Converging jets (14:38 16.02.2008)
Moon jet streetlamp
Onion Mbeke
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Hail and farewell
We're sorry to see you go, Ossian, but we all understand that there are things that are more important in life even than writing for the top local international newspaper. So take all the time you need, and we won't change your password, your login will be here waiting and your desk - actually, can we have your desk for our new staffer Orlick Zuker? I don't think you'll mind. But we'll find you another when you come back. Take care of yourself. On behalf of the entire staff.
Feargal Mooney
Feargal Mooney
Monday, February 18, 2008
Bye for now
I need to take some time off from being a newspaper tycoon, and just go through some personal matters for a while. What is it they always say, just before they hit you? This is going to hurt me more than it hurts you. Maybe summer?
Ossian Carey-Lennon
Ossian Carey-Lennon
Sunday, February 17, 2008
Careless words cost jibes
A Warning About Blog Comments
"This is a very funny story (albeit embarrassing) that involves the New Zealander Katherine Mansfield, who is considered by many to be one of the greatest short story writers of the 20th century. This is also a warning about the comments we leave on the web, and the growing problem of how comments that are meant to be humorous/ironic can be misinterpreted and taken too seriously. I certainly never expected that one of my recent comments on a blog would result in a false report in The Sunday Times, a national newspaper in Britain. Cripes! Let me explain..." (Shameless Words)
Blogdesk Team
"This is a very funny story (albeit embarrassing) that involves the New Zealander Katherine Mansfield, who is considered by many to be one of the greatest short story writers of the 20th century. This is also a warning about the comments we leave on the web, and the growing problem of how comments that are meant to be humorous/ironic can be misinterpreted and taken too seriously. I certainly never expected that one of my recent comments on a blog would result in a false report in The Sunday Times, a national newspaper in Britain. Cripes! Let me explain..." (Shameless Words)
Blogdesk Team
Yes we can.
"A host of celebrities including actress Scarlett Johansson, jazz legend Herbie Hancock, and retired basketball player Kareem Abdul-Jabbar take part in the music video 'Yes We Can' for Barack Obama's campaign." (Telegraph)
Feargal Mooney
Friday, February 15, 2008
Book listings update
Our proprietor Red Woodward has never seen a penny from the Amazon listings over there. [Update, July 2008: Recently received £12.89 Amazon Associates commission. Unfortunately reinvested it all in a business in Cheltenham that failed to come in. Red] When last checked there was about 50 pence built up in the Amazon Associates account, too small an amount to transfer.
Anyway, now that that hilarity is out of the way, the listings have been updated with books by some of our previous years' short story competition finalists: "Bed" by Tao Lin (Melville House, 2007), "Seven Loves" by Valerie Trueblood (Sphere, 2007), "To the World of Men, Welcome" by Nuala Ní Chonchúir (Arlen House, 2005), "One Note Symphonies" by Sean Brijbasi (Pretend Genius Press, 2007), "Show Me the Sky" by Nicholas Hogg (Canongate, 2008) and "Words from a Glass Bubble" by Vanessa Gebbie (Salt, 2008). The last one was short-listed under a pen name, but that's by the by (or who by the who by, if you prefer).
"Is This What You Want?" (Bloomsbury, 2007) is the anthology of the Asham Award competition, which kindly posts an online link to ours. Their anthology also contains commissioned stories.
Just as composers who wrote songs have also given us chamber music, concertos and symphonies, writers of short stories are as likely as not to compose poetry, novellas and novels too. That is by way of introducing another of the books listed, "Last Night's Dream Corrected" an anthology of poetry. It includes poems by Willesden short story competition winner and finalist Mikey Delgado and Raewyn Alexander, respectively. I think it is the book of which I am proudest and fondest. It also has poetry by noted poets Joanne Kyger, Bill Berkson and others. (Amazon wrongly lists editor Feargal Mooney as author.)
The anthologies "Fish Drink Like Us" and "New Short Stories 1" contain some of the winning and short-listed stories from 2006 and 2007. The remaining books are by local authors, contacts and friends of the competition and not forgetting "The Children of Willesden Lane".
