The Observer: Why Peter Mayle hates wine snobs

Robin,

Thanks for posting that quote.

Mayle was famous for a while for belittling the French in a very English way. His bestselling book "A Year in Provence" has some funny parts, but was mostly a superficial re-hash of British misconceptions ("sophisticated Londoner meets French country bumpkins").

The problem really comes from the fact that Mayle hasn't had anything original to say in years. He has written several sequels to "Year in Provence", but his recyling program has gone just a little too far.

Best regards,
Alex R.

Michael Pronay asks, "Don't I get British humor?"

Michael, Mayle's humor in this instance isn't especially British. American humorists, the literary descendents of Mark Twain, apply much the same formula as this article's, which is based almost entirely on exageration, initially the ridiculous claim that the language of wine tasting is more "ornamental," "inventive," delightfully imprecise," and "self-consciously silly" than the language of any other subject in the world. But of course the language of wine isn't more ornamental than, say, the language of interior decorating, more self-consciously silly than child beauty pagents and so forth, so Mayle's claim is absurd, which is to say humorous. The only thing British about this is the qualifier "[not] quite," as in "none of them is quite so ornamental, etc." Many or most American humorists wouldn't back off like that. Mayle's initial exageration is followed by exagerated examples, and that's all there is to to the article. Welcome to American humor, Michael.

Winespeak can be pretty horrendous... But I think that art critics take the cake!

It is so sad, really, that people who are unable to produce anything of beauty turn to criticize others who do...
This is one of the frustrating things about wine critics who have never pruned a vine, never picked a grape, never topped up a barrel in their life.
Their words often ring empty (not to mention their "points").

I keep this in mind whenever I drink a less-than-satisfactory wine. Someone sweated for a year or more to make that.
It seems impossibly glib and effete for someone to carelessly belittle that.

Oh, I'm not saying that bad wine should be condoned.
What I am saying is that many of the people who hold sway, the critics and opinion makers, are hopelessly out of touch with the world of wine. They treat it as a disembodied product to be rated like toasters or microwave onions.

Best regards,
Alex R.

Winespeak can be pretty horrendous... But I think that art critics take the cake!

It is so sad, really, that people who are unable to produce anything of beauty turn to criticize others who do...
This is one of the frustrating things about wine critics who have never pruned a vine, never picked a grape, never topped up a barrel in their life.
Their words often ring empty (not to mention their "points").

I keep this in mind whenever I drink a less-than-satisfactory wine. Someone sweated for a year or more to make that.
It seems impossibly glib and effete for someone to carelessly belittle that.

Oh, I'm not saying that bad wine should be condoned.
What I am saying is that many of the people who hold sway, the critics and opinion makers, are hopelessly out of touch with the world of wine. They treat it as a disembodied product to be rated like toasters or microwave onions.

Best regards,
Alex R.

As I always say, wine writers inform; wine critics proclaim.

I especially like the part, Alex, about criticizing without first experiencing. That's what most consumers don't know about the profession of self-proclamation.

Winespeak can be pretty horrendous... But I think that art critics take the cake!

It is so sad, really, that people who are unable to produce anything of beauty turn to criticize others who do...
This is one of the frustrating things about wine critics who have never pruned a vine, never picked a grape, never topped up a barrel in their life.
Their words often ring empty (not to mention their "points").

Soooo, Alex:

By logical extension of what you say, no one who has not actually pruned a vine, picked a grape, or topped up a barrel should be able to critically evaluate or describe a wine?

To go further, since you include it in your statement, no one who has actually produced a work of art (however in the world you might define that, I do not know) should be able to utter criticism or evaluation or judgment of a work of art?

Let me see if I can come up with some other similar scenarios.

No one who has not graduated from a notable culinary school and worked in a kitchen is capable of evaluation or appreciating a meal from a restaurant?

No one who has not actually written a book and had it published has the ability to evaluate, and therefore is not allowed to be critical of, a published novel?

No one who has not held political office should be able to criticize or evaluate the performance and actions of someone who is in political office?

