Has Robert Parker had enough?

There is a very odd interview with Robert Parker, the most important person in the wine world, in the current issue of Meininger's Wine Business International. The Italian Wine Guy, who brought this to my attention, says Parker seems tired, bored and angry.

Which is certainly true. He also doesn't seem to have much confidence in the people he has hired to write for the Wine Advocate, his ratings magazine, or that the Advocate will survive much past the time he stops writing for it. It's as if Babe Ruth expected baseball to go away after he stopped playing. More, after the jump:

Why are we dissecting a 10-paragraph story in a trade magazine about Parker in much the same way that U.S. intelligence analysts tried to read between the lines in Soviet newspapers and magazines during the Cold War? Because, first, Parker is that important, even if his influence is declining. Second, we don't get many glimpses into Parker's empire; he doesn't do many interviews or talk much about his work. So any opportunity is welcome.

I contacted Suzanne Mustacich at Meininger, who did the interview, figuring she might be able to offer some additional insight, but have not heard back. Until then, a couple of my thoughts:

• Parker rips the suggestion that he had anything to do with the popularity of high alcoholic Australian wines, which would new news to the Aussies. "To say Australia is associated with high alcohol wines is an insult and a totally incorrect view that ignores most of the country's wine producing regions. ..." His resentment is curious; one should take credit for one's accomplishments. It also gives me a chance to quote Shakespeare (from "Hamlet," no less): "The lady doth protest too much, methinks."

• I would not want to work for Parker. Mustacich asked who might review Bordeaux afer Parker retires: "Of the critics working for me, only Neal Martin is well informed and has a very good grasp of Bordeaux." So much for all of the other talented people working at the Advocate, eh?

• Parker has no use for "the [wine] bloggers who offer their opinions for free, and for the most part lack seriousness and professionalism." Well. So much for my efforts to get Parker the recognition he deserves -- and has been denied -- from the Vintners Hall of Fame. I certainly wouldn't tell Parker how to review wine, but I do feel comfortable discussing this subject. He needs to understand that some of us (right, Italian Wine Guy?) are just as professional as he is. And more professional than some of the so-called professionals he holds up as the standard.

Comments

[Jim Caudill]

Jeff, I gotta say, the most relevant thing I saw in this piece was his comment that people pay too much attention to him, and this post feels like that. I didn't get any of the vibe you did, just a straightforward view of things. I've had the chance to spend time with him (organizing major tastings for the various folks I've worked with) and in person he's kind, self-effacing, genuine and thoughtful. I've always thought his writing came across a bit more direct, but I think it's just the style of someone who says what he thinks. I really think you're reading the tea leaves too much and I also think it's time to move on. If you want to know if the Advocate will succeed beyond Bob's eventual full retirement (if anybody really cares to know) perhaps time to focus on the reviewing team. Just attending a tasting with Antonio Galloni and found him to be refreshing and charming and engaging, and first looks at his California reviews mean, well, there's just another voice out there for people to consider, if they want to. Here, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, which I'll gladly share with you next time we're in each other's company....

[Robert Whitley]

I agree with Jim. Parker has been picked apart to an absurd level. His palate has a definite tilt, yes. We all know that. We all know that all of us aren't necessarily accepting of his pronouncements. But his preferences are his and his alone and any critic is entitled to that. The winemakers and wineries that have styled their wines to suit Parker's tastes did so of their own free will. His influence may well be in decline, but no one will ever deny his impact was profound. That some may resent that or believe he was pushing an agenda they find objectionable, that's life. But he owes you, me, no one anything. He gave it his best shot, and his best shot was pretty damn good, even though I often disageed.

[Jeff Siegel]

Wow. Robert Whitley and Jim Caudill commenting on the same post. I'm honored, guys.

There has been no bigger defender of Robert Parker than I have been. He revolutionized what we do, and he should be appreciated for that. Which I have done on countless occasions (and been ripped for it on the blog).

What made this interview interesting is that Parker doesn't seem to be having any fun any more, and that's different. One reason why I wanted to talk to the woman who did the interview was to get some context -- did he seem that way when she did it? Was it an email interview? Was it a phone interview? Was it in person? Each of those can change the way an interview reads. But I never heard from her.

The only thing I really took exception to was the blogger bit, because Parker should have known better than to make a blanket statement like that. But I did not criticize his work, and I never have. That would be snarky and unprofessional, and I'm only cranky.

[Alfonso]

I too have admired his efforts and his stamina over the years. Perhaps the interview was edited - In the meantime, without reading the tea leaves too much, that's how some observers read the interview - Maybe he was having an off day. or maybe he wast just tired, bored and angry...