9 comments by 1 or more people

1. Paul Sinha

   What a charming man you are ! Sorry you think I have getting middling
   reviews , perhaps if you read my reviews in the Times , Independent ,
   Guardian, Telegraph you may realise your error. Or more specifically my
   review by Steve Bennett on Chortle , the website to which you also
   contribute reviews.
   But its good to see that you are happy to assume , about a show which
   you have not seen , that my race could be the only possible
   explanation for the nomination.
   Still , what would a nominatiom be without an ignorant backlash ?

   Paul xx
   i

   28 Aug 2006, 15:09

2. Dean Love

   Was just my personal feeling that the nominaton came a little out of no–where, hadn't heard much about the show prior to it, so it was somewhat off my radar – I don't have the time to read every review written so generally it tends to just be the ones in the papers like Three Weeks and Skinny Fest that I can pick up from the venues and obviously Chortle – the national press tends to sail over my head unless the reviews are pinned up on the board in the Pleasance Courtyard or simmilar.

   Nor am I assuming your race is the only explanation for the nomination, but as you point out, I haven't seen the show so I can't comment on it from a quality perspective. Plus I'm sure you're aware of all the politicising that goes along with these awards and while I believe and hope that the quality of the show is the sole reason for the nomination, I'm sure the thought has also crossed your mind as well as neither of us know the inner workings of the judgeing panel. I'd much rather race weren't an issue but it would likewise be naive to refuse to even acknowledge the possibilty. I'd much rather have tempered the above comment with something about how it's a great show and deserves the nomination regardless but as you say, I haven't seen it.

   Plus an off–hand comment on a blog read by around 15 people is truly the shittiest backlash ever.
   Apologies if I offended you and congratulations on the nomination, best of luck in the future.

   28 Aug 2006, 15:51

3. Dave Gorman

   Dean writes: "Was just my personal feeling that the nominaton came a little out of no–where, hadn't heard much about the show prior to it, so it was somewhat off my radar – I don't have the time to read every review written so generally it tends to just be the ones in the papers like Three Weeks and Skinny Fest that I can pick up from the venues and obviously Chortle – the national press tends to sail over my head unless the reviews are pinned up on the board in the Pleasance Courtyard or simmilar."

   Me: If you haven't seen the reviews… how come you had the impression it was getting middling reviews. You mean that your previous experience of Paul on the circuit has given you the impression that he'd probably be getting middling reviews and your limited imagination doesn't seem to allow for a one–man show in Edinburgh being different to what you've seen before.

   Dean continues: "Nor am I assuming your race is the only explanation for the nomination, but as you point out, I haven't seen the show so I can't comment on it from a quality perspective."

   Me: but you were commenting on it from a quality perspective… what you said was "I've seen Paul before and he's good but this is very surprising" which reads to me as "he's good… but not that good" … which is a comment on the quality of Paul as a comedian. Not about this show… but generally about him as a performer… and you're stupidly prepared to assume this is a guide to how good this show is… hence your surprise.
   It's very gracious of you to accept that race isn't the only explanation while horribly ungracious of you to leave the idea that it remains one of the explanation still hanging.

   Dean again: "Plus I'm sure you're aware of all the politicising that goes along with these awards…"

   Me: I'm not. Do tell? This is a trite sentence that assumes something is so well known it cannot be denied. I bet the judges would deny it. How do you think this politicising takes place? At what point in a discussion about which shows you like does someone say, "of course… we should make sure that a non–white act makes it on to the list." Can you actually imagine anyone saying it out loud? It's conspiracy theory style nonsense and irresponsible of you to state it as fact. Even if it is in a comment on a blog being read by around 15 (16, hello) people.

   … apparently my comment is too long… I will post the rest in a second comment.

   28 Aug 2006, 22:56

4. Dave Gorman

   My point continues, we pick up as Dean continues:
   "... and while I believe and hope that the quality of the show is the sole reason for the nomination, I'm sure the thought has also crossed your mind as well as neither of us know the inner workings of the judging panel"

   Me: So having established for a "fact" that the awards are inevitably subject to politicising you now believe and hope that Paul's show is on the list on merit while also suggesting that any reasonable man, why even Paul himself, has to acknowledge that it might not be the case. Or in other words… "okay… I was wrong… apparently other people have seen and enjoyed your show a great deal… but come on… you're brown… it's got to help."

   Dean: "I'd much rather have tempered the above comment with something about how it's a great show and deserves the nomination regardless but as you say, I haven't seen it.

