#and also. just saying again for the people. there's nuance beyond these three broad categories

[accirax]

Look at this: https://x.com/chuckecheesez/status/1852077124057759864

Best DC crossover in the history of the internet! (2nd half here)

Also this is the best part for me

😆😆😆

OOOOH it's a crossover between the first generation characters (is that what i should be calling them now? yeesh) and the DC4 cast! that's so fun! i really like the limited motion of this video, it really sells that old timey/kinda hokey feeling. plus Thriller is always a banger.

i agree that that part was probably my favorite part in the video. the detail of Drew holding up the paper that says "BRAINS" is so funny to me. my guy, nobody else in this video is talking. you could've gotten away with it. but the artist paid attention to the details. that's quality craftsmanship right there.

more tweet asks below the cut!

I am about to cry... BABY DREW!!! 😭💛

aww, this is so cute! and very in-keeping with the style of the show, too. i love his little star hat, it makes him look like the protagonist of a bedtime story adventure :)

also, this art inspired me to look up whether people with selective mutism would make any sound when they cry or not. apparently the answer for many of them is no! i know that the noise isn't the only reason why people give babies pacifiers-- obviously you want them to not be upset as well, and i think there might be something beneficial about the sucking action-- but it's still an interesting difference to consider, imo.

Just found this Dan appreciation/analysis/rant post when I opened up Twitter, in case you or any of the "Dan Stans" might be interested. The thread does open some interesting perspectives in terms of the show's favoritism and the creators' writing abilities/choices. So you can check it out if you want.

speaking of interesting differences to consider, thank you for sharing this! i always enjoy hearing other people's perspectives on media, even if i don't agree with them, as long as they're 1) generally informed and 2) not overly hostile, which i don't think this person was. they were definitely angry, but it came from a place of passion, and they at least didn't insult anything personal about who Jared and Robert are... for the most part.

anyways, a good analysis! i know you said you have no interest in Danganronpa, but as a fellow elimination game, i can definitely draw parallels between that franchise and this. specifically, in behaviors i've noticed in fans.

these are probably over-generalizations, but i feel like you could roughly break down DC/DR fans into three broad categories. first, there are the people who like heroic characters that last for a long time-- in DC's case, your Miriams, your Aidens, or your Connors. they seem to pick their favorite characters based on who they think would be the coolest to hang out with irl, or who they would aspire to be like.

opposite them, there are the people who like the villainous characters that last for a long time, more like Alec, Fiore, or Riya. they seem to pick their favorite characters based on who they think provided the most intrigue for the story, whether in terms of driving the central conflict or promoting the story's themes.

those groups have obvious tension between each other, with the hero enjoyers often not understanding how their compatriots could "condone" such vile actions by stanning villains and the villain enjoyers often seeing any character without a penchant for mischief as "lacking depth."

and then, in their own little corner, there's the third group, who enjoys the characters who left the game early-- i would imagine, because they find it fun to fill in the gaps that canon left with their projections and headcanons.

as someone whose favorites are typically long-lasting villains (with long-lasting heroes as a close second), it's really interesting for me to hear the thought process of someone of the third category! to me, if i like a work of fiction, it seems natural to me to have a general preference for the characters that last longer, because they make up a greater percentage of that thing that i like. but i really like this analysis of Dan's character as it shows how much importance he had even as a relatively early, non-returnee boot, and how he had layers without the tragic backstory typical of DC characters.

however, i also understand where Jared and Robert were coming from in not bringing him back. in theory, if you like Disventure Camp, it's because you like all of the over-the-top drama and plot twists the show throws your way. i (mildly) disagree with the OP's point that bringing Dan back would have been good as a way of differentiating their plot lines, because while that may have been true, it also sort of goes against the fundamentals of what DC has become. if that's not the kind of story that Jared and Robert wanted to tell, then they shouldn't be forced to write it.

not to mention, i could see why they would pass up on Dan for All Stars if they considered DC Season 1, as opposed to Adventure Camp, their second shot at Dan already. it's not a perfect solution, given that plenty of major characters from Adventure Camp continued to be major characters in DC1 and/or DCAS. however, if what this person wanted was "Dan transforms from a minor character into a more important role," that did already happen for him. he could have then become even more important in DCAS, but that loops back into "let Jared and Robert write the story they want to tell." flawed as it may be, at least they're (presumably) having fun if they're writing what they want as opposed to what the fans want.

and, on that note, i also personally perceived the "who's Dan?" comments and the idea of bringing him back to boot him first as more of a meme than anything else. but, i haven't read many of Jared's tweets nor am i in the DC discord, so i could be missing important context there. plus, i'm sure it'd sting to hear that about your favorite underrepresented character, even if it wasn't meant as a joke.

ramble over! at the very least, we can all agree that Genesis did a fantastic job voicing Dan :D i hope he gets cast in more roles in the future, whether in DC or otherwise.

[overthinkingkdrama]

I stumbled on a post of yours listing your favorite kdrama melos and I hadn't realized until that moment that my fav kdramas (the smiles has left your eyes, just between lovere, secret love affair my ahjusshi etc) would all be classified together as distinct from other kdramas. I'm wondering what your thoughts are about Korean melodrama as a genre that is separate and distinct from not only other kdramas but also Western melodrama.

I apologize for how long it took me to post this response. This is a really great ask, touching on one of my favorite narrative subjects, and it required a bit of mulling before I could formulate an answer.

Melodrama as a genre umbrella is broad enough to include many different types of stories beneath its label. Sometimes the term "melodrama" is used specifically to differentiate from a "romcom", or to indicate that a drama (sometimes, but not always) will steer toward a tragic rather than happy ending. Sometimes it merely means that the subject matter is going to be "heavy" and "angsty" rather than "light and fluffy". The definition of the word in English typically connotes a story that includes sensational or exaggerated characters and themes, designed to appeal to emotion. In fact, if you start trying to parse what we mean when we describe something as a "melo" it might seem so general as to be unhelpful, but I believe we can narrow it down a little more.

The term "makjang" also very often gets applied to Kdramas, sometimes interchangeably with the word melodrama or as a sort of intensifier for melodrama, which is how I frequently use it. Although I would suggest that the way we use the word in the English-speaking fandom is somewhat different from its actual connotations in Korean. If you’re interested in specifics about what that term actually means and where it comes from this is a good blog post. And I think I’ve seen a couple other good definitions floating around if you do some googling.

