Country Living: a few words on the 'columnist competition'
I was going to post this as one of my Country Living blog entries but decided not to add to the debate there. So I've added it here instead!
I rather liked the late Kurt Vonnegut's line about literary critics. "Like putting on full armour to attack a hot fudge sundae", or something similar. I always preferred a knickerbocker glory but I can see the point he was making.
It's just not worth the fuss. And what value has my opinion about someone else's writing?
A couple of weeks ago I was talking to friends about the Country Living columnist competition. I remarked that the "voting buttons" hadn't appeared on everyone's blog - probably, I hypothesised, because the CL IT department wasn't up to it.
I also said that the company was probably
(a) overwhelmed by the volume of bloggers,
(b) concerned that some bloggers were writing about entirely fictional lives,
(c) worried that some of the bloggers might be celebrities and/or professional journalists,
(d) kicking themselves that they'd not published any formal terms & conditions for entry.
Obviously, picking someone who wasn't what they appeared (or claimed) to be would end up with the magazine looking pretty daft.
I didn't think I had much chance of winning because so many other people were writing so well and so copiously... but it was fun.
And then Country Living changed the rules. Because "several people" - their ill-chosen words, not mine - had expressed concern about fairness, there wouldn't be any voting to create a shortlist. There'd be voting on a shortlist chosen by Country Living. The voice of the readers - with a final decision made by the mag - became the voice of the mag. Which of Country Living's three favourites shall we choose?
That, in my unrequested opinion, is why everyone's so annoyed. Because "country living" (in lower case) is largely all about community. And, for a glorious moment, that's what we thought the magazine was about, too.
This isn't sour grapes from me (or, as far as I can tell, from any other of the non-shortlisted bloggers). But I (and, I suggest, most of us here online) don't like rules being changed during the game. Our opinions about writing may vary - but our opinions about fairness don't.
I rather liked the late Kurt Vonnegut's line about literary critics. "Like putting on full armour to attack a hot fudge sundae", or something similar. I always preferred a knickerbocker glory but I can see the point he was making.
It's just not worth the fuss. And what value has my opinion about someone else's writing?
A couple of weeks ago I was talking to friends about the Country Living columnist competition. I remarked that the "voting buttons" hadn't appeared on everyone's blog - probably, I hypothesised, because the CL IT department wasn't up to it.
I also said that the company was probably
(a) overwhelmed by the volume of bloggers,
(b) concerned that some bloggers were writing about entirely fictional lives,
(c) worried that some of the bloggers might be celebrities and/or professional journalists,
(d) kicking themselves that they'd not published any formal terms & conditions for entry.
Obviously, picking someone who wasn't what they appeared (or claimed) to be would end up with the magazine looking pretty daft.
I didn't think I had much chance of winning because so many other people were writing so well and so copiously... but it was fun.
And then Country Living changed the rules. Because "several people" - their ill-chosen words, not mine - had expressed concern about fairness, there wouldn't be any voting to create a shortlist. There'd be voting on a shortlist chosen by Country Living. The voice of the readers - with a final decision made by the mag - became the voice of the mag. Which of Country Living's three favourites shall we choose?
That, in my unrequested opinion, is why everyone's so annoyed. Because "country living" (in lower case) is largely all about community. And, for a glorious moment, that's what we thought the magazine was about, too.
This isn't sour grapes from me (or, as far as I can tell, from any other of the non-shortlisted bloggers). But I (and, I suggest, most of us here online) don't like rules being changed during the game. Our opinions about writing may vary - but our opinions about fairness don't.
Labels: country living, del arun
posted by Mark Bridge at
11:01 am
8 Comments:
Nice to find your blog again Del Arun. I'm just starting back again and reposting some of my originals for the CL comp. Then will get on with new stuff. Glad to see you are keeping up with blogging. Eden.
I didn't ever mean to become a real blogger... it just happened. It's all the fault of Country Living and my dreams of journalistic fame(!)
Be careful what you wish for! I said it wouldn't be a bad idea and now some 17 years later I have my wish but not exactly journalistic fame - a hack on a logistics magazine! It pays and the truckers are great!
I had never blogged before CL if you can call my nonsense blogging. Anyway, it appears the columnist job was only part time - one month in fact. Thank the lord again that I didnt order that DB9 as I said before. My old Countax mower will see me out!! Great blog and nice to have you with us.
Glad to see you here with us. It is odd how things work out . . . .Purplecoo was born in a two minute conversation, brought about by a need to respond to a growing situation and now it has a life of it's own - maybe it was meant to be!
Did any of us ever really aspire to be bloggers? Like most things in life I just fell into it! Lovely community here at Purplecoo tho'. ( And so much faster!) So glad you could join us.
Totally agree with your comments Del, I mean Mark, your old name will stick with me probably! I never intended to get so hooked up on it all and am urning into a permanent blogger, having never written anything like this since school days I am really enjoying the whole process, and thank goodness for westerwitch as CL nearly spoilt it all! We never all aspired to be magazine columnists, but enjoyed the dream of the possibility, but we did expect one of those brilliant bloggers from our community to be given the opportunity to have their work published in CL, some of them were excellent and CL just insulted them, made us feel like they hadn't even read all of the blogs.
Looks like some of the original forum criticism has disappeared online - no surprise, really. The editor's comment is still there... and the Press Gazette article offers a good summary if you're still not sure what happened.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home