Sunday, February 11, 2007

A minor but strange 21st century misunderstanding. I was e-mailing a senior American scientist about a nomination for a publishing award organised by Booktrust, the very respectable indpendent charity which encourages the discover and enjoyment of reading. I didn't get a reply although the scientist is well known to be efficient and courteous. We chased him by phone and it transpires that he'd deleted the email because 'Booktrust' in the subject field suggested it was spam. It must have been the 'trust' bit. In the Internet world, as in the world of advertising, words seem to take on opposite connotations - essential means 'don't need it', great value means 'shoddy', cutting edge means 'won't work', easy to assemble means 'impossible'. And of course publishers have been known to transgress in book blurbs...

Later this week I'm going to write a little more about the new Shakespeare project we've developed with the Royal Shakespeare Company. As it's a Sunday you might have time to check out this fascinating interview with its editor, Jonathan Bate. You can find out more here and this is a poor reproduction of what is a brilliant jacket.

 

 

2/11/2007 2:58:23 PM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00)
Richard

I am being provocative - but is there a need for both "Booktrust" and "The Reading Agency"?

In my horrible moments I watch how they both play on and blackmail our guilt and anxiety-- and never see any measured results for what they do.

If we, as a generation, have concerns about the reading skills of people, shouldn't we be methodical and purposeful about addressing those things and manage the operation accordingly? What happened to "Education, education, education" -which I did vote for because I have learned how important and valuable it is ? Why is this work being left to meandering, self preserving charity?

I feel we are too casual about these problems

Tim