Clarkson: Racist
Discussion
Mr Snap said:
I am suggesting that a man who uses the death of his mother to garner sympathy, whilst at the same time as taking a swipe at the BBC, and who has a track record of being pretty harsh on the suicide of people unknown to him, is someone whose motives I'm wary of.
Add on to this - as others have observed - what a good writer he is and I have to conclude that his underlying motives were ultimately cynical, rather than being a simple elegy for his deceased mother and the rites of passage.
Clarkson is a good writer, not nearly in the class of Amis or Self, but an extremely good writer none the less. Reading his stuff is a bit like watching a Hollywood movie; you know you're being manipulated by hackneyed tropes but you can't help falling for it again and again...
Clarkson knows how to achieve effect, that's what good writers do. But it doesn't necessarily mean his words are sincere. Alternatively, his words might contain sincere emotions but, being a good writer, he's fully capable of using them to address more than one target.
Pretty good appraisal.Add on to this - as others have observed - what a good writer he is and I have to conclude that his underlying motives were ultimately cynical, rather than being a simple elegy for his deceased mother and the rites of passage.
Clarkson is a good writer, not nearly in the class of Amis or Self, but an extremely good writer none the less. Reading his stuff is a bit like watching a Hollywood movie; you know you're being manipulated by hackneyed tropes but you can't help falling for it again and again...
Clarkson knows how to achieve effect, that's what good writers do. But it doesn't necessarily mean his words are sincere. Alternatively, his words might contain sincere emotions but, being a good writer, he's fully capable of using them to address more than one target.
audidoody said:
Will Self? Really? Get your laughing gear around this:
""Marshall McLuhan's equation of the medium with the message has become a shibboleth to be lisped on a thousand thousand message boards, but less widely understood is that the "glocal" phenomenon of the web plus the internet has yet to crystallise into a definable medium – we live in an interregnum between cultural hegemonies, and in such times, as Marx observed of political interregnums, the strangest forms will arise."
Unlike the indefatigable Mr Self - I have no words.
Everyone is entitled an off day. Besides, style apart, he's making a serious point. Just because it's worthy of Pseuds Corner doesn't mean there can't be an element of truth. ""Marshall McLuhan's equation of the medium with the message has become a shibboleth to be lisped on a thousand thousand message boards, but less widely understood is that the "glocal" phenomenon of the web plus the internet has yet to crystallise into a definable medium – we live in an interregnum between cultural hegemonies, and in such times, as Marx observed of political interregnums, the strangest forms will arise."
Unlike the indefatigable Mr Self - I have no words.
Edited by audidoody on Friday 13th June 14:52
Mr Snap said:
Clarkson is a good writer, not nearly in the class of Amis or Self, but an extremely good writer none the less.
No, he's not. He may be acceptable as a glossy magazine contributor and author of Christmas stocking fillers but you'd have to have never read beyond Harold Robbins and, well, Amis and Self (hold on: 
- sorry) to think that. I'm astonished anyone could actually write the above sentence in private, let alone on a public forum.goldblum said:
Mr Snap said:
Clarkson is a good writer, not nearly in the class of Amis or Self, but an extremely good writer none the less.
No, he's not. He may be acceptable as a glossy magazine contributor and author of Christmas stocking fillers but you'd have to have never read beyond Harold Robbins and, well, Amis and Self (hold on: - sorry) to think that. I'm astonished anyone could actually write the above sentence in private, let alone on a public forum.For my own part (having been a copy editor and editor-in-chief of various magazines) I'd say he has a decent turn of phrase, but he's been doing the same thing for 25 years, and the sort of 1000-word ego pieces he does these days are pretty much the easiest gigs in professional writing.
TTwiggy said:
I rather suspect Snap wrote that in response to posters saying things like 'I'd kill for the writing talent of Clarkson' Ad nauseam.
For my own part (having been a copy editor and editor-in-chief of various magazines) I'd say he has a decent turn of phrase, but he's been doing the same thing for 25 years, and the sort of 1000-word ego pieces he does these days are pretty much the easiest gigs in professional writing.
