More Evidence

My reference to Cadenza was challenged as meaningless because a recent edito and the current editor/assistant editor had, in the past, been in Boot Camp.

"Therefore" the data was invalid because they had been 'brainwashed' by me.

Now hang on a minute, those three people, John Ravenscroft, Zoe King, Vanessa Gebbie have been very, very successful while in BC and since they left. John left about SIX YEARS ago, Zoe about 4, Vanessa 2.

But IF they "only write one way" because I brainwashed them (some might say "taught") how come they have been so successful?

These anonymous hecklers are hilarious. If I claim credit for Boot Camp I'm "living off the backs of the writers' success.. it's down the THEM, not me".

But if they make a mistake, THAT is down to me.


So, let's say for the argument, that Cadenza's results "don't count".

What about the Bridport Prize? Do i control that too? What about Best American Short Stories? Do I have a finger in THAT pie also? Did I run the Ian St James Awards?

Get the poiont? These very sad anonymous posters have to think of a different "excuse" each time data is posted.

Here's some more

The Alsop Review

Now the editor of that has never been near Boot Camp, never been taught by me or engaged me in any other way other than the odd email.

If you go to The Alsop Review and Click on THE WRITERS there are 15-20 short-story writers and novelsists. You can view exactly 120 pieces. SEVEN are Dialogue Openers.

5.8%


The statistic stands up yet again.

No try, say "Skipe" or "Long Story Short" and the percentage will probably rise.

Work out why.