One year. 100 articles. So we're having a Reader's Party. Come along to Upsidecrown.
Point of View
22 March 2001
19th March 2001
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN
I am writing to complain about the content of the website 'upsideclown'. This site purports to be a reputable concern, a hotbed of new writing talent and a forum for 'youth' opinion. In reality it encourages a ferment of lies and deceit, and seeks only to mislead.
Some of the members of said collective clearly have aspirations to be serious writers: these show potential and, frankly, deserve to be aired in a more salubrious and credible environment. There are others, however, who have wasted their opportunity to speak, and use the medium as a space for mindless rant, monotonous polemic and victimisation.
Chief among these is Victor, whose literary purpose appears to be wholly destructive. Even the name is surely a disguise - else the individual is either supremely unlucky or considerably older than his counterparts.
Victor's writing in the main consists of imposing his own bigoted personal views on the rest of the world. Under the flimsy justificatory veil of satire, he is clearly no more than a petty fascist, keen to eradicate diversity. Insults are levelled in the basest terms, with little if no concern for political correctness. This format varies rarely, if ever, calling into question the writer's literary credentials. In the creative menagerie, Victor is a one trick animal. As such his shelf life is limited - the scrupulous reader will accept this kind of filth only for a certain amount of time.
The writer's malicious stance is compounded by his desire to confuse and mislead. No doubt Victor thinks that he is blurring the distinction between truth and fiction in an enlightened, humorous and slightly disorientating fashion. He isn't. He just tells lies. Whoever heard of a sweet made from dismembered fishermen? Who does he think he is kidding? It is hardly subtle.
Victor takes us for mugs. He assumes that the audience is gullible and underinformed, and thus deals them yet another blow. How can this be seen as a positive literary contribution?
With regard to my criticisms of this particular individual's writing, I trust that they will be taken on board, and that there will be an overall improvement in the quality of Victor's output and a more optimistic emphasis. On a more general note I think that there is a lesson to be learnt here by all the contributors: when the man in the street comes home from work of an evening and greets his wife he does not want to be depressed further, nor does he need to be confused. Perhaps, then, thoughts should turn towards producing something a bit lighter - an account of a day trip, beauty tips, the odd recipe - in order to lift a reader's spirits.
Indeed, I have written a literary guide to this effect, still available in all good bookshops:
Writing for Pleasure, 1979, Grande Dame Publishing, $14.50, ISBN 12 4265 2769 7.
I hope that you will find this of help.
Dr E. J. Hunsucker