Most everyone in the world of wine is very polite, you have to be because it’s a small world and you’ll eventually run into each other. Which is why it’s so fascinating to see one of the biggest, most important critics in the business, Eric Asimov of the New York Times take a couple serious swings at Robert M. Parker, Jr., the alpha and omega of all wine critics. The setting for this swing-taking was a column in yesterday’s Times on the French red wine Chateauneuf-du-Pape.
However, because wine is a polite world, this swing-taking is coded and subtle, and you’d only notice it at all if you knew a lot of wine-context. So just to be a troublemaker, let me put the context into plain English for regular folks.
The big criticism of Parker is that he privileges overblown, jammy, “fruit-bomb” wines. The idea is that he likes these fruit-bombs either because he tastes too many wines, and in the context of a sea of wines the fruit bombs stand out, or that he just has tasted too many wines and thus can’t even see shades of gray anymore, just black and white.
So, here’s Asimov’s attack. He starts off the piece saying that Chateauneuf-du-Pape has two sides, classy, and unclassy. And 2007, the year under consideration, is unclassy, because it’s “full of lush, opulent fruit with powerful, jammy flavors.” Now, “lush”, “opulent”, and “powerful” are classic words of Parker praise, simply using them as pejoratives, as Asimov is doing here, is a shot across the bow.
Then, Asimov goes for the jugular! “But to each his own,” writes Asimov. “Robert M. Parker Jr., a Châteauneuf lover, has called 2007 ‘a truly historic and profoundly great vintage.’” But the implication is that Parker has called it a profoundly great vintage because he is dumb, wrong, and unclassy!
To prove it, Asimov quotes another big dog, “David Gordon, wine director at Tribeca Grill, which offers what is most likely the widest selection of Châteauneuf in New York” and thus a Chateauneuf specialist! In contrast to Parker, who is spread thin. What does David Gordon say? “I’ve never had a vintage like this, so lacking in structure and tannins, and with so much ripe fruit at the expense of minerality and earthiness.” In other words, opulent fruit-bomb/Parker = bad!
Next Asimov delivers a roundhouse punch to Parker, wondering: “Will they age?” What this question really means is: If you follow Parker’s advice and buy these expensive wines, will they increase in value over time — or will you put your money in Parker’s hands and watch it vanish? Implicit in this whole story is the idea that the wines of 2007 are overpriced due to Parker: (“In selecting the wines for our blind tasting, we set a cap of $100 a bottle. Some top producers have not yet released their ’07s, while others are in great demand because of the rave reviews the vintage has received.) This idea that the whole vintage is overpriced essentially posits Parker as a malevolent force, pushing up the price of wine because he’s a powerful dummy with a sweet-tooth.
Oh, and if you’re wondering where I stand in all of this: I don’t, really. I can’t afford Chateauneuf-du-Pape too often, and have been burned by a number of thin and sour bottles when I’ve dabbled in it in restaurants so I tend to avoid it. On the Asimov Parker divide I think they’re both right: Parker is a great and good man but he has way, way (way!) too much power and I thoroughly support Asimov declaring war on him.
Oh, and if you were expecting a little more obvious bloodshed in this fight, sorry. But I think this whole thing is pretty hilarious and worth pointing out. It’s the most subtle fight of the year!
Filed under: Uncategorized by Dara
2 Comments »
