a new wine book. . . .

[Levi Dalton]

originally posted by MLipton:
I have the '78 edition, as well as the '92 and the more recent volume focused on the North. I will have to go back and reread those sections on Rayas, Levi, but like SFJoe I have always used JLL more for his information on terroir, domaines and vineyard practices than for specific judgments on wines. Still, that passage you cite seems wildly out of character for JLL, who in my experience is very circumspect in his writing. Then again, he was a much younger man back then and perhaps not as circumspect as he is at present.

Mark Lipton

This isn't a specific judgement on wines that is being referenced here. A specific judgement would be a low estimation or star count of a particular wine, or bottling.

What is at concern here is a damnation. A damnation of a whole family of wines, including Rayas, Pignan, and Fonsalette, white and red, everything post 1976. And that damnation was not just a little, but COLOSSALLY wrong.

 

[mlawton]

"So you think that he gives all those star ratings, but that readers just skip over those like they weren't there?"

Well since you are the 4th person I've discussed his work with and the other three made comments like "great information, but the reviews are from Mars", then my factual analysis is that everyone I've talked to (other than you) do exactly that. Add in Mark and Joe, and that makes 7. 6 of them have the same opinion. Have you come across anyone who does find value in the reviews?

"He called Jacques Reynaud a criminal. What is the disconnect here? Say I said you were a criminal for the quality of your work. Would you imagine that that statement didn't mean anything because people hearing it are free to make up their own minds on the subject?"

If I worked in a subjective field, I'd expect criticism. And I'd expect that some would be crafted more elegantly than others.

"About other writers: I can't agree. There are conspicuous examples of those who travel to the region frequently and report on the new news."

Can you provide some names? I'm interested in learning more. Seriously.

"Would you mind taking back that "objective" rendering of the 1983 quote, specifically the part about "you should try them," or are you going to stand by that?"

The statement "you should try them" should have been separated parenthetically as an understood statement rather than as a specific written interpretation. I know it made me want to try them! (well, despite the fact that even the best examples of Rayas are not to my taste).

 

[Levi Dalton]

originally posted by mlawton:
"So you think that he gives all those star ratings, but that readers just skip over those like they weren't there?"

Well since you are the 4th person I've discussed his work with and the other three made comments like "great information, but the reviews are from Mars", then my factual analysis is that everyone I've talked to (other than you) do exactly that. Add in Mark and Joe, and that makes 7. 6 of them have the same opinion. Have you come across anyone who does find value in the reviews?

"He called Jacques Reynaud a criminal. What is the disconnect here? Say I said you were a criminal for the quality of your work. Would you imagine that that statement didn't mean anything because people hearing it are free to make up their own minds on the subject?"

If I worked in a subjective field, I'd expect criticism. And I'd expect that some would be crafted more elegantly than others.

"About other writers: I can't agree. There are conspicuous examples of those who travel to the region frequently and report on the new news."

Can you provide some names? I'm interested in learning more. Seriously.

"Would you mind taking back that "objective" rendering of the 1983 quote, specifically the part about "you should try them," or are you going to stand by that?"

The statement "you should try them" should have been separated parenthetically as an understood statement rather than as a specific written interpretation. I know it made me want to try them! (well, despite the fact that even the best examples of Rayas are not to my taste).

I'll just cut to the chase, are you saying that 1989 Rayas rouge is not to your taste? That might reveal why you don't find other people's ratings to be of use to you.

How again was "you should try them" an "understood" statement? The text specifically argues against that understanding. Unless one has a different idea of living through a tragedy than I do.

Robert Parker is the name of a reviewer who goes to the Rhone frequently and reports on his findings there.

You do at least admit that there are value ratings in the JLL books, right? I just want to get that out of the way as a common understanding.

 

[Jonathan Loesberg]

Since I've already said that JLL is interested in personality, we can perhaps put that argument to bed.

He did not call Reynaud a criminal. He called his winemaking techniques criminal. Even in ordinary language, those are two very different evaluations.

 

[Levi Dalton]

originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
Since I've already said that JLL is interested in personality, we can perhaps put that argument to bed.

He did not call Reynaud a criminal. He called his winemaking techniques criminal. Even in ordinary language, those are two very different evaluations.

Oh, okay. So he is interested in personality. So if I state that I could imagine that having an effect on his reviews, that statement might not be dismissed as mistaken out of hand, then. Got it.