"Ice Bears and Kotick" is an amazing true adventure account of the first ever circumnavigation of the Arctic island of Spitsbergen in an open rowing boat. The author was featured recently on national radio (BBC Radio 4). You can meet and hear Peter Webb and see slides from his record-making journey, at The Space, Willesden Library Centre, from 8 pm on Thursday February 28th, courtesy of our friends in the Willesden Green Writers' Workshop and Brent Libraries. (This replaces the previously advertised event.)
Ossian
Anyway, now that that hilarity is out of the way, the listings have been updated with books by some of our previous years' short story competition finalists: "Bed" by Tao Lin (Melville House, 2007), "Seven Loves" by Valerie Trueblood (Sphere, 2007), "To the World of Men, Welcome" by Nuala Ní Chonchúir (Arlen House, 2005), "One Note Symphonies" by Sean Brijbasi (Pretend Genius Press, 2007), "Show Me the Sky" by Nicholas Hogg (Canongate, 2008) and "Words from a Glass Bubble" by Vanessa Gebbie (Salt, 2008). The last one was short-listed under a pen name, but that's by the by (or who by the who by, if you prefer).
"Is This What You Want?" (Bloomsbury, 2007) is the anthology of the Asham Award competition, which kindly posts an online link to ours. Their anthology also contains commissioned stories.
Just as composers who wrote songs have also given us chamber music, concertos and symphonies, writers of short stories are as likely as not to compose poetry, novellas and novels too. That is by way of introducing another of the books listed, "Last Night's Dream Corrected" an anthology of poetry. It includes poems by Willesden short story competition winner and finalist Mikey Delgado and Raewyn Alexander, respectively. I think it is the book of which I am proudest and fondest. It also has poetry by noted poets Joanne Kyger, Bill Berkson and others. (Amazon wrongly lists editor Feargal Mooney as author.)
The anthologies "Fish Drink Like Us" and "New Short Stories 1" contain some of the winning and short-listed stories from 2006 and 2007. The remaining books are by local authors, contacts and friends of the competition and not forgetting "The Children of Willesden Lane".
"Ice Bears and Kotick" is an amazing true adventure account of the first ever circumnavigation of the Arctic island of Spitsbergen in an open rowing boat. The author was featured recently on national radio (BBC Radio 4). You can meet and hear Peter Webb and see slides from his record-making journey, at The Space, Willesden Library Centre, from 8 pm on Thursday February 28th, courtesy of our friends in the Willesden Green Writers' Workshop and Brent Libraries. (This replaces the previously advertised event.)
Ossian
Thursday, February 14, 2008
Future's past
I have a Vision of The Future, chum,
The workers' flats in fields of soya beans
Tower up like silver pencils, score on score
John Betjeman
No more will the wild wind that passes
Return, no more return.
James Joyce
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Early apple blossom today
The vernal equinox is still more than a month away—
but the blossom is well and truly out—
on a row of trees in the park behind Willesden sports centre.
Onion Mbeke Sphagnum
Monday, February 11, 2008
Sunday, February 10, 2008
Park life, February
Early wildflowers
People playing football
A longer view
That's the Capital City Academy in the left background, which looks like a stainless steel building, and is really huge. The other buildings in the background are the Willesden sports centre (also new), then Tarranbrae and then Donnington Court (with the wavy roof - also new). Just round the corner is the new community hospital and the entire neighbourhood has been re-paved. Does some government minister live around here, or what; surely it can't all be to try and win back Sarah Teather's seat in parliament? Anyway, about ten future generations are probably in hock for all this under PFI. If you don't know what that is, don't worry, it's really boring.
Feargal Mooney Sphagnum
Big names who didn't make the cut this year
It's not true that there was a story by Katherine Mansfield sent in, or rather that would seem to be a kite flown by one of our commenters in a teasing and jocular vein. I don't think Ms Mansfield has a workable email, under the rules, and seances are at best unreliable.
I think I have read all of KM's marvellous stories, seen and heard them performed, for example at last year's Small Wonder short story festival—a marvellous production of stories dramatised from "In A German Pension" with Andrew Sachs, the divine Eleanor Bron etc. I've read "Bliss and Other Stories" so many times that the old paperback copy on my shelf is falling to bits.
Regretfully the entries from Hemingway, Nabokov, Carver, and Italo Calvino had to be disqualified on account of the authors being dead (in spite of representations that Raymond Carver's editor had cut the heart out of his work first time round). Most painfully, for me personally, Frank O'Connor too.
For next year, we will try to clarify the rule about the non-eligibilty of posthumous entries. In any case it appears that the entries in some of these cases did not represent their finest work.
Ossian
I think I have read all of KM's marvellous stories, seen and heard them performed, for example at last year's Small Wonder short story festival—a marvellous production of stories dramatised from "In A German Pension" with Andrew Sachs, the divine Eleanor Bron etc. I've read "Bliss and Other Stories" so many times that the old paperback copy on my shelf is falling to bits.
Regretfully the entries from Hemingway, Nabokov, Carver, and Italo Calvino had to be disqualified on account of the authors being dead (in spite of representations that Raymond Carver's editor had cut the heart out of his work first time round). Most painfully, for me personally, Frank O'Connor too.
For next year, we will try to clarify the rule about the non-eligibilty of posthumous entries. In any case it appears that the entries in some of these cases did not represent their finest work.
Ossian
Saturday, February 09, 2008
Crescent moon tonight
"We΄re all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars." (Oscar Wilde)
I know I didn't quite capture it, but in a way [alert! we have wistful sentiment incoming. ed.] the moon should not be captured.
Ossian
Friday, February 08, 2008
Verdict of the BK massive
a statement from pretend genius
dear readers of this exceptional piece of internet space,
i'd like to have a word with some of you so-called writers. a fireside chat, if you will, on why the various entries that i, in my dead state, did read and why they were not up to—yes, you know the word. i re-translated my thoughts from english and put them here to you in order to effectively communicate what makes gooder writing with the hope that you all will understand why we (pretend genius) agreed with the judgement of the judger of this contest.
the dramatic judgment and the ensuing humanicus dumbassicus vitriolicus (yes, i speak portuguese) that followed has inspired me (dead henry) to issue forth observations on gooder writing. i (still dead henry) have from time to time been known to offer something or other to those who seek it. not all of this something or other is understandable, however, and based on the cloistered nature of the human brain (meaning yours) this is not surprising. but due to my philoprogenitive nature i shall rise above the tendency of most 'writers' to horde and shall therefore generously particularize the monads of gooder writing for you in this introduction in the hopes that you will accept the judgement and move on with your so-called lives.
i. addressing the fundamental flaws in your approach
- the notion that gooder writing can be learned is false.
- the notion that reading can help you become a gooder writer is false.
- the notion that 'workshopping' can make you a gooder writer is false.
- the notion that feelings (suffering, love, happiness, grief, the 'heart') is the birthplace of gooder writing is false.
- the notion that the telling of a good story comprises gooder writing is false.
- the notion that mastery of language produces gooder writing is false.
if you believe that any of these notions have actually helped you to become a gooder writer, i assure you the connection (perceived) is coincidental. in short, everything you have thus far believed as it relates to gooder writing is false. once you have purged your quill of these dumbass beliefs you will be ready to work on your bow.
ii. observation is what goes in, it's something else entirely that comes out
were you a gooder writer this would be perfectly clear to you. but since you are not i shall make it crystal clear.
what one observes should not also be what one relates. a blue bird, for example, once recorded by the brain, should not then be preserved by that brain for the purpose of recitation. the recordation of the blue bird should serve as a template that will become sublimated, transformed, coalesced (with x), enhanced. i shall call this the 'alchemization' of the blue bird. this, like observation, is an involuntary reflex of the limited human brain that requires little of its already teenie-weenie functional capacities.
should someone observe a blue bird only to recite 'blue bird' or 'flying blue thing with some other sharp pointy thing on its head' we can say that what that someone is reciting is the original recordation of the blue bird which served as the brain's template. this is non-fiction/journalism crap and does not comprise gooder writing. the alchemization of the blue bird, although complete, is inaccessible to this someone (you).
iii. the two necessary events following alchemization that bring about the effect known as gooder writing
although the involuntary alchemization of what one observes provides the stuff of gooder writing, the ability to access this stuff without de-alchemizing it or un-transforming it is what separates gooder 'writers' from less gooder 'writers'. it is therefore necessary that two events occur following alchemization:
1. the destruction of the original recordation that served as the template from which the alchemization occurred.
