So
I must be the last person on the planet to have come across Perfumes:
The A to Z Guide,
especially since it originally came out in 2008 and now needs an
update, but better late than never (and thank you to the, yes,
female, friend who introduced me to it quite casually one evening as
if it was the most natural thing in the world) because Perfumes
is such a virtuoso mixture of comedy, polemic, full-on High Style and
sheer vindictiveness that it transcends time and mere utility. Does
it matter if you don't care about fragrances? Not a jot. Does it
matter if your grooming regime is basically a spritz of something
from a can after the morning shower, followed by sixteen hours of
kidding yourself that you don't smell like a train seat? No. Does it
matter if you care even marginally about the way we try to render our
perceptions through language? It does.
How
can I be so sure? Well, try this
assault on something called Lulu
Guinness:
'Thin screechy floral, a version of Beyond
Paradise
made for Moldavian railway stations, packaged in an opaque glass
baby-perfume white bottle nearly identical to the one made (by the
same firm, a year later) for Nanette Lepore. Nice creative work all
round.'
Or, more briefly, this
microassesment
of Armani
Mania Pour Homme:
'The smell of Home Depot hammers and lumber'. That's it, that's all
Armani
Mania Pour Homme
merits! The thunderclap of rhetorical concision! Or Bleecker
Street,
from Bond No. 9: 'Green, watery...a dreadful hiss like cheap
speakers'. These are words urgently
at work, not lounging around
regarding
themselves pettishly in the mirror or paring their nails.
Are
Turin and Sanchez capable only of hatred? Not in the least. Tubéreuse,
by Annick Goutal, gets this hymn:
'A tuberose for purists, this floral presents the material in all its
unrepresentable glory: rubber tyres, steak tartare, Chinese muscle
rub and all' - a review both stern and wistful at the same time,
florid but unsentimental. And indeed my
review of their
review catches something of that tone, I like to think. Givenchy
III
(five star rating) is 'A wonderful thing, quite a bit drier than the
original but none the worse for it, and quicker getting into the
strings-only leafy-green heart':
flirting dangerously, yes, with elements of wine writer deep
gibberish, but just about getting away with it. Elsewhere and on the
other hand, the two authors burnish their credentials by being as
candid and down-to-earth as you like, and winning you over that
way. Sanchez: 'It's an axiom that the more hideous you find a
fragrance, the more tenacious it is'. Turin: 'Being a guy is not
always pleasant, but at least, like balding and belching, it does not
require much work'.
Best
of all, their critiques, like all the best criticism, are capable of
making you want to go right out and try the thing being critiqued.
Who'd have thought that Old
Spice
would have made it past the selectors? But it does, being called,
rather brilliantly, 'A delicious Tabu-like
oriental, whose claim to be a masculine is based entirely on its
transience. A man is a woman consisting entirely of top notes'. Why
did I ever throw away that old bottle, with its white plastic bung
and its square-rigger on the front and its top notes? Where can I get
some more?
You
can see where this is going. Most, if not all, wine writing is
pompous or self-serving or ludicrously self-regarding or just lame,
and I do not exclude Sediment
from these strictures. But how fantastic would it be to find a
directory of drinks which contained even half the vigour, invention,
learning and corruscating mirthfulness of Perfumes.
PK and I are too old and ignorant and stupid to get anywhere near,
but there must be someone out there with the same kind of animating
genius as Turin and Sanchez, some person or persons capable of
writing a definitive, literate, heart-stoppingly offensive wine
guide. Yes, wine is a much bigger and more diverse subject than
scent, but come on.
Just consider this, about Ralph Lauren's Romance
Men:
'The fragrance is so unmemorable that the only appropriare review is
"It has a smell"'. What about that
on your least favourite Gevrey-Chambertin?
CJ