If you’re more familiar with American television or fairly new to Kdramas, you might compare a makjang drama to a daytime soap opera. All the secrets and betrayals and star-crossed lovers you would associate with melodramas in general, but turned all the way up to 11. The most extreme end of the meo spectrum, verging on absurdity. This is generally what the uninitiated think all Kdramas are like. I frequently have people who don’t know much about the subject refer to Kdramas as “Korean soap operas”. I dislike this characterization because a) it ignorantly and rather Eurocentrically paints all Korean television with the same broad brush, when anybody with more than a passing familiarity knows that Korean television is just as varied in quality and content as any other country’s and b) the term “soap opera” has such a specific, culturally defined, low-rent connotation that I would have a hard time applying it meaningfully to non-Western television.

Not all melodramas are makjangs. Although all makjangs will be some variety of melodrama.

Rather than overwrought, exaggerated or sensational I prefer to use the word "heightened" to describe the subjects of a melo, since the word does not imply a value judgement and I think gestures at the central element of all story—but especially melos—that makes them so appealing in the first place. The emotions are “heightened”, the personalities are “heightened”, the actions are “heightened”. Everything is just a little bigger, a little sharper, a little louder than normal. They have deeper, more broad-reaching implications. They have greater scope and thematic resonance than what we generally experience in everyday life.

Even dramas that deal with fairly quotidian subjects (such as college, family relationships, workplace stress) can either have a more grounded/realistic bent, or a more melodramatic bent. Although I would argue that story because it seeks impose order and meaning on otherwise random or meaningless events through the magic of narrative structure will, by its very nature, necessitate certain type of melodrama. That is the quality of “heightened”-ness. Without it, we don’t really have stories at all. So, in that way this is very much a continuum, and not a set of discreet genre categories

As for the second part of your question, how Korean melodrama is distinct from the Western melodrama…I may not be entirely qualified to answer it, as my perspective is that of a Western viewer who is trying to define and categorize things as a non-native speaker with a distinctly Western literary critical background. However, I will attempt to give you my best answer based on the many dozens of dramas I’ve now seen and my own readings about Korean culture.

Because the single run mini-series with an average of 16-20 episodes is currently the currency of the realm, a lot of Korean television focuses on delivering a compact story with a limited cast of characters and bringing a single story arc to a conclusion. Which is different from most American network television which basically tries to stretch out endless seasons of a show whether the story actually calls for it or not. In the West this is changing because of streaming services, which make prestige television shows more and more desirable and common, resulting in more complete stories in limited runs. And it’s also changing in Korea which has been increasingly experimenting with preproduced, longer run and multi-season dramas. (This is of course a limited view of Korean television, which also has its share of long run weekly dramas or weekenders which have a different structure altogether, but I don’t know much about those so I won’t speak to them.) We’ll have to wait and see what style of television grows and thrives in the coming years.

While Korea has indisputably experienced an Americanization of its media in the past decades, there are certain things that are unshakably culturally construed, which appear in dramas again and again up to the present day. A lot of this peculiarly Korean sensibility I think can be tied to a few factors: the influence of Confucianism, the division of North and South, the country’s history of colonization, and a uniquely Korean relationship with emotionality typified by the concepts of han and heung.

I don’t want to wade too far into waters that are too deep for my shallow understanding, but a lot of the “fodder” so to speak of Korean melodrama comes from the specific history of the peninsula. The heavy emphasis on familial (especially parent/child) relationships and the specific way in which they are handle in Korean dramas requires a basic crash course in Confucianism to grasp. The concept of “filial piety” and different types of generational guilt or generational trauma might seem alien to a Westerner. Especially a Westerner from as young a country as the United States.

Because of the concept of “filial piety” and a strong emphasis on family background and blood ties, the recurrence of plots points like birth secrets, family registry falsification, the mistreatment of orphans, adopted children or the children of criminals/murders is much more frequent in Korean melodramas than Western television and treated with different weight within in the culture, and I find this can sometimes be off-putting or confusing if you don’t understand where some of these hang-ups come from. It’s also important to remember that South Korea is a relatively young Constitutional Republic with an extremely recent and troubled political past. More recent than the Japanese Occupation which left so many scars on the collective cultural consciousness, more recent even than the Korean War and the division of North and South Korea. Also, it doesn’t hurt to recognize that, while social stratification is an issue everywhere and that there is no culture in the world that doesn’t have some kind of class system, strongly Confucianism influenced societies have engrained into their history a type of caste system that many Western viewers are completely unfamiliar with.

I’m not saying that you have to be immersed in Korean culture or history to understand and enjoy dramas, but it certainly helps to understand some of the nuances or even troubling elements that you will detect while watching. And it might be a good attitude to adopt, that if you find something off-putting or weird in a character’s reaction or the behavior of a particular group of people in a drama, to ask yourself if there is some kind of shared cultural context that you might be missing to explain the difference. A lot of what I’ve learned about Korean history and culture over the past few years has come from detecting such differences or such intellectual discomfort and doing my own research to find out why these things are coming up again and again.

Moving away from structure and even just cultural context, I do think there is something really unique in the “feel” of Korean dramas that isn’t present in other media I’ve watched. A special kind of relationship “raw” emotion that I think is integrally and inescapably Korean. I think this has to do with the concepts of jeong, han, and heung.

Jeong has to do with a sense of community and communal love, which I think might be the most “visual” of these three “indescribable” emotional concepts. You can see it in the special weight given to sharing food, or in drinking together. You can see it in the family that the neighborhood of Ssangmun-dong in Reply 1988, that creates an umbrella of bonds which extends far beyond blood relations. It’s something that generates a special kind of warmth that I look to Kdramas for specifically. Of course, when an ideal like this is damaged or missing or twisted beyond recognition it can cut deeply and leave behind irreparable scars. Which, I think, might explain why so many romantic heroes and heroines in melodramas come from places of profound social isolation (people like Moo Young in TSHLYE and Gang Do in Just Between Lovers) or from severely broken homes.

Perhaps more relevant to the discussion of melodramas in particularly, han has to do with a sort of internalized trauma, or grief that one carries with them throughout their lives. It can be a broader cultural trauma (like the societal scars left behind from the Japanese Occupation) or something more personal (Like the loss of a child or a broken relationship). I found this quote which I think explains the feeling and its relationship to Korean media well:

Long-term foreign residents here note a tendency of people to wallow in or enjoy the sadness, in an almost romantic way. There is a deep strain of melancholy in Korean culture, and this is expressed in the modern age through sad songs, films and TV dramas that offer an unrelenting stream of tragic heroes, unrequited love and bittersweet memories – most likely contributing to the appeal of Korean pop culture abroad.

