of being "addicted" to the works of drunken writers such as Hemingway and H.S. Thompson, which never says either way whether the author still drinks or not). The next ten are pretty much the same. And yet, another comment:
"I am getting the impression this blog is not about alcohol use, but about alcohol abuse. There is a strong rhetorical current here that would channel them together into the same thing."
I've spoken with a lot of people about this blog - exclusively people in the camp that enjoys and celebrates drinking, which is the circle in which I run - and the comments almost always run along the lines of "I don't get what they're trying to do with it," or "it just seems like such a downer."
But, really, the blog itself strikes a fine balance - if anything more on the pro-drinking side. I suspect they, like me, are actually talking more about the comments. Comments like:
"A drug is a drug is a drug is a drug…… "
"The longer you’re sober, the less compelled you are to think–or write–about alcoholism."
"What a disturbing essay. It seems that the effects of alcohol on young brains would be the most important concern for this mother." (Note: the post had nothing to do with children drinking; rather, it touched upon on a mother enjoying a glass of wine in front of her child.)
"Very often those with a family history of alcoholism perpetuate their family history in the unfiltered reality of their own? It is said that if you ever - mothers, fathers, daughters sons - think you have a problem with drinking then you already do."
"Holy Cow what a cliff hanger. Will she or won’t she. Learn to live, appreciate and celebrate life without alcohol. Knowing you posses that alcoholic gene, alert your child that she too is at risk. Educate her to the pitfalls and possible addiction. Do all you can to see she never takes the first drink. For her sake and your conscience."
"This will come to you one day after you’ve been sober long enough … sobriety means not drinking … not playing around with not drinking. I suggest you actually try sobriety instead of just musing about it. I challenge you to get sober for 10 years then read this article … you’ll see then how silly and convoluted your confessions sound."
Even some of the authors have noted on it:
"Last month, in my first post for "Proof," I wrote that I had recently quit drinking, and that I had done so because I’d become sick. I did not say that my drinking had made me sick. And I did not define myself as an alcoholic. But in the comments that followed that post many readers called me an alcoholic."
This comment, though, gets at the crux of what bugs me:
"Unfortunately alcoholism is a disease that when it comes back, will come back even stronger than before. And it will come back. People who feel they must “manage” their drinking, need to realise that that means that it is unmanageable. Alcohol is cunning, baffling and powerful and will sneak up you again, and when it does you will need to get help before you do some real damage."
I'm not here to bash anyone who has quit drinking - it's a personal choice for some, and a necesity for many others. I have family members who have done so, and it works for them.
I guess what I'm getting at (and I'm following the lead of many commenters on the other side) is the black-and-white approach to drinking that is prevalent in this country. There is no such thing in the A.A. mentality (note: I'm speaking here of A.A. as an organization, not about specific A.A. members or membership as a whole) as drinking too much, or too often, or some combination of both - even if only at times - without being a dyed-in-the-wool, will-inevitably-plow-over-a-bunch-of-kids-playing-hopscotch alcoholic.
But it's just not the case. It's like insisting anyone who occasionally over-indulges at the dessert table is morbidly obese. And if vampire movies have taught us anything it's that people who have battled demons tend to see demons everywhere, regardless of whether they're actually, you know, there. It doesn't matter that it's a medical fact that alcohol, in moderation, is beneficial; that on average even heavy drinkers live longer than teetotalers; or that (and this in response to those "I choose not to put poisons in my body" nay-sayers) "poison" is most often a question of quantity, not substance - just look at the people who overdose and die by drinking too much water.
Like the once-fat guy who got skinny, way, way too into yoga, and now only eats raw foods and turns his nose up at anyone who enjoys the occasional bacon cheeseburger, I suspect that some of these people cling to their rigid beliefs because a.) They have no other choice; and b.) They secretly hate people who can indulge in something they can't. It doesn't have to be that way, of course, but judgment is easier than understanding.
I'd like to go further into Michael Pollan's point of how Americans view food and drink in general (short answer: as fuel - if you consume enough of A, and enough of B, without too much of C, you are now healthy) without a touchstone to the larger personal, spiritual, and cultural context, but I'm getting off-point.
What I really need to say is that, while the comments (and there are a lot of them - typically 200-300 per post) are endlessly fascinating and often infuriating for a drinker, they are in fact separate from the content that The New York Times chooses to publish - content which, in fact, does exactly what has been promised.
If you're one of the many people I spoke with who are down on this blog, or share their sentiment, ignore the endless, infuriating holier-than-thou downers who feel compelled to go online and scream about everyone being an alcoholic. It's sad, more than anything.
Give Proof another chance.
Comments