I started this post a week or so ago and am unlikely to ever finish it, so here it is in incomplete form:
I recently met a friend from over the water and we went to a pub in London. I pointed out that he should not take this pub to be typical as it was one of those pubs built in the modern style, with pale wood, cutesy art and a lack of proper bitter. Alas, at the time I found myself unable to express what made this pub improper and the features that distinguish a proper English pub. The conversation moved on and the thread was never tied up, therefore I shall now venture my own opinion as to what defines a proper pub and distinguishes it from those buboes which have sprung up throughout the land of late.
The defining feature of a pub is that it is a public house: a place of shelter for a weary traveller. Anything which moves it towards serving this function will tend to make it a better pub and anything which pushes it in the other direction makes it a poor imitation. Dark colours are pleasing to tired eyes and make one feel safe, therefore any wood panelling should be of a darker hue as should most painted surfaces. Some have extended this theory to the colour of the beer, and while it is correct that a proper pub serves beers at least as dark as doom bar, many authorities derive this from an entirely different set of axioms which they deem a firmer foundation on which to base such a vital theorem of pubology.
What else brings a sense of security to a weary traveller? A roaring fire, a friendly barman, little if any music, architecture which provides plenty of nooks and crannies to hide in. Rural pubs should serve hearty food to ease the stomach while urban pubs should avoid this trap since it tends to turn them into restaurants which not only attract the Wrong Sort, but also make the causal drinker feel ill at ease for his failure to order a meal — alas, this rule is so often violated that it is moot. Gambling machines and flashing lights should be absent. The bar should have taps with plain labels for the beer rather than the flashy icons that have become popular of late (since 1742).
What else is there to say? Perhaps I should alight on the difference between a free house, a tied house and the pubcos. In the distant past, when giants roamed Britain, every pub was a free house. This meant they could choose whatever beer they liked to serve. In those days the standard unit of beer was a hogshead, but that hardly matters. As the slow decline in morality set in more and more tied houses sprang up and these are now the most common type of pub. A tied house has a deal with a brewery to only serve beer from that brewery. Indeed they are often owned by the brewery and the 'landlord' is a mere tenant. Pubcos are the next logical step, there are directly owned by a chain which does not (generally) produce beer and are run by directly appointed managers. Alas, pubcos are increasingly common and they are not bad places but they do tend towards homogeneity.
Remarkable read, reminiscent of a bitingy funnier David Foster Wallace.
Just three days ago, I failed to properly characterize a proper English pub to some people in Poland and, furthermore, explain how to distinguish it from the, in my opinion, delightful disposition of the local drinking venues.
This piece was highly didactic as well as entertaining, and it brought me back to a pleasant moment. Thank you.
good post