[Korea: The Impossible Country’ by Daniel Tudor (2012)]

Heung is somewhat less relevant to our discussion of melodramas, although it is interesting and much more evident I think in other examples of Korean media, but it is the almost manic reaction or counterpoint to han. A sort of overflowing, irrepressible sense of pure joy. And I totally recommend you go out and read about this stuff yourself, I'm probably just slaughtering these concepts trying to summarize them in my feeble way.

It the special cocktail of all three of these "feelings" that give Korean dramas (for me, Korean melodramas in particular) that special addictive quality that made me fall so deeply in love with them. That tacit permission to feel things, to feel them deeply, even overwhelmingly and the catharsis that goes along with that. That is the special sauce, the “heightened”-ness I mentioned before that takes the mundane and makes it magical.

Sorry this got so out of hand, but I hope it was an interesting read and worth the wait. Thank you so much for the ask.

Jona

[urfavmurtad]

What is your opinion on arguments that claim the islamic golden age proves islam isn't anti-science or "problematic"?

I read this article a year ago and I’m glad I bookmarked it bc it says pretty much my exact thoughts on this topic. First lemme just get this part out of the way:

Like many other concepts that shape our understanding of medieval history, the idea of a “Muslim Golden Age” is a historiographical construct. It promotes the notion that, until at least the early thirteenth century, the Muslim world experienced an era of unprecedented stability, prosperity, and cultural production. … Putting aside the fact that it imposes an anachronistic framework on medieval Muslim history, its main argument that the period between the eighth century and the thirteenth century can be characterized mainly by tolerance, cultural efflorescence, political unity, and religious harmony is contrary to many of the facts that one encounters upon reading the history of the various civilizations which are subsumed under the category of “Islamic civilization,” a phrase which conceals the linguistic, cultural, intellectual, theological, and political diversity of the lands in which Muslims resided during the medieval and early modern periods. This is to say nothing of the fact that the narratives promoted by these “Golden Age” perspectives are usually a reworking of official histories that do not take into account the realities of marginalized groups during the same period. The “Golden Age” perspective is also problematic because it is in many ways reactionary and a response to the many political, religious, and intellectual challenges faced by the Muslim world in the modern period. History, or rather particular historical narratives about a “Golden Age,” therefore becomes an important repository for the “greatness of Islamic civilization” and a refuge in which Muslims can seek solace in order to refute the idea–promoted mainly by those hostile to Islam–that Muslim civilization was, is, and always will be characterized by death, destruction and chaos.…

In other words, the nuances of Muslim history and civilization are completely obscured in the face of broad, sweeping statements geared towards emphasizing not only the uprightness, but even the absolute supremacy of Muslim civilization, as it was believed to have manifested between the ninth century and the eighteenth century. It is at this point where history ceases to be a critical intellectual endeavor and instead becomes polemic and apologetics.  

The “Golden Age” is one of those abstract things that exists more as an idea than as a reality, like all other “ages” (“Dark Ages” etc). It’s important to point out that this is an Orientalist idea that was created to give the impression that Muslims in the distant past were productive and peaceful, versus “modern Muslims” (in the 1800s) who suck and must be brought back to their ancestors’ values by Ye Olde Hwhite People. It was not a term used by Muslims or Arabs themselves until the permanent inferiority/superiority complex (we r the Sasuke Uchihas of the world tbh) kicked in last century and people started using it.

No one can agree on when the “Golden Age” exactly took place. In the earliest usages of the term, it was just meant to refer to some vague past period of glory, to differentiate the past from the present squalor. The people using it did not have a damn clue about Arab history. In its modern-day usage, there is an enormous range from like… 700 AD to 1300 AD. Or even longer. That time period involved multiple civil wars, plagues that destroyed a huge portion of the population, genocides, invasions, ethnic cleansings, famines, breakdowns of society–as is expected of such a huge time period, of course. There were plenty of periods of stability and progress within that time period in some regions, interspersed by various issues… so where exactly is the line drawn? Was there really one “Golden Age”, or did Muslim lands, like literally every other civilization on earth, just go through periodic growth and collapse eras, up until the present?

No one can agree on where the “Golden Age” took place, either. Every single place where Islam was practiced? The lands of the Abbasid Caliphate, in general? The remains of the Umayyads in Spain? Fatimid Cairo?  Khorasan? Mughal India? Ottoman Anatolia? What? By the 1000s AD, Muslim lands were ruled by dozens of different empires. They had different laws, different populations, different levels of development and urbanization. Some were more built-up and wealthier than others, again like every other civilization on earth. Some areas were largely rural and illiterate, others were urbanized and better-educated. Some empires attacked others and absorbed them; dynasties rose and fell all the damn time. Throughout the “Golden Age”, non-Muslim lands were invaded and absorbed into larger empires, growing the area governed by Muslims even larger. Parts of the Middle East/North Africa/Andalus/India remained poor and isolated, other parts of it became wealthy and connected to trade routes. I mean… of course?

Like… I don’t think ppl realize what a large area of land we’re talking about here. Are people under the impression that every inch of land conquered by some Muslim dynasty was not only urbanized, well-developed, wealthy, and tolerant, but also homogeneous? Not all of these places had the same conditions!! Not all were even majority-Muslim throughout this period! Many had virtually nothing in common beyond the fact that their rulers were all Muslims of various sects–and many of those rulers were only nominally religious, again just like every other civilization in the world. There were different ethnicities being ruled over by different ethnicities–I mean by the 1000s the Turks were already running amok. This whole Orientalist idea that the Abbasids were in complete control of their peaceful happy lands until the Mongols destroyed them or whatever is nonsense.

It’s all a bit like saying that Europe had a “golden age” after the Italians took over Constantinople while rural French villagers had finally realized how to wipe their asses. Hell, it’s like saying that Europe already had a “golden age” during Byzantium’s peak centuries earlier while the western half of the continent was enjoying a Germanic Rave Party. You can’t assign one label to hundreds of years of history encompassing thousands of different tribes and dozens of empires on different continents.

No one can even say what they mean by “Golden Age”. Usually it’s referred to as some combination of scientific development and “tolerance”. It goes without saying that when you’re talking about like 600 years spread over parts of Europe, North Africa, the Middle East, and Southeast Asia, the idea that all of these areas were happy, peaceful, and productive places for that time span is insane. Not to mention that there were plenty of eras outside the “Golden Age” that had just as much development. Why exactly are the Ottomans or Safavids or Mughals not considered part of this age? What measure of goldenness are we using rn, is there a table I can consult to see how many gold units are necessary to become Golden or some shit? What does “tolerance” mean when we’re talking about eras in which religious minorities were almost universally discriminated against, even in the best-case scenarios? Are we supposed to just ignore those laws, the mass slavery, conquests, etc? Is “golden age” code for when we were the ones oppressing the people of foreign lands?

