Letter to the editor: A consumer’s perspective on the wine writer

The following received via email from Dariusz Galasiński, a linguist and professor at the University of Wroclaw in Poland. He has been writing on experiences of mental illness and suicide. He also drinks wine and does research into how it is spoken about both by amateurs and professionals.

Jamie Goode has written an interesting article about the relationship between wine critics and their readers. He makes two main points, the way I see it. First, he suggests there is no one consumer, second, the critic’s primary duty is to tell the truth, without fear or favour.  It is hard to disagree with such points. Yet, I think Dr Goode glosses over some of the more complex issues. And so, in this text, I would like to reverse the perspective. I want to tell you, the notional wine writer, how the consumer might see you and your message.

The crucial point is that as much as there is no such person as the consumer, there is also no such person as the critic. As an ‘engaged’ wine consumer, I make all sorts of judgements about the critics whose comments I read. Your credibility, transparency, expertise, reputation, education, ability to write all contribute to how I perceive you and your message. Add to this how I perceive your business model (e.g. are your messages free?), the roles in which you appear (e.g. do you write as a critic, a journalist, an editor?), the pressures you are under (e.g. are you freelance and do you work in ‘prestigious’ regions?), are you writing as you or do you use a nom de plume?

Answers to such questions might not be easy to give but they speak to the kinds of message you can offer and the contexts in which you work and which are likely to pull in different directions. The honest opinion or the truth Dr Goode talks about, with which I agree, might well be hidden behind what is unmentioned or even unmentionable, as wine writing can so easily be seen as sunshine journalism. There are only wonderful wines and those which are not so wonderful rarely go below Parker’s 85 points.

Before I continue, let me put my linguist’s hat on and tell you about three kinds of speakers/writers when the source of the message is considered. The first is the mouthpiece, repeating verbatim what someone else said. The second type is the spokesperson, they are not the source of the message, either, but are free to use their own words. Only the third kind is the person who is the source of the message and its author; this is the author proper.

When I read critics’ (or journalists’) texts, I often wonder where the message comes from. Do wine critics and journalists tell me about the wine world as they find it? Is the wine writer an unfettered writing agent? Or, just perhaps, are they a signal enhancing device between an external source and me, becoming, for all intents and purposes, a marketing device?

Put differently, what is the nature of the message I read? Does the writer offer information much like a railway timetable (and not infrequently as boring to read)? Or is it a timetable that shows only certain trains, omitting others and the criteria of omission and their sources are neither clear nor disclosed. The message would no longer be only telling me about wine, it would also become a covert suggestion.

As I write this, I am aware that wine writers want to make sharp distinctions between wine journalists and wine critics. In my view, not only is the distinction fuzzy and blurred, it is also largely uninteresting. There is so much more opacity in the realm of wine communication that it is not the writer’s identity badge which is relevant, it is her or his lanyard.

We have entered the era of high communication opacity. The search for credible and dependable communication is becoming ever more urgent. I would suggest therefore that it is transparency that will make your message stand out, making it attractive and valuable. In other words, I would much rather be trusted to understand the pressures, commitments, business relationships you might have, than be covertly steered through messages whose provenance I am not aware of, resulting in choices I might not have taken otherwise. In a nutshell, the questions about who writes whose message for whom are unlikely to go away. If anything, they will be more pressing and important. It’s better to face them head on.