This week there has been an interesting discussion on Tom Cannavan’s Wine-Pages entitled ‘Parker's a great wine journalist’. It illustrates the two different approaches to writing about wine.
Terroir: View from Pierre-Bise across the Layon to Saint-Lambert-du-LattayHere is my posting on the thread where I attempt to set out the two different approaches:
‘I'd suggest that the topic should be entitled why Robert Parker is a 'great wine writer' rather than a wine journalist. As a broad generalisation a journalist reacts and comments on current events, while a writer takes a more reflective look. I consider Hugh Johnson to be a writer, while Tim Atkin is mostly a wine journalist. Andrew Jefford and Jancis Robinson are both writers and journalists.
This thread illustrates a fundamental difference of approach that exists in those whose write or commentate about wine. Seeking a catch phrase – bottle or terroir.
Robert Parker and Malcolm Gluck, for example, see themselves as wine critics where what is in the bottle is primordial. A detailed knowledge of the soils and the personalities involved is not essential and can get in the way of an objective assessment of the wine.
The terroir approach is exemplified by Hugh Johnson, Anthony Hanson and Andrew Jefford where an understanding of the wine comes from an interest and knowledge of the area, where the vines have grown and the personalities of those who cultivated the grapes and made the wine.
I think both approaches have their strengths and both are valid. I am certainly in the terroir camp because, for me, looking at where grapes are grown and the personalities involved is fascinating. In the case of the Loire this may make me less critical of certain wines than I might be if I tasted them miles away. The 'bottle' camp would I'm sure say that I'm too emotionally attached to the Loire and its producers to be properly objective. Although I think it was James Cameron who thought that good journalism demanded some involvement. I have to leave readers to form their own judgments over whether they agree with my conclusions or not.
Tasting is extremely personal and wines and our perception of them change all the time so, for me, a tasting note is just a snapshot. I only use points/marks when I'm obliged to in wine competitions although I do use a system of ticks, crosses and question marks when tasting wine, which I'm sure wouldn't stand even the briefest scientific scrutiny.
Without gainsaying Robert Parker's considerable achievements, I think Hugh Johnson and Andrew Jefford, to mention but two, are very considerably better writers.’
Obviously Jim’s Loire is unashamedly and unapologetically ‘terroir’ driven.
