Is the Guardian worse than it used to be?

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
My feeling is: Yes, somewhat. But Regular Readers will recall that I am a curmudgeon who doesn't like New Things. So do they really want to agree with me here? Plus, we do have (somewhere round here) a house Guardian expert whose opinion would be interesting.

the pinefox, Tuesday, 3 July 2001 00:00 (14 years ago) Permalink

Some readers might, conceivably, like to know that the Guardian (formerly Manchester Guardian) is a UK daily newspaper which has for several decades been the main print source / gathering-point, as it were, for those on 'The Liberal Left'. Many UK ILE posters, I imagine, know it very well and have done for many years, so I thought there might be some opinions around.

the pinefox, Tuesday, 3 July 2001 00:00 (14 years ago) Permalink

I like the Guardian now more than I have for years. Perhaps the restyle of the mag helped, but generally the Burchill thing works for me and I haven't noticed a drop in quality elsewhere. The Guide has always been shite (and I say that working for PA Listings) but the rest seems cool. Can you specify what's gone wrong for you?

chris, Tuesday, 3 July 2001 00:00 (14 years ago) Permalink

I hate the Guardian - particularly the G2 section, with it's crappy 'think' pieces, terrible arts reviews and smug phillistinism - and have bought it every weekday and Saturdays for at least the last fifteen years. Because, being a bleeding heart liberal and a news junkie, I couldn't bring myself to read any of the other rags (morning papers are somehow part of my going to work coping ritual.) I flirted with the Independent for a while - and the IOS still has the great film critic David Thomson writing for 'em - but I found it to be even more boring than the Guardian. I suspect that I am far from alone in all this, and that the Guardian survives on the unearned good will of the liberal middle classes.

Funnily enough, I quite like the Guide, partly because Joe Queenan and Byron Coley sometimes write for it, partly because it means I no longer have to buy that useless piece of toss Time Out anymore.

Andrew L, Tuesday, 3 July 2001 00:00 (14 years ago) Permalink

I've never actually bought a copy of the Guardian, if I did buy a newspaper I'd get the Telegraph, it has a good weather section, obituaries, world news briefs and I like the sports section.

james e l, Tuesday, 3 July 2001 00:00 (14 years ago) Permalink

I suppose the short answer is 'Trivialization'. One has to be a tad careful using a word like that, because, for instance,

1. The simplification of the accusation may just echo what it asserts about the target (just as 'Dumbing Down' is a dumb, dull phrase);

2. If I don't like Triviality, why don't I read nothing but 10-page reports from the former Yugoslavia? It would be hypocritical of me to say that I simply wanted them to be SERIOUS and SOLEMN and RESPONSIBLE all the time. No, that's not it.

What I mean, I suppose, is that too many features, esp. in G2, now look dashed-off - half-hearted, half-baked, unconvincing, just cliché pies really. Today's Lara Croft piece was just the latest of a million examples. It feels (the terms are problematic here, I know) JOURNALISTIC in a bad way - trite, unconsidered, full of crowd- pleasing Received Ideas - rather than JOURNALISTIC in a good way (that is: dogged, resourceful, brave, mentally agile, snappy and what have you).

It's the world of second-hand Lifestyle phrases that bugs me. The way that adults can still write a phrase like "*that* dress" and not hang their heads in shame.

A rider to all my bile, though, is that my previous, more impressed impressions of the Guardian may just reflect youthful impressionability. (Sentence!) Maybe the same kind of crap used to impress me that now feels rubbishy, faux-zeitgeisty and embarrassing? Maybe, but I suspect it's a bit of both.

the pinefox, Tuesday, 3 July 2001 00:00 (14 years ago) Permalink

Andrew L: I know what you mean - the Labour party factor of Nowhere Else To Go? (And brand loyalty, or whatever you want to call it.) There's actually a Verso book out (yet?) which makes a massive attack on the Guardian as home of neo-conservative (ie New Labour) ideas. I find this rather unconvincing and overstated. Even offensive, come to think of it.

