Heave-Ho Hedonistic

From today's New York Times: "Last Friday the Culture Desk blog of The New Yorker announced a contest asking readers to nominate the word that most urgently needs to be eliminated from the English language. And the results are in: For the next week, no one who speaks English -- or at least writes it on the magazine's Web site -- will be allowed to describe someone else as wearing 'slacks.'" Other words nominated for The New Yorker word purge included ""awesome," "epic," "fecund," "literally," and "actually."

Should we ever have such a contest on WLDG, the word found most obviously worthy of immediate heave-ho would no doubt be "hedonistic," which appears mostly on that other website. But beyond the h-word, the list of wine-word candidates seems endless. For starters, try "plump," "full-bodied, "ethereal," "opulent," "immortal," "voluptuous," "elegant," words sprinkled liberally, some twice or thrice, over just one randomly selected page of the Wine Advocate, which probably isn't the world's most clumsy wine publication.

That literally blows my mind.

Should we ever have such a contest on WLDG, the word found most obviously worthy of immediate heave-ho would no doubt be "hedonistic," which appears mostly on that other website. But beyond the h-word, the list of wine-word candidates seems endless. For starters, try "plump," "full-bodied, "ethereal," "opulent," "immortal," "voluptuous," "elegant," words sprinkled liberally, some twice or thrice, over just one randomly selected page of the Wine Advocate, which probably isn't the world's most clumsy wine publication.

I'm pretty picky about language, but I'm wondering why you don't like those words? They all seem pretty precise and evocative.

I agree that 'hedonistic' is problematic, for me because of its ambiguity. It speaks to full-throttle pleasure but for some people that comes from 17% shiraz and for others that comes from 11% Muscadet.

Today, we all gang up against "hedonistic", "plump", "full-bodied", "opulent," "immortal," "voluptuous," "elegant,". Tomorrow we will want to persecute "hint", "plummy", "toasty", "zippy". And before long, "nice" and "balance" will have their final days. It is a slippery slope my friend. Should we as freedom loving people discriminate against "hedonistic" just because it and "opulent" happens to be more promiscuous? Is this is not America??? (unless you are reading this in Belgium)

From today's New York Times: "Last Friday the Culture Desk blog of The New Yorker announced a contest asking readers to nominate the word that most urgently needs to be eliminated from the English language.

As far as wine-speak is concerned, we anglophones could start by agreeing to stick to English. Use "toast" rather than "pain grillé", "blackcurrant" rather than "cassis".

I allow myself to use "sous bois" because I don't know exactly what it means and I can never remember how many "r"s there are in forest or forrest

Steve,

You make a very good point. I make a living translating wine texts from French into English, and try to avoid French words wherever possible.
Some, however, you can't do without. Terroir is a good example.
I've never found a good one for "empyreumatique". The word "empryeumatic" does exist in English, but sounds far to esoteric.

As for words to be banned, I vote first and foremost for "explodes on the palate".
I prefer to keep my palate, and the rest of my head, whole, thank you very much.

Best regards,
Alex R.

[Robin Garr]

I've never found a good one for "empyreumatique". The word "empryeumatic" does exist in English...

Burnt stew, maybe. But I think you are ignoring the obvious: If the French word has no English equivalent, it is almost certainly jargon and better not used in either language, or at worst reworded more descriptively.

[Robin Garr]

I've never found a good one for "empyreumatique". The word "empryeumatic" does exist in English...

Burnt stew, maybe.

Or maybe just plain "burnt" or "scorched," with additional verbiage added as necessary? Burnt wood, scorched meat, etc.

From today's New York Times: "Last Friday the Culture Desk blog of The New Yorker announced a contest asking readers to nominate the word that most urgently needs to be eliminated from the English language.

As far as wine-speak is concerned, we anglophones could start by agreeing to stick to English. Use "toast" rather than "pain grillé", "blackcurrant" rather than "cassis".

