« | Home | »

The Dog Ate Their Homework

On 1 March 1930, the New Statesman published the following announcement:

Our literary editor, Mr R. Ellis Roberts, had his bag stolen on Wednesday. It contained a number of letters and contributions unexamined. Will his correspondents please accept his apologies for any delay or neglect caused by this misfortune?

(I happen to know this only because Roberts was my grandmother’s uncle.)

Alert readers of this blog may have noticed occasional lulls in the appearance of posts. Inevitably, we always hope for more contributions than ultimately materialise. And so, to fill a gap, and in the spirit of the old Statesman, here are some of the better excuses we’ve received over the past few weeks (anonymous, of course, to spare the contributors’ blushes):

internet explorer on laptop went on blink
The NYT has been breathing down my neck all week
If you pay in food or childcare that might be an incentive?
my head weighs too much right now to sit up
the Church of Scientology would sue me

Comments on “The Dog Ate Their Homework”

  1. Phil says:

    You are clearly using *entirely* the wrong type of contributor. (Mind you, now I come to think of it I’ve got two reviews outstanding, one of them so outstanding they’ve stopped asking for it. Academia corrupts – I was incredibly punctual when I was writing for money.)

  2. Martin says:

    I was struggling to remove a chip off the old writer’s block.

Comment on this post

Log in or register to post a comment.


  • Recent Posts

    RSS – posts

  • Contributors

  • Recent Comments

    • andymartinink on Reacher v. Parker: Slayground definitely next on my agenda. But to be fair to Lee Child, as per the Forbes analysis, there is clearly a massive collective reader-writer ...
    • Robert Hanks on Reacher v. Parker: And in Breakout, Parker, in prison, teams up with a black guy to escape; another white con dislikes it but accepts the necessity; Parker is absolutely...
    • Robert Hanks on Reacher v. Parker: Parker may not have the integrity and honesty of Marlowe, but I'd argue that Richard Stark writes with far more of both than Raymond Chandler does: Ch...
    • Christopher Tayler on Reacher v. Parker: Good to see someone holding up standards. The explanation is that I had thoughts - or words - left over from writing about Lee Child. (For Chandler se...
    • Geoff Roberts on Reacher v. Parker: ..."praised in the London Review of Books" Just read the article on Lee Child in a certain literary review and was surprised to find this rave notice...

    RSS – comments

  • Contact

  • Blog Archive

  • From the LRB Archive

    Chris Lehmann: The Candidates
    18 June 2015

    ‘Every one of the Republican candidates can be described as a full-blown adult failure. These are people who, in most cases, have been granted virtually every imaginable advantage on the road to success, and managed nevertheless to foul things up along the way.’

    Hugh Pennington:
    The Problem with Biodiversity
    10 May 2007

    ‘As a medical microbiologist, for example, I have spent my career fighting biodiversity: my ultimate aim has been to cause the extinction of harmful microbes, an objective shared by veterinary and plant pathologists. But despite more than a hundred years of concentrated effort, supported by solid science, smallpox has been the only success.’

    Jeremy Harding: At the Mexican Border
    20 October 2011

    ‘The battle against illegal migration is a domestic version of America’s interventions overseas, with many of the same trappings: big manpower commitments, militarisation, pursuit, detection, rendition, loss of life. The Mexican border was already the focus of attention before 9/11; it is now a fixation that shows no signs of abating.’

    James Meek: When the Floods Came
    31 July 2008

    ‘Last July, a few days after the floods arrived, with 350,000 people still cut off from the first necessity of life, Severn Trent held its annual general meeting. It announced profits of £325 million, and confirmed a dividend for shareholders of £143 million. Not long afterwards the company, with the consent of the water regulator Ofwat, announced that it wouldn’t be compensating customers: all would be charged as if they had had running water, even when they hadn’t.’

Advertisement Advertisement