There’s been a lot of lively conversation in the thread that followed yesterday’s post asking whether or not bloggers should write about wines they don’t like.
From an Italian winemaker to a wine buyer in a high-end Southern California store, from a Polish and an Italian wine blogger, to a wine blogger in Tennessee, there isn’t a whole lot of consensus but there are some interesting view points gathered in one place.
I agree with my blogging colleagues that we need to embrace critical thinking and while I won’t start posting negative reviews, I will continue to write about trends and styles of winemaking that counter what I believe good wine to be.
It’s worth noting that some of the greatest wine critics avoid negative reviews. Just look at Eric the Red’s tasting and review of a handful of bottlings of Barbera yesterday in The New York Times. He only includes the wines that he and the other panelists liked.
Or take for example, Antonio Galloni: he only publishes reviews for wines that achieve at minimum a threshold on the Parker point scale (I believe it is 80 but am not sure).
Antonio and Eric are both super nice guys, btw.
She took (friendly) issue with my proposition that blogging is proudly subjective while journalism is ostensibly objective (by which I intended that blogging is written from the first person while journalism is third person).
“There is, in fact,” wrote Leslie, “a whole category of journalism called opinion journalism, and criticism — which is by definition subjective.” And she’s right: institutional food and wine writing tends to be told using the first person. It’s one of the reasons that food and wine lend themselves so readily to blogging. After all, the magic of a great wine blog or a great newspaper (institutional) wine review happens when we feel like we’re tasting what the reviewer is tasting.
Man, I can almost taste that 2008 Barbera d’Alba San Lorenzo now! At $45 a bottle, I just can’t afford it…
Thanks for reading and commenting, everyone.