I think there might be a few holes in your theory there, Alex.

Hoke,

>>>>By logical extension of what you say, no one who has not actually pruned a vine, picked a grape, or topped up a barrel should be able to critically evaluate or describe a wine?

I never said that. What I DID say is that no one who never did that can pretend to be a guru (ooops. I see that your handle says you are...).
For a start, no intelligent person needs a guru.
Second, the ones that are around have a jaundiced viewpoint because they only have a foggy idea of what wine is all about!!!! They see it as a product, and wine appreciation as a competitive sport.
Yuk!

>>>To go further, since you include it in your statement, no one who has actually produced a work of art (however in the world you might define that, I do not know) should be able to utter criticism or evaluation or judgment of a work of art?

Art critics are largely frustrated artists, and a significant percentage of them try to impress with verbal diarrhoea that is impossible to decipher. I do indeed resent the fact that the overwhelming majority of them are unable to create the slightest thing themselves. One wonders where they get off saying what they do (by the way, I'm in no way involved in art, but have seen many pompous, awful appreciations writen by art critics).
Ditto for literary critics.
OK if you want to see them as a necessary evil, but please let's see them as an evil...

>>>No one who has not graduated from a notable culinary school and worked in a kitchen is capable of evaluation or appreciating a meal from a restaurant?

If you don't know how to cook, I forbid you to write about cooking because you are talking out your (expletive deleted).
YES!!!!

>>>No one who has not actually written a book and had it published has the ability to evaluate, and therefore is not allowed to be critical of, a published novel?

Repeatedly offending literary critics who never write anything themselves should be flayed alive.

>>>No one who has not held political office should be able to criticize or evaluate the performance and actions of someone who is in political office?

Politicians are such cocksuckers that it really doesn't matter anyway... However, to address your comment seriously, you have created a straw man. The affairs of the world around us and some moron who gives percentage points to fine wines is not at all comparable.

>>>I think there might be a few holes in your theory there, Alex.

You would.
You think you're a guru!

Best regards,
Alex R.

Not to defend Alex, or anyone else, of course, anyone can criticize anything, but certainly the percentage of value in a critique is proportionate to the percentage of knowledge held by the critic. Sheer hedonistic criticism may be the best that the critic has to offer, but in the heirarchy of value, it may offer the least information to the recipient.

Alex, methinks you're operating under some curious assumptions here.

First, I did not attach that descriptor to my name and avatar. Robin did. Second, it's even less than meaningless, because it is assigned strictly as a reflection of the number of postings on this site. So I don't think I'm a guru, thank you very much. I'm just like you, a person with an opinion, so going out of your way to deride me on that basis is uncalled for.

What you said was, and I quote:

It is so sad, really, that people who are unable to produce anything of beauty turn to criticize others who do...
This is one of the frustrating things about wine critics who have never pruned a vine, never picked a grape, never topped up a barrel in their life.
Their words often ring empty (not to mention their "points").

If that's not what you meant to say, fine. If you said it poorly (or my poor language interpretation skills are at fault here, fine. But that is what you said, Alex.

I was merely trying to determine if that was indeed what you meant to say.

I can understand it. I just don't happen to agree with the basic premise that someone who has not done something (make a wine, for instance) should not be allowed to comment on, evaluate or in any way criticize a finished work or product ( like wine, for instance).

Your disregard for critics of all types notwithstanding [although curiously, you seem to be able to handle the irony of your being able to criticize critics without terming yourself a qualified critic. but let's not go there], I don't see literary critics as a "necessary evil". I don't even see them as "evil", a curious thing to say about someone evaluating a book or a movie or sculpture or a painting. Misguided, maybe, Wrong in an interpretation, maybe. Not sharing the same sensibilties, maybe. Even patently phony, intellectually barren, and agenda-driven, maybe. But not evil.

Hah, critics are just people with opinions. And one should always consider who it is giving an opinion, and what their "credentials" are, before accepting those opinions. Reading a critical opinion doesn't surrender you to accepting those opinions, after all.

