Saturday, November 06, 2004

Parsons and Burchill Vs. Peel

-Note use of default Burchill terms of argumentation: "middle class", "working class",
"public schoolboy", "well-connected", "hippy". It is also a matter of routine for the political propagandist to dig up some kind of flimsy rumour about sexual misconduct when lacking an argument. Burchill is a gutter-press hack who is only fit to distribute the Socialist Worker outside of youth clubs.


Shame they never stayed together, then we might have killed off two birds with one stone. Parsons and Burchill, a pair of tiresome, anachronistic, class-obsessed cultural parasites. Some people went to public schools. Some people aren't working class. They are no more and no less responsible for it than the colour of their skin. Get over it you unreconstructed-Marxist fools.


Nelson Shuss said...

I admire Parsons for managing to flog so many copies of his naff novels, even though the credit should probably go to his publisher for some killer marketing.

Yet it's impossible to dispute that the awesome mediocrity of his writing clearly speaks to the mediocrity in so many readers.

Having said all that, it would be ace to drop a train on his head, not because he's so objectionable - I don't think anyone takes any of that seriously; The Mirror need someone to fill paper and his wooly prose and lack of a cutting edge fits the bill - but just because Nick Hornby probably wouldn't fall for the my anonymous request for a meeting under a train, tenously suspended in mid-air by a crane operated by yours truly.

Anonymous said...

Both of them are idiots, it's true, and think they are more important than ants you step on in the garden, when of course they aren't. However, Peel's own comments (featured in the Burchill article) are sadly pretty crucifying. If you have oral sex with a thirteen year old, it's not exactly something you should be telling the world about, is it? And what the hell is that Schoolgirl of Year thing . . . it sounds unsavoury. I used to have a great deal of respect for Peel. But his act was that . . . an act. And I came to see right through it. He was a capitalist rather than a socialist - the evidence proves that. He was more important than any other radio broadcaster, but I don't think any radio broadcaster is of any importance, in truth. I stopped listening to the radio a decade ago, but it didn't negatively impact my listening experiences; if anything, I listened to more good music without the radio. The more I think about it, the more ridiculous it seems to me to subject myself to someone else's music tastes. What qualifies someone to play their music library to the world? This is something I'm struggling to find an answer to. It would be cool to do it . . . I think anyone passionate about music would like to do it . . . but it's still ridiculous.

When a person dies, everyone forgets the negatives, which on one level, is heart-warming, but on another, is vomit-inducing. John Peel was a great broadcaster, but I don't particularly think he was a great man. So why must people make these claims. I really don't know. And how can anyone judge whose life is important? The life of a binman may be at least as important as the life of a radiobroadcaster (or as painfully irrelevant).
Whatever. The only reason I wish people didn't die is because I can't stomach the eulogies. It's all that's preventing me from becoming a serial killer, maybe.

Incidentally I think all journalists who publish novels should be shot in the heart. It's the only thing to do.


Nelson Shuss said...

I was that 13 year old girl in question, and I loved it.