Thursday, March 17 2011

Trust Me, I'm a Wine Writer

I've been thinking a lot about wine criticism over the last while. I began feeling doubts about it when I began disagreeing with what seemed to be the prevailing trend in wine appreciation and criticism, for big, ripe 'fruit-bombs'. By the time I had decided that Robert Parker was the devil incarnate and that the magazine's name was better summed up as, 'The Wine Dictator', I was starting to feel like I'd been duped.

Moreover I felt angry because I'd been a willing participant in my own duping, drinking up everything critics said and taking their pronouncements as gospel. And to angry, you can add 'embarrassed': I'm a smart guy (according to me), yet I'd been buying and drinking wine I eventually realised I wasn't really enjoying. What an idiot.

So where did I go so wrong? Just human, it turns out. When I was a new wine drinker I wanted an authority to quote and emulate, to validate my shaky opinions and shore up the enormous gaps in my knowledge. When I was overwhelmed by the Crus of Burgundy, there was James Suckling to make me feel better. If California cult wines were beyond me, Matt Kramer gave me fodder for conversation in the wine store. Should I be intimidated by Bordeaux, I could pull down Parker's ox-stunner of a tome and bone up on the Chateaux I would probably never see, much less taste.

And so it goes. One thing all of these critics had in common was that if I believed what they wrote, they made money, mostly from my buying their magazines and books. That means they had to make sure that I believed and kept believing in what they wrote. Straightforward enough: they were selling me criticism and you don't buy what you don't believe. But for that to be a fair exchange, every single thing they said had to be a) true, and b) useful

The true/useful axis interests me. The critics who provided the most well-articulated and researched stuff were the ones who either worked in the trade full-time, or had been pursuing wine writing as an avocation for a long period of time. But there's a hitch: the longer you spend in the trade, the more people you know, and the less likely you are to savage them with a bad review of their products. Also, if you have a long-term relationship with a winery, one that generates free trips, limo rides and a few goodies, it's much easier to let them off the hook for the occasional wine that doesn't review well.

Am I imputing that some critics give reviews based on personal interests or perhaps for financial concerns? Of course I am. Am I pointing fingers and naming names? Under advice from my law firm, Libel, Slander and Regret, no I am not. But it would be tremendously naive to say that it didn't ever happen. So is the answer then to seek out newcomers, fresh voices with fresh ideas and low levels of contamination?

For the most part, probably not. The problem with the Internet is that there's no barrier to entry. Any jerk can up and get himself a blog (viz yours truly) and by virtue of calling it a 'Wine Blog' (ahem) instantly take on the mantel of a wine expert (man, I should stop digging). I skim an awful lot of blogs about wine and an overwhelming number of them are unsatisfying, with issues ranging from plain old poor writing to blogs that do no research and have little experience with the wines they are discussing. There are some diamonds in the rough, and as the old saying goes, where there's muck, there's brass, but the grains of salt necessary to winnow through useful information are killing my sodium intake.

That leaves us with no middle ground: old grumpy critics who may have a buttered side, or brash young goofballs who don't know where the bodies are buried, much less what to serve them with. It's a classic case of Sturgeon's Revelation ('90% of everything is crap') in action. For the most part, I'm content to let it lie.

Okay, that's the worst lie I've ever told in this blog. Far from letting it lie, it drives me crazy. And the discussion never goes away. It popped up again recently with Steve Heimoff pulling out a discussion of epistemology and the relative worth of wine writing.

It takes a long time to develop, and an even longer time to develop a palate that can taste wine and say intelligent things about it. Now, I know that wine reviewing isn’t a science, like meteorology. It’s more of an art or craft. But the validity of a person’s opinions about wine is directly related to the amount of time and effort that person has put into the study of wine, which includes reading, traveling, learning from others and extensive tasting.

Can't disagree with that. It was a decade before I could start writing about wine effectively, but then I've always been a little slow. He goes on:

There’s been a lot of debate over whether the end of an era has arrived where older critics have been replaced by a new, democratic wave of wine enthusiasts who are tired of being dictated to by the same clique of power-hungry elitists that have dominated the wine world for decades.

I won't take sole credit, but I said almost exactly that directly to Steve at the last Wine Blogger's Conference. While I don't actually think the elitists are specifically power-hungry, it's not like they're eager to have their livelihood or relative prestige eroded by a rising tide of free-thinking wine enthusiasts with no barriers to entry to publishing their opinions.

And I'm not eager for that scenario, either. I write technical winemaking stuff for a living, including manuals, how-to's, FAQ's, training seminars, et cetera. Some days I feel like I'm pushing back against a rising tide of random people who put out poorly conceived, factually incorrect materials at a rate I can barely comprehend, much less keep up with. It took me two decades of work to be the guy responsible for the success of the consumer winemaking products at Winexpert, and it's hard work every day to stay sharp and keep learning to make sure I'm not leading people astray. So I feel that pain. 

Steve continues:

But before anybody claims that professional Baby Boomer critics, who’ve been at it for a long time, have no more right to their opinions than Joe Blow from Kokomo, remember that you may be right from a philosophical, humane, political and democratic point of view. But epistemologically speaking, you’re dead wrong. Expertise still matters.

And here is where we part ways. This is a form of logical fallacy, argumentum ad verecundiam, argument to respect. Because most of us trust people with credentials and acknowledged expertise, we tend to roll up our brains and let this pass, never mind that professional baby-boomer critics are not infallible just because they are old and experienced. Unless Steve is actually claiming some sort of papal infallability with regards to his opinions (kidding Steve, I'm sure the Church doesn't give those out, and if they did, Parker would have three). 

