Jez and I have long had a dispute over the relative merits of Zoe Williams, columnist for The Guardian, but it’s recently come to a head. As ever Jez is being a stubborn arse on the matter and I know he’ll never concede that her writing is at least no worse than some of the other Polly Filler writers in the broadsheet press let alone see reason and get over it. But I need some backup here because I really like her stuff. So for all you Guardian readers: Zoe Williams, a force for good or evil incarnate? Cast your votes in the comments…
-
Follow me
RSS feeds
Feed for the whole blog.
Feed for the comments.
Feed for just the Links
Feed for just the PostsEmail subscription
To get a daily digest of posts and links from this blog (and nothing else), pop your email in this box:Yahoo Pipe
This monster sucks in all my blogs from all over the place should you fancy a bit of Pete overkill.Twitter dump
I have a separate Twitter account, @petepump, which, if you follow, will alert you when I write a new post here or on ASH-10.com. YMMV.Friendfeed
I'm not an active user of FF (to be honest I'm not sure how using it sustainably is possible) but if you like your social media in crack cocaine form here's all my stuff.LiveJournal
I don't use LJ but I have readers who do. Add me to your friends list
You mean there really are Guardian readers?
She’s not the worst. I’d take her over Tim Dowling. He should be thrown off a curb. I reckon it’d kill him.
I wouldn’t though say she’s a force for good. She’s a force for filling pages without saying much.
Carroline Sullivan, the music reviewer, is definitely a force for evil, or at least a force for ignorance.
she look s kind of hot in her photo, i wonder if she is hot in person? I want to go to the Guarniad with my porfolio soon maybe I will meet her.
I do not recall reading any of her works however.
also can someone explain why columnists are there? I don’t understand… Who are they? Why should we read their opinions?
There what we had before we had A-list bloggers. Same applies.
She’s shit.
I’ve never said she was a force for evil. She’s just not fucking funny. Ever. Which is a major flaw in someone who’s job it is to write humour filler items. And she lacks any kind of insight. And she’s up herself. And logically inconsistent. OK, maybe she is a force for evil.
I always though they were there to provide gigs for illustrators
Can’t stand her.
I like her a lot; when she initially started I was unsure about her, and she’s one of those writers who doesn’t always have something to say, but she’s a good read and has grown on me a lot.
Which is the point of columnists incidentally. The answer as to why we should read them is because over time we get to know them and start to feel interested in their opinions. If I pick up an Independent or a Times and read the columnists I often don’t get very far because I don’t follow them regularly.
But the job of a columnist is to build up a rapport with the readers - which most of the Guardian writers do, in my experience - and that in itself makes them interesting, so long as they succeed. I think Zoe Williams is someone who does.
Hmmm. Well I wasn’t entirely sure which one Zoe Williams was so have just unearthed last Saturday’s Weekend Section to see… ah, yes, she is the one who used to do those ‘Things You Only Know If You Work From Home’ isn’t she? I used to find those mildly entertaining- but now she seems to be sharing a page with Alexandor Chancellor, and has more of a free rein. Let’s see now… this week’s is about the evils of networking and contains the arresting insight that ‘the parties most closely associated with work- office ones- are those at which everyone acts with least regard to their careers’. You know what? I think this is very good- closely argued and witty-so a thumbs up from me for Zoe.
Now Alexander Challencor by the way I do find pompous, unoriginal and lumbering. I know he’s supposed to be representing the older generation but he seems out of place to me in the Guardian and would be better off in the Telegraph or even the Daily Express. Does anyone else agree?
Oh! Two consecutive Jonathans in the comments box! Well that was bound to happen sometime- we both seem to frequent some of the same places. Well it couldn’t have happened in a more fitting place than a discussion of the merits of Guardian columnists. So to clarify- this is Jonathan from Crinklybee here by the way not Jonathan from Assistant- regards to my Brighton namesake!
I know this is off topic, but I cannot stand when columnists use what they think are and cool expressions like ” natch” which I think is short for “naturally”. Example: ” the useless Simon flaked out on the sofa- natch.” I think “natch” has gone out of fashion now, thank christ, but theres bound to be some other zietgiesty word doing the rounds. That’s why i buy the Daily Mail, to avoid these snooty Notting Hill types.
You know where you are with the Mail.
Oh dear, can someone tidy up that last post for me- I”m off to my Pilates class.
Oh dear, can someone tidy up that last post for me- I”m off to my Pilates class.
Now I’m double posting. Trebles all round!
What tidy up that bit about buying the Daily Mail? Surely some mistake!
I don’t read the papers so I don’t know about her column, but her novel was DIRE!
She wrote a novel? How come nothing comes up on Amazon? Maybe it really was that bad…
Then again most columnists have bashed out a dodgy chick-fic novel or two in their time. Jenny Colgen is a classic - shite novels, quite entertaining columns. Go figure…
Bit late catching up with this - but totally agree with Jonathan - whichever Jonathan it is - about Alexander Chancellor. What a total waste of space, and he’s been there for ever. Also don’t rate Jon Ronson - I suppose you could say he’s the male equivalent of Zoe Williams. The answer? Ignore them, don’t read them. The fact that Jez is obviously compelled to read Zoe W. in spite of what he feels about the content, says something about her skills! Force for evil? Definitely not.
Jon Ronson is absolutely not the equivalent of Zoe Williams. He’s funny, for a start, and clever. I’d hate to think with Zoe Williams would come up with if charged with interviewing Jonathan King following his conviction, or Omar Bakri Muhammed.
Jon Ronson’s more idiosycratic. He has that kind of faux-naif understated technique of giving interviewees enough rope to dig their own graves, and indeed shoot themselves in the foot, which I think was pioneered by Sue Arnold in the Observer in the early 80s. His style is self-consciously astringent yet disarming, and I find him almost, but not quite, irritatingly disingenuous, and in the end he charms me.
I’m in the pro-Zoe camp. I noticed her stuff and remembered to remember her name when she used to contribute to the Evening Standard. I find her witty, clear-headed and un-dumbed-down. Head and shoulders above most columnists.
Usually I skip over her work, but I thought her last column, Conservative to the Core (Guardian 14th April), was concise, well written, true and needing to be said. I will be reading her column in the future, even on those days when she isn’t as on the ball as that. Let’s hope that it is the start of some really well considered careful journalism.