My post on the sorry state of wine writing was not, it seems, a shot in the dark. Many people feel this way. My post not only elicited a variety of comments here, but in emails and elsewhere. Along the way, I turned up a variety of writers with similar sentiments.
• Tim Elliott at Winecast, who wrote: “Too often, I default to the same sort of clinical reviews you see in the Wine Spectator and other wine pubs. Terse notes on color, aromas and flavors topped off with a rating on some scale. For almost 5 years now, that’s been what I’ve been doing. But I’ve had enough.”
• Ryan Opaz at WineBlogAtlas, who wrote: “This is what I see in the wine blog-o-sphere, and while the exceptions are growing, there are still too many websites and blogs that have more in common with wine industry rags than with the new world of which they published in.”
• Derek Lavallee, a wine critic for The Hill: “Whether inspired by a sincere but strenuous attempt to describe that which is inherently subjective, or an egotistical outlet for frustrated poets using wine as their muse, most wine-speak typically results in alienation of the reader.”
• The ever knowledgeable George Rose, writing for Dan Berger’s Vintage Experiences: “Much of what passes for wine writing seems more like a stuffy BBC period piece. I keep expecting Dame Judy Dench to pop out from behind the bushes and recite in proper English: ‘I like Viognier to show a green-straw color, peachy-dried apricot nose…’ ”
• And Mike Wangbickler, who reprinted Rose’s essay on his blog, Caveman Wines: ”Why do we as wine writers, bloggers, and wine marketers insist on talking over the heads of our customers?”