I allow myself to use "sous bois" because I don't know exactly what it means and I can never remember how many "r"s there are in forest or forrest

I made the Zuni Cafe kale over pain grille with proscuitto and pecorino tonight.
I do agree with you, though I admit that I use cassis a lot (but generally mean that to distinguish a riper/sweeter (like creme de) profile than blackcurrant.
The Courtneys vote to eliminate minerality.

awesome post, actually..certain to be immortal

Should we ever have such a contest on WLDG, the word found most obviously worthy of immediate heave-ho would no doubt be "hedonistic," which appears mostly on that other website. But beyond the h-word, the list of wine-word candidates seems endless. For starters, try "plump," "full-bodied, "ethereal," "opulent," "immortal," "voluptuous," "elegant," words sprinkled liberally, some twice or thrice, over just one randomly selected page of the Wine Advocate, which probably isn't the world's most clumsy wine publication.

I'm pretty picky about language, but I'm wondering why you don't like those words? They all seem pretty precise and evocative.

I agree that 'hedonistic' is problematic, for me because of its ambiguity. It speaks to full-throttle pleasure but for some people that comes from 17% shiraz and for others that comes from 11% Muscadet.

To me, the dividing line is between those words that serve as descriptors of some form of sensation and those that serve as implicit aesthetic judgments. "Hedonistic," "opulent," "voluptuous" and "elegant" all fail that test, though I am as guilty as any of using that latter term. "Full-bodied," "plump" and even "ethereal" I would argue fall into the former category and thus should escape the censor's blue pencil.

Perhaps what is needed is a vinous thesaurus that attempts to translate some of the more arcane terms into simpler language. For instance, I'd suggest that "hedonistic" could be replaced by "high alcohol" and "opulent" by "low acid." "Voluptuous" might be a combination of those two terms, or perhaps could be substituted by "microöxygenated."

Mark Lipton

To me, the dividing line is between those words that serve as descriptors of some form of sensation and those that serve as implicit aesthetic judgments. "Hedonistic," "opulent," "voluptuous" and "elegant" all fail that test, though I am as guilty as any of using that latter term. "Full-bodied," "plump" and even "ethereal" I would argue fall into the former category and thus should escape the censor's blue pencil.

I don't see how 'opulent' and 'voluptuous' are any less of a sensation than 'full bodied'. While the terms may be relative (e.g the Jay Miller vs. Brad Kane spectrum) they refer to structural measurable properties.

Elegant cannot be directly measured, but if we can't call wine elegant then what is this world coming to!

Rahsaan,

To me, there is a different emphasis on "voluptuous" and "opulent" than with "full-bodied", a question of degree.

The two former adjectives suggest something Dolly Partonish, exotic, and sensual whereas the third seems rather workaday in comparison.

I frequently run into descriptions of a wine that is "fin, élégant et raffiné", whereas those three words mean pretty much the same thing.
Then, of course, there are the tasting notes with flights of fancy.
Those, I could live without...

Alex R.

Rahsaan,

To me, there is a different emphasis on "voluptuous" and "opulent" than with "full-bodied", a question of degree.

The two former adjectives suggest something Dolly Partonish, exotic, and sensual whereas the third seems rather workaday in comparison.

Well if it really is just a question of degree then it's just a taste issue (in terms of word preferences) and not a category failure.

And again, if we can't describe wine as sensual, then what is this world coming to!

“This is one disadvantage of wine; it makes man mistaken words for thoughts”. Samuel Johnson (1709-1784).

Salute

To me, the dividing line is between those words that serve as descriptors of some form of sensation and those that serve as implicit aesthetic judgments. "Hedonistic," "opulent," "voluptuous" and "elegant" all fail that test, though I am as guilty as any of using that latter term. "Full-bodied," "plump" and even "ethereal" I would argue fall into the former category and thus should escape the censor's blue pencil.

I don't see how 'opulent' and 'voluptuous' are any less of a sensation than 'full bodied'. While the terms may be relative (e.g the Jay Miller vs. Brad Kane spectrum) they refer to structural measurable properties.

Elegant cannot be directly measured, but if we can't call wine elegant then what is this world coming to!

Perhaps we have differing understandings of the meanings? Voluptuous to me means exciting to the senses or sexually arousing. It describes the reaction of the observer to the observed, but not a quality of the observed per se (Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle?). Opulent to me means rich or of superior quality, an implicit aesthetic judgment if ever I've seen one.

I agree, however, that the world would be a poorer place if we can't talk about the elegance of wines!

Mark Lipton

Perhaps we have differing understandings of the meanings? Voluptuous to me means exciting to the senses or sexually arousing. It describes the reaction of the observer to the observed, but not a quality of the observed per se (Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle?). Opulent to me means rich or of superior quality, an implicit aesthetic judgment if ever I've seen one.