I agree about Queenan too. But most of all, I agree about Thomson. There's almost no point having a thread about Thomson, because people who know what they think about him already know it all and would just send in superlatives.

the pinefox, Tuesday, 3 July 2001 00:00 (14 years ago) Permalink

Andrew L, and indeed everyone: cut em loose and let em drown in their own smug laziness!! I stopped buying it a YEAR ago FOREVER and now buy NO NEWSPAPER and am FREE. (Actually I too buy saturday for the guide — and for the food page in the mag, but the mag redesign is utter shit, and the recipes are in fact on long recycle: eg I have seen Lady Llandower's Duck three times now, always copied (of course) from Elizabeth David Salt, Spices and Aromatics...) The age of the newspaper is dead.

mark s, Tuesday, 3 July 2001 00:00 (14 years ago) Permalink

Something has clearly gone wrong with G2: the other week they ran a page-long feature on the phenomenon of "Jumping the shark" (referring to that moment when a long-running tv fave finally loses the plot completely, apparently derived from a late episode of Happy Days where Fonzie, yes, jumped a shark). This was all well and good (except it was inane and ripped off from a website [this is a whole other can of worms]), but they ran an almost IDENTICAL story in the Guide not two weeks previously. Do they not read their own paper, or did they simply think the readers wouldn't notice?

What the paper still has going for it: George Monbiot's column, the Diary, Steve Bell, giving review space to Ians Sansom and Penman, and the tv columns of Nancy Banks-Smith. (When N B-S finally pops her clogs I will have to think very hard about buying the paper.)

What is leading the paper ever closer to the abyss: consistently terrible pop coverage (honorable exceptions: Maddy Costa, Betty Clarke); the fatuous new Saturday mag (Zoe Ball on dressing? match the celebrity with the pet? that awful woman talking about words that should be banned??); Charlotte bloody Raven.

stevie t, Tuesday, 3 July 2001 00:00 (14 years ago) Permalink

What I mean, I suppose, is that too many features, esp. in G2, now look dashed-off - half-hearted, half-baked, unconvincing, just cliché pies really. (Pinefox)

I agree with you there. They sucker you in with the G2 front cover (and the masthead of the main paper), but when you get to read the cover story it often appears cobbled together and lightweight. I imagine it must be difficult to fill that space with high quality stories day in day out though.

David, Tuesday, 3 July 2001 00:00 (14 years ago) Permalink

Stevie: agree about Steve Bell, of course. I mean, if only for the sake of 1981 and all that. But actually, he draws and paints better now.

I actually like Peter Preston's awkward, staccato opinion pieces, come to think of it. But not the pompous ones of Hugo Young. Freedland is sometimes good at summing political issues up, but usually he 'sums up' too much - there's too much glibness in the way he marshals it all. (I admit again, though, that it's easy - even glib - to call someone glib.)

Penman strikes me as a red herring. I can see that he doesn't do that to you, cos you have some kind of investment in his career. I agree about Sansom (great left-back, mean penalty, blah blah) - in fact I think that the whole Saturday book reviews section is quite possibly the best feature of the paper. EXCEPT of course the footy. Heroes? How could I forget David Lacey?

BUT I think that you are wrong about N B-S. It doesn't surprise me that older folk make that judgement about her; it does rather surprise me coming from you. She has skills, I guess, but she's terribly repetitive; uses the same lines on the same topics year in year out. It's all too - yes - glib and easy, while dressed up to look aged and thus wise.

the pinefox, Tuesday, 3 July 2001 00:00 (14 years ago) Permalink

I agree with much of what's been said. After Mark Steel and Jeremy Hardy went, it didn't seem as essential anymore. The Observer's the same - just dear old Phil Hogan that still makes me go down the shops Sunday morning

jamesmichaelward, Tuesday, 3 July 2001 00:00 (14 years ago) Permalink

My parents used to get a subscription to the Guardian shipped to them for the first few years they were in the States, because they couldn't trust the US Media. The Guardian just isn't the same when it's not printed on that semi-transluscent airmail paper.

I only read it for the Guide and the job listings. Not that either has been particularly helpful lately... ;-)

masonic boom, Wednesday, 4 July 2001 00:00 (14 years ago) Permalink

Steve Bell is a GOD but apart from that I read it largely out of having nowhere else to go and a worry that I'll become totally detached from the world if I don't read any newspapers at all. I think it might have marginally improved with the loss of Messrs. Hardy and Steel though. Everything they wrote was just as predictable and smug as any of the other writers mentioned above, only with a more left wing stance.