   Me: So you having not seen it means you're unable to comment on whether or not it's a great show… but perfectly happy to suggest it's a bad show, there on a political–correctness–gone–mad ticket? Right ho.

   Dean: "Plus an off–hand comment on a blog read by around 15 people is truly the shittiest backlash ever."

   Me: You're right. Your casually racist, uninformed–pretending–to–be–informed and irresponsible comment was only seen by a small number of people and is unlikely to affect Paul's career in any way. Okay. So long as you're comfortable with that position I can see no reason why Paul should be upset.

   Dean: "Apologies if I offended you"

   Me: Oh that annoys me. In another entry where you were writing about the apology sent to you by the director of the Cowards show (?) you wrote: "It also annoyed me a little – it's the private apology to a public argument trick. You get to have the last word in public, then apologise in private so the other person looks bad if they don't accept it." Well your apology here is worse than that. It's not "I'm sorry… it was wrong of me to write what I did and I take it back" but the "I'm sorry if your offended" trick. This suggests that Paul might not be offended because your suggestion that he wasn't–worthy–of–a–nomination–and–only–got–on–the–list–because–of–his–race which in turn implies that if he is that's more to do with him than you. So instead of apologising for doing wrong you're saying, "I'm sorry you're so easily upset by the truth."

   Dean: "Congratulations on the nomination, best of luck in the future."

   Me: No problem with that… except that it is tacked on the end of a self–serving, mealy–mouthed non–apology.

   For what it's worth, I don't know Paul, I've never seen him do stand–up and I haven't seen his show. But I really don't enjoy reading a blog from someone who's supposed to have an open mind about comedy leaping to such an unpleasant conclusion so readily.

   28 Aug 2006, 22:57

5. Dean Love

   Dave: “If you haven’t seen the reviews… how come you had the impression it was getting middling reviews. You mean that your previous experience of Paul on the circuit has given you the impression that he’d probably be getting middling reviews and your limited imagination doesn’t seem to allow for a one–man show in Edinburgh being different to what you’ve seen before.”

   Me: No it’s just of the reviews I have seen none of them read brilliantly – turns out he got around 4 stars accross the board but none of the reviews I did read set of an alarm bell in my head saying ‘must see that’. And I’m not going to be able remember every single star rating for every show, to realise he was getting 4s accross the board. Secondly there’s generally a bit of a buzz about such shows – flyers thrusting flyers in your hands and telling you about the lastest great review. I didn’t really see this, hence how I formed that initial impression. It was wrong, but you asked how come, that’s how.

   Dave:but you were commenting on it from a quality perspective… what you said was “I’ve seen Paul before and he’s good but this is very surprising” which reads to me as “he’s good… but not that good” … which is a comment on the quality of Paul as a comedian. Not about this show… but generally about him as a performer… and you’re stupidly prepared to assume this is a guide to how good this show is… hence your surprise.

   Me:Well you read it wrong. It means Paul is a good comic but the nomination was unexpected. I’m not the only one that thought this. Robin Ince claims Paul Sinha looked charmingly perplexed by the whole nomination thing , the Scotsman said A surprise inclusion on the shortlist for the Best Act award was the virtually unknown Paul Sinha , and EdFestivals said Sinha was the surprise candidate
   I wasn’t surprised because I think Paul’s a bad comic, it’s just few people expected to see him on the shortlist. It was a surprise nomination to most people, however you try and spin it to prove I was pre-judging Paul’s show. And it turns out that I had infact seen Paul’s show in a preview and it was a good show but clearly not particulary memorable. Though obviously it may have changed since then and since the whole point of that gig was for acts to try out new stuff to a lovely audience without getting pre-judged it wouldn’t be fair to judge it on that either.

   Dave:”It’s very gracious of you to accept that race isn’t the only explanation while horribly ungracious of you to leave the idea that it remains one of the explanation still hanging.”

   Me:Well sorry but I’m standing by my guns on this one. Race clearly wasn’t the only reason Paul was nominated – even if it was the main factor (and I don’t believe for a second it was) there’s a whole host of other acts they could also have chosen. But I do think it there exists the possibility that it factored into the choice. I’m not saying it did, I never said it did, I merely said that the possibility existed and, given my cynical view of the whole notion of ‘awards’ for comedy, I wouldn’t be surprised with the panel if they did factor it in.

