Posted by: kirstylyn | February 9, 2008

Q&A

A response to http://inquirelive.co.uk/node/178 (read first)
This entry is not an attack to the author of the original article who has explained to me that he adopted a character when writing.

1) If you are a snotty aesthete try not to ruin my day with your whining. I happen to find a certain charm in concrete nightmares.
2) How about visiting and not buying said sandwich? What about visiting a run-down café? They will glad of the company and I am sure I can recommend some cracking ones to you. Regardless there is something rather romantic about an arcade with its paint peeling off, requests for you to come join the bingo so you can win a set of pots in a presentation ribbon and then on to the beach to get sand in all your belongings. As for the city what do you expect? Surely the mere definition of the word allows for some sense of misinterpretation of the excitement within.
One could say it’s only disappointing people who are disappointed. .
For the record these photos are not shopped they are staged. That is different. The blue sky usually does exist. Also, if I may butt in-which I will, there are literally THOUSANDS of free things to do in London. Seriously man I don’t know where you have been all your life.
3)Surely all the shops being owned by the same people is Capitalist? Perhaps I am confused. Yes I have seen everything before I have left but so what? And please, try not to plagiarise Bill Bailey. It’s not very becoming of you.
4) I would disagree with your stance here that museums are just a way to generate money. Alright, in some respects that is the case. But time and time again I have come across instances where museums have had to be closed down because of a lack of government funding and grants. Just because YOU might not want to see some old coins (frankly, it sounds like you don’t really like doing anything) doesn’t mean that you are the only one. History is cool, and don’t you forget it.
5) Avoid at all costs any article that has “miserablist” in the title, especially one that features “amateur journalists”. These are bitter individuals who failed to make the local newspaper, and who get their revenge by shamelessly flaunting their own faux-Clarkson-esque writings on an unsuspecting student body who just wanted to read a bit of news for once and not an article better suited for a personal blog.

Responses

Wow I can’t believe you took the time to respond point by point to my article. First, thanks for the criticism, you are right it isn’t that funny but my friend is the editor and he wanted it up so fine, I won’t do it again. Originally it was used for a creative writing exercise which was to try and be as miserable as possible. I didn’t intentionally plagiarise Bill Bailey but I’m sure that’s where I got the idea. Those aren’t really my views at all, and I spent a lovely weekend in London doing lots of free things. Just to clarify I hate Clarkeson, I’m not an amateur journalist and have no intentions of being a professional one, and I’ve never attmepted to join the local paper. An article that I am rather prouder of though is http://www.inquirelive.co.uk/node/141 under the name T.J. Luxford which was written for the website and are my own views.

Hi, thanks for the disclaimer, I didn’t think you were a nasty lady anyway, everyone is entitled to an opinion. I think we’ve got “blog” above the article now (part 1 and 2) so people know it isn’t a serious piece of journalism. Look forward to a demolition of part 2!

Leave a response

Your response:

Categories