The best critic, I think is one who can illuminate a subject, one who can bring light and perspective to appreciation of an object. When I read a good critic, I learn something, not only about the object of criticism, but about the critic as well (and, yes, about the people who react to the critical observations too).

I don't demand that a critic of wine be a working winemaker. Actually, I've found that quite often working winemakers make some of the worst critics of other people's wines...for the precise reason that they are able only to appreciate their own particular style. (In a somewhat similar vein, the Guide Michelin recently underlined their own very narrow interpration of what a great restaurant should be when they released a guide of San Francisco restaurants, something worthy of discussion, I think.)

Upon re-reading your original post, and your reply, Alex, I did figure out you were largely venting your anger and frustration over some specific critics (no need to mention them here, but some are obvious given the context). If you have a problem with point-givers, I can sure understand that; I don't particularly care for that practice either. But to dismiss the practice of criticism because of that is...well, pardon me, but it seems shortsighted, if not a little emotionally and intellectually foolish. Criticism serves a purpose, after all. Even if---maybe especially if---you don't agree with it.

And excuse me, if I go to a restaurant and plunk my money down, I am perfectly justified in being extremely critical of what I get in return. Whether I cooked it, or am versed with the fine arts of food preparation or not. And you're no different, despite your protestations to the contrary, Alex.

Hey, everybody's a critic.

Agreeing with Hoke here.

Looking more precisely at the skill set required, critics are not judging the process of making wine/art/food but rather the process of appreciating wine/art/food. So while yes they need some knowledge of how the product is made, they do not need to be expert winemakers/chefs/writers, because those are different skill sets.

Winemakers/chefs are physical and chemical geniuses.

Critics are writers who master language.

We need both.

It is so sad, really, that people who are unable to produce anything of beauty turn to criticize others who do...
This is one of the frustrating things about wine critics who have never pruned a vine, never picked a grape, never topped up a barrel in their life.
Their words often ring empty (not to mention their "points").

Wonderfully said.

I think that the best wine education begins not in tasting seminars, however useful these may be, but in the vineyard ... maybe even in the viticulture department of a university, or perhaps in a grape nursery.

The critics' greatest claim to fame in my eyes lies not in their pronouncements on wine (do all individuals understand the "soul" of a given wine the same way?), but in their ability to sell their opinions and command a cadre of consumers who feel that they need them.

The critics' greatest claim to fame in my eyes lies not in their pronouncements on wine (do all individuals understand the "soul" of a given wine the same way?), but in their ability to sell their opinions and command a cadre of consumers who feel that they need them.

Fine, but you know this entire forum (and others like it) are dedicated to the idea that wine criticism is useful and we are all participating in wine criticism.

The only difference between one of us recommending a particular wine and Robert Parker recommending a wine is that more people listen to him

But we're all engaged in the same activity.

Fine, but you know this entire forum (and others like it) are dedicated to the idea that wine criticism is useful and we are all participating in wine criticism.

True - it's all about sharing what one thinks about given wines. Some are able to sell those opinions and there will be those who happen to concur, and who will find them useful. Meanwhile, others go on self-led wine forays and come to their own conclusions. Within the entire pursuit, however, there are often distinct schools of thought, each with its adherents.

Fine, but you know this entire forum (and others like it) are dedicated to the idea that wine criticism is useful and we are all participating in wine criticism.

True - it's all about sharing what one thinks about given wines. Some are able to sell those opinions and there will be those who happen to concur, and who will find them useful. Meanwhile, others go on self-led wine forays and come to their own conclusions. Within the entire pursuit, however, there are often distinct schools of thought, each with its adherents.

The operative word in Paul's response is "opinions," and that leads me to reiterate my opinion on the matter:

"...the percentage of value in a critique is proportionate to the percentage of knowledge held by the critic. Sheer hedonistic criticism may be the best that the critic has to offer, but in the heirarchy of value, it may offer the least information to the recipient."

I would rather be told why than be told what, but even still, the why needs to cover a wider swath of information than merely a critic's personal opinion.

