Skip to content

Not much to say other than…

July 24, 2008

…what a cock. What a total and utter cock.

I love that his letter is riddled with mistakes and that he signs off with “All the best” after berating the subs for a good 13 pars.

My mum’s bloke is related (by marriage) to the Corens. Giles is a cock of the highest variety.

I do hope the Times told him where to go.

11 Comments leave one →
  1. July 24, 2008 12:36 pm

    To be honest, I’m with Coren on this.

  2. July 24, 2008 12:44 pm

    And his letter isn’t for a readership of many thousands…

  3. July 24, 2008 1:19 pm

    I’ve seen him on some obscure televisual thing I can’t quite recall and was obviously underwhelmed. I see his point but he must conside writing for The Times is an honour and there are loads who’d happily take his arsey place if he’s unhappy.

    SH makes a good point regarding this being posted on The Guardian online thingy.

  4. Not a Coren permalink
    July 28, 2008 9:27 am

    I agree with Swineshead. What’s the point in being devoted to your art of some fuckpig is going to come along and ruin it? Why bother trying to be clever, if it’s just going to be butchered anyway? And although it didn’t do well for his argument, I’d forgive him for not being anally retentive about his grammar in his letter, since that’s not really the point he’s making.
    Hanging one of my paintings in the Tate would be an honour, but I’d never, ever want to be there again if some penis decided they didn’t like part of it, so stripped out every instance of the colour orange. In my opinion his point is completely fair.

  5. July 28, 2008 9:37 am

    I can totally symapthise with writers whose work is totally ripped to shreds by an over zealous sub to the point that it doesn’t make sense. But to get *that* arsey over the word ‘a’, and to be that snooty and precious about seeing every PDF? Nah, he’s still a cock.

  6. July 30, 2008 3:09 pm

    The Tate comparison is crude. Feature writing never has been and never will be art. That’s just a truth.

  7. August 3, 2008 6:47 pm

    There was another email from Giles Coren to the subs at The Times that was reprinted along with the one above in popbitch, and that one was even worse.

    As someone who’s written articles for magazines and been edited, I can understand Coren’s frustration. He does have a valid point – that he was making a joke and his joke was rather ruined by the edit. HOWEVER, that does not make his email excusable for two reasons. Firstly, there was no need for him to be so condescending and rude – he could have made the same point in a much more respectful way. If you manage to find the other email I mentioned above, you’ll see that in that he completely slagged off a poor sub with very little reason to. Secondly, that is part of the deal when you write for a magazine or newspaper – you get edited. The editing is out of your control. Deal with it.

  8. Not a Coren permalink
    August 6, 2008 9:15 am

    Crude? Hmm… you totally missed my point about with that Tate analogy. Calling it crude only suggests any interpretations made by you are equally as lazy. You’re an idiot. My point was about pride. I used that analogy not because I was making parallels with his writing and art, but because an artist having their work in the Tate would be on a similar scale to a writer being published in the Times or any other large publication. Editing is about checking for mistakes and aligning the editorial voice. Regardless of whether you think it was a relevant joke or not, it was essentially left in but ruined. That’s the point. Whether you think feature writing lacks integrity or not, you can’t undermine taking pride in your work. Something the sub clearly didn’t do. If you also took great pride in what you do – which I sense you don’t, since you don’t get it – you’d understand that.

  9. August 6, 2008 10:10 am

    Fight fight fight!

    I agree that it was frustrating that his joke was ruined. But to “lose sleep over it?” and for it to ruin his weekend??? The guy needs therapy.

  10. August 11, 2008 10:13 pm

    You’re an idiot too. Writing for a publication like The Times or Guardian is more akin to an artist being commissioned to do something like, say, an advertisement in which the designer/artist’s creativity is integral but the commissioner gets a final say on the finished article.

    And of course my ‘interpretation’ was lazy. You referred to his writing as ‘art’ then swaggered into a Tate Modern analogy.

  11. John Q Wagonwheel permalink
    August 11, 2008 11:18 pm

    I’m with Dave on this one. I also think he was a total cock for writing a massive, arsey letter to the subs over a shit joke that relied on one indefinite article. He’s a pretentious arse whose smug self-opinion could do with a bit of pricking, which, I hope, is why the Guardian published it.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: