The other week on the Twitterverse 'we' had a discussion about Velcorin (dimethyl dicarbonate) the nasty little chemical that many folk employ to keep their wines safe from brettanomyces, affectionately known as brett. Brett is a yeast, responsible for lending tastes and smells of lanolin to a wine in small amounts or turn a bottle into a herd of sheep just before mating when the population is strong. In those small bits, many--guilty as charged--have tolerance. Yet those do exist who have a zero tolerance and a take no prisoner approach in the winery. Those often opt for the usage.
Out of the Twittersphere, an old editor of mine from the West Coast joined in. The last time I saw him was in Bordeaux, when I said, "If you give me your address, I'd love to send you my book."
He said, "Do yourself a favor, and don't."
I remember feeling stung. But still, I had thought he and I had friendly relationship, I liked him as an editor. After a few rounds of back and forth, he tweeted out in response to my admission that I had some tolerance for brett, 'If your idea of natural wine is brett.."
Non-sequiter. We were not on the topic. He plucked the word 'natural' from a frog's mouth and then continued to push the natural wine debate, throwing out the straw man argument of --you militant you--why don't you only drink wine made from wild grapes!
I twat back, "Please don't go right wing on me."
I meant to be light-hearted, but what ensued was a full-fledged, funny mirror circus trick.
This editor professes to prefer the kinds of wines that I drink. From his writings I doubt it. But I would actually love to see if the way we drink wine is reflected in this unfortunate communication we had.
Do you remember ever fighting with a lover, ( who shouldn't be a lover) and feeling caught in the no-communication zone? Basically, trapped in someone else's pattern is not a feel good moment. Once I realized the level of reality I was dealing with, I slid out the backdoor, with a friendly wave, regards to the wife, and ran for my life.
This is a long rambling entry into the topic of attraction through palate.
Have you, adorers of pineau d'aunis and cabernet franc and Savigny and Cornas vinified with stems, ever been in love with a cult-cabernet drinker? Or had a really close friend who glugged back Scarecrow? Is it possible? I'm not just talking Bordeaux vs. Burgundy, but full out assault of spoof vs. non-spoof? Or someone who just couldn't understand a wine as simply beautiful as Foillard?
I believe that there's something to this, and perhaps predicated on just how intimate and close a relationship is tolerated, like in brett. For example, a friend of mine used to drink lots of Santa Barbara wines and now stocks Puzelat and Cornelissen. Has his taste in love changed as well or is wine his safe zone, his man cave? Or are the chosen women just agreeable, they can drink but need not share this specific passion. I wonder. In fact, I'll have to ask him.
Someone I'm fond of in France said of a fellow winemaker,"He's my best friend, as long as we don't talk politics." What they can talk is wine. And drink wine. That is the even playing field, it is their glue. Myself, I've a very right wing dear, dear, friend, and her palate is in synchrony with my own, which means our senses are in tuned, and that is animal. An old boyfriend of mine, HS, only drank white wine. We may have had a coarse animal electricity, but it was skin deep. After we broke up I rebelled and didn't drink white for years. RB and I had a profound connection for over a decade and we shared the worlds of taste and smell and all of the senses to an exquisite degree. We differed and argued about wine and perceived things differently in the glass but there was still a shared animal understanding in and out of wine. However, that didn't insure our happy ever after.
It's so complicated, but there is something here to think about. I could very well spend the rest of my life delving into the nature of relationships based on how couples or the law of attractions as read through a glass of wine.
So, if you've ever hooked up with a lover of fruit forward while you crave grapes that speak slate, was the sex good, emotional good or kinky good?
What kind of a relationship was it? Was it one of those mating relationships, where children were the objective as opposed to connection? Was the conversation stimulating? Did you have a miserable break up? Are you still together?
Aristotle wrote about the senses (including the maligned taste) Metaphysics:..... the senses, makes us know and brings to light many differences between things.
So, the question I have for you, am I so truly strange that I am alone? Do you ever put your nose and smile deeply when the person you're sharing it with finds the iron thread and bits of blood and bone that you do?
You are not alona Alice. We can free our palates and simply taste...'degustation' ...gustar...anyone 'likes' something.
Salut.
Posted by: Apps 55753818692 1247443345 07b18b334fc4c56ec6d8f2008f225a19 | 03/13/2011 at 06:25 PM
Salut, Laure!
Posted by: Alicefeiring | 03/14/2011 at 07:15 PM
Yes, WE are alone, Alice.
Eliding discourse from every drop you taste - even more: read, feel, smell, see - is a rare gift, but a poisoned gift. To be able to talk about it, to bend language and the conventional thoughts it brings with it in order to show there is something behind it that's just there, only there - Aristotle's so many differences?! - and only perceivable in those rare flashes of recognition, is what dooms this gift and makes us want to return it so badly to wherever it came from.
And, rest assured, if there is someone else, it doesn't go away. It's still there - luckily, maybe - sometimes even more acutely. But what a thrill to feel it every time again.
Sex can be good though, particularly good ... .
Posted by: BelgianGourmand | 03/15/2011 at 11:18 AM
Really? Alone? Oh well. Or perhaps rather just alone with like sniffing people. And yes, it can be particularly good, great.
Posted by: Alicefeiring | 03/15/2011 at 11:51 AM
"Just alone with like sniffing people." Have to remember that one!
Posted by: BelgianGourmand | 03/15/2011 at 12:33 PM
I'm married so I don't go looking for like-minded wine lovers--what if I find someone who is more wine-sympatico than my wife? Better not to go turning over slate and bramble. Me and the missus agreed on a wine profile, but it really was more me compromising than her. Not that it mattered that much, since over time our preferences came to resemble the others. In the end, the shared experience (journey) became more important than the specific wine (the destination). Do I miss a big 'ol slutty napa cab from time to time? Of course, but I'd prefer to share a 2005 oregon pinot with the wife. After all, she's the one who paired it with pan-seared, schezwan peppercorn-coated tuna, so we'll always have that.
Posted by: R2Dad | 03/15/2011 at 05:23 PM
Thanks so much for your comment. I love it. The way you deal with your wine in your life tells me a lot about your relationship, and it still is applicable to my question. So even if there's compromise, this is what it's about no?
Posted by: Alicefeiring | 03/15/2011 at 05:30 PM
Well at least your Ex did not only drink red wine, that would have been a deal breaker for sure:)
Yes we are all alone and strange, which makes it even more beautiful when we find someone else to be alone & strange with...and I always delight in someone with an opposite reaction to a wine,a flavor or an aroma that I did not think about before
Posted by: Amy Atwood | 03/16/2011 at 11:56 AM
Funny you should ask about compromise, because I haven't really analyzed it. The question is, Why would one compromise (or not, ATCMB)? My better half has preferences that are always going to be different from mine. What's the deciding factor and the rationale behind it? Am I making a logical case for the pinot gris with that cheese, or am I just digging in my heels? Does she really think the Justification is too tannic, or is she still angry they canceled our Paso Robles weekend reservation at the last minute? The final arbiter, though, is her palate. She is a super-taster, and I'm not. That Pahlmeyer I loved? She can't abide by the eucalyptus notes that overpower. That makes me easier to please, so why shouldn't I compromise more? What also helps is that she is the food person, and I'm the wine person. Each has an area of interest that makes for a better combination. We can enjoy, intellectualize and deconstruct a meal, THEN bone like rabbits.
Posted by: R2Dad | 03/18/2011 at 03:16 PM
There you go. Case in point.
Posted by: Alicefeiring | 03/19/2011 at 11:15 AM