But typically, when people (this includes not just Muslims btw) talk about the “Golden Age”, I think they are picturing one of three vague areas, in different continents and eras. One is al-Andalus in what is now Spain/Portugal. Plenty of people have heard of Cordoba and its “tolerance”. The second is the Syria-Iraq-Iran region (as though they’re all one place???) and especially Baghdad at some point before the Mongol invasion of the city, like 800s-1100s or something. Again, even when people know very little about Islamic history, they often know of the completely-misrepresented “House of Wisdom”. (In my experience, the focus is almost always on the Arab parts of that area, while places like modern-day Iran are basically ignored, despite the fact that this is where many Muslim literary traditions, architecture, and research kicked off. I think it’s because the “Golden Age” is usually billed as an era of peaceful coexistence, and there weren’t many happy religious minorities in Iran. There’s also doubtlessly some Arab-centrism thrown in there.) The third and imo less well-known one is Fatimid Egypt. Fewer people have heard of the Fatimids themselves, but many institutions and ideas associated with Arab science and learning are from their time.

These are… uhh different dynasties on three different continents in different eras. But let’s roll with it for the sake of argument. The article I linked to sums up my thoughts on al-Andalus (side note: I know someone who calls Spain “occupied al-Andalus” in 100% seriousness and it makes me laugh every time. “No wait only WE’RE allowed to be imperialists!!!” - ancient Islamic proverb):

Another myth that Islamic Golden Age writers like to promote is the idea of medieval Islamic Spain (al-Andalus) as a haven of tolerance and coexistence. Although it is certainly true that there was a large degree of coexistence of faiths in medieval Spain and some important examples of toleration, there was also a great deal of intolerance. In fact, some of the most brutal episodes in Islamic history occurred in al-Andalus. In 1066 a Muslim mob murdered nearly 4000 Jews in Granada (the first major pogrom to occur in Europe), while in the twelfth century the Almohad dynasty forced all Jews and Christians in al-Andalus and North Africa to convert to Islam (or choose exile); among the most important of these exiles was the Jewish philosopher Moses Maimonides (d. 1204). The works of various Muslim philosophers and theologians, including both al-Ghazali (d. 1111) and Ibn Rushd (d. 1198), were publicly burned in the courtyard of the Great Mosque of Cordoba. Other episodes, such as the Martyrs of Cordoba (851-859) and destruction of Santiago de Compostela (999), also show that al-Andalus cannot simply be reduced to a paradise of tolerance. The existence of oppressive institutions, such as slavery and the social stratification of Andalusi society also underscores this point. However, just as we should not claim that al-Andalus was a haven of tolerance based on several examples and anecdotes, we should also not reduce Andalusi history to a sequence of ravages and massacres, as some anti-Islamic thinkers have done.

Al-Andalus was, for its early history, ruled by a remainder of the Umayyads, who had been overtaken by the Abbasids almost everywhere else. By necessity, they had to negotiate with their (mostly Christian) population to avoid unrest that would make them weak to enemies coming north from Morocco. While non-Muslims were discriminated against on a level that would cause Nazi accusations if it were implemented against Muslims in the West today, there were in fact plenty of decades in which development thrived and both Muslim and non-Muslim scientists and researchers made important progress, and there were times in which people lived in peace, even if it wasn’t an equal peace. After the collapse of the Umayyads, there was a period of unrest, followed by domination by the Almoravids and then the Almohads, the latter of whom were one of the nastiest Muslim dynasties to get into Europe prior to the Ottomans. People reacted somewhat negatively to the convert-or-die order and the “Reconquista” restarted not long after. The history of the territory is more complicated than “science and peace then iron maidens and Catholics :(((”.

The Fatimids were an Arab Ismaili dynasty that ruled parts of the ME and NA from Egypt for a couple hundred years starting in the 900s AD. During the first century of Fatimid rule it is absolutely true that Egypt, and especially Cairo, developed a sophisticated and wealthy culture that gave rise to all sorts of authors and scholars. But like every other long-lasting empire on earth, in terms of tolerance and peace, it was a mixed bag, and some leaders were better than others. Some Fatimid caliphs were out of their god damned minds, the most notable of whom was al-Hakim, who facilitated both an increase in scholarship and learning and a campaign of terrible religious persecution, against both Sunnis and Christians and Jews at different points of his lifetime. He was like the Arab Louis XIV or something. Nonetheless, many educational institutions did flourish in this era. Al-Azhar, which today puts out fatwas about how Shia people are devils, was in fact founded by the Shia Fatimids…

The Syria-Iraq-Iran trio, by which I mostly mean Baghdad bc 99% of the time that’s what people focus on, was one of the Muslim world’s most urbanized and educated cities for quite a while. The Mutazilites are usually credited as the ones to kickstart this, and this was a school of early Islamic theology that incorporated a lot of Greek/Hellenized Christian ideas into their works, to the chagrin of most other Muslims at the time. The Mutazilites shouldn’t be seen as hippies or harmless–they did often persecute other Muslims (and non-Muslims) and attacked non-Muslim lands in order to subjugate them. Eventually they went too far and triggered a backlash. But they saw themselves as “rationalists” I guess the word would be, and that is what drew them to the creation of learning institutions. These are some of the first places that commissioned the translations of Indian texts after the first Arab conquests of parts of India, and those texts included many important mathematical concepts that were expanded upon by (or sometimes wrongly attributed to) Arabs. Even as this school began to fade, it left an imprint on what is now Iraq, and huge numbers of scholars from the surrounding area did visit its large cities to further their education at various points. Again–world history is really long!! Starting in the 900s AD, it was ruled by all sorts of Iranian empires, then the Turks came to town, then the Mongols came in and wrecked shit. Periods of progress existed before, during, and after that era, interspersed by periods in which progress stalled. Tolerance went from ehh to really bad depending on the particular ruler and dynasty in charge of the area, which is completely expected.

To sum it up: there was no one “Islamic Golden Age”. There were many different eras of relative progress/tolerance interspersed with less-happy eras all throughout the Muslim areas of Europe, North Africa, the Middle East, and Asia from Islam’s creation to the modern day. And of course there were! This was a huge area and a huge time span. How much of that is due to Islam itself is, uh, debatable, to put it gently–certainly the enormous wealth that came from conquest and domination of trade and slave routes didn’t hurt, and not all major figures of this “age” were even religious. I don’t think many people would call the 1500s-1800s the “Christian Golden Age”. But whatever factors you want to attribute it to, it is at least true that multiple Muslim empires, at various points in time, did contribute a lot to the development of science and medicine. Granted, it wasn’t even close to every area ruled by Muslims in every time period from 700 to 1300, and to say that these areas were tolerant or progressive by modern standards is lunacy, but still.

