On Pink, again

Joshua Loo

№2, Volume V

Anon.

Pink

Likely available in loos, nooks and crannies, and similar places.

A new and deplorable innovation, viz. a website, has been discovered. An history of Pink and an account from previous editors appears in a previous number.¹ Pink, the (generally) underground satirical magazine, has been released again.

The first page is broadly similar to previous issues of Pink, in that it is, well, pink. There is no witty jab at the headmaster this time.

The Librarian was accused of libel on the second page. The issues that were raised in a previous number, viz. the use of ‘straight quotation marks’, and the failure to use em dashes, have been rectified, as is noted. However, this paragraph incorrectly represents the general problem identified in the previous number. Implicit in the cry for amelioration was the corollary that the use of the em dash should be correct. At no point has ‘The Librarian—1—Volume V’ appeared in print; there is no em dash between number and volume, and the number was a lining figure, not a text figure. A misunderstanding of copyright law is also apparent; 70 years after the death of Gladstone is 1968, and the length after the author’s death in which copyright lasts has been lengthened over time.

It is also worth noting that, curiously enough, the complaints in our previous review have only been partially heeded. Thus ‘straight’ quotes are used around ‘work’ in ‘How to be an Under Master’, whilst Mr Mann is granted curly quotes. Similarly, an em dash is used in pointing out that em dashes are to be used, but then omitted in the ‘English’ ‘tumblr’ entry. Further, Pink is not italicised.

A general pattern emerges: various references to other things tickle but do not induce significant laughter as the first number of this series might have, hence the inclusion of the headmaster’s full name and title (‘PATRICK SIBLEY JAN DERHAM OBE MA (HONS) CANTAB’)—in a sign of the lack of resolution of the aforementioned æsthetic problematic, the Gladstonian practice of use of (small) caps exclusively on the surname and use of full points between the letters of OBE (with small caps as well) was overlooked, the ‘HINDLEY’ network, ‘69%’—perhaps accidental, since there seems no reason for any sexual innuendo, and so on.

The section pertaining to (Sir) Gareth Mann (k.c.b., &c.) was one of the more humorous sections due to its absurdity. Again, however, it is fundamentally a repetition of old tropes, without any combination. Perhaps this is illusory. The ‘leak’ from Dr McCombie’s classroom, for example, was a variation on the same theme, yet caused much laughter.

The ‘tumblr’ section is one of the more humorous sections in general, despite this. There is an admirable attempt to remain anonymous under ‘physics’. Not much further comment is needed, except to note that the editors clearly have a low opinion of English applicants, in that hyphens are used in place of em dashes again, despite their previous promises.

Thence we see picnics, a two pages on the technicians², something about Mr Kershen, a jab at the librarians…the fundamental problem remains, of course.

Why? Three factors seem to be particularly plausible. First, the rate of humorous occurrences is finite, and so sources of humour can be exhausted. Second, the novelty of Pink has worn out a little. Third, this issue may have been a little rushed.

That the supply has been depleted somewhat is evident, hence the repeated jokes at the expense of the product design department, the growing Westminster nomenklatura, pupils taking English, drug users, the headmaster, &c.; this number is very long—20 pages—but it seems that there are far fewer than 20 pages of particularly humorous new material.

The second is also perhaps true. The first number of this series of Pink appears to be less humorous than it was when first published. Perhaps we have become accustomed to the whole affair. The first issue had novelty, the second the protests; this, it seems, will have neither, for it has been curtailed by the end of term.

The third and final factor is also a possibility. There has been very little time between the two issues, and public examinations have occurred in the intervening period.

Yet the whole affair—the three numbers, the protests, the rather questionable bits, and those that were rather too uncharitable and unfounded—appears to have been worth it at the end of these four terms. The tolerance of mockery that Pink has played a part in augmenting marks the ‘truly liberal’ quality of the school.