Bingo!For my own part (having been a copy editor and editor-in-chief of various magazines) I'd say he has a decent turn of phrase, but he's been doing the same thing for 25 years, and the sort of 1000-word ego pieces he does these days are pretty much the easiest gigs in professional writing.
I used to earn a nice living that way, too (And was very annoyed when they found someone who was willing to work for less. What was even more irritating was the little b
d was both ruder and funnier than me...).People here have no idea how cynical hacks can be nor how easily a good professional writer can manipulate the basest of emotions.
goldblum said:
No, he's not. He may be acceptable as a glossy magazine contributor and author of Christmas stocking fillers but you'd have to have never read beyond Harold Robbins and, well, Amis and Self (hold on: - sorry) to think that. I'm astonished anyone could actually write the above sentence in private, let alone on a public forum.
Clive James, who knows a thing or two about writing, said this of JC. - sorry) to think that. I'm astonished anyone could actually write the above sentence in private, let alone on a public forum."I took one look at him and knew he couldn't miss. He was too big, too burly and he was full of bluster, but he could write it and he could say it. He was that rarest thing in England, the articulate bloke. I thought he was tremendous and I was very proud that he made his first couple of series under (Watchmaker productions) logo. I liked him a lot."
Also
"I still watch his programs with a professional admiration for how he can pack so much into a paragraph."
Mr Snap said:
Clarkson is a good writer, not nearly in the class of Amis or Self, but an extremely good writer none the less.
No, he's not. He may be acceptable as a glossy magazine contributor and author of Christmas stocking fillers but you'd have to have never read beyond Harold Robbins and, well, Amis and Self (hold on: - sorry) to think that. I'm astonished anyone could actually write the above sentence in private, let alone on a public forum.TTwiggy said:
I rather suspect Snap wrote that in response to posters saying things like 'I'd kill for the writing talent of Clarkson' Ad nauseam.
Ah, Clarkson isn't exactly a benchmark.TTwiggy said:
For my own part (having been a copy editor and editor-in-chief of various magazines) I'd say he has a decent turn of phrase, but he's been doing the same thing for 25 years, and the sort of 1000-word ego pieces he does these days are pretty much the easiest gigs in professional writing.
I'm sure you're right. Clarkson's persona on screen and on the page are one and the same. He's an entertainer and that's what he sets out to do in both mediums. He writes froth for the easily entertained and does TV shows for the undemanding. Despite that, and despite the fact I don't believe he should air his thoughts on a family bereavement in public, I don't think he went for the sympathy vote at all. Why should he? He's not stupid and he knows the majority of the public and the BBC are on his side. He's the literary equivalent of cave drawings, and TG the televisual equivalent of a three Stooges cartoon...but he's not the kind of bloke to look for sympathy of any type particularly in such a blundering and unsubtle way.goldblum said:
No, he's not. He may be acceptable as a glossy magazine contributor and author of Christmas stocking fillers but you'd have to have never read beyond Harold Robbins and, well, Amis and Self (hold on: - sorry) to think that. I'm astonished anyone could actually write the above sentence in private, let alone on a public forum.
I was using it in the sense that Clarkson a good writer, not a great writer. He's a hack, he's a wordsmith and he knows what he's doing on a page. That alone is an unusual skill, which few posses, and he makes a good living because of it. - sorry) to think that. I'm astonished anyone could actually write the above sentence in private, let alone on a public forum.Others have pointed out, Clive James rates Clarkson's abilities and he is a [i]very[i/] good writer. Not quite the 1st 11 (as Antonia Fraser was said to have told him, when she knocked him back) but a very good writer, none the less.
As for Self, clearly he's not your cup of tea. But with several, well received, literary novels he can claim a much higher status than Clarkson.
And, yes, I'm willing to write it in a public forum because I envy both Clarkson's and Self's abilities.
Spitfire2 said:
goldblum said:
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff