New Statesman -- student explanations -- August 23 deadline
 

Did I predict that a few people might send in just a single long entry for the film titles comp, but that the winners would be people who entered lists of short plot summaries? Let's pretend that's the only thing I've ever been wrong about.

No 4240
Set by Ian Birchall
Earlier this year, the Education Secretary, Michael Gove, described as “bizarre” a GCSE exam question that asked students: “Explain, briefly, why some people are prejudiced against Jews.” Gove said: “To suggest that anti-Semitism can ever be explained, rather than condemned, is insensitive and, frankly, bizarre.” We want students’ attempts to “explain” a similarly bizarre exam question (in a discipline of your choice).
Max 140 words by 23 August comp@newstatesman.co.uk

You did indeed, Chris.

Unfortunately, they have gone exclusively (and to my mind boringly) for the single long plot summary, most of which outstay their welcome by about 100 words. Yet the example was only 14 words. Oh well, let's see what the fresh woods and pastures new have to offer.

Ah ... I've just looked at the fresh woods, etc., above. I think I'll sit this one out in my own back garden.

Since the premise of the joke was the dropping of a letter, it certainly seemed logical to suppose that the plot summary would be no longer than needed to turn the letter-dropped title into a joke. This was very much the kind of contest you'd see at the Washington Post Style Invitational, but I can guarantee you over there brevity would be rewarded.

I share those feelings & feel so pissed off that I am breaking a personal rule & posting my (losing) entries on the Film Title Winners thread.

Don't remove the BANNED. I've asked Alex to take a look at it and advise.

You can certainly explain anti-semitism without blaming its victims, though probably not briefly.

I'm trying to imagine Gove's objections to a medical school's curriculum: “To suggest that cancer can ever be explained, rather than cured, is insensitive and, frankly, bizarre.”

May I make a suggestion, please, which I've also made to John regarding The Speccie?:

Why don't we confine our remarks about a competition that's finished to the results thread for that comp, rather than have comments - about the same thing - on two threads?
(It's the way I do it with The Oldie and LitRev and I think it works better and is less confusing!)

This thread is for the next competition - so all remarks about the film titles comp would be better over on the other thread, surely? I just left mine there!

Jayne

PS. It's the same with the congratulatory posts - we often get them on both threads and they'd also be better just on the results thread.

Thanks, Janice, for the heads-up on this thread.

FYI The BANNED POST thingie is a bug in the forum software that has persistently refused to let itself get squashed. However, I've determined that it's triggered when you have a non-breaking SPACE character in your post. (If you don't know what that is, see this Wikipedia article.)

But you don't need to figure out what a non-breaking SPACE character is for a workaround. When BANNED POST happens in your post, edit it and delete all the visible SPACE character where it appears, and replace with a regular SPACE character (essentially, just hit the keyboard SPACE bar without touching the SHIFT or CTRL keys).

Hope that helps ... somehow!

Cheers,
...Alex

I agree with your suggestions for keeping things in the threads to which they belong, Jayne. In fact, I've always found it a bit confusing that comments about the winners have in the past appeared in the thread concerning the next competition. This week, I see that John has put them at the top of the results thread, which seems more logical. Alas, as we know all too well, Chris didn't have to make that decision for the NS results ...