Someone who perpetrates criminal behaviour is a criminal, no? I mean in ordinary language, of course.

 

[Jonathan Loesberg]

originally posted by Levi Dalton:

originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
Since I've already said that JLL is interested in personality, we can perhaps put that argument to bed.

He did not call Reynaud a criminal. He called his winemaking techniques criminal. Even in ordinary language, those are two very different evaluations.

Oh, okay. So he is interested in personality. So if I state that I could imagine that having an effect on his reviews, that statement might not be dismissed as mistaken out of hand, then. Got it.

Someone who perpetrates criminal behaviour is a criminal, no? I mean in ordinary language, of course.

I didn't dismiss it as mistaken out of hand. I offered evidence, still not responded to as far as I can see, that it was in fact mistaking.

Actually, perpetrating criminal behaviour is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for being a criminal. Intention does matter. That is why the distinction entailed in avoiding arguments ad hominem.

And a technique is not the same as behaviour. And calling it criminal, in ordinary language, usually means one thinks it is really really bad and really, really thoughtless. If the effort is to understand what JLL meant, I would convict him of hyperbole based on insufficient evidence, as I would his entire original statement on Jacques Reynaud as quoted. But I can't work my way up to the level of outrage you express.

 

[mlawton]

"I'll just cut to the chase, are you saying that 1989 Rayas rouge is not to your taste? That might reveal why you don't find other people's ratings to be of use to you."

While it's entirely possible that I've had that wine and forgotten it, it's much more likely that I haven't had it. I have had a few vintages of Rayas and Fonsalette, some of my friends are fans - but they haven't been terribly impressive to me and I did not document which ones they were because it wasn't something I intended to follow up on.

"Robert Parker is the name of a reviewer who goes to the Rhone frequently and reports on his findings there."

He's exhibit one for rehash, IMHO. During the time I was traveling to the region at least once a year, I also had read his book and subscribed to his newsletter(!). I can say with absolute certainty that I never learned a thing from anything he wrote on the Northern Rhone - other than what producers he preferred. In fact, some of the information that he presented was factually incorrect, as verified by the producers themselves.

"You do at least admit that there are value ratings in the JLL books, right? I just want to get that out of the way as a common understanding."

Are you asking me if he uses stars and STGT and w.o.w. and recommends wines in certain vintages and things like that? If so, then yes, he does.

 

[Levi Dalton]

originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:

originally posted by Levi Dalton:

originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
Since I've already said that JLL is interested in personality, we can perhaps put that argument to bed.

He did not call Reynaud a criminal. He called his winemaking techniques criminal. Even in ordinary language, those are two very different evaluations.

Oh, okay. So he is interested in personality. So if I state that I could imagine that having an effect on his reviews, that statement might not be dismissed as mistaken out of hand, then. Got it.

Someone who perpetrates criminal behaviour is a criminal, no? I mean in ordinary language, of course.

I didn't dismiss it as mistaken out of hand. I offered evidence, still not responded to as far as I can see, that it was in fact mistaking.

Evidence, Sir? What evidence would that be?

This?: "is mistaken because unaware that JLL was holding a judgment that was widespread for a short period (the 78 vintage seems to have put paid to it), and unaware of his later adulation."

That doesn't have anything to do with the argument levelled by myself.

It does seem to be what you mean, because you repeat yourself here: "A widespread view of decline that JLL, rightly or wrongly held, with or without insufficient skepticism, but unrelated to Jacques Reynaud's personality and

second, his later adulation of Reynaud's wines, even though his personality had not changed. I thought this was sufficiently clear in my original response so I fear it may not be sufficiently clear here but it is, alas, the best I can do."

That isn't evidence. Please provide some as you said you did. Or don't.

As I said, it doesn't matter if Jacques' personality changed or not. I believe that JLL gives credit for time served. The difference between 1983 and 1992 is time. But they are different, aren't they?

It is also possible that JLL's personality changed in the interim, isn't it?

 

[Levi Dalton]

originally posted by mlawton:
"I'll just cut to the chase, are you saying that 1989 Rayas rouge is not to your taste? That might reveal why you don't find other people's ratings to be of use to you."

While it's entirely possible that I've had that wine and forgotten it, it's much more likely that I haven't had it. I have had a few vintages of Rayas and Fonsalette, some of my friends are fans - but they haven't been terribly impressive to me and I did not document which ones they were because it wasn't something I intended to follow up on.

