I read and didn’t think very much of this Ruth Padel review the other week, with its rehashing of the reviewee’s CV, and thought this response said more or less all that needed to be said. But now it has taken Private Eye to remind me that Padel is chairing the Forward Prize this year and was reviewing someone (Fiona Sampson) on the shortlist. Surely she should now resign? It doesn’t matter that it’s a positive review. She just shouldn’t have written it. It’s laughable, really.
I couldn’t think of an image to accompany this post, so why not a picture of Santra the yoga-practising bear.
2 comments:
I suppose it doesn't matter that the review read like a load of awld shite either, but it'd be good if she resigned on either count I'd say.
Flabby, needlessly biographical bumf or no, surely making her opinions known at all contravenes some kind of judgey rule? Should very much resign, yes. Replace her with yoga bear says I.
It seems to be the sport among the Forward judges this year:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2010/jul/20/forward-poetry-prize-shortlist
“Instead, Williams tipped Lachlan Mackinnon's Small Hours, which includes a prose poem inspired by the early death of a friend. "I rather fancy Lachlan Mackinnon," Williams said. "I got the most enjoyment out of his prose, the eye skims over it pretty easily ... You hear his voice, a very distinctive voice, and it's not quite like prose, it's got that spontaneous thing about it."
Post a Comment