Fine, but you know this entire forum (and others like it) are dedicated to the idea that wine criticism is useful and we are all participating in wine criticism.

True - it's all about sharing what one thinks about given wines. Some are able to sell those opinions and there will be those who happen to concur, and who will find them useful. Meanwhile, others go on self-led wine forays and come to their own conclusions. Within the entire pursuit, however, there are often distinct schools of thought, each with its adherents.

Very good, Paul, and I applaud the sentiments. But it's not quite right.

We ALL come to our own conclusions. Some may accept what another has said, accepting the chosen 'authority', others may claim they ignore all critics and all comments (which in itself is a surpassingly arrogant thing to say) on their 'self-led wine forays'. Doesn't matter. We all come to our own conclusions. We arrive at them differently perhaps, but they are our own conclusions.

You are, as you say, on your own path, Paul. But it is an established path, not one you are creating by yourself. You're following those who have gone before, and apostolicizing others to go down the same path....but you're not blazing a trail. Others have been there before you. It's just that not too many people have been going down that path, and those that do often turn around and come back to the main trail where the terrain is a bit more comforting and familiar.

Fine, but you know this entire forum (and others like it) are dedicated to the idea that wine criticism is useful and we are all participating in wine criticism.

True - it's all about sharing what one thinks about given wines. Some are able to sell those opinions and there will be those who happen to concur, and who will find them useful. Meanwhile, others go on self-led wine forays and come to their own conclusions. Within the entire pursuit, however, there are often distinct schools of thought, each with its adherents.

The operative word in Paul's response is "opinions," and that leads me to reiterate my opinion on the matter:

"...the percentage of value in a critique is proportionate to the percentage of knowledge held by the critic. Sheer hedonistic criticism may be the best that the critic has to offer, but in the heirarchy of value, it may offer the least information to the recipient."

I would rather be told why than be told what, but even still, the why needs to cover a wider swath of information than merely a critic's personal opinion.

I would hope an informed critic---as well as an informative one----is always preferred over the uninformed one.

A mere statement of preference ("I like this wine over this other wine.") is of relatively useless value over a statement informing us, as you say, WHY one prefers one wine over the other.

Unfortunately, the media are saturated with so many people who know nothing but are willing to explain in great detail that they know nothing---and proudly at that---to anyone else foolish enough to listen. It's the triumph of emotion over reason.

You're following those who have gone before, and apostolicizing others to go down the same path....but you're not blazing a trail.

But some folks whom I greatly admire sure are. First among them in our times was the late great Elmer Swenson, hybridizer par excellence. Thanks to him, the field has been opened to a home-grown viticultural scene all across the Midwest, in areas never before capable of hoping that one day they'd see vineyards in their midst. Others have taken this wealth of knowledge and the many as-yet-unnamed hybrids that Elmer and others created, and are doing the nitty gritty of field evaluation and are making unique, local wines from the grapes. I am honoured to encourage folks to take a look at these exciting developments in our times.

We ALL come to our own conclusions. Some may accept what another has said, accepting the chosen 'authority', others may claim they ignore all critics and all comments (which in itself is a surpassingly arrogant thing to say) on their 'self-led wine forays'. Doesn't matter. We all come to our own conclusions.

Personally I don't see arrogance in knowing what one likes and being happy with it. Since, as you note a couple of times, we all come to our own conclusions, aren't we the authors of said conclusions? What's the point of coming to our own conclusions by adopting those of someone else?

All opinions can and should be aired, but at the end of the day one really needs to think for oneself. That's not arrogance; that's independence.

[

I would hope an informed critic---as well as an informative one----is always preferred over the uninformed one.

A mere statement of preference ("I like this wine over this other wine.") is of relatively useless value over a statement informing us, as you say, WHY one prefers one wine over the other.

Unfortunately, the media are saturated with so many people who know nothing but are willing to explain in great detail that they know nothing---and proudly at that---to anyone else foolish enough to listen. It's the triumph of emotion over reason.

