This idea of “something to drink” too often gets lost in wine talk. I was recently interviewed by a Polish academic who is doing a study on the way people communicate about wine. He asked me, bluntly, “Why is most wine communication so bad?” It’s a good question! I believe most wine communication sucks because, on a fundamental level, wine talk does everything it can to remove the idea of drinking from the equation. For people really deep into wine, it’s an aspect of culture, akin to art, design, or music. I respect that.
If we’re really being honest, though, we also like the intoxicating state of mind that wine puts us in. We like the alcohol, and what it does to us. I’m not saying we like being drunk, but we like drinking. This is the third rail that can never be acknowledged. To talk of drinking—for the sake of, you know, drinking—is to risk compromising wine’s perception as an object of status and culture. I also respect this impulse. But the resulting wine talk will then always have an underlying falseness. When we talk to normal people who are not in the wine bubble, when we try to explain wine to them, they can feel that falseness.
Alcohol is still a bit of a taboo in the US. One would think with all the advertisements and the like it’s something widely accepted, but I’m not sure that is the case. I think a lot of it is tied up in the theocratic nature of our culture where drinking is something to be done discreetly and never for anyone under the arbitrary age of 21. I think that’s what leads to
binge drinking at a young age, the introduction of alcohol as something to be feared instead of respected for what it is.
Great post. I think about this all of the time! It is also fun to think about how different alcohols result, just like drugs, in different types of inebriation. Sake to me is a completely different intoxication than wine. And then there is Tequila!
BTW the same type of post could be made about coffee. You never here anyone refer to coffee as a drug, yet it is one of the most powerful addictive substances on earth.
Oh, if I could remove both alcohol and calories from wine without compromising the taste, I would absolutely love it. That would multiply my consumption.
Sure there are occasions, when alcohol is welcome, but I would be fine with complementing those evenings with vodka shots if that would mean I could open an interesting bottle right now and still drive to my training in a few hours…
Sure: too much alc. is a health risk - every adult knows this.
But this is a wine forum, no medical forum.
In my experience most (!), not all, lovers of fine wines drink better but less wine (than a mean wine consumer) - that’s less alc. per week/month/year …
Usually they seek pleasure by great taste - and not by getting drunk (but some do).
I personally hate getting drunk - and I almost never “drink” so much to call me drunk - I rather spit while tasting.
I would prefer wines that taste great and have no alcohol -
unfortunately wines without alc. taste sh*t
I think we don’t talk about it because there’s nothing interesting to say. What is interesting or nuanced about a discussion of how alcohol is intoxicating? Certainly when my wine friends and I talk about wine, I can’t really imagine us having anything to say about the impact of alcohol that would enhance the conversation.
Becoming inebriated is a major aspect of wine for me. Since my 20’s it has more or less replaced beer and spirits. Which was consumed for the purpose of inebriation. This does not mean one cannot enjoy the sensory and intellectual aspects of wine. Lots of people will say they don’t like getting drunk. And maybe that works for them. But if you could magically snap your fingers and make every board participant who truly enjoys the inebriation part disappear I suspect this would be a lonely place.
That said, there are folks who fetishize alcohol percentage and won’t drink anything over say 13.0% (cf. Wine Disorder). There are people who want the “pros” of wine without more than a little buzz, if that. Basically, there is no center which holds.
And now off to the Finger Lakes for nature, food and… wine.
For those who are not alcoholics, age has a lot to do with willingness to become inebriated. Youngsters can handle more and recover quicker. I’ve always thought one of the benefits of enjoying fine wine is wanting to remain in full control of one’s senses to maximize the experience. Perhaps we would be well served to consider that wine was meant for the table to be enjoyed with food. And if children were included with a much watered down taste at the dinner table, they would evolve naturally to appreciate the sensory and social benefits that wine can provide.
I find the intoxicating effects of alcohol to be an annoyance rather than a benefit. I wish wine could be what it is without alcohol, so much so that part of my career has involved working on developing and improving non-alcoholic winemaking. But I agree with the general statement that this is a positive factor for most people, also with Sarah’s point, that once you acknowledge that…so what? Not much more to say.
I don’t agree with many assertions in the original post. There is no falseness, subterfuge, cover.
I’ve never seen wine drinkers (or alcohol drinkers) pretend its not alcohol or counterparties not assume alcohol is involved. Offering a glass of wine to anyone universally triggers a question of “do I want to consume some alcohol now or not”. You don’t need to hold a placard to raise the point.
It’s commonly discussed on this forum a preference for lower alcohol wines
WB ran a survey a while ago where I recall the average respondent saying they would drink more wine if alcohol levels were zero, and the other cohort stating they wouldn’t drink without any inebriation factor. Either response negates the idea that wine drinkers are oblivious/hide the idea that wine inebriates.