Richard Tunnicliffe, Wednesday, 4 July 2001 00:00 (14 years ago) Permalink

I don't read anything except the Spectator. Hey Chris, if you work for PA Listings then that means you're in the same building as me.

tarden, Wednesday, 4 July 2001 00:00 (14 years ago) Permalink

The Guide last week (or was it the week before) had that BRILLIANT article slamming not just the Strokes, but the entire music hype industry... VERY funny because it was so clearly written by an insider who had been participating in the music hype game for so long.

masonic boom, Wednesday, 4 July 2001 00:00 (14 years ago) Permalink

I'd love to comment, but those Observer commissions are keeping me out of the poor house. Anything appearing in the Guardian or the Obs by my deepest and dearest friends is obviously genius...

Mark Morris, Wednesday, 4 July 2001 00:00 (14 years ago) Permalink

As bad as the Guardian may have become, it's still better than the so-called "best" American newspapers. Or, if you think it couldn't get worse, it could end up becoming The New York Times or The Washington Post.

Tadeusz Suchodolski, Friday, 6 July 2001 00:00 (14 years ago) Permalink

Reynard's right about the amount of trivial toss that gets in there. Mark's also right about the decline of the newspaper in general. Reynard's spot on re. New Labour - the Guardian's frequent criticism of some Blairite attitudes is one of the great things about it.

There's a lot of irritating stuff, yes. My favourite columnist is George Monbiot, by a mile. Something I like about the Independent when I do get it is that its liberalism is less metropolitan and more about the common good. Needless to say, though, the Guardian's series of articles on public service under that very title were awesome.

The Hemulen Who Loved Silence, Friday, 6 July 2001 00:00 (14 years ago) Permalink

OK, agree with the Hemulen re. The Common Good.

Today's G2 seems designed to add fuel to my (f)ire: one page of 'Style' after another, including a column on Why We're So Disappointed That Madonna Employs A Stylist.

the pinefox, Friday, 6 July 2001 00:00 (14 years ago) Permalink

Although Toynbee's piece on Labour post-election is admirable.

blue veils and golden sands, Friday, 6 July 2001 00:00 (14 years ago) Permalink

Broadly I agree with her, yes. It feels a wee bit ironic given her immediately-pre-election pieces telling everyone how urgent it was to overcome apathy and vote for the people she's now criticizing. (But actually I think she was right both times.)

Also good in Guardian: John Patterson re. cinema.

the pinefox, Friday, 6 July 2001 00:00 (14 years ago) Permalink

6 years pass...

oh god, ask hadley today is just... tooth-grinding.

Tracer Hand, Monday, 3 September 2007 14:17 (8 years ago) Permalink

"today"

Dom Passantino, Monday, 3 September 2007 14:17 (8 years ago) Permalink

"At what age is a man too old to wear band T-shirts?"

Martin McCall, by email

"About 15 - that young enough for you, Martin? And to follow one rhetorical question with several more, what in God's name is the point of band T-shirts anyway? To show your allegiance to a band? Do you think anyone else cares? To impress onlookers with your esoteric musical knowledge? See previous reply. To make people stare at your bony chest? Again, I refer you to the first answer. To show that you once attended a live gig? Wow, like, a pair of golden headsets to the guy in the Nirvana '91 T-shirt. In case you happen to bump into the lead singer on the street, he sees that the two of you are kindred souls and therefore invites you to join his band and you then go on the road and have all the manly bonding sessions followed by groupies that your heart could desire? OK, I'll give you that one, although this does suggest that you still harbour the fantasy that you might bump into Joey Ramone in Waterstone's.

"As for ladies in band T-shirts, give me a fricking break. First, gals, a badly cut, poorly made, oversized T-shirt is good for nothing other than wearing to bed and the gym. Second, too often women who wear band T-shirts appear to be going for what we shall call Groupie Chic. It is a style amply modelled by Kate Moss in recent years, and can pretty much be summed up as skinny faded black jeans, ankle boots, a ripped band T-shirt and a cropped fur jacket. In other words, a girlified version of Marc Bolan's or Keith Richards' wardrobe, as though the woman has been so busy, um, sleeping on the band bus she hasn't had time to clean her clothes, so she's now wearing ones belonging to her musical companion. This column has no time for such nonsense."