Oh, okay. You haven't had the '89, or fail to remember it. Because when you said "well, despite the fact that even the best examples of Rayas are not to my taste" I thought that you had tried the 1989. Or maybe the 1990. But apparently you haven't.

 

[BJ]

Man, Levi, you're sounding like me talking about vinyl.

 

[SFJoe]

I don't drink that much grenache, and don't consult my older volumes of JLL very often, but I would say that he and I often like similar wines from the North. Aside from that, I find his written descriptions of individual wines to be useful.

And 1989 Rayas was made almost a decade after the controversial quote was written.

Not that I have an opinion about Rayas.

 

[Levi Dalton]

originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:

originally posted by Levi Dalton:

originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
Since I've already said that JLL is interested in personality, we can perhaps put that argument to bed.

He did not call Reynaud a criminal. He called his winemaking techniques criminal. Even in ordinary language, those are two very different evaluations.

Oh, okay. So he is interested in personality. So if I state that I could imagine that having an effect on his reviews, that statement might not be dismissed as mistaken out of hand, then. Got it.

Someone who perpetrates criminal behaviour is a criminal, no? I mean in ordinary language, of course.

I didn't dismiss it as mistaken out of hand. I offered evidence, still not responded to as far as I can see, that it was in fact mistaking.

Actually, perpetrating criminal behaviour is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for being a criminal. Intention does matter. That is why the distinction entailed in avoiding arguments ad hominem.

And a technique is not the same as behaviour. And calling it criminal, in ordinary language, usually means one thinks it is really really bad and really, really thoughtless. If the effort is to understand what JLL meant, I would convict him of hyperbole based on insufficient evidence, as I would his entire original statement on Jacques Reynaud as quoted. But I can't work my way up to the level of outrage you express.

I don't have any outrage except at what I reading here in this thread. If you point out that a guy said something terribly off, you would think that that would be acknowledged. But whatever.

Intention matters in criminality in the degree of the crime. It doesn't make criminal behaviour not criminal.

 

[Levi Dalton]

originally posted by SFJoe:

And 1989 Rayas was made almost a decade after the controversial quote was written.

Certainly it was. Which makes the predictive power of the 1983 quote equal to less than zero.

 

[Levi Dalton]

originally posted by BJ:
Man, Levi, you're sounding like me talking about vinyl.

It's not that surprising of a phenomenon. This is the same argument that comes up here any time somebody blatantly slanders/dismisses/disparages wines. The assembled thinks that it is no big whoop, and I disagree. We've been down this road before.

 

[mlawton]

originally posted by Levi Dalton:

originally posted by mlawton:
"I'll just cut to the chase, are you saying that 1989 Rayas rouge is not to your taste? That might reveal why you don't find other people's ratings to be of use to you."

While it's entirely possible that I've had that wine and forgotten it, it's much more likely that I haven't had it. I have had a few vintages of Rayas and Fonsalette, some of my friends are fans - but they haven't been terribly impressive to me and I did not document which ones they were because it wasn't something I intended to follow up on.

Oh, okay. You haven't had the '89, or fail to remember it. Because when you said "well, despite the fact that even the best examples of Rayas are not to my taste" I thought that you had tried the 1989. Or maybe the 1990. But apparently you haven't.

I'm a little lost as to how this is on point. Your initial point was that you did not feel comfortable with JLL's writing because:

A. You felt his opinion on the succession at Rayas was either incorrect or expressed inelegantly (not sure it's material which it is - or maaybe a combination)

B. Your opinion was that his expressed opinion on the subjective value of the wines was incorrect.

I responded that I felt his opinions were irrelevant to me (and later, to everyone other than you that I've discussed this with) and that I found strong value in the fact-based areas of his writing. Indeed, it seems that others do as well.

I'm not certain how this morphed into whether I'd had a particular vintage of Rayas, or whether I liked it or not? Per my initial point, you may wish to consider carefully whether to project my opinion on whether I like a particular vintage of Rayas into any sort of evaluation on whether I can report any pertinent facts on the goings-on in the Rhone for use by my readers, whoever they are. I may like Shiraz from Australia better than Syrah from the Northern Rhone, but that should not stand in the way of me letting you know valuable news from the region.

 

[Jonathan Loesberg]

As I said, since I couldn't make myself understood the first time, I didn't expect the second time to be any better. I see I was right in that expectation.