The idea that there was one singular chunk of time in which “Islam” as a whole was tolerant, peaceful, progressive, wealthy, and scientifically knowledgeable–after which something (Mongols, imperialism, ??? we just don’t know) happened to reverse all of that–is a modern idea mostly promoted by Orientalists, and it’s been adopted as a magical Lost Age by Muslims who feel bad about the admittedly shitty situations that many currently find themselves in. But past Muslims dealt with war, poverty, dictators, destruction, and intolerance too. Sometimes people in the “Golden Age” were ruled by horrible leaders and influenced by terrible, intolerant, anti-science movements; other eras saw a backlash to that and facilitated better conditions and people rebuilt. Then there would be some disaster that set people back again, on and on. Just like today. And just like every other part of the world, including Europe. Things move in waves, man. timeisaflatcircle.gif

(Also if I see that “Muslims invented MATH. There was NO MATH before goddamn 610 AD” post with like 5000000 notes one more time imma cry tbh)

[amorremanet]

top 5 movies? and why? no no TOP FIVE BOOKS

oh gosh, both of these are hard and my answers for them are probably so boring (they also come with the, “this is just how I feel right now because ugh, I am the worst at picking any all-time faves for broad categories”) — but!!

top “five” movies:

The Prince of Egypt — has some of the most beautiful art that I’ve ever seen, anywhere, and music that sticks with you, and it really shows the human drama and human stakes of such a classic story in ways that a lot of adaptations of Biblical mythology are afraid to do

Deadpool — because I’m garbage, the characters are great, the script is pretty good, and the movie makes me laugh. It’s not really a deconstruction (in the way that some people make it out to be, by way of justifying why they like it), and it’s not super-intellectual, and in a lot of ways, it’s like a giant #SorryNotSorry that makes fun of superhero movie tropes while continuing to use them (and there are some subtle ways it plays with some of said tropes and twists them around, but it largely doesn’t) — but it’s fun

But I’m A Cheerleader — is far from perfect, and I maintain that it’s actually much more depressing than the ending leads us to believe (I mean, Meghan/Graham and Dolph/Clayton get together and escape from True Directions and homophobic parents, and Meghan’s Mom and Dad at least try to do better by their daughter, but things don’t work out that well for anybody else), but it’ll always have a special place in my heart because it was one of the only lesbian movies that I had access to as a little gay baby

Female Trouble — I wouldn’t say that it’s the best thing that John Waters has ever done, just the one that I personally like the best, and I’ll admit that it’s probably an acquired taste…… but I love how it takes on celebrity culture in the story Dawn Davenport, and it gave us great lines like, “The world of heterosexual is a sick and boring life” and, “I wouldn’t suck your lousy dick if I was suffocating and there was oxygen in your balls!” It also has a special place in my heart as one of my favorite, “gay AND weird” movies

—which probably makes sense, given that it was written and directed by the trash king of being gay and weird

……like, seriously. My (best friend who I call my) brother once asked me, “So is John Waters gay or is he just really weird?” and the only thing I could think of to say to that was, “Yes, both.”

the “Three Flavours Cornetto” trilogy — which is totally cheating, to put three in here, but I couldn’t pick between them. I do think that Hot Fuzz and The World’s End are more fully actualized than Shaun of the Dead, but I love all of them, and the reason is pretty much just, “Because they’re good mixes of being hilarious and making me FEEL things” (……less so in The World’s End, for several reasons; it’s a lot heavier on the feels, to the point that you sometimes feel bad for laughing at the jokes, but still)

and books:

Good Omens (Terry Pratchett & Neil Gaiman) — This book was my introduction to both PTerry and GNeil, after I found a cheap copy in an airport bookstore when I was about twelve and immediately fell in love. It’s funny, the characters are vibrant and engaging, and it played right into my love of screwing around with Biblical mythology.

I’m periodically tempted to list different books for both of those men (with PTerry’s probably being one of the Granny Weatherwax books, or Faust Eric, and GNeil’s being either American Gods or one of his Sandman books — because yeah, he’s done other good stuff, but I’m more sentimentally attached to AG and Sandman. Also, Preludes and Nocturnes has some of the only non-movie or TV horror that has genuinely terrified me, so)

—buuuut then I never do, because Good Omens was my first book from either of them, and remains my sentimental fave, even though I admit that they’ve both written other books that are, “better” or, “stronger,” or whatever

Dry (Augusten Burroughs) — There’s a lot of fair criticism to be made of Augusten Burroughs, and he’s been one of the writers at the center of the debates about truthfulness or lack thereof in popular memoirs (like, how much an author is allowed to condense things before it stops counting as a, “real story,” and how an author remembers things happening vs. how other people remember them), but Dry nevertheless means a lot to me.

Like, I enjoyed Running with Scissors and his novel, Sellevision (which were the other Big Deals in his collected works, at the time I originally read Dry), but Dry fucked me up a LOT when I first read it. It has continued to fuck me up ever since.

There are passages in this book that I can’t even be jealous of, as another writer, because they’re so good that they skip right the fuck past, “I’m angry and jealous that I didn’t write this myself” and into, “Holy shit, THIS is why I write, the ability to do THIS KIND OF THING EXACTLY with words, I need to go write something right now”

Also, it means a lot to me for sentimental, “I read this book for the first time when I was in high school, and it made me feel less lonely and sad and scared” reasons

Dynamic Characters (Nancy Kress) — This is by no means the be-all and end-all of, “how to writer better” books, but it’s a personal favorite of mine, for two reasons: 1. there are some things that Kress doesn’t cover about creating characters and doing better by them in your writing, but she’s still pretty comprehensive and offers some solid illustrative examples, multiple perspectives on this part of writing (not as many as she could, but to be fair, she only has so many pages to work with), and a good mix of “tough love” advice and gentler, more reassuring advice;

and 2. …it was the first, “how to writer better” book that I ever got my hands on. I picked it out specifically because I’d posted a completely ridiculous crack fic that was a crossover between Harry Potter and Sailor Moon, with a first-person protagonist narrator who was a hot nonsense self-insert power fantasy Mary Sue with no flaws and no nuance because, hey, I was 11.

