Vitriolic? Moi?

I had the most unusual experience of meeting one of this blog’s readers yesterday.  As she prepared to tell me what she thought of it, I put on my best gee-thanks-modestly-flattered face.  But it was the wrong choice:  the word that she used to describe it was – I gave it away in the headline – “vitriolic.”

Modestly-flattered gave way to upset-and-surprised.  Is it really “vitriolic”?  OK, the odd blog can be just a tad critical in tone, but overall my sense is of a load of stuff which focuses on financial marketing issues of the moment and comments on them thought-provokingly and a touch laterally in a wry and amiable kind of way.   Would I say that this blog aims to be more or less to financial services marketing what Alistair Cooke’s Letters were to America?  Well, maybe not quite that wry and amiable (and a very great deal less eagerly awaited).  But some way short of “vitriolic,” anyway.

Still, I’m the first to recognise that perception is reality, and if someone who probably represents something between 25 and 50% of the blog’s readership says it’s vitriolic, then it’s vitriolic.  Watch out for a major ToV shift in forthcoming entries:  I’m going to be working a whole lot harder on “wry” and “amiable.”

4 thoughts on “Vitriolic? Moi?

  1. Sacre bleu: like telling Abe Lincoln to cool it on the anti-slavery thing, or Lenny Bruce to mind his language. Had I been a friend/relation of someone who used a chameleon in an award-winning ad campaign, then maybe vitriol is what it would feel like, but on an objective asessment, no. Change ToV at your peril. But if you do, while you’re at it, you may as well check that spam box for facelifts, surefire weight loss programmes, shiney white teeth, penile extensions and other enhancements.

  2. Absolutely concur, change nothing keep writing.

    It’s the same as TV, if they don’t like what’s on, they can jolly well switch it off, but they won’t of course. Your views however they’re described are the more handsome for your intonation.

  3. Mea culpa.
    In my self-funded defence, your honour, it was not THIS blog in respect of which I made the observation, but one which is considerably more prone to infinite droning and negativity – which you challenged with significant justification.
    I had some fun with the better half discussing the word, because our brief chat merited a report back to him indoors at the end of the day!!
    Being a bit more of a science whizz than me, we got into a discussion about the derivation and relative scale of vitriolic : bilious : caustic : ascerbic … can we agree that any of those is better for your reputation than bilious??!!
    And a quick review of the thesaurus offers up some alternatives which are certainly NOT what I intended (regardless of whichever blog we are talking about) – you are NOT corrosive or destructive or venoumous or malicious – but I maintain that you ARE at times scathing and withering and blistering – and, when you are, it is because (as with your blog regarding the much-loved and saintly John Lewis above which seems to represent an abject failure of your premature New Year resolve to be amiable) it is entirely deserved.
    In short, ‘vitriolic’ was not a criticism and should not be assumed to be a bad thing. And the other 75% of your readers are perfectly correct – if it wasn’t so, you wouldn’t be you, and we wouldn’t enjoy your commentary half as much as we do!!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *