When I attended last year's inaugural Wine Writers Symposium, I felt like an impostor with just three clips, only two of which were about wine. What could I say to a luminary such as Frank Prial or Karen MacNeil? (A lot about blogs, as it turned out; I go on behalf of my paid work, but blogs intrigue my fellow symposium-goers).
A year later, I was more confident. For every celebrity in the room, there are half a dozen people like me, further along in our writing careers then we were a year ago, but not as far as we'd like. I knew that the stars I admired were just people, and that everyone in the room has something interesting to say.
Inevitably, some of this year's presentations were repeats from the first symposium. Jack Hart gave an entertaining, no-nonsense talk about how to improve your writing, a near-twin of last year's presentation but full of good reminders. Other presentations were similar to their previous incarnations. Last year, Frank Prial and Lettie Teague interviewed one another in the "how to interview" talk; this year, Andrea Immer Robinson led us in an (admittedly unorganized) interview of Joel and Amy Aiken. Last year, we wrote about a cooking demonstration performed by John Ash; this year we watched Hugh Davies saber sparkling wine bottles before we started writing. Some presentations got dropped I was sorry that "The Business of Wine" didn't come backand others appeared for the first time"Writing About Terroir" comes to mind. I think there was more writing practice this year, rough drafts scribbled out in reaction to a presentation.
While I couldn't tell you how much new information I got from the panels, the writing exercises taught me something: I fall easily into a particular genre and particular style of writing. I default to writing reports, but I want to push myself into the nonfiction stories and essays that I enjoy as a reader. I took advantage of Jack Hart's one-on-one coaching sessions to ask for recommendations on expanding my horizons. He also offered advice on my long-term goals and ambitions. In a twenty-minute session, there was little he could do other than point me to some resources, but he used an unedited draft of mine to give a quick analysis of my strengths and weaknesses as a writer. (I came out better than I thought, which is preferable to the reverse.)
I socialized with more people this year, which is perhaps the most valuable aspect of the conference. It's a good opportunity to talk to editorstwo of my assignments since the first symposium stemmed from those personal connectionsbut mostly it helps you develop friendships and learn from other writers. I came home to an assignment from one of my clients, and I thought of three people at the conference who had a valuable perspective on the topic. I contacted them, and I'm already well grounded about a topic I've barely started researching.
Is it worth it? I would say yes if you've not been before and you're not a well-entrenched wine writer. As Alder said, the conference itself is a bargain with three days of talks, pretty good food, and tons of Napa wine. The posh rooms of Meadowoodeven at a sizeable discountadd a lot of expense, as do a plane ticket and a rental car if you need them. Is it worth it to return for a second time? That's harder to answer. It was for me, but I live an hour and a half from Meadowood, and my full-time job finances the trip. (Plus, I'm teaching a class on wine writing in the Spring, so it's valuable research.)
In the end, I was glad I went. For editorial writers (no PR-only writers), I'd recommend you make the trip out, even if you only come once. The conference inspires new ideas, and motivates you to write more.