Tuesday, September 02, 2008

Dating Websites: In Print

Commuting home tonight, you may spot in the London Paper a less foul-mouthed version of my Dating Website post below. Yes, I was bored and submitted it for publication.

Now I understand how it feels when real journalists bitch about people fucking with their copy. I am fine with my words getting tweaked, will allow someone to change what I’ve written for clarity’s sake, and accept that that’s all part of the game.

But when you have within the actual story an absolutely atrocious profile written by Christ-knows-who to highlight the poor quality of grammar/ people on site and that too gets re-written so that it's no longer atrocious, you've lost the whole gag that it may have been created by bored male teenagers or a Russian crime syndicate. I mean, tweak, yes, but DIDN’T YOU READ THE ARTICLE FIRST AND GET THE FUCKING POINT???

I also notice they chose not to publish my awful 6-year-old me photo. Probably wise.

Still, thanks for publishing, London Paper.


Dom said...

I'll keep an eye out for that on my way to Tai Chi. There are normally quite a few freebie papers kicking about.

Huw said...

Is there a "more or bore" number I can text?

Please Don't Eat With Your Mouth Open said...

Haha...caught it on the train this evening. Started reading and thought 'de ja vu' then realised it was you!

Good stuff, well done though! They must get thousands sent in. Yees it is an absolute pain in the arse when they mess with the words. The Mail did the same to mine. Why can't they keep their grubby editing little paws off?

I await the more / bore results tomorrow...are you nervous about the all important percentage? ;)

Please Don't Eat With Your Mouth Open said...

ps. I also wondered if they thought Fwenge Ebola was a real name, or if they just assumed you were Ukranian or something, hence the dodgy grammar?

Paperbag Princess said...

Should you feel so moved, you could do a Giles Coren style rant...


After all, you're a published writer now dahhlink ;-)

Z said...

So, is it going on your CV?

fwengebola said...

Dom ~ I certainly hope that your Tai Chi sesh was more edifying than reading my recycled blogpost.
Huw ~ No.
(88855. *Cough*)
Jo ~ Oh excellent stuff! You read it by accident. But please don't tell me you read the Daily Heil on purpose. I am honestly not bothered about tomorrow's percentages. Providing it's in the 80 plusses.
For 'More', natch.
Jo2 ~ I did say in the correspondance that it was a pseydonym. I think they knew, though.
PP ~ Funnily enough (i.e. not that funnily enough), I'd read that a few days ago.
Sadly enough, I did write to them explaining that the bad prose was intentional and should've been left. But with less bile than Coren. I don't expect a reply.
Z ~ What CV?

Dom said...

I have to admit the original version on the website was better than the published version, however, it helped pass the time on the train :) I was going to vote but then saw it was 25p so I decided 'sod it'.

Trixie said...

Hey, at least you got printed!

Dandelion said...

FWENG! I know you're not bothered, but have you seen today's paper?
You were voted 0% bore, 100% more. That's gotta be better than sex, right?

Here's the link: said...


Anonymous said...

You probably should have used a [sic] after the quote from the profile. Maybe they would have left it alone then.

Anonymous said...

Yay for being in print, and your percentage.

Argh for them fucking with the grammar.

fwengebola said...

Dom ~ I can't say I blame you, to be honest. I'm still not sure why anyone would do that, unless they wrote it. *cough*
Trix ~ Yes, that's some ego-wanking consolation.
Dand ~ You were the first to notify me and I didn't quite believe it until I got that night's paper - somewhat frantically.
Here's the link ~ Yes, thanks!
Anon ~ Yes, good point, but it would've bewildered them, no doubt.
Mar ~ Yes, a mightily double-edged sword.