We are going around in circles. Im going to propose a definition, with alternatives, but first I want to make clear the criteria for certain positions I will not capture in the definition. It seems to me that there are two things we want to capture in the definition:
1) a type of wine that people object to and
2) an element of intent to create that wine leading to the use of certain forms of manipulation that have as their end to create that wine.
Item two it seems to me is vital for two reasons: first, if we identify spoof simply with a set of characteristics that many of us find objectionable, spoof will become simply a word that means either a kind of wine we dont like or, worse, just wine we dont like. Second, the word implies criticism not just of the wine but of, at the most general terms, the critical, economic and cultural practices that produce it. Limiting it to a kind of wine makes that inference without basis and hence the kind of irresponsible ideology contained in a term like pleasure police. Thus the term has to be specific enough pointedly to exclude some wine that we might not like that we dont think was created or artificed out of that cultural or economic situation. It might also include wines we recognize as spoofed but just like anyway, because we are inconsistent. For this reason, I wont follow Joes and Jays path. I think it tends toward making the term a simple taste evaluation. Theres nothing wrong with taste evaluations, but there is something wrong with taste evaluations that imply unwarranted and aggressive ideological accusations.
For part 1) we can get pretty close to an agreement, probably. I propose wine that has a certain international style connected with the word Parkerization whose features are oakiness, syrupy extraction, overripeness and high alcohol.and one added feature, that will get us to item 2) a pointed departure in these features from wine we connect to those that normally come from that terroirif there is a normal kind of wine that comes from that terroir.
Thus for item 2) I propose either my solution to the contrast: these practices occur in opposition to the tradition of the terroir or Nathans solution (and Joes): these practices occur because of an intention on the part of the winemaker to artifice that form of wine.
Note that because of item 2), not all wines that people find objectionably overripe, extracted, alcoholic, etc. will be able to be called spoofed, and this is the intent. If one can argue that in fact wine made from that terroir has as part of its history and essence (the conditions of climate and grape variety or varieties used), ripeness and high alcohol (CdP) or maybe even heavy oak (Spanish Rioja), then that wine may be found objectionable by some, but not spoofed. Those who object to it will have grounds perhaps for wanting to change the tradition of the terroir (we should really only allow Mourvedre in CdP and develop harvesting practices requisite to the heat that would reduce ripeness and alcohol; Rioja should only be fermented in INOX). But they are arguing for a different kind of wine, not against the specter of Parkerization and spoof, and they will rightly have to defend against proposing a counter-Parkerization spoof of their own.
One can no doubt go on talking about problematical examples, etc. etc. And I recognize that both intention and tradition will still make the terms application to specific wines a matter of debate (I doubt there is any alternative that doesnt). But if people want the term, I suggest debate on the elements of the definition and not worry problems of specific application:
Should item 2 be eliminated and if so, what justification for the term is there that I have missed other than that it makes us happy to use terms of abuse?
If item 2 is kept, should some other term replace tradition or intent? Can natural be sufficiently recuperated to work?
If item 2 is the defining feature, should item 1 be less specified? Even though most people on this board prefer wine to be less fruit, more mineral, lower alcohol, if to create such a wine, one has to work against what the terroir gives, should that wine be considered spoofed, even if its a spoofing we like? Or is the international style as it is now also vital to the term? Suppose a lean, minerally style somehow came to have the force the current international style does and started doing equal depredation tp local culture, would that be objectionable? If not, why arent you still just making a stylistic argument inappropriately given an ideological critique?
I think this is my last attempt to move toward an agreed upon definition. Either negotiation wont go on or it can go on without me.
