I’ll be there on Saturday with Alice, as well. Looking forward to meeting you in person, also, Roberto.
And yes, you’re in for a treat - Alice is a true original.
Love Love Love Alice.
Her book is fabulous and if you haven’t read it, I highly recommend it.
Wow, lots of posts on what I thought was just a funny little bit of hyperbole and nasty ripping of a new one to BigJay!
Seems Alice is pretty controversial here with those who love her, hate her but few in-between. I think that’s a good thing because the people around here don’t have strong feelings about many wine critics.
[insert a snort or 
or other appropriate smiley here as I continue to be smiley challenged.]
Hey the worked!
In this day and age, it seems like you would be able to patent a proprietary yeast culture.
Of course, the patent would only last for 17 years - I guess that’s why they never patented the recipe for Coca-Cola.
It seems like we can poke fun at BigJay, but we can’t poke fun at flavor…
I think it would be more appropriate to switch the wineberserkers redirect from http://www.antiflavorwineelite.com to http://www.antisubcriberwineelite.com
Recognizing this thread is about one particular criticism, I do wish those who are negative with Alice, read her book and then formulate opinions. I do believe her approach to wine will increasingly reflect the attitudes and mores of a growing percentage of consumers.
Yup…totally agree. I did read her book…hence the reason I have such a negative opinion about Alice. It’s not her message about “natural” wine that’s
wrong, it’s the self-indulgent/whiney/self-absorbed way she delivers that message. Alice “I saved the world from the Parkerization” ??? You gotta be kidding!!!
The message of “natural” (whatever the heck that means) has been delivered for yrs by the likes of PaulDraper, SteveEdmunds, and TonyCoturri in a manner
that makes the message make sense. Alice’s delivery of that message is like…scratching your fingernails down a chalkboard…for those who can relate to that.
Tom
I’ve read some of her short pieces and a few interviews when she was making the circuit when her book came out. I haven’t read her book. I may, but from reading some reviews I’m not sure I would enjoy it.
I don’t disagree with her approach to wine, much of it resonates with me. But I’m not fond of her approach to writing about wine which, for me, focuses too much on what she doesn’t like rather than what she likes. She also seems guilty of the same sort of absolutist, if you don’t agree you’re wrong and clearly haven’t ascended to the same higher plane of wine appreciation, type of opinions she (and others) have complained about in Parker’s writing. As far as the blog piece that started this thread, it’s as if she woke up one day, wanted to add to her blog but either didn’t have anything new to write or didn’t have the time, so she takes the easy route of mocking a Jay Miller tasting note. There is a difference between writing and heckling. If JM’s tasting notes represent, for her, much of what’s wrong with the wine world, that particular blog piece represents, for me, much of what’s wrong with wine blogs or internet blogs in general.
As far as her book, I certainly don’t like the title, “The Battle for Wine and Love: or How I Saved the World from Parkerization”. First, it defines the book by a negative. Second, while she complains that producers and retailers seek and use Parker points to sell more wine, she’s guilty of using Parker’s fame to sell more books. Third, it’s rather clear she hasn’t saved the world from anything. Lastly, it makes the book sound rather personal, as much about the author as about wine. That approach can make a book fascinating or tedious depending on how one reacts to the author’s psyche. I’m guessing, for me, it would be the latter.
-Al
Well said Tom and Al.
I haven’t read her book but after reading some of her work online I have zero desire to read her book. If its anything like her articles and blogs then it sounds like a less than pleasant exercise.
I’m not a big fan of the title “Star Wars”- but dang that shiz was off the chain! Who would have thought they had a Wookie in there w/ a title like that?!? 
I have bought more copies of her book (to give away as gifts) than any other book… I don’t agree w/ everything in there, but it is an eye-opener for a lot of people.
I, for one, hope she makes it over here and gives her views. Hey BigJay came over didn’t he? Or was it just Jeff L?
“an aromatic array of sandalwood, pencil lead, (PENCIL LEAD AS AROMATIC? SEND THE BOY BACK TO 101)”
Pencil lead can be an aroma. In fact, anything can. I know it’s more commonplace to pick up pencil shavings, but pencil lead is definitely something I have picked up in wine before. In fact, when people mention ‘pencil shavings’ sometimes they are really smelling ‘pencil lead’. Since when is there a regimented gamut of adjectives one is allowed to use anyway?
“Back to 101”… makes me picture a teacher with a ruler, “California Pinot can ONLY smell like barnyard, strawberry, or cola. NOTHING ELSE!!!” Sounds like she believes we have to be told what aromas a wine can give off, and there is no room for personal opinions.
Pretty funny at times I guess, but that article came across as bitter. There is no scientific method of scoring a wine, it’s always personal. If someone wants to give 98 points to a wine, let 'em.
