I thought this was very funny, once I'd finished cringing at recognising my own faults, especially the 'too many characters' one.

I think anyone would sympathise with him for having struggled through the scripts he describes. As an ex English teacher I gave a little cheer, too, for the ' more than one spelling mistake and you're out' point. Most of my students thought I was being ridiculously petty to pick them up on grammar and spellings, even when I explained that it was my job.

As he's not pointing the finger at anyone in particular I think it's acceptable for him to adopt an exasperated tone.

I was thinking, even when laughing at his remarks, that plenty of writers do have these faults and they get published anyway.

Sheila

I'm in full agreement with you Sheila. I thought the piece was very funny too, and made some excellent points.

But there is something that has struck me about the whole Willesden Herald debate - and I don't mean on this forum but on the WH web site and other forums. So maybe the WH gang have said a few things that have struck some people as offensive, but why is it then okay to be even more offensive back? In particular I've been horrified at the way some people have completely vilified Zadie Smith, aiming thoroughly nasty and abusive language at her.

Just because someone says something some people don't like does not, in my book anyway, give those people the right to be far, far nastier and aggressive in their response.

It is called "going viral", Daisy, and is a perculiar phenomenon of online forums. The only way of stopping it is to close down or lock the offending thread, but even that may not be enough to stop it, as little 'bushfire' threads spring up on other blogs and websites. The only thing one can do is stop reading.
One certainly cannot clarify, cajoal, negotiate or explain once it takes off, because there are just to many personal agendas in play.

- NaomiM

<Added>

The problem, I think, in Zadie's case is she does not have a large body of work under her belt and so does not command the same level of respect as other, more mature, writers, and as such she is an easy target when debacles such as the WH comp. blow up in her hands.

It's funny, but it's terribly self-regarding! Also, makes you wonder if there are any stories at all that he likes.

makes you wonder if there are any stories at all that he likes.

Lol! Leila

Certainly, he seems not to have liked any enough to award a prize this year. To an extent, he must be defending himself against the complaints of writers who entered the competition. Is there an entry fee? If he is worried about his image within the competition world - the Guardian is mentioned, as I recall- it must be a real cut-throat business.

Sheila

No Sheila, there wasn't an entry fee. They picked a shortlist of 10 stories and submitted them to Zadie Smith to pick a winner, which she declined to do, as she did not think any of them were good enough. And of course, without her endorsement she had them over a barrel, and they've been fighting a rear-guard action to justify the Herald's position ever since. At least in my opinion, but then there's a whole thread in Members about Ms ZS's part in this.


- NaomiM

Thanks, Naomi. I didn't know the background, but the information about Zadie Smith's role helps to explain. Maybe next time they could have a panel of judges with equal votes, as they do, I believe, for the better-known literary prizes.

Sheila