Competitions nos. 191A and 191B: results

These are set by Martin Armstrong. The first suggests that there might be a way of an author writing a blurb that might prevent a reviewer from being unkind to it. the more one thinks about this, the harder it seems to be to come up with an idea. But surely those intrepid entrants in the early thirties can do better.

No, not at all. This is the first time the A competition has come completely to grief (it’s happened to the B competition). Part of the problem is that the entrants automatically satirise the reviewer (and Armstrong is the lead reviewer for the WR). Two words: ‘No prizes’.

Armstrong doesn’t cover himself with glory in the B competition. He quotes Charles Kingsley from memory:

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERAand asks for a ‘disgustingly mercenary’ version in the same form.

But as he admits, his memory is at fault – it’s ‘sweet maid’ and ‘let who can’. One of the many who write to correct him says that ‘sweet child’ is ‘too sickly sentimental’. As Armstrong says, why more than ‘sweet maid’? He doesn’t get it, and nor do I.

With all the money at his disposal from the collapse of A, he gives half-a-guinea each to Charles G. Box, William Bliss, E.W.Fordham (third consecutive victory) and C.J.S.:

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s