It's also a fallacy of hasty generalisation. 100% of professional wine critics are not better writers or more relevant commentators than 100% of brash new internet wine dweebs. Epistemolgically speaking, this paragraph is dead wrong. For me, what matters most about the wine writing I follow is its relevance to my interests. I can plow through lousy writing for good info, and I can read wine reviews that I disagree with profoundly, when it's well-defended and thoughtful and best of all, when it's well-written. Established critics and authorities don't have a monopoly on being relevant to every reader, every time.

While I was writing this, two things came up. First, Tom Wark weighed in. This gave me a serious case of the deja voodoo, because Tom is another guy I was discussing this with at the bloggers conference. He probably wouldn't remember, given that he's a very popular guy much in demand for tete a tete discussions. No, I take that back: I was the tall, 300 pound goofball in the kilt, so he may recall me . . . Tom responded to Steve's blog:

It's important to note, too, that a writer with more popularity may not even be a good wine writer or wine reporter. I can't tell you how many times I've seen a wine issue reported on in a very well-read publication where the reporting was objectively incorrect, sloppy or otherwise useless. Nonetheless, this writer ranks as important because of the popularity of their outlet and their voice based on the number of readers.

Boy howdy, can I agree with that. But that's aside from Tom's summation.

It is much more likely that one writing in an independent wine blog would have great authority. And this is what Steve Heimoff was referring to when he wrote about the relative validity of an writers opinion. The reader will surely find most value from by reading writers with greater authority, be they reading the writer's reports or reviews. And it also should be noted that no matter how popular or influential a writer or reporter is, the personal value to the reader will always be greater based on the authority of the writer, not based on their influence or popularity. (emphasis mine)

It pays to read the whole article, not least because Tom's a keen thinker about wine as a business and social media as a tool. But I can't agree. The value to the reader is greatest based on the relevance to their interests. The idea that we must give credence to people based on their assumed authority only makes sense if you feel that readers lack both the critical faculties to analyse the writing and any semblance of knowledge of the subject.

I ain't buying it. You shouldn't either. In theory I'm the world's single greatest authority on consumer produced wine (leave aside for a moment that I'm also the only one in the world who does what I do). If I told you that making wine from one of my products would make you taller, better looking and able to leap over tall buildings while subsisting on a diet of sunshine and distilled water, should you believe me? Heck no, I'm not right 100% of the time, and you'd use your critical faculties and personal knowledge to observe that I was probably out of my mind, authority or not.

I was feeling a little out of the wilderness on this whole subject. On the one hand, I read and enjoy both of Steve's defined subsets of wine writers, old and respected and young and brash. On the other, I have observed that both are equally full of hooey at roughly the same frequency. And while I don't agree with Steve's opinion, I'm not with the militant bloggers who think by virtue of having a blog they have the right to have their opinions respected automatically. Really, I don't agree with anybody, so who would possibly agree with me?

Hosemaster of Wine, that's who.

Important safety tip: the link Hosemaster's blog takes you away from Tim's Blog. His writing is not family-friendly and images may be graphic. As one observer noted, "...this controversial blog is incredibly humorous but requires an acceptance of the author's scatologically oriented sense of fun." As another said, "I must say you are an idiot. I've never liked you. I have no idea why people find you funny." 

The Hosemaster's Blog (did you read the warning above?) skewered everyone in the wine trade. His style and satire are quite pungent to the uninitiated, but from my view inside the business I could hardly read his posts without crying with laughter, even when it made me cringe. The best thing about him was that he only ever roasted people from the wine business perspective, lampooning giants and mocking puffed up pretentions like a master comedian. He hung up his blog, but was recently interviewed by Samantha Sans Dosage. Note that Hosemaster (actually a Sommelier from Sonoma named Ron Washam) doesn't dial it down very much for the interview.

Name 2 wine writers whose work makes sense to you.

There is no one currently writing who can carry Gerald Asher’s luggage. Whereas a PR guy like Tom Wark repeatedly, and delusionally, says that this is the Golden Age of wine writing . . .  I contend that very little being written now will be referenced even ten years from now, when I’ll be retiring for the 700th time.

There’s journalism, and there’s wine writing; just like there’s literature and there’s opinion pages. There are wonderful journalists I can read--Charlie Olken, Steve Heimoff, Jancis “Here’s to you Mrs.” Robinson, and the guy who writes the Trader Joe’s newsletter. But Gerald Asher writes literature about wine. This is a rare gift.

I'm with him on Asher, but I'd throw in Roy Andries De Groot, partly out of sentimentality, and partly because nobody ever wrote as good a book as In Search of the Perfect Meal. My gut tells me that he's spot-on about ten years from now. With immediacy we seem to lose timelessness, and immediacy is all the rage. The journalists he mentions (including Steve) are very much worth reading, but that doesn't mean you should ignore other sources of opinion and insight, nor give them credence because they're new and 'fresh', no more than you should give credence to someone just because they're old and experienced.

So where does that leave me? Everybody is wrong, nobody is right, except don't trust me because I'm not right either, and the person whose opinion most closely coincides with mine is no doubt the most potty-mouthed writer ever to commit wine commentary on the internet, not that he'd be happy to know I thought that way. All in a day's work.

I'd suggest reading the whole Hosemaster interview (and reading Samantha's blog regularly--I find it relevant to my interests). Washam is actually a very thoughtful satirical commentator. And he throws in some excellent advice:

What one piece of advice would you give wine bloggers?

Spend more time in the real world. Step away from the computer, embrace your life, it’s slipping through your fingers while you spend it regurgitating uninspired prose and borrowed thoughts. No one will miss your blog.

That's what I'm going to do--at least until my next blog entry, because who knows, someone might miss me.

Posted by Mr. Trustworthy AT 1:46PM

9 Comments

Post A Comment

Email

Post A Comment

Your Name	Email Address
Comment
Security Key

Post Comment