In London, if you want your friends to hate you, give their dog a squeaky toy.
In Ireland, or at least in the house on the West Coast where I’m writing this, the rule does not apply. The whippet pup with whom I am sharing a sofa has a squeaky shark, a squeaky plastic hamburger, a squeaky apple and more. Is this an example of terroir, a laid-back attitude to squeakiness in a country that is certainly more laid-back than London?
How widely should we define terroir? Winemakers are certainly part of terroir: they adapt nature, and what it gives them, to their own needs. And every winemaker has a backstory, just as every vineyard does. Do the trailing roots of that backstory – the reasons why they take one decision rather than another, and work with the soil and climate in this way rather than that, also become an aspect of terroir? In which case, if you want an purer interpretation of terroir, should a winemaker be born and bred in the region they make wine? Can a winemaker from outside, bringing outside influences, offer as unadulterated an interpretation of the terroir as a native? Do winemakers from outside bring the outside with them – and is that good or not? How pure should terroir be? (Does the terroir become part of my writing when the dog puts its foot on the keypad?)
There is a definition of terroir that says it should never be adapted or changed. INAO