Tracer Hand, Monday, 3 September 2007 14:19 (8 years ago) Permalink

Yeah, because women have *no* interest in music whatsoever except for sleeping with musicians. What CENTURY is this cretin from?

Masonic Boom, Monday, 3 September 2007 14:21 (8 years ago) Permalink

I think I stopped wearing band T-shirts by the time I was 23. It wasn't necessarily a conscious move tho. I doubt I will ever wear one again tho - I guess it seems lame unless it's an old obscure or overlooked thus hip act (even this I dunno about). I don't notice many people over 20 wearing them. Does Matt DC still have that Save Ferris T?

I only want to sleep with musicians if they are hot as they are (their musical ability is pretty irrelevant in fact).

blueski, Monday, 3 September 2007 14:29 (8 years ago) Permalink

dear teh grauniad - a long time ago/we used to be friends...

CharlieNo4, Monday, 3 September 2007 14:32 (8 years ago) Permalink

It went downhill after I left.

Dom Passantino, Monday, 3 September 2007 14:33 (8 years ago) Permalink

or were you PUSHED?

blueski, Monday, 3 September 2007 14:35 (8 years ago) Permalink

heh. (sorry alex, no harm intended)

CharlieNo4, Monday, 3 September 2007 14:36 (8 years ago) Permalink

xp

Dom Passantino, Monday, 3 September 2007 14:36 (8 years ago) Permalink

i was being harsh really. i don't care what's on other people's t-shirts that much. just trying to work out why i stopped wearing/wouldn't wear band t-shirts myself.

blueski, Monday, 3 September 2007 14:37 (8 years ago) Permalink

Any t-shirt which isn't plain white clearly sucks that's why.

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa, Monday, 3 September 2007 14:38 (8 years ago) Permalink

i couldn't agree less

blueski, Monday, 3 September 2007 14:40 (8 years ago) Permalink

I still wear band t-shirts if I like the band. Why not? I don't *define* myself or my personality by my music tastes any more, I haven't done that since I was about 18. But that's not the same thing as wearing a band t-shirt.

I suppose the fashion journalist in discussion cannot fathom the idea that clothes are just something you put on, rather than a definition of or statement about your personality.

This is definitely something that happens as you age - or rather, has happened to me as I aged. There's a subtle difference between Statement Clothes and just things you put on.

Masonic Boom, Monday, 3 September 2007 14:40 (8 years ago) Permalink

Guardian editorial worldview circa 2007:

tissp, Monday, 3 September 2007 14:41 (8 years ago) Permalink

why else would you buy a band t-shirt if not as a statement or definition of personality?

blueski, Monday, 3 September 2007 14:44 (8 years ago) Permalink

I didn't know it was a band t-shirt okay?

Matt DC, Monday, 3 September 2007 14:45 (8 years ago) Permalink

because you're cold xp

tissp, Monday, 3 September 2007 14:45 (8 years ago) Permalink

In the past I've usually just bought them as a keepsake of a gig I've enjoyed. The piece tracer quotes is idiotic fluff, obv. I'd be embarrased to admit I'd written that.

Pashmina, Monday, 3 September 2007 14:46 (8 years ago) Permalink

Because you like the design? Because you like the music? Because it was given to you (this is where most of mine come from)? Because it was a souvenier?

x-post

Masonic Boom, Monday, 3 September 2007 14:46 (8 years ago) Permalink

you wouldn't actually buy a band t-shirt because you liked the design but not necessarily the band tho...would you?

because you like the music = statement/definition of you/your taste

given to you = not you buying

blueski, Monday, 3 September 2007 14:48 (8 years ago) Permalink

you wouldn't actually buy a band t-shirt because you liked the design but not necessarily the band tho...would you?

No, plus I've only ever bought them @ gigs.

because you like the music = statement/definition of you/your taste

Probably yeah, but w/smaller bands there's also the knowledge that in buying it, yr helping to supposrt the tour.

Pashmina, Monday, 3 September 2007 14:50 (8 years ago) Permalink

i actually bought a comets on fire t-shirt solely because the design was so awesome. (it was at a gig, but they hadn't come on stage yet.) then i heard the music and i liked that too. i suppose if i hadn't liked their music, or thought it was boring, it would have posed a problem.

a friend of mine, who shall remain nameless so that alex in nyc doesn't stalk and kill him, bought a huge iron maiden patch when he was 14 and sewed it across the shoulders of his denim jacket. he had never heard a note of iron maiden, but he wound up becoming the biggest iron maiden fan i know, and even sung in a band later, where his vocal style was almost inseparable from bruce dickinson's.