   04 Sep 2006, 17:25

6. Dean Love

   Dave: “Or in other words… “okay… I was wrong… apparently other people have seen and enjoyed your show a great deal… but come on… you’re brown… it’s got to help.” “

   Me: Again you are taking what I’m saying, re-stating it in a way that suits you and then argueing it. I simply mentioned that there existed the possibility that race was involved in the decision. It happened to occur to me while I was writing the thing so I wrote it down. If you can tell me catagorically that you know with absolute certainty this wasn’t the case then fair enough.
   I never claimed that race was a factor, just that race could have been a factor. It’s unfortunate that I didn’t know anything else of the show to include that comment along with some others, so it ends up being given undue reverence, but the title of the entry makes it clear they are merely some ‘quick thoughts’ – this isn’t a piece of writing being nationally published or put on the front page of Chortle.

   Dave: “You’re right. Your casually racist, uninformed–pretending–to–be–informed and irresponsible comment was only seen by a small number of people and is unlikely to affect Paul’s career in any way. Okay. So long as you’re comfortable with that position I can see no reason why Paul should be upset.”

   Me: Racist? I don’t think it was. If mentioning the possibility that a racial motivation could exist makes you a racist then in that case, yes, I’m a racist. Uninformed? Perhaps – I’d seen 7 of the 10 shows on the combined shortlist, I’d argue that puts me in a fairly informed position. I doubt there were that many people outside the panel themselves that had seen more. Irresponsible? I’m not even sure what you mean by that in this context.

   Dave: “Oh that annoys me … It’s not “I’m sorry… it was wrong of me to write what I did and I take it back” but the “I’m sorry if your offended” trick.”

   Me: It’s because I don’t take it back, if I wanted to take it back I’d remove it from the entry or put a note on there (like I added a note correcting the factual inaccuracy on the ‘middling reviews’ comment). I stand by the fact that race may have been a factor. The evidence and arguements Paul has presented push me away from believing that they were a factor but to say the possibility doesn’t even exist is naive. But at the same time I am actually a nice person, and I don’t like offending people, and I’m regretful if any of my writing does offend someone. It has done in the past, and it will do in the future, and when it does I’ll apologise for the offense it’s caused. But I won’t censor myself to avoid potentially offending everybody and everyone. Because where do you stop? You’d have to remove a whole section from your Googlewhack show to avoid offending Fundamentalist Creationists for a start.

   I happen to believe that race may have been involved. I don’t have evidence for that but nor do you have evidence against. It’s like the existance of God, it can’t be prooved either way. Now if my viewpoint has offended someone then I’m sorry for that, I truly am. But I’m not going to change my viewpoint because of it. And at the end of that day all that viewpoint was is “there exists the possibility that race was a factor in the decision”.

   Dave: “But I really don’t enjoy reading a blog from someone who’s supposed to have an open mind about comedy leaping to such an unpleasant conclusion so readily.”

   Me: I didn’t leap to any conclusion, the thought merely crossed my mind. But assuming it’s not part of some new show where you spend an entire month doing nothing but reading the entirety of Warwick Blogs all day, every day – there’s nothing forcing you to read this blog if you don’t enjoy it.

   04 Sep 2006, 17:25

7. Paul Sinha

   Has anyone not realised what actually probably happened ? The panel were under orders to include an ethnic and a gay , and couldnt believe their luck when the opportunity to kill two birds with one stone arose . Stephen K Amos must be devastated.

   Jesus , Dean , as you know I was prepared to give you a mighty degree of the benefit of the doubt , but since you are continuing to play the race card then i despair.

   05 Sep 2006, 12:48

8. Jack Sommers

   Dean Love’s writing is funnier than anything he will ever review.

   05 Sep 2006, 21:29

9. Dave Gorman

   If you don’t believe that race was a factor then don’t posit the idea that it might have been.
   “I’m not saying it was political correctness … but it could have been” is just a shitty way of floating the idea without taking responsibility for it… and of course it’s still a judgement on Paul as a comic.

   Clearly if you’d seen his show and thought it was the best thing in the festival you wouldn’t have considered race a possible factor in his nomination…

   You’re right you didn’t leap to any conclusions you just wrote what you were thinking. And what you were thinking was… “Hmmm… Paul isn’t that funny… maybe it’s because he’s asian… yeah… that could be it.”

   08 Sep 2006, 14:39

Trackbacks

Trackback URL: http://blogs.warwick.ac.uk/loved/entry/some_quick_thoughts/trackback/

1. Eddies - 2 out of 3

   Phil Nichol and Josie Long win Best Act and Best Newcomer respectively, with Mark Watson winning the panel prize So 2 out of 3 guessed correctly, and the other one ...

   And Now For a Word - 27 Aug 2006, 00:53