And someone actually commented to go, “Hey, look, you have talent, but you could do better and one place to start is maybe with learning to build better realized characters” — so I picked out the Nancy Kress book and it seems like a really silly thing to call a turning point? But it was big a turning point for me

Death, Disability, and the Superhero: The Silver Age and Beyond (José Alaniz) — okay, time for me to be a loser and cite an academic book. I’m also probably a cheating loser, since I just read this book for the first time recently…… but with that said? I’ve read a LOT of critical treatments of the superhero genre, some pretty good, others pretty bad (for example, I remain Perpetually Tired of Slavoj Žižek’s heavy metal Communist, Bane in Leather Pants bullshit reading of The Dark Knight Returns), and most of it somewhere in the middle

—but there’s this trend among people who write critically about superhero junk, whether they’re academics of not, wherein we act like we have to act like superhero comics are The Most Progressive Ever and oversell their sociopolitical impact in order to make them look like ~*True Art*~ That Must Be Taken Seriously (—and like, I’m not saying that they have NO impact on people at all, because that’s objectively false. But you also can’t try to claim that Superman, Wonder Woman, and Captain America comics are why the Allies won World War II)

(this is a pointless aside to note that I deliberately left the Goddamn Batman off that list, because while Supes, Diana, and Steve were all off punching Nazis, Golden Age Bruce and white boy!Dick were running around on the home-front, rounding up Japanese Americans and putting them in internment camps. So… y’know. There’s that.)

……or we have to take legitimate criticisms of problems in the superhero genre, both historical and current, and use them to go, “Therefore, the entire genre is pointless garbage that has no redeeming qualities at all and could never ever EVER be used to tell any stories that are worth telling, and frankly, you are all terrible, horrible people for enjoying it, how very dare you enjoy that X-Men movie or that Red Hood And The Outlaws comic, you’re basically a fascist now”

—which is hilarious, to me, because the people who write that sort of criticism almost always cite Fredric Wertham’s book, The Seduction of the Innocent (aka: the book that led to so much moral outrage over the allegedly very gay and fascistic, child-corrupting content of comicbooks that the Comics Code Authority was created), and they always go, “Well, obviously Wertham was OTT and totally full of shit, buuuut…… *argument that would not have been out of place in his book*”

So, one of the big reasons I loved Professor Alaniz’s book is that is does neither of these things. It offers some incisive, and occasionally kinda damning, critique of the superhero genre and its handling of disability and mortality, but he does so from a place of love and enjoyment, and never pretends to hate the genre, nor argues for throwing the whole thing out because it has problems.

Like, his underlying mindset is very much, “Yes, the superhero genre has a LOT of problems, but people could, in theory, fix them and try to get closer to realizing the full potential of what these characters and stories can do” — while never skimping on a detailed analysis of the trends and case studies that he presents.

Sometimes, I think he’s kinda reaching (and I, personally, never want to hear anything about Doctor Doom’s Oedipus complex ever again so long as I live, though it was validating to hear that my theatre kids AU version of him — who is a ridiculous mess, obsessed with taking selfies, and perpetually acting like he totally gets everything while missing some crucial detail, which is how he ends up thinking that Loki is dating Tony Stank [a suggestion that makes both of them want to puke] — is actually a valid interpretation of his character, based on some parts of canon)

Overall, though, my biggest problem with Professor Alaniz’s book is that he can be kind of a hipster and it can get a little bit annoying. Not enough to ruin the whole book, but enough that it does stand out.

Like, his chapter on Daredevil specifically analyzes an infamous Silver Age story that basically everyone hated — the one where Matt Murdock tells Karen and Foggy that he isn’t the Devil of Hell’s Kitchen, but he has some heretofore unknown identical twin brother named Mike, who is not blind but *IS* actually that aforementioned costumed hero, and carries on a charade of pretending to be his nonexistent twin brother — and okay, we get some pretty neat discussion of how passing can work or might not with disabled people

…but you can still walk away feeling like his biggest reason for analyzing that story arc was less about its value to any part of his discussion, and more about going, “Other Daredevil stories are too mainstream, I care most about this one that was so infamously ridiculous that people have said even soap operas wouldn’t have done this plot”

Likewise, I’m not saying that there aren’t very fair criticisms to be made of the X-Men and how their stories handle disability in particular… but at some points in his chapter on the Silver Age Doom Patrol comics, Professor Alaniz seems to be less, “using the pre-Claremont Silver Age X-Men stories as an illustrative foil to the Doom Patrol, especially with regard to how Charles’s paraplegia is treated vs. how The Chief’s paraplegia is treated” and more, “using this discussion as a free excuse to bash on the X-Men for being popular”

To his credit, Professor Alaniz does kinda discuss some of the ways that the X-Men’s popularity might have been affected by the fact that things like their ableist handling of Charles make them feel, “safer” and, “less sociopolitically threatening” than he makes the Doom Patrol out to be (with a pretty convincing argument, actually)

He just doesn’t do it enough for me to feel like his “criticism” of the X-Men isn’t at least partially grounded in going, “Well, it’s popular, therefore it sucks” (—as opposed to my approach to them, which is, “It’s popular, and has a mixed bag of things that it does well vs. things it does that suck, but it does not suck BECAUSE it is popular”)

Anyway, good book, and it’s written in a refreshingly accessible way (it’s still an academic book and harder to get into than, say, Good Omens, but Professor Alaniz doesn’t make a lot of the more common mistakes that leave a lot of academic writing effectively incomprehensible)

and last but not least…… Harry Potter and The Goblet of Fire (we all know who wrote this, okay, come on) — because I’d be lying if I didn’t include at least one HP book on this list, considering how important those books and that fandom have been to the course of my life and to my development as a writer, and it was either gonna be this one or POA, but this one won over the other because I’m garbage

[sherrygorugh]

RTD Rising: Single-Origin Cold Coffees Elevate the Game

Four Barrel Coffee canned ready-to-drink black coffees.  Photo courtesy of Four Barrel Coffee.

It was only two years ago that Coffee Review last explored the landscape of cold black coffees offered in ready-to-drink (RTD) format. In the 2018 report, we celebrated some excellent samples, but the majority of the submissions were produced from blends of various anonymous green coffees, as opposed to single-origin coffees from identifiable farms, mills or cooperatives, the kinds of coffees that, on average, offer more refined and individualized sensory experiences than blends.

Editor Kenneth Davids’ takeaway for the 2018 report was that “Cold brewing generally produces a somewhat different beverage than hot brewing does. The long, slow extraction tends to encourage a cup that is delicate and lightly syrupy in mouthfeel with a softer structure than produced by conventional hot brewing. Both acidity and bitterness tend to be muted. Flavor notes may be subtler in impact and often influenced by a caramelly sweetness.” Although I was impressed by the complexity of the handful of top-scoring cold coffees we tested in 2018, I found myself wondering if the RTD trend was just a passing fancy. After all, it takes considerable effort and investment to bottle or can a cold coffee for retail sale.