I quite agree. There are indeed a lot of wine critics running around, some with solid knowledge, some with a little, some with obviously too little. The problem is that the consumer has no way of knowing which of the three is speaking. And since there doesn't seem to be any fromal requirement to enter the critique trade, it places all critics under suspicion.

We ALL come to our own conclusions. Some may accept what another has said, accepting the chosen 'authority', others may claim they ignore all critics and all comments (which in itself is a surpassingly arrogant thing to say) on their 'self-led wine forays'. Doesn't matter. We all come to our own conclusions.

Personally I don't see arrogance in knowing what one likes and being happy with it. Since, as you note a couple of times, we all come to our own conclusions, aren't we the authors of said conclusions? What's the point of coming to our own conclusions by adopting those of someone else?

All opinions can and should be aired, but at the end of the day one really needs to think for oneself. That's not arrogance; that's independence.

Paul, I don't believe I phrased that as well as I could have. The arrogance of which I spoke was not in knowing what one likes and being happy with it. That wasn't what I was referring to. What I meant was that it is rather arrogant to say that you ignore all others and what they say and make up your own mind without any external input.

It's sort of like those people who loudly proclaim that they are never swayed...not one little bit...by all the advertising and marketing out there. Bushwa. They simply don't want to admit it in their romantic view of themselves. We are, all of us, influenced by the environment around us. Some of us just like to contrarily march off in a different direction. And some of us like to feel noble while doing so.

Like everyone else, Paul, you're selecting the input you prefer. Thassall.

If someone else chooses to place their trust in a critic, because they feel the critic or pundit or guru clearly expresses their preferences, what's wrong with that. It is still that persons conclusion to trust and rely on someone else. And that's perfectly valid, as far as I'm concerned.

Not to defend Alex, or anyone else, of course, anyone can criticize anything, but certainly the percentage of value in a critique is proportionate to the percentage of knowledge held by the critic. Sheer hedonistic criticism may be the best that the critic has to offer, but in the heirarchy of value, it may offer the least information to the recipient.

Thomas, Hoke, Alex, what Alex said originally was that such a person has no right to criticize the individual who made the wine, not the wine itself. I'm surprised that Alex didn't point that out in his own defense.

But in looking at what he said a second time, I guess he meant the critique of the wine.

Covert

But, Covert, that wasn't what he said at all.

Just the opposite, at one point: He actually criticized the critics for treating wine as a "disembodied product", implying they were criticizing the wine without worrying about how it affected the feelings of the winemakers.

While I tend to think you should always assess a wine as a product of a grape/a place/a person, I don't think that should prevent me from calling a bad wine a bad wine. The intent is not to hurt someone's feelings, but to alert other people to a potentially bad wine (and, yeah, maybe to let that winemaker know they made a bad wine; I've certainly done that too.

Nah, Alex was just ranting about something he is emotionally invested in (as is his right, of course), and he just wasn't expressing it well, or at least he wasn't expressing it logically.

That's just my opinion though... From a critical point of view.

Nah, Alex was just ranting about something he is emotionally invested in (as is his right, of course), and he just wasn't expressing it well, or at least he wasn't expressing it logically.

I agree. When I first glanced at what Alex said I thought it strange he would say it in light of all the air time recently regarding how silly it is to say that people have no right to criticize a war if they haven't fought in one. I was trying to give the guy an out. Just a bad hair day, probably.

Hoke,

Duly noted your guru status as opposed to any level of wine knowledge.

>>>I can understand it. I just don't happen to agree with the basic premise that someone who has not done something (make a wine, for instance) should not be allowed to comment on, evaluate or in any way criticize a finished work or product ( like wine, for instance).

That is not my premise at all.
My premise is that people *who set themselves up as gurus*, but are completely divorced from the vineyard and the cellar should not be allowed to evaluate wines in the mass media and sway consumers. That "should not be" doesn't mean that it's time for the thought police be called in. Just stating that it's a pity and, in some cases, a crying shame.

