I am no fan of Robert Parker, but am better off as a wine enthusiast for having read Elin McCoy's biography, "The Emperor of Wine: The Rise of Robert M. Parker, Jr. and the Reign of American Taste".

As the title suggests, McCoy's book is divided into two parts: the incredible rise of Parker as a wine reviewer and then his role leading the American influence over the global wine industry. In addition to educating me about the man, I also learned a ton about the wine industry in general, especially the history and culture of the Bordeaux and Burgundy regions in France. I highly recommend this book for anyone interested in learning more about wine and the impact America has had on the global industry.

McCoy provides an incredible amount of context and detail to Parker's story, at times making the narrative too extracted, like many of the wines Parker recommends. But she is to be excused, for this usually offers needed support for telling the Parker story in the context of American taste.

In fact, the second half of the book becomes less about Parker and more about "the reign of American taste" over the global wine industry. This influence, which Parker clearly served as the catalyst for, has had a profound impact on the types and styles of wine being made around the world. McCoy does an excellent job detailing the downside of this trend, in terms of the homogenization of wine as a result of American preference for fruitier, sweeter, fuller wines.

In reading this book, I appreciate even more the difference between tasting vs. drinking wine. Most wine reviews are based on folks like Parker hurriedly tasting dozens of wines in a very compressed time period. In Parker's case, this has sometimes amounted to over 150 wines in 3 hours - that's about 50 seconds per wine to swirl, sniff, taste and then record one's impressions. Based on this approach, it is no wonder that he prefers the heavier, more extracted, higher alcohol wines in his reviews, you know the ones that garner 95+ points.

By focusing on this, I am in no way criticizing those that prefer bigger, fuller wines. However, I share in McCoy's concern that Parker's palate maintains a strong influence over which wines thrive, if not survive, in the marketplace. Whenever one person dictates not only what should be drunk, but also how wine should be made, all wine consumers will suffer.

Why? Because if the market follows a single set of taste buds, then it discourages diversity, giving rise to uniformity and dullness. Diversity in style is an asset of wine, reflecting the heterogeneity of our world. Must wine succumb to the pressures of becoming one size fits all based on one person's preference? I emphatically say, "NO!".

The more diverse wines are, the more interested we are in their context. This is the joy of wine to me: understanding the people, places and history behind each bottle. If wines are made alike, no longer reflecting their local, cultural and varietal styles, then all one needs to know is brix, barrels and bottles. Diversity ensures that wine will remain one of those precious enjoyments of life that help connect individuals to the larger world around us.

What do you think?