I fell asleep a few nights ago musing on the notion that I could have made a much tougher case against Eric if I put my mind to it.
I don't have the urge (and I value most of his wines very much), but there is a serious case to be made against many (almost any?) winemakers on aesthetic, methodological, or other grounds. I'm not against such discussions. Actually, I love them if they are well done. Really, there are well-intentioned winemakers from many camps that produce horrific wines. And there are aesthetic choices that one could challenge. Or inadvertence that one could criticize. I think a robust discussion of any of this in many cases would be fine. I don't think winemakers get a free pass even if they work hard and try their best. There are restaurants with terrible but diligent chefs, for instance. Good actors turn in bad performances, good directors make bad movies, great hitters strike out. This is all grounds for legitimate discussion by consumers in my view. You don't have to crucify them, but to pick an email from my inbox today, you could totally make an argument that young Ogier's wines are a big gap down from his father's. That is a discussion worth having. Loudly, so the guy can hear you and maybe one day think about what you've said.
But making such a case requires an argument on the merits. Not a preemptive pre-aggrieved assault on the audience and the legitimacy of their current opinions. Not a mere urge or twitch or impulse or minor cerebral infarct, or an individual wine that didn't please. Or, the Noodle forfend, a ridiculous parody of an experiment that is then generalized to mean something that it just can't.
I do not agree with those who would spare people criticism just because they are diligent or sincere. Spare them criticism as people, or parents, or pet owners, sure. But not for their luxury consumer goods. Those have to pass a higher bar.
From time to time, I've had to put my various works up in public one way or another, and they have on occasion drawn vigorous and informed criticism. For my part, I was always happy to have it in public and in person, because it gave me a chance to answer. Much worse the whisper, the shrug, the lack of understanding or the uncorrected misinterpretation. Bring it on. I hope that winemakers would feel the same way, even if their marketing arms might not.
But really, you have to make a case. A decent case. Not just an impulse, but a reason. Better yet, a persuasive case that might, one day, change the way that person or someone else makes or thinks about wine. Not just "I had an opinion today!" It's like a 3 year old saying, "I pooped today!" Well, good for you, sweetie, and be sure to wash your hands, but you haven't made an important contribution to alter the state of the world.
No free rides for anyone, IMO, winemakers or wine drinkers. Make an argument, have persuasive reasons, or prepare to lose.
I don't have the urge (and I value most of his wines very much), but there is a serious case to be made against many (almost any?) winemakers on aesthetic, methodological, or other grounds. I'm not against such discussions. Actually, I love them if they are well done. Really, there are well-intentioned winemakers from many camps that produce horrific wines. And there are aesthetic choices that one could challenge. Or inadvertence that one could criticize. I think a robust discussion of any of this in many cases would be fine. I don't think winemakers get a free pass even if they work hard and try their best. There are restaurants with terrible but diligent chefs, for instance. Good actors turn in bad performances, good directors make bad movies, great hitters strike out. This is all grounds for legitimate discussion by consumers in my view. You don't have to crucify them, but to pick an email from my inbox today, you could totally make an argument that young Ogier's wines are a big gap down from his father's. That is a discussion worth having. Loudly, so the guy can hear you and maybe one day think about what you've said.
But making such a case requires an argument on the merits. Not a preemptive pre-aggrieved assault on the audience and the legitimacy of their current opinions. Not a mere urge or twitch or impulse or minor cerebral infarct, or an individual wine that didn't please. Or, the Noodle forfend, a ridiculous parody of an experiment that is then generalized to mean something that it just can't.
I do not agree with those who would spare people criticism just because they are diligent or sincere. Spare them criticism as people, or parents, or pet owners, sure. But not for their luxury consumer goods. Those have to pass a higher bar.
From time to time, I've had to put my various works up in public one way or another, and they have on occasion drawn vigorous and informed criticism. For my part, I was always happy to have it in public and in person, because it gave me a chance to answer. Much worse the whisper, the shrug, the lack of understanding or the uncorrected misinterpretation. Bring it on. I hope that winemakers would feel the same way, even if their marketing arms might not.
But really, you have to make a case. A decent case. Not just an impulse, but a reason. Better yet, a persuasive case that might, one day, change the way that person or someone else makes or thinks about wine. Not just "I had an opinion today!" It's like a 3 year old saying, "I pooped today!" Well, good for you, sweetie, and be sure to wash your hands, but you haven't made an important contribution to alter the state of the world.
No free rides for anyone, IMO, winemakers or wine drinkers. Make an argument, have persuasive reasons, or prepare to lose.
