« Claude Courtois and on to Paris | Main | Connecting through Palate »




Very, very nice! Thanks for posting this!


A pleasure. Plenty of good reading to be had there.


Indeed very nice. Thanks for sharing Alice. I'm sure Doug's mails would even be more thought provoking. His London tasting certainly stirred the dust.
Yet, you know, according to my humble opinion, what the problem is with all this talking - both from adherents and opponents - about nat'l wine? It's just that they fail to see they over and over again slip into polarized discourse. Polarized talk that has it's roots in the way we think and talk (or do not) about wine like it used to be/to exist on the market, in books, in magazines, etc. before so-called nat'l wines were mediated. They (i.e. Giorgione, contrary to Atkin who has an inkling and elegantly puts himself in the safe haven of agnosticism) just fail to understand that by considering nat'l wines as an opposite to conventional wines they create a category that only exists by virtue of what they already know, i.e. conventional wines, and thereby, probably unconsciously, try to grasp nat'l wine with conventional categories (or their opposites, which are by the very nature of their linguistic relationship conventional as well).
Yet, are nat'l wines the binary opposite to conv'l wines? Or are they the counterpart - I prefer this term - to cultural wines? And what should those cult'l wines then be? Maybe it's because of our inability to answer this question, maybe it's because we are driven to the very cracks in our discourse, in our way of thinking, that some of us react in a 'visceral' way (I love Atkin's inverted parallel with Goering and Wregg's inter-text from Gasset and G. Stein)? Is it maybe because nat'l wine vehemently ravages our pacified and leveled wine discourse we hold so dear, we often react in a impulsive way?
To me - and I think to Wregg too - nat'l wine is, as a non-commodity (see the remarks by Atkin on pricing, marketability, or the taster's answer to Wregg's questions as quoted above), highlighting the boundaries of wine discourse, showing the fault lines in our thinking about wine in general, by placing itself deliberately beyond (cultural? absorbed? received?) convention (which doesn't mean it has no conventions in itself). Isn't this the reason why our so beloved categorial wine faults and flaws seem flawed themselves when tasting nat'l wines?
That's what I read when I read Chauvet though. A writer who, to me, fits in the league of Barthes, Lyotard or Derrida.
But that's just the idea of a 'so-called expert' in the domain. (And please excuse my pompous language.)


Did not see one iota of pomposity. But I have to say, comparing Chauvet to "Barthes, Lyotard or Derrida," that's a good one. I'll have to tell Eric Texier that. He might agree!

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

My Photo
I'm hunting the Leon Trotskys, the Philip Roths, the Chaucers and the Edith Whartons of the wine world. I want them natural and most of all, I want them to speak the truth even if we argue. With this messiah thing going on, I'm trying to swell the ranks of those who crave the differences in each vintage, celebrate nuance and desire wines that make them think, laugh, and feel. Welcome.

And, if you'd like a signed copy of either THE BATTLE FOR WINE AND LOVE OR HOW I SAVED THE WORLD FROM PARKERIZATION or NAKED WINE, feel free to contact me directly.