A serious post about something meant to be funny
I seem to have raised the hackles of a fellow blogger, and that is not something I like doing. So this is a post in riposte - though not something I am very comfortable doing (more of which I will explain later). I want to write it, but this may be too dull and serious post for some, so I’m going to put most of it under one of those ‘read more’ things.
A couple of weeks ago, in professional capacity, I was asked to listen to a new radio comedy about blogging on Radio 2, and give my considered response as a blogger. This I did. Having done so, people commented on that post, and I moved on and did other things. Then yesterday I discovered that Shazzle, comedy critic by profession, over at Dreadful Nonsense had called me out about it. She was understandably upset - the radio comedy in question was written by someone very dear to her. Had I been in the same situation, I would also have been upset.
It is a post that catalogues many of my faults and my failings. The stuff about lazy journalism, bad writing and other such comments I can handle, as I am growing a thicker skin and realising that these are the kind of things that people say. It’s a recently learned fact that I was a popular hate-figure on many Take That fan forums for a while, for example, which is something not many people can surely say. Basically, if I were to get upset about those things, I would have to get used to being upset rather a lot.
However, it became more personal when Shazzle mentioned that one thing she was very upset about was the fact that I hadn’t cross-posted my dislike of the radio comedy on this, my personal blog.
I don’t really tend to cross-post on subjects between my professional writing and this, my very personal site. There are various reasons for this: professional courtesy being one; the fact that I consider this my safe ‘home’ space for all things non-work another. I sometimes point out things I have been doing elsewhere - and when I do this it’s usually by way of explanation for why I’ve been to busy to post over here, or because I think the thing that I’ve written is littleredboatish enough in style or content for people who read this to perhaps be interested. But most things I don’t. It’s my personal site, and I like to keep it personal. So, for example, though I may write about television an awful lot elsewhere, I hardly ever touch the subject here, and will probably do so less and less.
Anyway, since this was one of the main points of contention, I am breaking this general rule.
I listened to a radio comedy show about bloggers. I didn’t like it. I thought the view of bloggers was typical old broadcast media stereotyping, and, more than that - because I could forgive that if this hadn’t been the case - I didn’t enjoy listening to it, and thought that it wasn’t very funny.
I put this down mainly to the commissioning and editing process in radio comedy - plus the idea of writing about what is seen as a geeky or niche hobby for a mainstream Radio 2 audience. I have no doubt the writers are competent and talented people: you have to be to get that far in radio. I hope their next project will showcase them better, I look forward to hearing it.
You can find the show in question on BBC Radio 2 on Thursday nights at 11.30, and it’s repeated on Saturdays at lunchtime. You can also listen again to the last episode through the BBC website here. It won’t be the same episode as I heard, and who knows, as the series progresses, it may have become a more complex, funny and relevant series as it went on. But I was put off by the first episode (by not liking it), and I didn’t listen - or want to listen - to any more. It may have turned out to be great. I don’t know.
Therefore, I suggest you listen to it via the links above or on the radio, and form your own opinion. If you like it, you could tell your family and friends and readers about it. If you don’t, you don’t.
I wasn’t being malicious - I was asked to give my opinion (whether good, bad or indifferent) of something and I did. I didn’t write about my ’self-righteous rage’, or the fact I’d listened to something I didn’t think was very good on here because that’s not what this blog is for. I tried to reply to this criticism on the blog that published it, but the comment wasn’t moderated: so I thought I should probably do it here, if the conversation had become public.
Listen to it and form your own opinion. Despite writing professionally a lot these days, I don’t suppose I can claim to be a radio or comedy critic: no one’s shown me where you buy the official ‘critic’ jumper from. But if needed to I - or anyone who is reading this, probably - could name 10 blogs that are funnier, and 50 that are written better than this particular slice of radio comedy. Including, in fact, Dreadful Nonsense itself, which appears to be a very witty and intelligent read that I wish I’d found under different circumstances.
But whatever. I was being derided for not doing something I don’t do, and because I got upset by having upset people by not liking something I didn’t like, I have now done the thing I didn’t do that was a sticking point.
And I’m not entirely sure if it’s helped. Because I still don’t like the thing people didn’t like me not liking, and I’m not sure everyone being upset about people being upset makes that different, anyone’s opinion change, or the show in question any funnier. Sorry.
Update: Oh. The post this was in reference to has disappeared. This doesn’t make much sense now. Still, I will leave it up, because otherwise how will you find the nice programme to listen to?
Well written Anna - I will have to go and listen and form my own opinion now … !
Comment by SophieW — 16 May, 2007 9:48 am
The person who was offended and then criticised your opinion is actually a critic?
