Posts by Matthew Littlewood
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Apparently not. Probably just house style and stretched resources rather than poor intent.
It's still kinda sucky tho- as I said in my above post, it doesn't take much to flag the original source and the carry on. In fact, it should be done even when sourcing interviews from other newspapers for story material. It's good practice, and also saves the journalist's backside is something goes awry.
-
That's a jolly good point, Sacha. A paper I write for over here has a strict policy about that: it's "Smith says/said" if you talked to Smith (in person or over the phone, which must also be noted) and "Smith writes/wrote" if you just plucked Smith's writings from her blog. Uh, I mean if you are quoting a book or other written communication, the form of which must also be signalled.
Not so in NZ? Or should I press for a correction to the story?
I'm not sure whether this is the case for all newspapers, but in the one I'm writing for (which would use Fairfax's housestyle), the general indication is that if you're taking it off a letter or blog entry, etc, you indicate it and then go on using "he/she said etc", e.g. "In her blog post on the Public Address website, Dr Gracewood said...."
That way you've flagged it up and you can continue. I think it's more for ease of writing than anything else- using "said" all the time in news reports, while occasionally dull, is much easier to follow for the reader who usually just wants the whos wheres whys whats and wherefores.
-
Cheers, Jolisa.
It's an interesting conundrum isn't it? Although- ironically, given the source of this controversy-I think "historical fiction" probably opens itself up to more freedom to "rewriting", and could maybe even be seen as a necessity if you're that way inclined.
I do agree that there is something powerful and inviolate about the work "as originally published." It's kind of a fetish, eh? But as long as the previous versions stay available, I think revisiting and rewriting is a perfectly valid artistic strategy. Especially, perhaps, in this age of multiple versions and constant updating.
Yes, as long as the original work remains in some form, there probably isn't any harm to it.
I find it interesting when musicians re-record their famous works, often because it often proves that they didn't know what made the work so interesting in the first place. I mean, what was the point of Gang of Four re-doing Entertainment! as Return of the Gift, for instance? The band didn't seem to understand that the very things they hated about the original's production- its spare, dry abrasiveness- were what gave it its power.
-
Since he's taken to rewriting his earlier novels in the light of his later socio-political consciousness and writing skills (Whanau II e.g.), there seems already to be a path forward - he should be re-working this one with the application of those mature writing skills and a good editor. Preferably after the publisher has pulped the first version as a guiltily mistaken release of an early draft.
I think there's a lot of sense to this solution. As an aside, I've always found Whiti's habit of "re-writing" his work rather curious, but maybe that's because I feel art should evolve by itself without any further inteference once it's out there in the public. Historical context changes a lot by itself, but maybe that's what Whiti is all too aware of- trying to take ownership of his work. Has he ever explained his philosophy behind re-writing in interviews? I'd be interested in reading it, because I find him a fascinating interview subject regardless.
-
Yup -- got our copy this morning. Excellent detective work on your part, and for all the bitching of the Listener that goes on in these parts, isn't it rather flattering that this story scored the cover?
I can't speak for anyone else, but I think I bitch about the Listener because I care. I know how good it can be, and has been, and it's not exaggerating to say the magazine was very important in my own cultural upbringing, particularly through my years at Intermediate and Secondary school (and early Uni years), where I would devour every issue cover-to-cover. I even went so far to hoard whole years' worth of issues until my parents kindly suggested that with my room already overflowing with books, CDs, and other material that it might be worthwhile to get rid of some so I could find my way to the door:)
So if I get frustrated, it's because the magazine has had an impact on me in the past, and I can see it happening again. Y'know, good students shouldn't sell themselves short.
But back to the topic at hand, I'm really looking forward to purchasing this week's issue to read that article.
That was some lovely writing Jolisa. I'm sorry for your loss.
-
Can I just say that I loved webweavers' little trip(s) down memory lane? Some of those acts she mentioned I would've sold my grandmother to have seen at the time. But of course I wasn't even born then, so fortunately, my grandmother was safe.
Carry on.
-
@Brickley
Didn't [William F Buckley] cut his teeth writing for a pro-segregation journal or some shit?
Sort of. The National Review (which he founded) tried to put forward an intellectual argument in favour of segregation, McCarthyism and Franco (!) in its early issues. However, he renounced those views once the 60s arrived, and indeed was one of the prominent opponents of the right-wing fringe (the John Birch society et al), rationalising, quite rightly, that if neoconservatism was going to get any credence in mainstream thought, then it better dissociate itself from "the kooks", as he put it.
Not that this absolves him of those early editorials- I guess the only excuse you could make is that he was in his early 20s, so was possibly going for shock factor- but it does mean it's not quite as clearcut as obvious bigotry.
Ironically, the National Review seems to tacitly endorse "the kooks" these days, and you do wonder what Buckley thought about "his" journal descending into an apologist for loony extremism by the time the 21st century came around. Especially considering his criticism of the Iraq War.
Re: RB's original post. Like others, I think Jimmy Carr's joke is funny because it darkly satirises the situation soldiers find themselves in, without actually castigating their ability. And Jan Moir's Daily Mail piece was beneath contempt. But I'm glad several people have excercised their right to display contempt.
-
Only White Man in the Hammersmith Palais.
Gawd I used to love this.You've gotta admit, writing that song was a huge leap in the dark- it's weird because the whole song questions the Clash's indominitable self-mythology and somehow strengthens it. Jon Savage's book devotes a whole page to that song, which might be excessive if it weren't such an achievement.
Erm, carry on.
-
I'm with you: Caleb's wrong.
The first-wave British punks liked reggae because it was seen as an outsider music. There was reggae played between bands at punk gigs -- Don Letts was the DJ at one of the original punk clubs, The Roxy, and subsequently made his feature debut with The Punk Rock Movie.
The Clash covered 'Police and Thieves' and Lydon talked about reggae music all the time in Sex Pistols interviews. It was said to be the only music he would dance to. He formed a dub-influenced group as soon as he left the Pistols.
And, of course, Bob Marley was moved to write 'Punky Reggae Party' in 1978, with the line "The Wailers will be there, The Damned, The Jam, The Clash – Maytals will be there, Dr. Feelgood too."
Punk pretty much stopped being good when some shaven oafs decided it was white music.
One of the points Jon Savage makes throughout his superb England's Dreaming is reggae's profound influence on punk- it seemed to be as deeply felt as the British Invasion's love of American R&B and Motown. Of course, he argues, it was partly through design as much as taste- Paul Simonon learnt to play bass through listening to Trojan reggae records because reggae places such a prominent importance on the bass-line, so they're easy to detect, while Don Letts said he played so many reggae records between slots at the 100 Club because (in the early years) there weren't that many punk records.
But none of this takes away the passion they had for it. You only need to listen to the opening chords of the Slits debut' Cut to understand how important it was for them in finding a way to burst out of three-chord monontony.
As someone who wasn't even conceived at the time, the bit I found most amusing was Joe Strummer's frank admission that he was a hippy. ("Of course I was. What were you if you weren't, back in the day?")
I can't add much to Emma's witty takedown of White Supremacist idiots, so I won't. Other than to say good job, lady.
-
Here's something Finaly might care to think about, courtesy of Tom Stoppard: "Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, nobody is entitled to their own facts."
Ahem, it was actually the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan who first popularised that very useful aphorism. Sorry for being pedantic :)
But I agree with your point that the Jan Moir column was really beyond reprehensible, and even for a newspaper like the Mail, pretty untennable.