填空题 A = Jancis Robinson B = Anthony Rose
C = David Moore D = Malcolm Gluck
Which wine critic(s)
thinks that consumers have contributed to the situation in UK wine criticism?
shows more direct critique on the colleague's writing?
can make a good living out of wine critic?
share common negative idea on some of their colleagues?
believes that honesty is the most important thing?
admits that UK wine market is not as well-developed as some other countries?
predicts that customers will not have to rely on the recommendations of wine critics?
insists on having never been written under the pressure of press?
thinks that wine critics must be good at communication?
1. ______
2. ______
3. ______
4. ______
5. ______
6. ______
7. ______
8. ______
9. ______
10. ______
One might easily imagine that wine critics have an enviable lifestyle. They spend much of their time drinking wines, provided, for the most part, for free. It is a respectable job that involves meeting many wealthy and talented individuals.
To get the inside view on the world of wine criticism in the UK, I spoke to some of Britain's most influential critics: Jancis Pobinson MW, who writes for the Financial Times; Anthony Rose of the Independent; David Moore, whose book Wine Behind the Label is now in its fifth edition; and Malcolm Gluck, the broadcaster and author who had a regular column about wine in the Guardian for more than 15 years.
Summarizing wine criticism is not easy, though Anthony Rose made a good' attempt at it. "Wine tasting is an inadequate science. It requires an objective assessment of the wine and a subjective assessment of the taste, and then a form in which you can communicate this to the reader. It means being an all-round communicator of the enjoyment of wine." It is obviously that it is a fairly closed and yet gregarious world. "Ahhh ... haaa," was how one well-known critic greeted my proposal to discuss their wine-commentating colleagues, as if I'd caught them walking out the door with my favorite Burgundy glass. "So the small upside of alienating all my colleagues in your article is that a couple of people click through to my website?" Clearly I wasn't going to collect too much data on how critics feel about each other.
Rose referred to a recent correspondence where one commentator felt it was not a wine critic's duty to criticize his colleagues. Certainly there doesn't appear to be much mud-slinging among the critics in other creative spheres, such as literature and film-making. Still, one might be forgiven for thinking that the world of wine criticism is just a little too cosy. I put that question to Jancis Robinson, who regarded the whole topic as fairly incendiary. Rose, however, felt that integrity ultimately wins out, and he hadn't had any hesitation in panning a recent book published by a colleague, despite the potential awkwardness. "I didn't pull my punches. If he doesn't want to speak to me again, then that's just one of the hazards of the job. If you write an honest opinion on a wine or about a wine book, then that will be respected." Malcolm Gluck agreed wholeheartedly, even deriding his colleagues who form part of a special wine literary circle. "It is all a bit clubby ... It's not something I join in much although I'm a member. It leads to critical blandness." Rose was more mollifying and ventured, "I think we should thank the likes of Hugh Johnson, Oz Clarke and Jancis Robinson for raising the profile of wine criticism generally and giving more people the opportunity to write about wine in publications, getting away from its elitist nature."
The famous American wine critic Robert Parker has suggested that UK wine critics aren't as independent as they might be, although Robinson thought this was more true in the past, when those who traded wine also wrote about it. Some feel Parker has gone too far, however, in endorsing a book that libeled a well-known French wine critic and wrongly accused the commentator of working for certain producers. Even if the independence of critics is now more robust, there does seem to be too much opportunity for manipulating the coverage of writing by large retailers and brand owners. Robinson agreed that wine commentating could be improved "if critics got out and about a bit more, rather than relying on being spoon-fed by the rather mundane press tastings put on by the multiple retailers." When I tried to push her to name names, she rebuffed me before I had even finished asking the question. She confirmed, though, that her newspaper editors have never put any pressure on her to write about any specific wines.
The degree to which journalists were being "spoon-fed by the wine trade" was a point I put to Rose. "1 can't speak for other critics but only myself. I go to many vineyards around the world, trade and press tastings, and tasting put on by importers and producers. It's really up to each critic to get out and about as much as possible in order to sift through the hype. The customer isn't stupid. They can soon see if a critic is in the pay of the wine trade. Certainly there are trips offered by individual producers, which puts pressure on the writer to write about those individuals, but I don't go on those."
David Moore agreed, "The perception of independence is important." The problem for the critics, as Moore sees them, stem from the tastes of consumer. "Newspaper columns are becoming a reflection of what is happening in the retail market. As a nation, we're not interested in wine the way they are in the United States, France and Italy, and that's reflected in what people are reading about." However, that's not the perception one would have while reading his book, Wine Behind the Label, and Moore confirms that the USA is now a much more important market than the domestic UK market. Even worse, he didn't feel that the UK market is well served. "Too big retailers and too big brand," he said. "It's a shame we don't hear more about what is on offer from specialist retailers, which is partly their fault. The scope for the consumer is pretty poor in terms of what is available for them to drink. A lot of smaller good producers are struggling, and they're not written about, and they're not available in the UK."
There is a sense that some critics are unable to write about wines that interests them -- that they are being manipulated by the wine trade -- but at least they're all working hard and enjoying a great lifestyle. This lifestyle perception is not as real as one might think. "There are undoubtedly one or two people at the top," said Rose, "such as Robert Parker, Hugh Johnson, Jancis Robinson and Oz Clarke, who are making a reasonable living from wine because they're popular, they're good and they've successfully branded themselves. Most of the rest of us are in another group that manages to get by. And then there are other people who dabble, who need to supplement their income or they have another job, but they are doing something they love doing."
We are back to where we started, and I put the question referring to their colleagues another way: who is the worst king of critic, and what can be done about it? "1 think we're our own worst critics," offered Rose. "We mostly come to wine writing because we love wine, not because we're writers. There are a couple who can write very well, but most of us are just struggling along, doing our best to get our enthusiasm and passion across to our readers." Gluck was more forthright, "It is the person who takes no account of his or her readership and simply parades toffee- nosed views about how much you should spend, implying the more you spend, the better the value -- which is absolute rubbish." According to Robinson, "We should go out and try a bit harder with inspiration for our stories and be more original."
But these domestic issues should not be the only concerns for critics -- or, indeed, for consumers. In pensive mood, Rose said, "The world wine glut is posing a severe strain on the social fabric of the wine trade, particularly in France. It is sad that this is happening, and I hope we will begin to see supply and demand achieve more of a balance to eradicate those social and economic problems."
Gluck's words were more chilling. "I've always tried to give people confidence to make judgments using their own palate," he said. "I believe that wine critics will eventually write themselves out of existence. Columns are becoming less and less read and less and less relevant, because people are more confident about their purchases, up to a certain price point." Could he be right?