For people really deep into any subject, it often leads to community. That is happened with Wine is no different than it happening with food, guns, knitting, anime, being a Swiftie, etc. It’s not a coping mechanism or shield – its what happens when people share common interests as demonstrated across thousands of of similar communities around the world.
I am in that camp but it has more to do with the health / hangover issues. The body just can process higher abv wines as easily as lower. For me anything over 15% is a sure hangover.
I have no issue stating I enjoy the sedative effects. It is a big reason why I drink anything with alcohol in it.
I don’t really talk about it because it’s a given. Throughout history people have understood this. Pliny wasn’t simply referring to taste when he stated “In Vino Veritas.” Of course I am selective about what I drink because I also very much enjoy the gustatory aspects.
With that said, I have zero doubt it is a poison. I no longer like crossing a certain threshold of inebriation. It goes beyond wanting to avoid a hangover. I don’t enjoy being sauced. I don’t enjoy the company of drunks. It’s been a good five years since I have consumed more than two glasses of wine in a single day.
I was going to say pretty much exactly this - and Sarah, this is the interesting part of it to me. Beyond the taste of wine, there is some quality to the experience of how wine in particular affects your mind that poets have obviously paid attention to for a few thousand years (veritas and all that) but which I don’t hear much about beyond that. I like the taste of cocktails and hard liquor, but vodka, gin, rum, etc all eventually lead me to various places that I’m less fond of. Wine is social and encourages sharing. The veritas part is arguable (and has been argued since, again, the poets started in on it), but the feeling is pleasant. (Then again, I’m done after glass #2 - glass #3 puts me out, so I’m talking something close to moderation.)
Oh, also - there are essays and sales pitches geared to the quality of a given weed strain’s high - my local dispenseries all have qualifiers and adjectives to describe how you’ll feel chatty or clear headed or relaxed or giggly - but you won’t find that on Pontet Canet’s website. In fact, I’m not sure there’s a wine equivalent for the word “high.” We don’t say “the drunk I get off of rum is different than the drunk from vodka.” Maybe I’m blanking out on the word.
And I do wonder if certain producers or vineyards or grapes provide different…uh…drunks. I’m guessing Burgundy folks would say this is true.
I ask again, is this really the case? OK, not really in everyday talk but, as you state, it is a beast of a drug and fairly addictive at that. I use it for the effects. Tastes pretty good too. Like alcohol, I’ve had to learn how to use it responsibly. At peak I was up to eight or nice espressi a day. Too much!
It is unfashionable to admit amongst aficionados that one of the reasons we drink wine is to feel euphoria. I’d say that the great majority of aficionados try to stay in that space of inebriation rather than end up whole hog shattered…
But man oh man is it a boring night when everyone actually spits everything out. I drink to make myself and others more interesting.
This is all very fair. Thinking about it, I do sometimes talk about how a sake buzz is different from a wine buzz, and how whisky gives me headache the next day, much moreso than wine.
This. It’s literally the same conversation you’d have about any kind of alcohol. So why choose wine? Because of its other qualities, which we can geek out about. Many of which are also common in why people geek out about whisky or whiskey or gin or food or art or music. You have wild complexity and appreciable differences in styles and regions.
Can you imagine being at a fine dining restaurant having, say, a creative and incredible Michelin 3 star meal and being like, “oh my god, Sarah_K, this is sating my hunger. It’s literally making me feel full. I’m not hungry now.” Your counterpart would be like, well fuggin duh, you’re eating food. You could literally be having a big bowl of unseasoned oatmeal and you’d have the same experience of fullness. So why’d you choose the incredible restaurant…because it is uniquely enjoyable.
You can run the same game for music. Why do people geek out about this or that aspect of music (or hi-fi systems)? That turns off the new generation to that type of music, or makes novices feel barred from entry due to ignorance. What if we stopped geeking out about these amazing undercurrents we love so much about our favorite style of music and just…listened and simply enjoyed it?
Well, maybe I don’t like death metal, but I do like classic rock. Or maybe I don’t like chamber music but give me some ealy 90s rap. The discussion about “what kind of music and why” is akin to “what do you want to drink and why?” It’s preferential and experiential. It’s not some special thing limited to wine.
So I don’t think the geeking out about wine presents some falseness. I think that is, itself, a false association because both parties to the conversation about wine are starting with an inherent understanding that the discussion involves an alcoholic beverage.
If the position is more along the lines of, “is there enjoyment to be gained in a simplistic form of the thing we celebrate for its complexity?” Then the answer there is obviously yes, we do it for nearly everything. If the hypothesis is that geeking out about something creates unnecessary barriers to entry for those exposed to the geekiness…well I just don’t think that is at all unique to wine.