the destruction of the original template launches the mind into a realm known as 'imagination'. the destruction of this template can also be called 'letting go'. i'll note for you, although it should be obvious, that the 'letting go' does not occur prior to the alchemization, nor is the 'letting go' necessary for the alchemization to occur. the letting go or destruction of the original template facilitates the accessing of the alchemization from the area where the alchemization occurred (the imagination). should the original template not be completely destroyed, the effects produced would be similar to dada or beat as the mind is still hanging by one arm, so to speak, from the partially undestroyed original template. the mind, in turn, wanting to let go but not having the courage to completely let go produces writing based on this awareness, which resembles something that may have been the effect of this 'letting go' but in reality is an effect produced by wanting to let go, being afraid to let go, not wanting anyone to know you are afraid to let go, and finally not being able to let go. this is not gooder writing. what what? no, what's more, 'letting go' artificially by some external means is also evidence of the lack of courage necessary to let go. this also depreciates the original template, for even though the original template must eventually be destroyed, seeing it as it is is vital to its alchemization. this type of artificial letting go also produces royal crapola.
the destruction ('letting go') of the original recordation that served as the template from which the alchemization occurred is the most difficult and important part of gooder writing. should one not destroy the original recordation or 'let go', the ability to access the alchemized blue bird in the 'imagination' is impossible. it may seem like a simple thing to do but i assure you (yet again (peasants)) that less than 1% of 1% of the entire human population, present and past, has ever had the ability to 'let go' for the purpose of producing gooder writing.
2. the accessing of the alchemization of the original recordation.
once one has 'let go', the ability to access the alchemization of the original recordation is academic. it is not a matter of how this accessing occurs, just as it is not a matter of how one gets wet in the ocean. it simply occurs.
in conclusion re: the introduction
it is my hope that with this basic introduction to gooder writing that most of you will see the futility of attempting it and give up completely, therefore assuring these dead eyes that they will not see anything that is not gooder writing. if, however, you wish to 'hope against all hope', a more nuanced elaboration of this introduction might follow. though i doubt any of you dumbasses will get it.
dead henry
i'd like to have a word with some of you so-called writers. a fireside chat, if you will, on why the various entries that i, in my dead state, did read and why they were not up to—yes, you know the word. i re-translated my thoughts from english and put them here to you in order to effectively communicate what makes gooder writing with the hope that you all will understand why we (pretend genius) agreed with the judgement of the judger of this contest.
the dramatic judgment and the ensuing humanicus dumbassicus vitriolicus (yes, i speak portuguese) that followed has inspired me (dead henry) to issue forth observations on gooder writing. i (still dead henry) have from time to time been known to offer something or other to those who seek it. not all of this something or other is understandable, however, and based on the cloistered nature of the human brain (meaning yours) this is not surprising. but due to my philoprogenitive nature i shall rise above the tendency of most 'writers' to horde and shall therefore generously particularize the monads of gooder writing for you in this introduction in the hopes that you will accept the judgement and move on with your so-called lives.
i. addressing the fundamental flaws in your approach
- the notion that gooder writing can be learned is false.
- the notion that reading can help you become a gooder writer is false.
- the notion that 'workshopping' can make you a gooder writer is false.
- the notion that feelings (suffering, love, happiness, grief, the 'heart') is the birthplace of gooder writing is false.
- the notion that the telling of a good story comprises gooder writing is false.
- the notion that mastery of language produces gooder writing is false.
if you believe that any of these notions have actually helped you to become a gooder writer, i assure you the connection (perceived) is coincidental. in short, everything you have thus far believed as it relates to gooder writing is false. once you have purged your quill of these dumbass beliefs you will be ready to work on your bow.
ii. observation is what goes in, it's something else entirely that comes out
were you a gooder writer this would be perfectly clear to you. but since you are not i shall make it crystal clear.
what one observes should not also be what one relates. a blue bird, for example, once recorded by the brain, should not then be preserved by that brain for the purpose of recitation. the recordation of the blue bird should serve as a template that will become sublimated, transformed, coalesced (with x), enhanced. i shall call this the 'alchemization' of the blue bird. this, like observation, is an involuntary reflex of the limited human brain that requires little of its already teenie-weenie functional capacities.