I was thinking of voluptuous as 'full and round' which is perhaps just the 'common applied' sense of the term in reference to women. I then checked the dictionary and I will concede to your typology on these words.

However at the end of the day I don't think it's that big a deal what other people use in their tasting notes. It's just a tasting note. Not a Constitution to which we will be legally bound.

That said, to me, 'Moose' 'Corton Charlie' and 'juice' are all much worse offenders than these adjectives because of the cultural position from which they come. So who said I was consistent.

I like Mark's distinction between "the reaction of the observer to the observed" vis-a-vis "a quality of the observed." In the sense of the former, the WA's constant repetition of "hedonistic" tells the reader something about Mr. Parker's reaction to the wine, although I'm not sure what, but nothing about the wine itself, and apparently readers believe the word describes the wine, a hopeless state of affairs if the intent of TNs is to communicate something.

I like Mark's distinction between "the reaction of the observer to the observed" vis-a-vis "a quality of the observed." In the sense of the former, the WA's constant repetition of "hedonistic" tells the reader something about Mr. Parker's reaction to the wine, although I'm not sure what, but nothing about the wine itself, and apparently readers believe the word describes the wine, a hopeless state of affairs if the intent of TNs is to communicate something.

Except the purpose of tasting notes is to communicate individuals' reactions to the wine. There's a reason very few people clamor to get lab analyses of wines.

I like Mark's distinction between "the reaction of the observer to the observed" vis-a-vis "a quality of the observed." In the sense of the former, the WA's constant repetition of "hedonistic" tells the reader something about Mr. Parker's reaction to the wine, although I'm not sure what, but nothing about the wine itself, and apparently readers believe the word describes the wine, a hopeless state of affairs if the intent of TNs is to communicate something.

Except the purpose of tasting notes is to communicate individuals' reactions to the wine. There's a reason very few people clamor to get lab analyses of wines.

Now hold on a minute, my most esteemed colleague! Your comment seems a tad disingenuous to me, it does. If the purpose of critical review is simply to inform the reader of the critic's reactions, a simple scale of like/dislike ought to suffice. We don't see a lot of critical reviews of the 1945 Ch. d'Yquem that read "Wow!!! That's a farkin' great wine!" because that tells us nothing about the wine beyond the fact that the consumer loved it. The review is supposed to tell something about the wine, too, so we trot out words about balance, acidity, mouthfeel, structure, whatever fruit we liken the smell to, etc. We can't -- and shouldn't -- divorce the observer from the observation, but neither is the observer the sole subject of discussion. Put another way, we object to Parker scores being used in the absence of a written description precisely because there's much more to describing a wine than simply how the reviewer felt about it.

Mark Lipton

[Jenise]

awesome post, actually..certain to be immortal

You beat me to it.

But I'm kind of with Shaji here. Banning certain words only punishes the word and not the over-user. 'Opulent' is a meaningful descriptor when used sparingly. And 'hedonistic' is quite useful when used sarcastically to damn a wine that shamelessly bares all in its attempt to garner favor with certain critics.

Put another way, we object to Parker scores being used in the absence of a written description precisely because there's much more to describing a wine than simply how the reviewer felt about it.

Mark Lipton

Yes. But we also object because the score doesn't really tell us how he felt about it. The better posters on these boards provide context and a sense of their emotional connection to the wine and that provides much more information about how the reviewer felt.

In the end it is a balance between the wine and the reviewer, and there are certain 'facts' which can be communicated. But there are also severe limitations to those 'facts'.

So where does that leave us again.

Where does it leave us? It leaves me pondering Jenise's comment that "Opulent is a meaningful descriptor when used sparingly." What prompted this thread was The New Yorker magazine's mock banishment of a dozen or so words, mostly for commiting the sin of overuse. But in our discussions here we often have tolerated and embraced frequent usage because sometimes repetition has lead to common understanding. For instance, we now probably all have come to the same understanding of the ubiquitous "Fruit Bomb." But repetition of "Opulent" has led nowhere. The corolary of some people never learn maybe is some wine words never teach?

The term “fruit bomb” could only be applied to a wine that is “New World” in style (“very” fruit forward). “Opulent” could technically be applied to any style and type of wine.

Salute