And going back to 2014, our first systematic foray into cold black coffee, almost all the submissions were not only blends, but they were also blends of mostly unnamed components and, frankly, generic.

Enjoying ready-to-drink black coffee over ice …

So, why did we dip into this category again in 2020, despite a lack of overall enthusiasm about the genre? Well, even a casual peruser of supermarket shelves can witness the growth of the cold brew segment, and might even recognize the increase in single-origin coffee names. The trend is obviously much more than a passing fancy — RTD black coffee is here to stay. And based on the overall quality of the 37 RTDs we tested this month, this is a welcome development.

Better Green Coffee, Better RTD

Of the 37 samples we tested for this month’s report — all unadulterated cold black coffees with no additives (save nitrogen gas in a few cases), we identified 11 samples that rated 92-94, seven of which are single-origin coffees. And the four blends included here are consciously crafted, thoughtful compositions of green coffees of distinctive character. In fact, two of these four blends are coffees we have tested on earlier occasions by cupping for brewed applications or as espresso.

You probably know where this is headed: It’s clear that the greater the care and attention put into sourcing the green coffee, the more likely it is that a roaster has a decent shot at crafting a successful RTD cold coffee. We found no muted flavors or flat acidity with these 11 top-rated coffees. They are the equal of their hot-brewed equivalents in nuance, depth, elegance and complexity.

Let’s take a look at what makes a good RTD cold coffee. We spoke with most of the submitters of the 11 top-scoring coffees we review here, asking them about their specific choices and processes as well as their thoughts on RTDs’ position in the specialty coffee industry more generally.

Our Testing Protocol

Instead of testing these RTDs over ice, which we’ve done in previous years, we simply chilled all the samples to refrigerator temperature, roughly 36 degrees Fahrenheit. This eliminates the risk of inadvertently diluting the coffees. We evaluated each coffee in four of our usual categories: Structure/Acidity, Body, Flavor and Aftertaste, but dropped Aroma, adding in its place a With Milk category. (Our ratio of coffee to cold whole milk was 5:1.)

The Top-Scorers

Scores for the 37 samples ranged from 76-94. Despite the wide range (one sample scored below 80 points, the cutoff for specialty coffee, because of an obvious mold defect), a full 20 coffees, i.e., more than half, scored 90 or above, and nine more scored 86 or higher.

Of the 11 coffees we review here, nine were cold-brewed, meaning they are made by steeping ground coffee for long periods in cold or room-temperature water. Beyond this basic methodology, the roasters we talked with reported many variations in the details of their procedures, from water temperature to length of brew time to brew vessel. Needless to say, we didn’t find the overall tendency to muted uniformity suggested by our previous two RTD reports. Rather, we found range, depth, multi-faceted profiles, and nuanced sensory experiences from traditional to innovative — in short, we found cold coffee experiences every bit as impressive as we might find among a range of whole-bean coffees designed for hot brewing.

Seven of the top-scoring 11 coffees, going from 93-94, are single-origin RTD cold coffees. The four at the top, which all scored 94, include two Ethiopias, a Kenya and a Brazil.

The Bonfire Ethiopia Nano Challa Cold Brew, which I found deliciously reminiscent of sipping a fine, naturally sweet but unsugared iced tea with lemon on a summer afternoon, was brewed at 36-40 degrees in the refrigerator for 24 hours using the full-immersion method and a 30-gallon Cold Brew Avenue brewer.  Owner of Carbondale, Colorado-based Bonfire Charlie Chacos chose this coffee for its bright, citrusy character, and he sells it in 50-ounce pouches.

San Francisco-based Four Barrel Coffee sent us four single-origin samples that offered a broad range of compelling sensory pleasure. The Kenya Kamoini, in particular, grabbed us with its classic sweet-savory Kenya profile with notes of tart pie cherry and spice-toned freesia-like florals.

This is one of just two coffees reviewed here that is brewed hot, then flash-chilled in an oxygen-free environment before being moved into aesthetically pleasing little cans. Four Barrel co-owner Jodi Geren says this method allows “a proper extraction that showcases clarity and florality.” She adds that brewing hot “really lays bare the essence of a coffee, so it requires that we use our very best single origins — those coffees that are the cornerstones of our sourcing program in the first place.”

Freshly poured nitro cold brew

We got a sneak preview of Denver-based Corvus Coffee’s new cold brew lineup, which will debut later this month. The Guji Oraga Nitro Cold Brew, a natural-processed coffee brewed cold over 12 hours, shows deep notes of sweet peach and tart pomegranate, with an attractive, rum-barrel-like fermenty sweetness. Nitrogen gas is added at the end of the process to further vivify the body and create a head when pouring.

One stellar cold brew came all the way from Taiwan. GK Coffee, based in the small city of Yilan, chose an Ipanema Brazil for its cold brew base. Although it’s a washed-process coffee, because of experimental processing moves (see review), this Black Edition A-41 Red Cherry displays a subtle ferment-related note suggesting cherry liqueur. Owner Gary Liao brews this coffee for 4-5 hours in the refrigerator at a ratio of 1:15 before bottling. He says that, while cold brew is popular in Taiwan because summers are so hot, most people drink darker-roasted blends rather than light-roasted single-origins such as this one.

Brazil Ipanema Black Edition A41 Red Cherry ready-to-drink coffee by GK Coffee in Taiwan.

Three at 93

Another single-origin cold brew that impressed us is Collage Coffee’s Asfaw Maru Ethiopia Natural. The Grove City-based roastery and art gallery bottles its cold brew in pretty glass jars. Owner Joe Funte describes the process: “We use a Yama cold drip tower, brewing the coffee (with a Chemex grind) for approximately 11 hours at a 1:13 ration of coffee to water.” The end result is a lovely winy, cocoa-toned and floral RTD.

Yet another single-origin Ethiopia, Klatch Coffee’s Washed Guji Anasora Cold Brew came in at 93. Roaster Jenn Hwang finds that “using the BrewBomb drip method keeps a constant flow for consistent results and enhances the flavor, and we flush with nitrogen for freshness.” Of this particular coffee, she says, “We chose this Ethiopian Washed Guji Anasora because it reminded us of the Ethiopia Gedeb that won America’s Best Cold Brew a few years back. When we cupped and bought this Ethiopia, we knew we had to try it as a cold brew. We really love it both hot and cold!”