Tracer Hand, Monday, 3 September 2007 14:53 (8 years ago) Permalink

my take on this: do not read hadley freeman.

this resolution made some time ago, stands as strong today as it ever did.

it's a crass and deliberately invidious piece of writing. such an attitude, if sincerely held, could be turned around on pretty much ANY choice of clothing. so forgeddaboudit

Alan, Monday, 3 September 2007 14:53 (8 years ago) Permalink

the last band t-shirt i bought - robyn!

alan i can't help myself, i know i'm sick and need help.

Tracer Hand, Monday, 3 September 2007 14:54 (8 years ago) Permalink

is there a thread for best band t-shirts? must see

blueski, Monday, 3 September 2007 14:56 (8 years ago) Permalink

Taste is something that I have. It does not define me. Clothes are something I wear. The statement I am making is "I don't really care about clothes any more."

If I'm going to make a statement about clothes, I'll wear a bright green paisley jacket to a dronerock festival where everyone else is in leather.

I suppose my Hawkwind t-shirt is a statement, it says "ha ha, I'm wearing a Hawkwind t-shirt, I care nothing for fashion, I am wearing the shirt of a band so deeply uncool you can suck my left one because I love them!" But it's certainly not a statement saying that I want to f*ck any of Hawkwind or that I have a musician boyfriend whose Hawkwind t-shirt I'm borrowing, which is the assumption of that article.

Masonic Boom, Monday, 3 September 2007 14:56 (8 years ago) Permalink

> I don't notice many people over 20 wearing them.

*SOBS*

> you wouldn't actually buy a band t-shirt because you liked the design but not necessarily the band tho...would you?

EAR t-shirt with the putney on the front = great. EAR live = terrible. (EAR on CD = ok, plus pram and stereolab were supporting)

koogs, Monday, 3 September 2007 15:03 (8 years ago) Permalink

The tldr extract to give a flavour of this is:

Aviva estimates that by 2025 3.8 million people aged between 21 and 34 could be living with their parents (compared with 2.8 million in 2015).

What’s most surprising about this is that people don’t even seem to mind that much.

Half-baked profundities. Self-referential smirkiness (Bob Six), Tuesday, 31 May 2016 07:50 (3 weeks ago) Permalink

entirely reasonable if you're ignorant that the rest of the world exists

Noodle Vague, Tuesday, 31 May 2016 07:54 (3 weeks ago) Permalink

it's no "and here's why", but I feel that "I can't believe I have to say it" has potential as a clickbait headline formulation

soref, Tuesday, 31 May 2016 23:25 (3 weeks ago) Permalink

That aside I completely agree with him.

Stoop Crone (Trayce), Wednesday, 1 June 2016 01:38 (3 weeks ago) Permalink

There is a woman in the comments who says without question 10 times over she'd save the gorilla over a child. WTF, humanity.

Stoop Crone (Trayce), Wednesday, 1 June 2016 01:38 (3 weeks ago) Permalink

oh, I don't disagree that a human life is worth more than a gorilla's, was just amused by the combination of silly headline and reproachful byline photo.

soref, Wednesday, 1 June 2016 01:45 (3 weeks ago) Permalink

I don't think tits particularly irrational or gross to say that the gorilla's life was worth more than the child's there being something like 7 billion humans and around 100,000 lowland gorillas and just over 600 (!) mountain gorillas. Of course it's not about maths and I wouldn't strongly hold this view myself, but I think the they are equally valuable is what I would say. I don't know how I would feel if Harambe had been a mountain gorilla, for example, or whether the figure of 600 or so of those would give the gorilla's life priority.

