Ruth Richardson popped her head up with an opinion piece in the Herald, yesterday.
It's verging on unreadable. And for me unreadable is quite a low. I struggled through some sections of Ulysses, on my first reading of it (episode Three - Proteus was most baffling), but it made sense*.
Richardson's opinion-piece is rubbish. I had to read it twice to make sure I had not missed anything. Strings of cliches and a collection of disparate and discredited ideas without even an attempt at making connections, or writing something that flows. Unless it's a cunning attempt to undermine the government, I'm surprised the Herald would publish such tripe.
I feel a bit weird, having suggested some equivalence between Joyce and Richardson. Let me express the comparison like this:
If you do not understand James Joyce, it's probably a failing on your part. However, if you do not understand Ruth Richardson, it's definitely a failing on her part. If you think you understand Ruth Richardson, you are seriously deluded.
*For anyone who has tried to read Ulysses and given up, I recommend Frank Delaney's podcast. It's available weekly (on Thursdays NZT), it manages the rare feat of making what appears complex quite understandable and Frank Delaney's accent is beautiful.
Therapy? - Nurse, 1992