The American Obsession with Points, Gurus and Pi**ing Contests.

© Roger Black

I followed the link from TORBS’ website to that of the great guru RPJ to see what the fuss between RPJ himself and Jeremy Oliver was all about. Having followed the thread, I have to conclude that most of it represents many of the less desirable American characteristics.

Quote from one of the posts: “I can’t understand what 17/20 means.” Does this mean that he can and does understand what 92/100 means (other than good), or only that he is trapped in the typical paradigm of Americanism which is to view any thing that does not fit into their exact frame of reference as wrong? (Try Americans with cricket).

Also clear from this website is the (usual) belief that all tasters/critics/scorers should produce exactly the same score for the same wine. This is the non thinking approach which sees the commercialisation of wine. The Americans have got this down to a fine art in Corporate Finance (the field where I work). A company is rated by some independent rating agency and after that no-none has to look at the company itself before making an investment decision, you just need to look at its rating: Is it AAA or BB - etc?. The consequence of this for wine is to try and develop a universal scoring system so that nobody has to think about the quality of the product: It is rated for you and you know if it’s good bad or indifferent. No need to taste it then is there?

I seem to remember TORB making an observation some months ago about the importance of symbols in lifestyle choices, in which he implied that in the US success is demonstrated by obvious (and overt) consumption and the display of all of the trapping of an opulent lifestyle showing how well you are doing and how much money you are making. So, wealthy individuals need to have the house, the pool, the tennis court and the car to show how great they are.

Now wine also fits into the picture too, not because you like it but because you can afford it. And it’s no good just to be able to afford it, what you have to be able to do is demonstrate to your peers that it is expensive is of high quality, and you can afford it. So you rely on the “wine rating agency” to demonstrate this by saying: look at what I have. It’s a Parker 98 pointer.  While the real message is look, I can get an expensive, highly rated wine, so I must be very successful!

You need not have any appreciation for what it is, because all you are interested in is what it tells those around you about yourself. It’s only the points that count. Now, the problem arises when another reviewer or critic has a different opinion and doesn’t have the same favourites as your guru. So when that happens you are in a tough spot and the result is to do a number of things: Your Guru obviously has to point out that he respects the opinions of others and they are naturally free prefer a different type of wine. He must go on to say there is nothing wrong with “thin weedy deflavoured wine if that’s what you like”.  Cue roars from the crowd at this point: the favoured Gladiator has won!

Another curious part of the thread was the suggestion that Jeremy Oliver’s reviews in his own On Wine newsletter were very similar to the reviews he did for some other newsletter and his conclusions were the same. The point was they didn’t like to see the same thing twice. Well isn’t that sort of what should happen? If some-body reviews a wine and then reviews it again later shouldn’t the conclusion be roughly the same?

One of the views expressed was “It is, for better or for worse, NOT just a beverage in the modern world….. It is big business. It is a collectible, like art or antique cars. It is a status symbol. It is a commodity to be bought or sold like gold or silver. You and I may not want to view wine that way, but it is all out there.”

Now, I think this just about sums it up. For any of the people who subscribe to RPJ’s newsletter (and to other newsletters) the acolytes, sycophants, and followers wine is just another pissing contest, An attempt to demonstrate how wealthy successful clever/etc they are and this is the means of measuring it. There is no sign of any deeper thought or analysis other than blind acceptance of what RPJ says. He says this is a 96 pointer so it must be good. No where do you see that RPJ rates it 96 but I tried it and I thought it was more like 97 or 91. The corollorary to all of this is of course that all other critics and reviewers have to be wrong, inexperienced or have poor palates. The guru has spoken.