And engaging in an act the law deems criminal in certain intentional states does make the person who engages in it not a criminal. Hence the insanity defense. Hence various justifications of homicide entailing lack of intent or having different forms of intent. Of course, in each of these cases, one can argue that the absence of the intent also makes the act not a crime. But it won't stop someone saying about such acts "it's a crime," without meaning that "x" is a criminal.

And, of course, one really can't slander a wine, only a human being.

 

[Keith Levenberg]

originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
As I said, since I couldn't make myself understood the first time, I didn't expect the second time to be any better. I see I was right in that expectation.

And engaging in an act the law deems criminal in certain intentional states does make the person who engages in it not a criminal. Hence the insanity defense. Hence various justifications of homicide entailing lack of intent or having different forms of intent. Of course, in each of these cases, one can argue that the absence of the intent also makes the act not a crime. But it won't stop someone saying about such acts "it's a crime," without meaning that "x" is a criminal.

And, of course, one really can't slander a wine, only a human being.

Well, you're moving from Lit Crit to law now. In fact there are plenty of crimes where intent doesn't matter and you can be prosecuted regardless of your mental state. Perhaps there is a technicality that would render it inaccurate in certain circumstances to refer to a person convicted of such a crime a criminal, but I'm not aware of one. Of course, the easier route to your conclusion is probably that the word "criminal" implies that you were convicted of a crime, not only that you committed it.

 

[Jonathan Loesberg]

originally posted by Keith Levenberg:

originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
As I said, since I couldn't make myself understood the first time, I didn't expect the second time to be any better. I see I was right in that expectation.

And engaging in an act the law deems criminal in certain intentional states does make the person who engages in it not a criminal. Hence the insanity defense. Hence various justifications of homicide entailing lack of intent or having different forms of intent. Of course, in each of these cases, one can argue that the absence of the intent also makes the act not a crime. But it won't stop someone saying about such acts "it's a crime," without meaning that "x" is a criminal.

And, of course, one really can't slander a wine, only a human being.

Well, you're moving from Lit Crit to law now. In fact there are plenty of crimes where intent doesn't matter and you can be prosecuted regardless of your mental state. Perhaps there is a technicality that would render it inaccurate in certain circumstances to refer to a person convicted of such a crime a criminal, but I'm not aware of one. Of course, the easier route to your conclusion is probably that the word "criminal" implies that you were convicted of a crime, not only that you committed it.

That some crimes do not entail intent is insufficient to disprove that having perpetrated a criminal behaviour is a necessary but not a sufficient cause of being a criminal. For that, all crimes would not entail intent. I take it you are not arguing that. I guess I should have said "engaging in some acts that the law deems criminal..." But, I don't think that changes the case and so I don't really have to go your route nor would I think it a good answer to Levi since I really did not mean to engage in word juggling about whether JLL was calling Reynaud a de jure or just a de facto criminal. I was claiming, and do claim, that he did neither.

 

[Brian C]

originally posted by Levi Dalton:

originally posted by BJ:
Man, Levi, you're sounding like me talking about vinyl.

It's not that surprising of a phenomenon. This is the same argument that comes up here any time somebody blatantly slanders/dismisses/disparages wines. The assembled thinks that it is no big whoop, and I disagree. We've been down this road before.

I think we take wine criticism way to seriously. Anyone who takes the initial controversial passage as saying more about Rayas than about about JLL deserves to end up wherever the herd takes them. And judging by the prices and following the wines command I think at least one party came out relatively unscathed.

 

[nigel groundwater]

Perhaps some of the problem here lies in the not so subtle difference in how some words are used in the UK and USA.

“That’s criminal” in the UK in this context means no more than it is to be deplored rather than suggesting anything that might be a crime [in any sense] and calling someone ‘a retard’ here [not a word that JL-L would use] would definitely be considered unpleasant while describing them as having been born 'slightly retarded' would not. I assume the fact was only included, since it has no other relevance, to indicate part of a possible rationale why Louis's excellence had apparently not been passed on to the next generation.

However in the light of Rayas's general reputation and despite the hiatus in general opinion that also followed Jacques's death I think if I had only read the earlier version I too would be wondering at it. However it doesn't ‘sound’ like JL-L to me and although he may have penned those words he clearly reversed his opinions later. IMO his views, on the wines of Northern Rhone in particular, provide a valuable perspective and I will be acquiring his latest book and continuing to read his blog.

Storm in a teacup? Pace?