People with little interest in wine tend to see it as somehow foreign and threatening.

And there's the money quote.

I like what the writer says about context, because that's truly one of the things that affects your enjoyment.

Beyond that, someone very smart once told me that the difference between American and French wine aficionados is that while the Americans enjoy TALKING about wine, the French simply enjoy DRINKING it.

I like wine, and over time I'm building an appreciation for certain styles. But I don't buy in to the Robert Parker / Wine "Masturbator" hype.

Another tip I got from my uncle, who's a wine merchant (paraphrased): "Don't make the mistake of thinking that wine is good just because YOU like it. Although it's totally okay to enjoy and drink cheap, accessible wines, if you want to really know your wines, you should learn to discern and appreciate the difference between quaffable/accessible "consumer" wines and the more complex and sometimes more challenging "great" wines."

Wines are also very different from varietal to varietal, and even blends (my beloved Bordeaux, for example) have nuances. A common mistake in the American market is to expect all reds to be big, forward, juicy fruit bombs, and all whites to be mouth-coatingly full-bodied and oaky. This has been driven in the past few years by the fads for big, lush California Cabs and Chards, and it creates what's known as a "frame error", meaning you expect a certain taste (result), and when you are presented by something different (even when it's a great example of type) you think it's "bad" or "wrong" even when it isn't.

I am a non-drinker and therefore have next to zero interest in wine, but if you haven't already discovered it, I found this article from The Atlantic (a few years old now) to be fascinating.

Parker needs to be taken out somewhere and beaten with a shovel.

Actually, let me amend that: the people who've changed the way they make wine in order to get a higher Parker rating also need a beating.