should someone observe a blue bird only to recite 'blue bird' or 'flying blue thing with some other sharp pointy thing on its head' we can say that what that someone is reciting is the original recordation of the blue bird which served as the brain's template. this is non-fiction/journalism crap and does not comprise gooder writing. the alchemization of the blue bird, although complete, is inaccessible to this someone (you).
iii. the two necessary events following alchemization that bring about the effect known as gooder writing
although the involuntary alchemization of what one observes provides the stuff of gooder writing, the ability to access this stuff without de-alchemizing it or un-transforming it is what separates gooder 'writers' from less gooder 'writers'. it is therefore necessary that two events occur following alchemization:
1. the destruction of the original recordation that served as the template from which the alchemization occurred.
the destruction of the original template launches the mind into a realm known as 'imagination'. the destruction of this template can also be called 'letting go'. i'll note for you, although it should be obvious, that the 'letting go' does not occur prior to the alchemization, nor is the 'letting go' necessary for the alchemization to occur. the letting go or destruction of the original template facilitates the accessing of the alchemization from the area where the alchemization occurred (the imagination). should the original template not be completely destroyed, the effects produced would be similar to dada or beat as the mind is still hanging by one arm, so to speak, from the partially undestroyed original template. the mind, in turn, wanting to let go but not having the courage to completely let go produces writing based on this awareness, which resembles something that may have been the effect of this 'letting go' but in reality is an effect produced by wanting to let go, being afraid to let go, not wanting anyone to know you are afraid to let go, and finally not being able to let go. this is not gooder writing. what what? no, what's more, 'letting go' artificially by some external means is also evidence of the lack of courage necessary to let go. this also depreciates the original template, for even though the original template must eventually be destroyed, seeing it as it is is vital to its alchemization. this type of artificial letting go also produces royal crapola.
the destruction ('letting go') of the original recordation that served as the template from which the alchemization occurred is the most difficult and important part of gooder writing. should one not destroy the original recordation or 'let go', the ability to access the alchemized blue bird in the 'imagination' is impossible. it may seem like a simple thing to do but i assure you (yet again (peasants)) that less than 1% of 1% of the entire human population, present and past, has ever had the ability to 'let go' for the purpose of producing gooder writing.
2. the accessing of the alchemization of the original recordation.
once one has 'let go', the ability to access the alchemization of the original recordation is academic. it is not a matter of how this accessing occurs, just as it is not a matter of how one gets wet in the ocean. it simply occurs.
in conclusion re: the introduction
it is my hope that with this basic introduction to gooder writing that most of you will see the futility of attempting it and give up completely, therefore assuring these dead eyes that they will not see anything that is not gooder writing. if, however, you wish to 'hope against all hope', a more nuanced elaboration of this introduction might follow. though i doubt any of you dumbasses will get it.
dead henry
Spreading wild rumours about steaming in circles!
When should a books jury remain out?
Guardian Unlimited: Arts blog - books
"But after pondering this teacup-sized storm, and despite my sympathy for the disappointed competitors, I actually think that it is kind of refreshing." (Jean Hannah Edelstein)
My identical uncle Zozimus has posted a comment there.
Ossian
"But after pondering this teacup-sized storm, and despite my sympathy for the disappointed competitors, I actually think that it is kind of refreshing." (Jean Hannah Edelstein)
My identical uncle Zozimus has posted a comment there.
Ossian
Thursday, February 07, 2008
Disposition of the prize money
As there was no winner in this year's short story competition, I have forwarded the prize money in its entirety to the UK international charity Comic Relief.
I spoke by phone to somebody at Comic Relief and was told that they would issue a certificate of receipt, a copy of which I will post here*.
Thanks again to all who entered and to all those who helped with and supported the competition.
I have in mind an interesting new project, which will involve beer and will take place in an actual brewery. Watch this space.
Ossian (Stephen)
* Update: A Message from Comic Relief
"What am I doing in Casablanca, man?"
Wednesday, February 06, 2008
Last word on the competition result 2008
Here is what happened:
The Willesden Herald Short Story judges would like to make a final statement on the competition, the judging and the aftermath to try to explore any mistakes, to show what was done in good faith and to aid understanding and transparency.
