OTHER JOURNAL ENTRIES...
PREVIOUS JOURNAL ENTRY...
05/02/07: Welcome back y'all: since my last update I've worked like a dog (OK, not really) and managed to convert --Yisrayl's Character Gallery-- in the Falling As They Might section over to my spiffy new site format, leaving just --Frere-Sama-- to do. Well, what are you waiting for? Go and take a --look-- ! I was going to make some shiny buttons to take visitors backwards and forwards through the section, but decided it was probably better to err on the side of simplicity.
My work with H20 Magazine continues ... semi-apace. I've been pitching some poetry I was sent*, but after sending that in, along with my own submissions (to which I added a fiendishly difficult cryptic crossword of my own creation), I seem to have been plunged into a sort of disapproving limbo, and have little to no idea why this might be. In fact, I'm starting to feel a wee bit annoyed. My woes started a few weeks ago, when with the blessing of editor Amy Lawrence and at the instigation of my Creative Writing tutor I sent out an appeal for articles to my Creative Writing year via the University's webmail system. Not too long afterwards, I was leapt upon and savaged by Deputy Editor Dan Polak. My crime? Incorrectly dubbing myself "Deputy Editor" rather than "Junior Editor". It was an honest mistake, but the rebuke I was delivered gave the impression I had masterminded some sort of clandestine plot to usurp the power and influence of my elders and betters. I actually thought Dan was the Sports Editor, but in an effort to save face, I composed the following groveling white-lie apology:
"Dear Dan,
I must apologise for my presumptuous and incorrect use of the title of Deputy Editor. I thought you were co-editor with Amy, and obviously got confused when she gave us our jobs at the Garfunkel.
Friends?
Simon".
Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. Humble pie much? Anyhow, that apology was apparently accepted (I presumed Dan must have been doing some modules in Creative Writing, which is why he received the email). Fast-forward to this morning, when I received the following communiqué from Amy herself:
"Sorry, only half of that sent for some reason! Anyway, please can you run any emails sent out to students by me first, as I don't like the way you portrayed us.
See you in the week
Amy Lawrence
Editor
<very long list of contact details, including an incorrect phone number which redirects to the Student Union bar, snipped to preserve the innocent>".
Yes, that was the whole email. Does that seem professional to you? "I don't like the way you portrayed us". Quite apart from leaving me with the Sword of Damocles hanging over my head until Wednesday, the whole thing is incredibly unclear. I PRESUME her beef is with my mass-email appeal rather than my communication with Jake Saw (the poet), but who knows? But if she is unhappy with the mass-email, how did she get a hold of it? Did Dan forward it to her, perhaps with some note along the lines of "LOOK WHAT THIS IDIOT IS SAYING ABOUT US!"? Or did some IT ingénue accidentally forward my email along with their submissions? And to what, exactly, is she objecting? I have some ideas:
"We will shortly be undergoing a complete redesign to compete with Bath University's very professional-looking "Student Impact". As a result, this is a good time to get your submissions in, whilst our standards remain low, low, low!".
Has Amy taken offence at the suggestion that her production is anything less than God's own fiery-fingered writ? No, surely ANYONE could work out this was supposed to be a self-depreciating joke, a light-hearted "carnival busker"-style way of getting people to send stuff in NOW.
"The deadline for submission for the next issue is Feb 2nd, with the magazine going out on the 8th".
Could I possibly have flubbed the date, giving would-be submitters less time to prepare? Does that really warrant such an ashen tone?
"You can send articles to myself at 121811@bathspa.ac.uk or to our lovely editor Amy's official webmail account at h20@bathspa.ac.uk (that's "20" as in the number, NOT "2O", chemistry buffs!)".
Have I left Dan out of the loop? Is Amy a rabid feminist who objects to the word "lovely" being applied to her by a man, even in a mock-theatrical context?
"**Please also note that for controversial reasons we are presently unable to publish any article that recommends or even mention the name of any company other than our advertisers (namely, Club XL, Moles, Porter, and Abbey Taxis), lest we be seen as diluting their market presence. Any submissions that mention any other company or any street address in Bath will have said references <blanked> out**".
This is the favourite. However, this is basically a word-for-word repetition of what Amy said to me in our last meeting. No companies, no endorsing non-advertisers, no street addresses - any submissions that mention companies or street addresses get <blanked> (censored - it suddenly strikes me that Amy might have interpreted my <blanked> as a swearword). Maybe the truth here reflects too badly on our advertisers? Or perhaps it was my use of the word "controversial"? I would have thought laying down these rules from the off (however restrictive and unpopular) would make things easier further down the road - e.g. if we don't say anything and someone sends in a restaurant review (which is apparently a BIG no-no, even if you slate them, because you're giving them free publicity while our advertisers are paying for it**).
Anyway, improper titular appropriations aside (mea culpa, et cetera), I can't actually see anything wrong with this email. Despite the dire undercurrents of our editor's communiqué, it doesn't appear that I've been "fired", and quite frankly, if she had attempted to excommunicate me from the newsletter, I might well have told her to stick her interdict somewhere unmentionable. I am not being paid for my contributions, I have not actually been given any kind of REAL position I could put on a CV, I have as yet received NO feedback on my contributions, no indication that they will actually be used, or even a simple note thanking me for my efforts. I have dealt with individuals who have been impressed by my prompt response when their messages just seem to disappear when sent to the main account. Furthermore, I was the one who came up with the idea of email-spamming my classmates, so even if I somehow "misrepresented" the newsletter, the fact is no-one would even think about sending anything in if they didn't know we were accepting submissions. Who was it who argued any publicity was good publicity again?
In other news, my second attempt at making cookies*** succeeded beyond my wildest dreams, producing three batches of crisp, delicious cookies flavoured with ground almonds. I served the first two batches when my parents came up to visit, and they were extremely well received (TOP SREGAN TIP: Baking for guests is easy and goes down well even if the resulting product is inedible). Between sessions, I stored the dough in the freezer (I only used half the recipe, but there was enough to make 8-9 large cookies and a similar number of "bite-size" biscuits), and it kept beautifully.
Until next time, then, true believers, farewell!
Signing off, blessings all round, praise be to <blank> Most High, etc.
* Courtesy of the very emo Jake Saw.
** I personally think this is doggy doo, since last time I checked, advertisers pay for ADVERTS, not to alter the view of reality conveyed by columnists, opinion articles, and reviews. I very much doubt that Marks & Spencer's gets huffy when the Daily Mail writes an interest article on, say, Chao Ming's Big Ribs And Steak Emporium without charging Mr. Ming £50K up-front, even though both might, theoretically, sell a sirloin joint. If this sort of near-absolute editorial control by advertisers over student newspapers represents the future of the mainstream media, it's not a future I care to live in. But do my views on the freedom of the media show through in my appeal for articles?
*** See my previous journal entry --here-- for the sad tale of my first attempt.