A vested interest
Reading Eric Asimov’s “In Defense of Wine,” I detected strong notes of Frasier and Niles Crane, they of the wine club, of the drinking levels that only struck me as an adult. As a kid I thought, these are sophisticates. This is why they require a glass of sherry at every conversational pause. I watch it now and am thinking, how are they not always trashed?
I also took note of subtle hints of fellow New York Times columnist and one-time political hopeful Nicholas Kristof’s notorious remarks about “Pinot Noir alcoholism” not being a thing. There is alcohol, for the plebs, and then there is wine:
“It’s too easy,” writes Asimov, “to lump all alcoholic beverages and their dangers together. While wine can be abused like any other, its role as an accompaniment to food and its long-term cultural importance must be considered.”
This is true. No one has ever had a beer with food, or if they have, the pairing is a new invention.
Why a defense of wine, why in that venue, why now?
Asimov alludes to health concerns, although it’s as much about new findings about health risks of even small amounts of alcohol as it is about the debunking of claims that red wine is good for you. He doesn’t mention a certain weed-shaped elephant in the room, namely that the legal drug of choice amongst the non-ancient has changed. Where I live, alcohol continues to dominate for the olds, dispenseries are easier to come by than wine shops. Alcohol had a monopoly it simply no longer does in the post-legalization locales. As cigarettes give way to vaping and alcohol to what was once called pot, you get some old people and some retro-embracing sorts going one path and the rest going another, and the Mormons, presumably, going neither.
But it’s also that (some) highbrow interests are no longer taken for granted as inherently valuable and praiseworthy. Why is wine worthy of its own column, when there are so many other things people are into? Why do alcoholic beverages get their own section, when coffee does not? Why am I not paid the big bucks to review my own tap water? So many questions.
As some commenters wisely pointed out, Asimov’s claim that he has “no vested interest in wine except that I love it” is at odds with his 20-year-thus-far stint as the NYT’s wine critic. It doesn’t get much more vested than that. If wine is so last season, he’s got to pivot to reviewing edibles, and one does not get the sense this is imminent.
Do I even need to say this? Maybe I do: I am not for banning wine. Wine is nice! Some nicer than others. If you’re able to consume it without wrecking your life or driving into a tree or worse then I see no problem here. I’m not trying to take away anybody’s wine. I might be raising a skeptical eyebrow at wine criticism.
The idea that liking wine is a noble pursuit, that your wine collection is Important whereas my nail polish collection is not, nope nope I will not be having this. People have been adorning themselves since ancient times, this is central to who we are as human beings, why is the difference between Wine A and Wine B more momentous than the subtle distinction between an Essie and an Opi in similar shades of pink? The best are from Cirque Colors, which I have no vested interest in, but if they want me to do sponcon for them to the tune of the occasional $20 bottle I could be bought, I’m sure.
(Need a nail polish critic, anyone?)
As we four Mormon ladies pub-crawled our way across the English countryside (in most of the villages we were in, pubs were the only place to buy anything at all and we now know everything about fashionable pub food), we encountered wine lists and entertained each other with the pretentious descriptions (notes of cigar box?) . A wine critic insisting that you can't be a wine-based alcoholic makes me think about Gerald Durrell, who managed it quite capably, insisting that he had to drink gallons of red for his iron intake. But whatever, you do you.
Perhaps you could be helped towards further sophistication by Sir Roger Scruton's aptly titled "I Drink Therefore I Am: A Philosopher's Guide To Wine." In his view, wine is quite unlike beer, weed, or nail polish.
Sure, other alcoholic drinks may provide the same relaxation and increased sociability, but wine gets you there without immediately throwing you over the edge (looking at you, jello shots). At the same time, it has just enough alcohol that you feel its warming effect as you imbibe it, mirroring the brightening of your mood. Furthermore, no other alcoholic drink is so intimately reflective of the place and time that it was made (a Molson is a Molson, right?). And viticulture is so ancient that some varieties are hundreds if maybe not thousands of years old. Is your cannabis gummy or a quick whiff of "Rouge Andalou" polish going to give you that kind of cultural connection? No, it just numbs you into oblivion while Niles and Fraser really live life.