>>>Your disregard for critics of all types

My disregard, indeed, my disdain is for critics who view things from the outside and bitch - not all critics - and ,in terms of wine, the twerps who assign precise percentage point ratings, *especially* of Bordeaux when the wine is 6 months old and needs to age for 15-20 years.

>>>Hah, critics are just people with opinions.

Our common ground.

>>>And one should always consider who it is giving an opinion, and what their "credentials" are, before accepting those opinions. Reading a critical opinion doesn't surrender you to accepting those opinions, after all.

Problem is, Hoke, how often are we able to know the credentials of those critics?

>>>The best critic, I think is one who can illuminate a subject, one who can bring light and perspective to appreciation of an object. When I read a good critic, I learn something, not only about the object of criticism, but about the critic as well (and, yes, about the people who react to the critical observations too).

Once again, I agree entirely.

>>>I don't demand that a critic of wine be a working winemaker.

Nor I. But it is obscene to give clout to someone who's never, ever seen things from the inside.
What do I mean by clout? For example, evaluating wine by points in a national publication.

A tangent to all this (I'm getting pretty far away from the original thread) is tasting by juries. I tend to be very partial to these, although I know that they are controversial.
I've read on this and other forums that some tasters believe they can "calibrate" their palates to critics they know. The theory is that even if they disagree with the critic, they know what he means and can therefore relate to the wine.

>>>Actually, I've found that quite often working winemakers make some of the worst critics of other people's wines...

You refer to the other extreme, and I'm not in favor of that either.

>>>But to dismiss the practice of criticism because of that is...well, pardon me, but it seems shortsighted, if not a little emotionally and intellectually foolish.

It is a rant because people are sheep and not everyone *thinks* about what they read, they merely follow. It is thus a crying shame that incompetent people land a job as a critic.
I do not dismiss criticism, I dismiss criticism by morons.
You have set up a straw man.

>>>Criticism serves a purpose, after all. Even if---maybe especially if---you don't agree with it.

That statement is more than a little ridiculous. We only have so much time to spend on gathering information. I definitely do not want to read anything written by an ignoramus.
Reading conflicting opinions is fine, very enriching even - as long as the people have a good handle on what they're talking about.

>>>And excuse me, if I go to a restaurant and plunk my money down, I am perfectly justified in being extremely critical of what I get in return. Whether I cooked it, or am versed with the fine arts of food preparation or not. And you're no different, despite your protestations to the contrary,

You are confusing your status as a consumer and the subject under discussion, i.e. critics.
C'mon now: would you trust a restaurant critic in the New York Times who never cooked a meal, had no inkling of what it takes to make a sauce, etc. ? I know I sure as heck wouldn't.

Best regards,
Alex R.[/b]

Covert,

>>>When I first glanced at what Alex said I thought it strange he would say it in light of all the air time recently regarding how silly it is to say that people have no right to criticize a war if they haven't fought in one. I was trying to give the guy an out. Just a bad hair day, probably.

The discussion most certainly is not black and white, at least in my book.

Not all critics are assholes, for sure.
And fortunately, the Internet has diluted the power of the most influential ones who, even when they are not far off the (hypothetical) mark, have garnered far too much influence (I know, I know, in a capitalistic society this is supposed to be a good thing, supply and demand, etc.).

As regards the war in Iraq, I'm viscerally opposed to this, like most Americans at this point. However, how would I react to meeting a G.I. who just came back from a tour of duty there?
Even if he too were opposed to American involvement, I would be uneasy speaking to him about the current occupation.
In other words, the soldier would have a hands on experience that I am lacking.
No, this experience does not necessarily take the upper hand. But it is very important.

But, as stated above, expressing political views and/or voting are not part and parcel of this dicussion to me, and cannot be put in the same bag as publishing ratings of wines.

Surely, in a free society, everyone has the right to criticize. And intelligent discernment is at the very heart of wine appreciation. But where Hoke and I part company is when it comes to opinion leaders. He thinks every Tom, Dick, and Harry should be able to make or break wines, and I disagree.

Best regards,
Alex R.