Truly too good to be true?!

N

Nicolas Mestre

Nicolas Mestre
This is bound to be censored by the powers that be sooner or later, but while you have the chance:

"About these natural, unmanipulated and pure wines: One of the major
scams being foisted on wine consumers is the so-called Natural wine
movement. It is not subjected to any government regulations or any
definition beyond that of the individual who has spawned the term. Over
95% of the wines written about in this publication are from producers who
make under 5,000 cases and are natural wines by nearly any rational
definition of the word. They are made without additives or enzymes, and
usually have minimal sulphur, but they do contain sulphur as they should
because otherwise they are unstable, potentially dangerous and impossible
to transport because the wines will spoil. In the case of southern Rhne
wines, they simply have no make-up whatsoever. There are no color enzymes,
no color added, no artificial flavors, very little acidification, etc.,
etc. In short, they are grapes fermented into wine with 95% or more aged
in neutral wood vessels, concrete vats, stainless steel, etc. A tiny
percentage does see aging in new oak casks, or more typically in the
southern Rhne, the larger 600-liter demimuids. These are natural wines
make no mistake about it. They are also wines that work wonders with an
assortment of cuisines because of the absence of new oak and any makeup."
--Wine Advocate #191, Oct. 31, 2010
 
And perhaps paragraph 5 while you're at it.

None of the quoted text is particularly remarkable. Are you surprised? We aren't.

< yawn >
 
Frankly, I feel much of the attacks against the Wine Advocate are from supporters of The Wine Spectator who want to damage the reputation of the Advocate to raise consumer support for The Wine Spectator.
 
I find myself unusually reactive to this paragraph. I am experiencing almost mild annoyance. Generally Parker's rants blow by me. And I have no particular position on natural wine. But the willful evasiveness of this paragraph offends the writing instructor in me. While ranting against the category he mentions barely any of the winemaking practices against which proponents of the category stand. With regard to CdP, even he knows that the use of new wood is at least more common then it used to be. And the tendency toward 10/40 motor oil wine goes barely mentioned. It's OK with me if he likes the stuff. But writing like this degrades discourse.
 
It's a lot easier to demonize something when you don't make even minimal effort to understand it. Saves time and effort.

Somehow, I don't think the critic in question was on the Mall yesterday.
 
originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
I find myself unusually reactive to this paragraph. I am experiencing almost mild annoyance. Generally Parker's rants blow by me. And I have no particular position on natural wine. But the willful evasiveness of this paragraph offends the writing instructor in me. While ranting against the category he mentions barely any of the winemaking practices against which proponents of the category stand. With regard to CdP, even he knows that the use of new wood is at least more common then it used to be. And the tendency toward 10/40 motor oil wine goes barely mentioned. It's OK with me if he likes the stuff. But writing like this degrades discourse.
Click to expand...

How is this any different than his canonical rant which is something like "wines without gobs suck; their only proponents wear funny hats are pretentious pseudo-intellectuals?" You've really got me curious here, Jonathan.

EDIT: Okay, I think I see it. His standard rant is simply devoid of any actual content, where his new one is actively full of misinformation. Is that it?
 
It's a true shame that in order to read Schildknecht and Galloni one must also endure the uninformed rants of the formerly meaningful critic.
 
originally posted by Lee Short:
originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
I find myself unusually reactive to this paragraph. I am experiencing almost mild annoyance. Generally Parker's rants blow by me. And I have no particular position on natural wine. But the willful evasiveness of this paragraph offends the writing instructor in me. While ranting against the category he mentions barely any of the winemaking practices against which proponents of the category stand. With regard to CdP, even he knows that the use of new wood is at least more common then it used to be. And the tendency toward 10/40 motor oil wine goes barely mentioned. It's OK with me if he likes the stuff. But writing like this degrades discourse.
Click to expand...

How is this any different than his canonical rant which is something like "wines without gobs suck; their only proponents wear funny hats are pretentious pseudo-intellectuals?" You've really got me curious here, Jonathan.
Click to expand...

I don't know that I could draw a bright red line of difference. But there are a couple of things about this one. First, when he reviews, he actually speaks well of winemakers who don't intervene, even who try to reduce sulfur. Further, with regard to natural wine, I don't think anyone for instance, does insist on wine being sulfur free, so that's a straw man. Nothing else in the paragraph does point to practices natural wine proponents might eschew except to the extent of saying that CdP people don't use much new wood, and even to the extent that this is true, there are plenty of places that do. So there is the guise of offering discussion that is actually evasion and irrelevance. Know-nothing rants are what they are. But they get worse when they offer hypocrisy and pseudo-reason as well.

But I'm perfectly willing to say that my annoyance is my problem. As I say, it goes to questions of bad discourse more than to wine tastes.
 
originally posted by Lee Short:
originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
I find myself unusually reactive to this paragraph. I am experiencing almost mild annoyance. Generally Parker's rants blow by me. And I have no particular position on natural wine. But the willful evasiveness of this paragraph offends the writing instructor in me. While ranting against the category he mentions barely any of the winemaking practices against which proponents of the category stand. With regard to CdP, even he knows that the use of new wood is at least more common then it used to be. And the tendency toward 10/40 motor oil wine goes barely mentioned. It's OK with me if he likes the stuff. But writing like this degrades discourse.
Click to expand...

How is this any different than his canonical rant which is something like "wines without gobs suck; their only proponents wear funny hats are pretentious pseudo-intellectuals?" You've really got me curious here, Jonathan.

EDIT: Okay, I think I see it. His standard rant is simply devoid of any actual content, where his new one is actively full of misinformation. Is that it?
Click to expand...

Seems to me the difference is that Jonathan's complaint was about techne, not ideology.
 
After hearing Laura Sullivan's reports on the Arizona immigration law and ALEC last week on NPR, one could easily think RMP was impressed upon by folks from Monsanto. Why the hell would anyone ever want to know what was actually going onto the grapes, or the ground they're grown on?
 
Doublethink: "The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them."

#1: People who promote "natural" wine are engaged in "[o]ne of the major scams being foisted on wine consumers."
#2: You should drink Southern Rhone wines because they are "natural."

Actually, it's a two-fer!

#1: The term "natural" is not subject to "any definition."
#2: Southern Rhone wines are "natural" because they "are made without additives or enzymes, and usually have minimal sulphur."
 
Boy, and no comments about Robert Parker saying:

"They are also wines that work wonders with an
assortment of cuisines because of the absence of new oak and any makeup."
 
originally posted by Howard Cooper:
Boy, and no comments about Robert Parker saying:

"They are also wines that work wonders with an
assortment of cuisines because of the absence of new oak and any makeup."
Click to expand...

Ok - Kneel before Zod and heed his pronouncements as all that is right and true.

I think that's pretty much what Parker was saying.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top