There were three short-listing judges, Steve Moran (SM), Anne Mullane and me. The intention was to read everything and come up with a short list of ten plus a few commended to forward to Zadie Smith for final arbitration.
The first entries started arriving in October and by the start of November, all three short-listing judges started having to give up between 12 and 20 hours every week of their time to reading. Eventually, the volunteer that opened the envelopes and did the initial data entry was swamped and at one point, while keeping the entrants’ names secret to all the judges, SM had to help out with tedious data entry by staring at a spreadsheet through the night.
Faced with a weekly pile of about 500 sheets of paper, we wanted to be interested, to be moved, to want to leap up and send the story to a dear friend and say, ‘hey, read this, it is great’ (not that we would have been able to, as the entries were for judges’ eyes only).
What the exact criteria are for a short story is impossible for me to say; Zadie, in her initial judgement alluded to what she thought a good story should be. If there was an algorithm for such things, machines would be able to write for us. We marked every story with a YES, MAYBE or NO and scribbled on some comments as we thought them necessary. SM read all of the stories. I believe that Anne and I might have skipped literally five each (not the same 5!) out of some 850 entries.
Generally, it was agreed that:
• YES meant ‘I can see this in a short list’;
• MAYBE meant ‘we can consider this if there are not enough YESes’; and
• NO indicated that the story was not good enough.
Interestingly, there were around 5 that were given a YES, MAYBE and a NO. There were also only two that were given three YESes.
When the reading was finished, about three weeks after the closing date, we all met for a weekend marathon of discussion.
We immediately discarded the triple NOs without another look. To have gone through them again, after three people had read them and independently come up with a NO would have been almost impossible. It must be remembered that even judges have day jobs and families! In any case, we were confident that we would not find any reason to reverse our decisions on them.
Piles were made of anything with at least one MAYBE. We started with those stories which had the least support and looked at them again and thought about whether anyone wanted to reconsider.
As we went through the stories, small bits of SM’s dining table started becoming visible under the mounds of paper. We got down to the last 90 or so and then the real battle began.
We reread stories, we wrote lengthy crits of them, we haggled, we drank tea.
When something like the last twenty had been siphoned off, we did consider submitting far less than ten stories to Zadie as the short list was simply not that strong. However, although there was doubt about the strength of the short list, it seemed wise to send Zadie as many hopefuls as possible to give her the chance to see if we had missed anything.
Much has been said about the weakness of the short list. For me, there were a couple that I really liked, that I would have sent to friends to say, ‘READ THIS’, but that was my personal opinion.
Hard copies of the short list were duly posted to Zadie.
SM then emailed those on our short list to:
• give them some warning that they might want to keep 28 Feb free for any prize-giving (it was imperative to contact people as early as possible as some of the short-listed writers lived overseas and these days, people have to book leave make arrangements to travel, etc);
• to ask for an electronic copy of their stories; and
• to ensure that the stories had not gone into print anywhere else in the meantime.
Of course, letting writers know they were on the short list raised their hopes.
An announcement was made on the blog which said something like: if we haven’t got in touch with you yet, you did not make the short list. No short list details were ever issued.
When Zadie received the short list, she immediately saw the flaws in the stories that we had hummed and hawed over. Remember, that only two out of 850 had received triple YES support from the judges. And even then, it was not necessarily thought that these were winners; rather that they could be imagined on the short list.
After long exchanges of emails with SM, Zadie made her no-winner decision and issued it with a long and detailed explanation. We supported this outcome and were glad that this brave step had been taken. The earlier message about the short list had been removed as it was deemed redundant. We now acknowledge this as a mistake as it lead to concerns that there had been some sort of conspiracy.
Zadie was so disturbed by the idea of not selecting a winner that she even suggested she stand back and that the short-listing judges pick the winner. However, this would have deprived us of the patronage of a writer of Zadie’s stature and so this honourable offer was declined.
The short-listed candidates were contacted and asked whether they wanted their names to appear. Some comments made on the comments page of the blog about these writers were so unflattering that it was decided that the WH should be sensitive to their feelings. Some of them might not want to have it publicised that they were the best out of 850 entries (which is an achievement to be proud of), when they had really been aiming to be the best in Zadie’s opinion.
