Dear Bourbon (and all)
Thank you for taking the time to respond with such a long post, that many clearly agree with. I have learned some useful lessons from this.
With a pseudonym like Bourbon I guess you are to be considered The Biscuit round here, possibly even the editor in disguise. So I’m not going to win any argument, nor see the sense in any mud-slinging, however I would like to take this opportunity to share some observations while responding to all your points.
I am sorry to hear of your reading difficulties with ordinary level English, but I rather think that is what comes of investing in S level ‘Precision English’ it affords little if any tolerance. This may also have blinded you somewhat to the subjective breadth of what counts as humour by others. Though I do appreciate the focus here for Newsbiscuit has to be the FP style, for the intended readership, which I’m still trying to grasp.
The comma in para 1 is not rogue in my mind. I use commas to provide pause for emphasis as I did with ‘already in the media’. (The humour there, only for some it seems, is that ‘media’ would connect with the process of cloning.) Your point does encourages me to question my use of commas. Maybe inferences should be self-evident by choice of word alone. I guess I’m writing the way I speak, not the way people wish to read.
While I do agree that a poor start kills what follows, I do actually read all my drafts out loud and edit them a number of times before posting. Sorry if I’m not acceptably critical yet.
The humour in para 2 is in questioning the vetting of staff.
Para 3 presents the idea that a scientist could be so caught up in their achievement, that they would excitedly plead guilty.
I agree that considering the number of times I read this out aloud, and edited it, I still managed to miss the capital B which Sandra deserves. But hell, that is how shit it is to be dyslexic! And maybe there’s no place for inclusive attitudes on Newsbiscuit.
When I got half way through your post I understood why you didn’t get the Sandra Bullock reference, because you hadn’t a clue about Carly Rae Jepsen and what she looks like, having to check the web. This article then fails as it becomes obscure to those readers who maybe do not follow popular music.
I did not neglect to infer that the egg came from Sandra Bullock “This means that with the egg they stole from me I’m just as much cloned as Kylie”. If everything has to be spelled out to readers then it becomes boring and predictable, losing opportunity for tension. Certainly it is a very bad sign if jokes need any explaining, as I am doing now.
We clearly have different definitions of Irony, and humour more broadly, because your comma fetish example is too weak to raise a smile from me.
Thanks for the heads up with how to start a quote, I never knew that.
Why on Earth would I have explained the cloning resulted in Carly Rae Jepsen at the beginning, that’s where the story was headed, apart from apparently down the pan. That’s like advising someone to always give the punch-line first. No I don’t agree.
The ‘jokes’ in the final para are the similarity between the music of Carly and Kylie confusing those who would sing along, and this being seen as a great success by the scientists, plus the final comment that they are looking forward to seeing the gold hot-pants back again. Sorry if that is too low brow for the ‘team’, or rather ‘group’ which I have seen are often throwing non-constructive criticisms at one another.
It would seem to me that what you might have going on with this site is using very high standards mixed with contradictions to confuse and discourage newbies from writing, so that those who remain get a greater chance of getting on the FP. Well it would seem that the editor, possibly you, makes a personal choice anyway, as I have seen some unclear connections between scoring and FPing.
1) I will look to improve my grammar, bearing in mind that you cannot easily change what you don’t see, just as I expect your attitude not to change from my above comments.
2) Yes I will try listening to the rhythm of my words. I admit I haven’t considered doing that. This is probably the most valuable thing I take from this experience.
3) While it may not look like it, structure is very important to me.
4) Reading and editing is something I do, and if I do not get blocked I will certainly post less articles now and be hyper critical, in an attempt to fit the approved site attitude, up until my amusement wanes of course.
6) I know this.
While my response might sound bitter in places, there are points taken, relevant to me beyond this site.
Nevertheless, I anticipate that my serious response may receive unintended laughs from the group, beyond that of any of my submissions, as a derisory kick up the arse for actually being this shit.
I’ll think on.
PS a big thank you to Lucy for confirming my suspicions about my pseudonym being understood to mean 'Skip this'.