Oh the irony…
That said, I’ve not heard of the show, and it sounds like an interesting premise, so I might give it a listen before deciding that I hate it too.
Comment by Mr Angry — 16 May, 2007 9:55 am
I heard the first episode, as I tend to listen to that time slot on radio 2, and my reaction was pretty similar to yours. in fact, it irritated me so much, I wanted to turn it off but couldn’t bring myself to do it as I wanted to see how much worse it was going to get. I don’t see what the problem is; you listened, you didn’t like it, you said so. it’s called freedom of expression. people should learn to deal with it.
Comment by edvard moonke — 16 May, 2007 9:58 am
But I thought the internet gave us freedom to express our opinions - be them positive or negative? Just seems a very very silly thing to get her knickers in a twist about!
Comment by Amy — 16 May, 2007 10:22 am
I think you’ve handled her criticism here much better than she’s handled yours (which wasn’t even directed at her - it was at her boyfriend’s radio comedy show - oh, diddums!).
I listened to the show. For the record, I thought it was cocking awful. It matters not one jot how much whoever worked on it worked on it (for God’s sake, what sort of defence is that against anything?)- it was still unfunny, derivative, and smug to boot - although that’s possibly just the Radio 2 comedy effect.
Comment by Paul — 16 May, 2007 10:53 am
I haven’t listened to the show yet, I shall though of course, but it seems an awfully harsh response from her. I understand that it’s her partner’s writing that’s getting a frosty response here, but that doesn’t really entitle her to rip into a piece of criticism because of her emotional attachment to the author. Loads of people spend months and years writing books and films and god knows what, and doesn’t stop them being a load of old toss. Time and hard work does not equal great stuff, no matter how much we’d like it to, and someone else’s opinion, whatever it may be, is just as valid as someone else’s totally opposite opinion.
Sounds like she should start growing a thicker skin, as if this is the way she reacts to one little article she’s gonna end up getting a right old stonker of a headache one of those days due to excess anger. Poor dear.
Comment by Timbo — 16 May, 2007 11:03 am
Ok - let me be clear here, I don’t want to open a can of whoopass on a felllow blogger, I just felt that some right to reply was called for in this case, and found it impossible to leave a comment on her site saying this.
I will therefore edit any comment that is being mean to her personally - she’s a talented writer, a blogger and a human being.
As I said, I wouldn’t usually reply to something professional, and I certainly wouldn’t usually do it on my personal site, so I don’t want to gather together a gang to shout at people for me - it’s nice that people want to do that, but it’s not neccessary.
I just wanted to reply to a specific bit of criticism pertaining to my professional writing and my personal site, because that was what I found unjustified.
Still, I recommend you go and listen to the show, and decide for yourselves whether you like it or if you don’t.
Comment by anna — 16 May, 2007 11:18 am
“… would make me a geek, a social incompetent, sexual untouchable and generally naïve - an uncultured, slack-jawed moron”.
Well I don’t know - apart from the ’slacked-jawed moron’ bit, you’ve got me pretty much spot on there I’d say. And I don’t even write a blog.
I missed episode one (unintentionally, I might add) and have been listening to what I believe is episode two. Opinion? A bit weak to be honest - if you’re going to have an irritating/obnoxious main character, you need (I think) at least one likeable character to balance it out. I didn’t really warm to any of them. Whether people find jokes funny is very much a personal thing - for me a few were spot on, most weren’t. And this edition had a plot about a dead horse which I couldn’t really follow.
I’m surprised at the reaction you got to your post though - practically every Radio 2, 4 or BBC7 comedy (including every genuinely good one) is routinely slated purely for having made it to air. Surely if you write something mocking bloggers, you are expecting at least one blogger to have a bit of a fight back.
Comment by William T — 16 May, 2007 11:26 am
Don’t beat yourself up over it Anna. There will always be people out there with different opinions who can’t help but voice those opinions. I see no reason why you should back down from or feel bad about your professional opinion. It doesn’t need to be justified. In your job you are bound to offend people, especially if they have connections with the writers of questionable radio comedies. At the end of the day that is their problem, not yours.
Comment by Ignorminious — 16 May, 2007 11:59 am
She’s annoyed because, having decided you didn’t like her boyfriend’s show, you failed to talk about how much you disliked it in every forum available to you?
Wow.
Comment by Amber — 16 May, 2007 12:05 pm
I think that stuff about some unwritten law that you have to replicate your professional writing on your personal blog is a red herring. She was hurt because her boyfriend was hurt. I recommend large helpings of thicker skin for both of them.
Comment by Katy Newton — 16 May, 2007 12:09 pm
You have the right not to like something and to make comment on it, however, I do think you hit the nail on the head when you said that you’d be annoyed if you were in her situation.