Of course, emails are not read instantly and so it took some time to garner the short-listed writers’ thoughts.
In response to the negative comments left about the decision not to award the prize, Zadie Smith decided that the money should be split, to help counter the suggestions that the short-listed writers were somehow ‘mediocre’. There was no intention at all of suggesting such a thing and any close reading of Zadie’s statement will show this to be false. Being the best out of 850 entries is no small feat.
It is worth mentioning that there are two standards here that we can look to:
• to be the best of a batch; and
• to be worthy of first place in a competition which celebrates outright excellence.
The latter is a much higher aspiration than the former; however, the former is something to be proud of.
When the decision was made to split the prize money, the short-listed writers were contacted again and most of them said that they did not want their names or stories to appear and did not want any prize money. They told us to fuck off. Which is fair enough.
We had a heady mixture of:
• public opinion;
• trying to be true to an aspiration of excellence; and
• being sensitive to the dignity of the short-listed writers in the face of adverse comments.
We are really sorry that at various points we failed to be true to all three of these components. Things changed too fast for us and were unpredictable.
We regret that we contacted the short-listed writers at all, but did so for good reasons (to give them notice that they might want to travel to the event, to get electronic copies and to ensure the story had not been published elsewhere). Of course they will feel disappointment. But it will have to be remembered that there would have been nine disappointed writers anyway. This way, there is only one extra, ten.
As the majority of the writers have declined the offer of money and being listed and having their stories on the website, it has been decided that the original judgement will stand.
We regret not to be able to publicise a short list, but must be sensitive to the wishes of the majority of the short-listed writers.
We regret looking inconsistent, but were trying to be flexible and listen to public opinion.
But one thing we do not regret: we do not regret running a competition that looks for excellence.
We hope that going to all the effort of running this and then taking the incredibly hard way out will show that we have integrity and that you will trust to this integrity when considering entering again next year.
Bilal Ghafoor
See also
Zadie Smith's verdict
2008 prize donated to Comic Relief
The Willesden Herald Short Story judges would like to make a final statement on the competition, the judging and the aftermath to try to explore any mistakes, to show what was done in good faith and to aid understanding and transparency.
There were three short-listing judges, Steve Moran (SM), Anne Mullane and me. The intention was to read everything and come up with a short list of ten plus a few commended to forward to Zadie Smith for final arbitration.
The first entries started arriving in October and by the start of November, all three short-listing judges started having to give up between 12 and 20 hours every week of their time to reading. Eventually, the volunteer that opened the envelopes and did the initial data entry was swamped and at one point, while keeping the entrants’ names secret to all the judges, SM had to help out with tedious data entry by staring at a spreadsheet through the night.
Faced with a weekly pile of about 500 sheets of paper, we wanted to be interested, to be moved, to want to leap up and send the story to a dear friend and say, ‘hey, read this, it is great’ (not that we would have been able to, as the entries were for judges’ eyes only).
What the exact criteria are for a short story is impossible for me to say; Zadie, in her initial judgement alluded to what she thought a good story should be. If there was an algorithm for such things, machines would be able to write for us. We marked every story with a YES, MAYBE or NO and scribbled on some comments as we thought them necessary. SM read all of the stories. I believe that Anne and I might have skipped literally five each (not the same 5!) out of some 850 entries.
Generally, it was agreed that:
• YES meant ‘I can see this in a short list’;
• MAYBE meant ‘we can consider this if there are not enough YESes’; and
• NO indicated that the story was not good enough.
Interestingly, there were around 5 that were given a YES, MAYBE and a NO. There were also only two that were given three YESes.
When the reading was finished, about three weeks after the closing date, we all met for a weekend marathon of discussion.
We immediately discarded the triple NOs without another look. To have gone through them again, after three people had read them and independently come up with a NO would have been almost impossible. It must be remembered that even judges have day jobs and families! In any case, we were confident that we would not find any reason to reverse our decisions on them.
Piles were made of anything with at least one MAYBE. We started with those stories which had the least support and looked at them again and thought about whether anyone wanted to reconsider.
As we went through the stories, small bits of SM’s dining table started becoming visible under the mounds of paper. We got down to the last 90 or so and then the real battle began.
We reread stories, we wrote lengthy crits of them, we haggled, we drank tea.
When something like the last twenty had been siphoned off, we did consider submitting far less than ten stories to Zadie as the short list was simply not that strong. However, although there was doubt about the strength of the short list, it seemed wise to send Zadie as many hopefuls as possible to give her the chance to see if we had missed anything.
Much has been said about the weakness of the short list. For me, there were a couple that I really liked, that I would have sent to friends to say, ‘READ THIS’, but that was my personal opinion.
Hard copies of the short list were duly posted to Zadie.
SM then emailed those on our short list to:
• give them some warning that they might want to keep 28 Feb free for any prize-giving (it was imperative to contact people as early as possible as some of the short-listed writers lived overseas and these days, people have to book leave make arrangements to travel, etc);
• to ask for an electronic copy of their stories; and
• to ensure that the stories had not gone into print anywhere else in the meantime.
Of course, letting writers know they were on the short list raised their hopes.
An announcement was made on the blog which said something like: if we haven’t got in touch with you yet, you did not make the short list. No short list details were ever issued.
When Zadie received the short list, she immediately saw the flaws in the stories that we had hummed and hawed over. Remember, that only two out of 850 had received triple YES support from the judges. And even then, it was not necessarily thought that these were winners; rather that they could be imagined on the short list.
After long exchanges of emails with SM, Zadie made her no-winner decision and issued it with a long and detailed explanation. We supported this outcome and were glad that this brave step had been taken. The earlier message about the short list had been removed as it was deemed redundant. We now acknowledge this as a mistake as it lead to concerns that there had been some sort of conspiracy.
Zadie was so disturbed by the idea of not selecting a winner that she even suggested she stand back and that the short-listing judges pick the winner. However, this would have deprived us of the patronage of a writer of Zadie’s stature and so this honourable offer was declined.
The short-listed candidates were contacted and asked whether they wanted their names to appear. Some comments made on the comments page of the blog about these writers were so unflattering that it was decided that the WH should be sensitive to their feelings. Some of them might not want to have it publicised that they were the best out of 850 entries (which is an achievement to be proud of), when they had really been aiming to be the best in Zadie’s opinion.
Of course, emails are not read instantly and so it took some time to garner the short-listed writers’ thoughts.
In response to the negative comments left about the decision not to award the prize, Zadie Smith decided that the money should be split, to help counter the suggestions that the short-listed writers were somehow ‘mediocre’. There was no intention at all of suggesting such a thing and any close reading of Zadie’s statement will show this to be false. Being the best out of 850 entries is no small feat.
It is worth mentioning that there are two standards here that we can look to:
• to be the best of a batch; and
• to be worthy of first place in a competition which celebrates outright excellence.
The latter is a much higher aspiration than the former; however, the former is something to be proud of.
When the decision was made to split the prize money, the short-listed writers were contacted again and most of them said that they did not want their names or stories to appear and did not want any prize money. They told us to fuck off. Which is fair enough.
We had a heady mixture of:
• public opinion;
• trying to be true to an aspiration of excellence; and
• being sensitive to the dignity of the short-listed writers in the face of adverse comments.
We are really sorry that at various points we failed to be true to all three of these components. Things changed too fast for us and were unpredictable.
We regret that we contacted the short-listed writers at all, but did so for good reasons (to give them notice that they might want to travel to the event, to get electronic copies and to ensure the story had not been published elsewhere). Of course they will feel disappointment. But it will have to be remembered that there would have been nine disappointed writers anyway. This way, there is only one extra, ten.
As the majority of the writers have declined the offer of money and being listed and having their stories on the website, it has been decided that the original judgement will stand.
We regret not to be able to publicise a short list, but must be sensitive to the wishes of the majority of the short-listed writers.
We regret looking inconsistent, but were trying to be flexible and listen to public opinion.
But one thing we do not regret: we do not regret running a competition that looks for excellence.
We hope that going to all the effort of running this and then taking the incredibly hard way out will show that we have integrity and that you will trust to this integrity when considering entering again next year.
Bilal Ghafoor
See also
Zadie Smith's verdict
2008 prize donated to Comic Relief
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)