Could we criticize critics???

Paco, based only on what I read on the Squires website, your characterization is incomplete. It seems the claim was not merely that there is anti-Parker comments or sentiment on verema, but that there is also lack of ";freedom";, ";discrimination";, and censure and threats of expulsion for disagreeing with anti-Parker comments or sentiment. (Anti-Parker comments or sentiment alone exists even on the Squires website, which appears somehow affiliated with Parker and the Wine Advocate.)

Given my poor Spanish language skills, I have not invested the time to read the tons of material in the Spanish forum to know whether those allegations are true, so I express no opinion as to whether they are. (Although I have not witnessed at hint of it here on what is sometimes called the ";civilized"; side of the website.) Indeed, even if I invested that time, it may well be the case that censure and threats of expulsion would be not be printed on-line. Again, I do not know. Your narrow question, however, is easy to answer. In fact, the question answers itself. Parker’s business only is the writing of opinion, and he can expect opinion in return. Of course, he also has criticized other wine critics.

I cannot disagree with rayol who remarks here that being ";anti-Parker"; just because he is influential or American is small minded and pathetic. But again, whether that is a common view on the Spanish forum, I cannot say.

As evidenced by certain recent media about wine, however, it does seem true that a school of wine conservatism has somehow blended with anti-Americanism and anti-globalism and targeted Parker as the cause for an imagined great crisis in the wine world. I think this trend is great because it is amusing to see books, movies, and articles in general magazines addressing wine issues.

On the other hand, I generally feel that these anti-Parkerists usually are substantively silly. Some fanatics almost seem to profess that they dislike every wine that Parker likes. Somehow I doubt these people would really spit out as undrinkable the 1961 Latour a Pomerol, the 1990 La Tache, and the 1998 Chateau Beaucastel Chateauneuf du Pape Hommage A Jacques Perrin (all, Parker 100-point wines). Even if the fanatics concede this point, they might nevertheless insist that enjoying a 1997 Harlan Estate or a 2001 Greenock Creek Shiraz will cause the world to world to spiral into a carnival of human depravity. Or so it sometimes seems.

More substantively, the prime argument of this strain of Parker critics is that Parker’s influence is one of homogenization, that all wine is becoming the same style. But, at least in the case of Spain, the reality is that the variety and diversification of artisanal wine is greater than it ever was. Twenty years ago, where were the well-made Mencias and Bobals, the quality Priorats and Toros, and the countless other Spanish wine projects that are both new but also grounded in tradition? I think the same is true for other wine-producing countries, but for present purposes, it is sufficient to see that Spain does not fit the mass Esperanto-wine theory. (Was it La Rochefoucauld who said that there is nothing more horrible than the murder of a beautiful theory by a gang of brutal facts?)

As I said before, I have no idea whether this type of anti-Parker view is prevalent on verema. If it is, and there is an open exchange of views, I think that is great. Such debate is interesting and entertaining in its own right. It is even more entertaining for me since I know that many of the people who are seduced by such polemics in reality would prefer to be sipping Cirsion. Irony sometimes comes in delicious flavors. ;-)