I think if Wifey had put her all in to something for six months and someone didn’t like it and wrote about it I’d be upset too.
You resonded well to her post and I’m glad that you did. I fell it shows editorial balance! I hope the air is now cleared.
Comment by AFC 30K — 16 May, 2007 12:11 pm
Hi
Me again
BIG fan - love you loads
but
may I critique you? Just a little?
I really think in this case you’ve got hold of the wrong end of the stick. I realise I’ve listened to a different episode, but, in my local veracular, I think you’ve listened to this “arse over tit”
It’s not about a blogger who is, therefore a geek; it’s about a geek who happens to use a computer and be a blogger - and specifically a bad one. I’m sure you could easily match your 50 great blogs with 50 as bad as Andrew Glasgow - which I think was rather the point.
There was as much “skitting” of normal everyday computer usage as there was blogging; maybe more. And there was certainly as much satirical observation of websites and the things they do and contain (that we have ALL fallen foul of) as there was about computer users (bloggers or not)
The episode you listened to may well have given a totally different impression. But, whilst not great, I did find it mildly amusing, which is about as good as a radio sitcom can expect. For instance, the bit where the computer offers to turn itself off for no apparent good reason was quite amusing to someone who has encountered such considerate machines.
I’m not a blogger, so perhaps it’s me who’s missing the point, but I didn’t see this as a comedy based on the blogging community’s perceived nerdness (I’m not sure they ARE looked at that way anyway), far more as a commentary on how today’s nerd can find a voice through his computer - and how easily that can go wrong.
And the foregoing is probably total bollocks, and you’re probably annoyed with me for disagreeing with you, or you’re annoyed with me for presuming you might be annoyed with me, or annoyed with me for worrying about having annoyed you….but then that’s probably why I’m not good enough to have a blog of my own!
(still love you loads)
Comment by AndyB — 16 May, 2007 1:12 pm
Andy - No, I’m not annoyed with you, and I’m glad to hear that you enjoyed it. Lots of people, I’m sure, did. As Shazzle said on her blog, it’s been written up well in several national newspapers and was chosen for pick of the week, so there clearly is a mainstream merit that I’m just not personally party to. And clearly several other people.
But what do I know? I didn’t like Little Britain once it transferred to TV either, and other people did, so I’m quite clearly often wrong.
Your points and opinion are, of course, completely valid. I can see what you mean about it being a ‘geek who is ALSO a blogger’ about computer use that is ALSO geektastic etc etc, and can understand how you would enjoy it more if that was how you heard it. I will try and listen to it again with your head on and see if that changes much.
Although - having said that, jokes is jokes, and…
[LONG SECTION JUSTIFYING OPINION ONCE AGAIN, DELETED BECAUSE I THINK I SHOULD JUST STOP NOW]
But I’m really glad to hear that you enjoyed it. Because people do have different opinions, and I’m really glad to find that you liked it.
Comment by anna — 16 May, 2007 1:14 pm
Well, as the link to my blog will attest, being accused of geekdom doesn’t bother me all that much :)
But as such, I came across this bit of research recently that this put me in mind of: http://www.ns.umich.edu/htdocs/releases/story.php?id=3209
It’s about how some people enjoy making other people angry. Perhaps the lady in question should get her testosterone levels checked? It’s got to be the daftest flame I’ve come across yet, and believe me I get a lot of flames…
“I’m angry that she slagged him off, and even more angry that she didn’t slag him off on her own blog as well”
Dearie me…
Comment by Dominic — 16 May, 2007 1:25 pm
Dominic - being accused of being a geek doesn’t bother me either. Especially when it is done for comedy purposes, and when it is funny.
There are many examples of this.
Comment by anna — 16 May, 2007 1:28 pm
Anna
If it wasn’t Shazzle criticising you for not copying your professional work over here it would be whoever commissioned your work pursuing you for giving away what they had paid you for. It’s a copyright thing!
Hopefully if you ignore her she’ll go away.
And shame on her for denying you the right of reply.
Comment by Damian — 16 May, 2007 1:33 pm
Damian, to be fair, I think she’s having problems with her comments at the moment, so it may just be down to that.
And yes, the copyright thing is one reason I don’t cut and paste things onto here, but the main one is really trying to maintain a work/not-work balance.
So that is why I am particularly upset about this.
Comment by anna — 16 May, 2007 1:43 pm
Have to say I’m listening to the second? episode now, and it is almost as tedious about a mock-documentary about a man called Nigel and his painting of Games Workshop models.
I don’t quite understand what the benefit of you having slated the show on littleredboat would have been. When you read a critic or column in a mainstream media outlet you understand the slanting of that publication and take everything with a pinch of salt. Had you have duplicated the article here it would have come across far more personal surely?
Do you not have a critic jumper? I believe they sell them in the Journalist’s Outfitters in Kensington, on an aisle with Editor’s caps.
Comment by Dury — 16 May, 2007 1:50 pm
Is it just me who is disturbed by the mental image of being “drenched by a golden shower of critical acclaim”?
Comment by John Mac — 16 May, 2007 1:52 pm
I heard this! I was having a sickday at home when it came on the radio… there were some funny moments, but in general it was little more than a small ‘huh’ sort of laugh, rather than the ‘haha’ I believe they were aiming for.
Comment by Pirate — 16 May, 2007 2:33 pm
PS. I’m with John Mac on this one…
‘drenched by a golden shower of critical acclaim’.
*shudder*
Comment by Pirate — 16 May, 2007 2:37 pm
A casual look at her ramblings and a cursory look at the standard of your blog is enough to tell me who wins.
I’d be going fucking apoplectic if I were her - simply by the fact that you’ve been devasatatingly and disarmingly reasonable about the whole thing.
Anna wins. GO PICKARD.
Comment by michael dolenzio — 16 May, 2007 2:57 pm
A look at the “About Shazzle” link was interesting. The same person who’s so unhappy about her boyfriend’s comedy efforts being criticized wrote this: “I used to have a cool job, where I would go to comedy venues and sit in the dark and sneer at the performers and then go home and write nasty things that would be published the next day in the evening news paper. I chose the words “evening news” with great care, there. I’m hoping to start doing that again, and shatter the hopes and dreams of young and innocent comedians and performers on a more regular basis. This is because I enjoy making snide and flippant comments about things people have often put their very souls into creating. Still, someone has to.”
Comment by Dominic — 16 May, 2007 3:03 pm
I saw that, Dominic, but, of course, it is different when it is someone you love who produced the thing in question. I think we all recognise that.
Also, the about page - along with much of her writing, I think, is fabulously tongue in cheek.
Comment by anna — 16 May, 2007 3:33 pm
Good for you!
I don’t know the show, but am familiar with the idea that some people have of asking someone to look at their work and then comment publically, with the assumption that they’ll find something great to say, no matter what.
It’s almost like asking “read my novel, then write what you think of it in 2 sentences for the jacket. Don’t waste time sending it to me to screen, send it strait to the printer.”
Well, THAT’S a bit risky, isn’t it?!
I was once offered free cigars in return for smoking them and posting publically my review. I did. It turned out that I thought they were rather good, and said so, and why. But many assumed that I gave a good review because they were given to me for free. Of course, MANY of these same people have given me free cigars and seen me write that they weren’t exactly stellar in taste — what’s THAT about?!
Anyway… people are weird. Don’t take the opinions of people you don’t know too seriously.
(Except me, of course ;)
Comment by olie — 16 May, 2007 6:03 pm
I want a sweater that says ‘critic’ on it but bad. Could you perhaps knit them? In a Guardian-type font? I feel sure there’s a market out there . .
Comment by Olivia — 16 May, 2007 10:03 pm
Well aparently, Olivia, all we need do is pop into that Journalist’s outfitter Dury mentioned above… I can pick one up for you next time I’m in, if you like.
Along with an ‘Edit’ ‘THIS’ bra (one word per cup), which I’m desperately hoping they sell.
Comment by anna — 17 May, 2007 12:12 am
I’m seriously thinking of patenting that, by the way.
Comment by anna — 17 May, 2007 1:31 am
An ‘edit’ ‘this’ bra, eh?
I’m thinking ‘insert full-stop’ symbols in the appropriate place on each cup.
Comment by drew — 17 May, 2007 1:51 am
I know what you mean about the balance thing. That’s why I have three blogs and a job - it’s about the right place for doing different things (or, as it is at the moment, the right place for not doing anything except work). Anyway, I think, “out of line” is the wrong phrase to use about her, because that would imply that there is a line to be within - which goes against the whole blogging thing. I think, “a little unhinged” is a better description.
It’s all a bit silly really. Surely other people diliked it too. I have tried to refrain from commenting on it, because I only recollect hearing something about blogging as I was falling asleep with the radio on. If it had been any good, I wouldn’t have fallen asleep.
Comment by Damian — 17 May, 2007 5:17 pm
I heard a new 6×15 minute sitcom on Radio 4 last night called ‘Fabulous’ which almost lived up to the name.
Bit like Bridget Jones but much funnier (not that that’s necessarily very hard).
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/fabulous/pip/mdg5g/
Comment by William T — 17 May, 2007 7:51 pm