Acting Crazy (Instrumental) (jed_), Wednesday, 1 June 2016 02:01 (3 weeks ago) Permalink

lol @ "reproachful byline photo"

Stoop Crone (Trayce), Wednesday, 1 June 2016 02:10 (3 weeks ago) Permalink

trying to find a cartoon of Harambe and Cecil the Lion chilling together in heaven, but I'm not coming up with anything.

this slate article seems pretty sensible to me:

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2016/05/harambe_s_death_is_not_a_reason_for_moral_outrage_it_s_an_opportunity_to.html

We should look at Harambe’s death as an unfortunate consequence of what essentially amounts to a freak accident and invest the time and money being spent mourning him into doing things that actually matter for gorilla survival. Unfortunately, these things—preserving their habitats, stopping poaching, slowing climate change—are much more difficult and complex endeavors than advocating that child protective services investigate whether the 4-year-old’s parents acted negligently.

soref, Wednesday, 1 June 2016 02:14 (3 weeks ago) Permalink

Surely something can be done along the lines of a certain US NFL team and hat-cat, say with the word "gorilla"?

ghosts that don't exist (Neil S), Wednesday, 1 June 2016 06:35 (3 weeks ago) Permalink

woah, so louis ck really likes gorillas then

it's getting ott in here / so take off all your clothes (stevie), Wednesday, 1 June 2016 08:17 (3 weeks ago) Permalink

I can't believe I have to say it: I don't think tits particularly irrational or gross

reader, if you love him so much why don't you marry him? (DJ Mencap), Wednesday, 1 June 2016 09:01 (3 weeks ago) Permalink

lol you made that right

And the cry rang out all o'er the town / Good Heavens! Tay is down (imago), Wednesday, 1 June 2016 09:26 (3 weeks ago) Permalink

xp hahaha

Le Bateau Ivre, Wednesday, 1 June 2016 10:11 (3 weeks ago) Permalink

The little ad boxes pretending to be articles we're egregious enough without me spending the whole day wondering what this bafflement inducing fuckery is supposed to mean and and what it could possibly have to do with lifehacks.

tsrobodo, Friday, 3 June 2016 11:15 (3 weeks ago) Permalink

I dont believe it

Noodle Vague, Friday, 3 June 2016 11:30 (3 weeks ago) Permalink

Spoiler alert: it's the Americans.

On a Raqqa tip (ShariVari), Friday, 3 June 2016 11:32 (3 weeks ago) Permalink

get those adblockers updated, every penneth of revenue you deprive them of is a small victory.

calzino, Friday, 3 June 2016 11:40 (3 weeks ago) Permalink

adblocking is killing music

Noodle Vague, Friday, 3 June 2016 11:45 (3 weeks ago) Permalink

i really could do without seeing a finely-detailed photo of polly toynbee's face in the middle of EVERY SINGLE ARTICLE i read in the guardian app.

illegal economic migration (Tracer Hand), Friday, 3 June 2016 12:08 (3 weeks ago) Permalink

if I had 24 hours to live I would click on every one of those weird grainy listicle ads. right now I'm scared of the consequences

reader, if you love him so much why don't you marry him? (DJ Mencap), Friday, 3 June 2016 12:43 (3 weeks ago) Permalink

If you click on the ads you die within 24 hours so it's win-win.

ǂbait (seandalai), Friday, 3 June 2016 13:24 (3 weeks ago) Permalink

Amazing.

Eyeball Kicks, Wednesday, 8 June 2016 09:34 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

even if I'm just using some random computer for a few minutes, Ima install adblock. Afraid that any business model that depends on my tolerance for online adverts is gonna need a bit of rethinking.

So you are a hippocrite, face it! (Bananaman Begins), Wednesday, 8 June 2016 09:43 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

the whole tweed trousers ww2 moustache plus bowtie thing, has anyone seen more than like 1 or 2 of this chimerical figure, ever? maybe 4/5 years ago? the weird thing when people talk about "hipsters" in the uk is that splinters of the hundreds of strange mini-trends that might be swept together in a thinkpiece seem to have spread outside london, creating some warped vision. like deep fried pickles or whatever are like in provincial hotels. craft beer is in weatherspoons. like it's always been a meaningless catch-all, but the word hipster in the uk now seems to be associated with a heaving weight of things, as evidenced by that article. it feels like "hipster" things have become so mainstream that there's now some kind of self-hatred/misanthropy at work, like everyone dismissing a thing even as a byron burger opens up on every street.

essentially some of the greatest fucking idiots in britain are the ones who are really confused about what the word "hipster" means, but very angry about it too.

japanese mage (LocalGarda), Wednesday, 8 June 2016 09:59 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

was more peeved about claiming plaid shirts and Arcade Fire albums as "normal" tbh

The Brexit Club (Noodle Vague), Wednesday, 8 June 2016 10:02 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

there are prob like 40 irritating things in there

japanese mage (LocalGarda), Wednesday, 8 June 2016 10:05 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

Do I have to read that?