Klatch’s CEO, Heather Perry, adds, “Cold brew and RTD are here to stay. I think what we are seeing now is the second evolution of RTD coffee. I think of drinks like Starbucks’ frapp as the first version. Then, you have cold brew and nitro as the second evolution.  And while these are nice, they are like when everyone was drinking light-roasted bland coffee and then came Peet’s and Starbucks with their dark-roasted and it tasted so different and people loved it. Now, we are entering the third evolution. We want more than just chocolate out of our coffee — we want those same delicious flavors that are in our hot Kenyas and Ethiopias. What we previously had to experience by doing a hot brew over ice, or something like that, is now ready to enjoy out of a tap or in a bottle. I imagine someone will be introducing a Geisha (if you didn’t already test one in this sampling). And I think Geisha would be delicious and refreshing in this format, like drinking a tropical tea. Many people like to add cream and sweetener to more traditional cold brew, but I think as we move to fruitier coffees we actually open up the product to an entirely new consumer.”

States Coffee Cold Brew is one of the four top-ranking blends featured here. States is based in the small northern California town of Martinez. One of owner/roaster Keith Gehrke’s cold brews appeared in our 2018 report as well. This year, his entry is a blend of Colombia and Guatemala coffees that harmonize around attractive bittersweet flavors like dark chocolate and candied tangerine.

States Coffee ready-to-drink coffee on ice. Photo courtesy of States Coffee & Mercantile.

Of this coffee Gehrke says, “We use five-gallon stainless steel brewing buckets with toddy paper and mesh filters. We steep overnight using warm water and a drip grind. Others use cold water and a coarse grind but, after multiple tests, we found that our coffee and ratio taste better with warm water and a finer grind. The coffee is the same blend we use for all of our in-house espresso drinks. We make sure that the coffee has one week of age on it before we brew it for cold brew. Coffee that’s too fresh was not yielding the best tasting brew, either. It’s been a fun labor of love experimenting with the process and dialing in the process.”

And Two More at 93

Perhaps the most recognizable name on this list is Stumptown Coffee Roasters, the Portland, Oregon-based company that was a cornerstone of the third-wave coffee scene when it sold to investment firm TSG Partners in 2011; JAB Holdings now owns a majority stake. Nonetheless, Stumptown’s excellent coffee program skips merrily along, only at larger scale. Stumptown sells a number of cold-brewed RTDs. Its Ethiopia Guji impressed us with its lively acidity juxtaposed with deep notes of dark caramel and vanilla bean.

Head brewer Brent Wolczynski describes Stumptown’s process: “We brew the Guji with filtered and UV-treated cold water for 16 hours. It is then filtered through a stainless screen, and then filtered once again through a paper filter to polish it off for a really clean and refreshing cup. We use nitrogen all throughout the process to make sure it is not in contact with oxygen at any time, but [the nitrogen] is not dissolved into the solution for a creamy mouthfeel [as in] our Nitro Cold Brew. We want our Guji cold brew to be light, tea-like, fruit-forward, and refreshing. Dissolving nitrogen into solution adds creaminess and a heavy mouthfeel that would take it in a different direction.”

Rounding out the 93-scoring RTDs is Tulsa, Oklahoma-based Topéca Coffee’s Crushable Nitro Cold Brew, whose 8.4-ounce cans pack the punch of a 20-ounce cup of coffee due to a very high coffee-to-water ratio. The coffee is Topéca’s tried and true Porch Session, a blend of a natural-processed coffee from a farm the brand co-owns in El Salvador, Finca El Manzano, and a pulped natural Brazil Fazenda Santana. Head of Cold Brew Tyler Duncan says, “We hit 250 pounds of our Porch Session Blend with about 150 gallons of hot water, then make sure the slurry is all wetted. Once we’re sure it’s good to go, we hit it with room-temperature water to crash the temperature. We pass the coffee through a filter train to make sure it’s super clean and then can it from our brite tank. We dose liquid nitrogen into each can so that it holds pressure and gives it a velvety texture. Then, voila! Crushable Nitro Cold Brew.”

About cold brews’ staying power and the shift toward single-origin coffees in this segment, Duncan says, “I think the trend is definitely here to stay. The demographic that used to consume the most coffee has shifted; now the millennial generation purchases more, and their purchasing habits are different from the generation before them. With the globalization of information, more people have more access to the injustices that have long gone unchecked in coffee history, and coffee’s history is replete with colonization and slave labor. People can see more of what happens in the supply chain and generally care more about what happens in the supply chain. At the very least, people want to feel good about their purchases. Single-origins are a way to feel better about purchasing — they have more traceability.”

Two Solid Blends at 92

Rounding out the top 11 RTDs are two blends: Equator Coffee’s Cold Coffee, not a cold brew but a coffee that has been brewed hot and then flash-chilled, and Charlotte, North Carolina-based Magnolia Coffee Roasters’ Jade Espresso Blend Nitro Cold Brew.

Jade Espresso nitro cold brew on tap at Magnolia Coffee. Photo courtesy of Magnolia Coffee.

The Magnolia RTD blend is based on Magnolia’s bestselling espresso blend, which owner Jay Gestwicki says combines a pre-roast blend of a semi-washed Brazil, a washed Uganda and Colombia, and an El Salvador natural, with a natural Ethiopia Yirgacheffe added post-roast.

The Equator Blend is the Bay Area brand’s most popular coffee, combining a low-toned Lintong Sumatra Lintong and brighter Kenya and Colombia coffees. Director of Coffee Ted Stachura says, “It is designed to be a crowd-pleaser, roasted just dark enough to satisfy those who prefer dark chocolate-like flavors in coffee, while retaining enough sweetness and complexity for those who like a lighter-roasted touch.”

Stachura agrees that RTD is more than just a trend: “We have seen a gradual movement away from very sweet and milky versions of canned and bottled coffees that emerged over a decade ago and are now seeing a great deal of product diversity (alternative milk options, flavorings, carbonation, etc.) with new players constantly entering the market. Distribution continues to be the major hurdle for smaller roasting companies since refrigerated vehicles are often required and shelf space in grocery stores is highly competitive. Specialty coffee roasters love seeing microlots and other single-origin offerings in RTD format, but it adds complication and cost to the production and distribution process. Since many roasters have educated consumers that look for information on coffee labels about farm and producer, that same level of detail is now expected on RTD cans. As more exclusive coffees are made available in RTD format, we will see what the market is willing to bear.”

There’s no doubt he’s right. We will certainly stick around to see what’s next in the rapidly evolving realm of RTD cold black coffee.

The post RTD Rising: Single-Origin Cold Coffees Elevate the Game appeared first on Coffee Review.

RTD Rising: Single-Origin Cold Coffees Elevate the Game published first on https://linlincoffeeequipment.tumblr.com/