I've been thinking about this comment for five hours.

On the one hand, the "poetry" is amusing. It is not, however, informative or useful… which is the reason it exists. One man's "notes of plum" is another man's "astringent;" one man's "hints of charcoal" is another's "earthy tones."

On the other hand, the article is wrong: the "food" industry hasn't made consumers more food-savvy, they've made consumers more food-*PORN* savvy. People are cooking less than they ever have and watching more Food Network. Most cookbooks are never used in anger. Anybody who does cook is likely looking shit up on Allrecipes, which is a miasma of "mix three canned things together and call it food." Food Network gives people the illusion that they aren't eating 80% frozen Sysco catalog numbers, while magic wine language gives people the illusion they aren't drinking fermented grape juice.

Here's the thing: wine "language" exists so that the aspirant middle class can feel like they're making an informed choice about something they can't afford. Backintheday you'd visit vineyards, drink a few bottles, buy a dozen cases and tuck them in your cellar for your butler to pick from. Then the butlered class vanished and all these vineyards needed to sell wine to proles. What better way than to talk down to them?

Beer doesn't work like that. You drink it and you like it or you don't. Food doesn't work like that. You buy it and you eat it and you like it or you don't. Wine? "oh, you won't even know what it tastes like for another four years."

Really, the wine snobbery is the vestigial remnants of a local industry gone global and about to contract into local again.