Alice picks up our stuff...

WINE TALK
21

I like Alice’s taste in wine, the wine grower/producers she supports, some of her “causes”, a lot of her positions, and the fact that she knows where her bread is buttered [wink.gif] .




Still, it seems that much of her wine world notoriety is based on pot shots at RMP and his legacy.

RT

22

I’ll +1 this as well. I like her taste and goal to highlight honest wines. But her style is really off-putting at times. She has a tendency to stereotype and direct her criticism unevenly and unfairly. In one blog post she suggested ripping out every Pinot vine in California. I also came across an older article where she ripped into Michael Havens for using micro-ox. Having tasted some of these wines due to the bankruptcy, they aren’t exactly the poster children for soft gooey generic Cali wines even if the techniques used are also used by the syrupy wine makers. I’d be way more concerned about anti-sulfur wines as a consumer, not a critic who gets free wine all the time, as I hate spending money and getting insane bottle variation when often it can be avoided with minimal human intervention.

Anyway, I think it’s better to focus on lauding your favorites than attacking non-favorites in a scatter-shot manner. And if the end result doesn’t include harmful chemicals or blatantly obvious manipulation, it’s not so important how the wine was made as long as it was done well. If an optical sorter that blasts moldy grapes off a conveyor belt with air can do what hand sorting does, fine by me.

23

Couldn’t agree more. It’s not her message that I dislike, but her whiney/bitchy way of delivering it that turns me off. “How I Saved The World From Parkerization”…whatta crock. She’d probably have a cow if she knew one of her winemaker heros once used RO to salvage a wine…and it actually came out awfully darned good.
Tom

24

I like Alice’s take on wine things. I think her writing conveys a love and passion for wine and, well, love. I don’t agree with everything she says. I think she opens herself to criticism by stating her beliefs in very clear, perhaps dogmatic terms. Whiney? Bitchy? No. Maybe snarky. Probably too focused on Parker, though really that was the book. And the title was funny. Were we supposed to take it seriously?

Back to the matter at hand, no, I didn’t see any quotes from Alice in Roberto’s piece. I do laugh every time I see that picture Doug. Great job Roberto.

25

Does wine lead to vitriolic threads or is the reverse? Can we all get along? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHlopjHepEw

26

I just lurk here, but I feel I owe Alice a debt, which I fear would possibly best be paid by keeping my mouth shut. Be that as it may, Alice’s book changed the way I think about wine, and has greatly increased my enjoyment of it. I’m a long time wine drinker, not ITB (well I was sorta, kinda several lifetimes ago, but that’s another story), and for me a bottle over $20 is a splurge. I knew I was liking the wine I drank less and less, I sort of knew why, but I certainly wasn’t able to adequately explain it to wine store salespeople (even the good ones) and I wasn’t at all sure what to do about it. Alice’s book really resonated with me, and helped put it all into focus. It has changed my (wine drinking) life, and much for the better.

Alice has a clarity of vision that is admirable and she always says exactly what she thinks. I consider these positive qualities. OTOH, I’m sure that on occasion she can be a royal PITA, she’s definitely meshuggeh, and she’s not always right. That’s part of the package with people who are honest about their opinions, and I find those people to be well worth seeking out. I hear that Ralph Nader can also be like that, though I’ve never heard the “B” word used to describe him. Speaking of the “B” word, another person I’ve never heard described by that word is RMP himself. Not that I’m calling him that, I’m not a big fan of the word to begin with, but I do find it interesting that it seems to be applied to opinionated women but not to equally opinionated men. Opinionated, stubborn, etc. seem to work just fine when we’re criticizing the other gender.

In any event, if you’re reading this Alice, thanks. You’ve accomplished more than most, and you should be proud. If anyone disagrees with you, let them write their own book.

27

Please.

Clarity of vision means you don’t focus on another person to piggyback off that person’s reputation. Whether you slander it or praise it, you’re making yourself subordinate to it. And you don’t get to be a dom when you’ve already announced you’re a sub.

You use the word “Parkerization” to generate controversy in the wine world. It’s the same thing as using “91 points” to sell a wine. If you’re so independent, you don’t cash in on someone else.

And yeah, I read the book.

28

We can get along, but we don’t have to agree.

Piggybacking suggests someone from nowhere came to somewhere by riding the coattails of another. She doesn’t need my defense, but Alice was hardly nowhere when she more than legitimately chose the world’s most influential wine critic as the pivot in a look at what she thinks has gone wrong in wine. Call the result what you want. I liked it. I respect Tom Hill’s review of the book, though I honestly don’t agree. I read the book a year ago thinking I might not like it too much. It turned out I liked it quite a bit, found it full of passion for wine and surprisingly touching given her openness about her own history and insecurity. I guess I could relate. Maybe I’m a bitch too. [thumbs-up.gif]