Larry 'Leg' Smith (Tom D.), Wednesday, 8 June 2016 10:08 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

it speaks to a deep existential lostness seething away

The Brexit Club (Noodle Vague), Wednesday, 8 June 2016 10:08 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

or maybe it is just a bit of fun

The Brexit Club (Noodle Vague), Wednesday, 8 June 2016 10:09 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

I'm not sure what kind of fun

The Brexit Club (Noodle Vague), Wednesday, 8 June 2016 10:09 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

just banter

japanese mage (LocalGarda), Wednesday, 8 June 2016 10:10 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

at this point I wd quote the bit in Ulysses where Bloom reads that short story on the bog but I'm not sure I can be bothered to do the work

The Brexit Club (Noodle Vague), Wednesday, 8 June 2016 10:10 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

i just don't really understand the centre point of society from which the writers of these kind of pieces purport to speak.

japanese mage (LocalGarda), Wednesday, 8 June 2016 10:12 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

Quietly he read, restraining himself, the first column and, yielding but resisting, began the second. Midway, his last resistance yielding, he allowed his bowels to ease themselves quietly as he read, reading still patiently that slight constipation of yesterday quite gone. Hope it’s not too big bring on piles again. No, just right. So. Ah! Costive. One tabloid of cascara sagrada. Life might be so. It did not move or touch him but it was something quick and neat. Print anything now. Silly season. He read on, seated calm above his own rising smell. Neat certainly. Matcham often thinks of the masterstroke by which he won the laughing witch who now. Begins and ends morally. Hand in hand. Smart. He glanced back through what he had read and, while feeling his water flow quietly, he envied kindly Mr Beaufoy who had written it and received payment of three pounds, thirteen and six.

The Brexit Club (Noodle Vague), Wednesday, 8 June 2016 10:14 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

I thought why not?

The Brexit Club (Noodle Vague), Wednesday, 8 June 2016 10:14 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

i'm not a hipster. no way. not like those other lames

So you are a hippocrite, face it! (Bananaman Begins), Wednesday, 8 June 2016 10:15 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

I envy kindly Mr Golby

The Brexit Club (Noodle Vague), Wednesday, 8 June 2016 10:15 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

toiling away to make a living out of observing the social minutiae others might overlook, or just marking time, refining that prose style, holding it together until the great London novel is complete

The Brexit Club (Noodle Vague), Wednesday, 8 June 2016 10:17 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

Look at this hipster twat, I arsk you...

Larry 'Leg' Smith (Tom D.), Wednesday, 8 June 2016 10:17 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

Larry 'Leg' Smith (Tom D.), Wednesday, 8 June 2016 10:18 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

Great hair Jimmy had.

Larry 'Leg' Smith (Tom D.), Wednesday, 8 June 2016 10:19 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

it feels like "hipster" things have become so mainstream that there's now some kind of self-hatred/misanthropy at work

Good !

Half-baked profundities. Self-referential smirkiness (Bob Six), Wednesday, 8 June 2016 12:34 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

how bout those hipsters huh

So you are a hippocrite, face it! (Bananaman Begins), Wednesday, 8 June 2016 15:12 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

The author is one of those UK Vice twats who all write the same article in exactly the same way over and over again, right?

Matt DC, Wednesday, 8 June 2016 15:16 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

Seems sub-Vice if that's even possible.

japanese mage (LocalGarda), Wednesday, 8 June 2016 15:19 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

2 weeks pass...

“Iceland knows everything about English football, we are English football crazy. I don’t think we need analyse them much but I don’t think they know too much about Iceland players. I could count all the players [as being dangerous] it is a creative team a little bit different the English tea than before as before, RH deserves credit for that – there are a lot of threats in England team.”

rap game lee rigby (nakhchivan), Thursday, 23 June 2016 01:27 (4 days ago) Permalink

this is presumably what all jamie jackson content looks like before being chopped into something resembling english prose

rap game lee rigby (nakhchivan), Thursday, 23 June 2016 01:28 (4 days ago) Permalink


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.