Have you read Patrick Matthew’s “Real Wine” book, Hardy??? Highly recommended. Much the same message as Alice’s book, but w/o the drama-queen delivery.
Tom
Sounds interesting. I am going to look into your recommendation. I love a new wine read.
No- Thanks for the tip. I need a new book- I’ll order it today.
Alice Feiring. Alice Feiring. Alice Feiring. Alice Feiring. Lyle Fass.
Just nice to type the names and not have them ****** out.
I read her book, and was utterly dismayed by the number of gross errors and misrepresentations. And I had actually looked forward to reading the book. See this discussion for full details. The full book review is post #15.
Some excerpts:
- Feiring rolls her luggage off the plane in Paso Robles, and before she has left the tarmac she mentions controlling winemakers and Clark Smith at Vinovation in Sonoma—a controversial man and a controversial firm that promote making wine by the numbers, a concept that riles more than a few winemakers in Paso Robles. Feiring apparently visits only one winery, which she describes as a megacommerical, ultramodern winery that uses acid additions, tannin additions, wood chips, enzymes, and pretty much everything Feiring considers evil. And then . . . apparently . . . she gets back on the plane and leaves. She then visits UC Davis, where she learns more about topics of which she disapproves.
- On one page she says, “sustainable agriculture is based on chemical farming,” which is categorically untrue.
- “Modern wine folk like fast ferments—a week, maybe two weeks at most,” she says. Which kind of fermentation? Which modern wine folk? Everyone? We are all pretty much under the age of 60, as it gets harder and harder to move barrels around with age. Why do winemakers prefer faster fermentation? Is she aware that many California productions frequently ferment for six months or more, if you include malolactic conversions and finishing those last few points of primary? Does she even understand the properties of fermentation well enough to comment?
- Among the evils of modern wine processes, she includes fining with gelatin, or as she calls it, “finishing.” But she doesn’t mention that in France, as elsewhere in Europe, the use of bull’s blood, eggs, milk and Irish moss have been used as finishing agents for centuries. Nor does she mention that gelatin is produced from bones and is completely natural.
- Feiring loves “authentic” old wood tuns, and continually disparages wineries that have brought in “new, small barriques”. She also adores thick, black mold growing on the cellar walls and surfaces and considers it a sign of an “authentic” wine cave. But there is no mention of brettanomyces in the book, and no mention of anisoles infecting the wineries and barrels. At all.
- Regarding a 1987 Tondonia, “[Parker] said the wine had ‘early maturity,’ meaning it got old before its time.” But the Wine Advocate indicator ‘early maturity’ means the wine is in a stage of early maturity. This error invalidates her criticisms of Parker’s views on this wine, and shows a gross ignorance of her nemesis’ scoring system.
- In the next to last chapter, “My Date with Bob,” Feiring gets all prickly when Parker simply won’t converge to her point of view. Parker points out that more wine is actually being made naturally today, and that there are many more organic and biodynamic vineyards than when he began reviewing wine. But Feiring will have none of that, referring back to the Paso Robles winery that claimed on its website all grapes were hand-harvested and handled as little as possible, but according to Feiring then corrupts their production with tannins and acids, as if this is proof that all Paso Robles wineries, and by extension the entire New World, are liars and cheats.
I tend to agree with Alice Feiring pencil lead is one of the more suspect descriptors. Lead is a misnomer, first off, as it’s graphite that’s in pencils. The graphite is decidedly non-aromatic: it’s just sheets of carbon. After some length and heated discussion elsewhere, it basically came down to pencil lead consisting not just of graphite but clay as well. The China clay has kaolin in it which apparently does have a metallic aroma and I think I have smelled this in some Pinots and Cab Francs, among other wines.
But of course the kaolin smell is probably mixed up with the cedar smell from pencil shavings. I think you can and do find both the cedar and pencil lead aromas (both independently and together) but I really think many people misuse the terms. They are incredibly specific smells, yet are broadly applied. Hence the tendency to see them show up in pretentious purple prose like the note Feiring tore apart.
FYI, this is not from an article. It’s a small blurb/commentary on her website. The URL shows it as the “wine cop” section. Those more familiar with her site could tell us if this is a regular feature.
For those of you not familiar with Alice, as in, actually read her stuff, reading her homepage will provide some context to her comments on Jay’s note. I am neither fan nor foe, but I do think she has a legitimate point of view. This isn’t a Parker or Miller issue, per se, it’s a wine style issue and she is very outspoken on this. FWIW, I think Jay’s note typifies the wine making style she is most against, and, in that context, drawing attention to it in her blog is on topic. You may disagree with her, but it’s her consistent view.