h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I noticed that Jagged Jack's original piece is marked 'NFR'. I also understand that it must have been recommended (because this version comes up under Search as 'Recommended'); but I have problems with this as an EG entry.

It's not the piece, per se, or the content. I have a problem with any piece which, at the outset, admits that its subject is largely a matter of personal taste and opinion. It makes me question whether it is a viable entry, or just a good subject to debate.

I also have problems with the part about the 'researcher' and the test. Anything less than a test group of thirty would be statistically meaningless, especially in that they may have been close friends of the researcher (because it is unusual for someone to walk up to strangers and show them pronographic pictures; a certain comfort level is normally needed for that sort of thing) and would have to be of limited demographics.

In the 'test', it is not mentioned if the images were spread out (no pun intended) simultaneously. The order in which they were shown could well affect the outcome.

Jack used a phrase like 'the men reacted as might be expected' which is totally meaningless. One might just as easily expected a heavier women to have said 'I wish I was that slim', but it would be nothing more than an assumption. Guide entries should not leave something so mercurial up to the imagination. How, precisely, did they react?

There may be some subjective differences in 'erotic' and 'pornographic', but the overlap is wide and grey. Even legalese, should it successfully define each one, will not change the opinions of either pornographic fans or the prudish.

I'm certainly not suggesting that it doesn't have a place in the Guide, but question whether it should be considered for the Edited Guide.

It was accepted by the Editors. Here is the version I sent back after subbing it: A2163070.

Hi there ZSF!

I'm happy to have received a response

I started re-reading, via the link, and realized that there was an additionally questionable assumption at the end of the first paragraph; in which the researcher suggests that eroticism focuses on emotion, and pornography with the physical.

First: this assumes that Physical Lust is not a viable emotion to explore.
Second: The use of Picasso's painting of a women pleasuring herself cannot cover any emotion other than physical self-pleasure, which would seem to be more accurately covered under the researcher's definition of pornography than the erotic.

Do you see a conflict here?

I'm aware that this subject is a bit of a mine-field. There was some doubt amongst the people in the thread as to whether the entry would be accepted, however it was.

The author's point was the difference in the response from the viewer. The aim of both pornography and eroticism is to elicit a response in the viewer and I believe that the point this entry is trying to make is about that. Having submitted it back to the editors, I now have no further influence on this entry

Thanks again Z,

I appreciate the article being considered from all angles.
You are right about it being a minefield; but as I said, I don't have any problem with the subject matter, or its conclusions, if they are validated by the content.

My only concern was whether (or not) it was being accepted without substantially making its case.

I appreciate how much work it is to hand-hold our entries through the process. I apologize if I have made the chore even harder.

No worries, Fords.

As I said, having handed the entry back to the editors (it was the first entry I've ever subbed), I now have no further influence on it. The Editors get the final say and do the final polishing. I made as good a job of it as I could.

Congratulations ZSF on your new role! (How did a fish turn into a sub?)

I have to agree with FT -- this is an opinion piece. We like to have our personal opinions vindicated by seeing them presented as balanced, factual, em, rants endorsed by an editorial board and published in a Guide; but as the Virgin Mandy said, how much more personal can you get?

Thanks Recumbentman! . (How did a fish turn into a sub? Evolution?) I think this is the third entry I've subbed to reach the front page. This was the first I was given to sub, and I was particularly pleased with the BBCi links for it.

You are absolutely correct. The 'Test' or the experiment is full of flaws and open to interpretation. At the time I carried it out, I was doing research for an article I was writing for an art publication on art and pornography. My resources were limited, so I could only cobble together a small test group. The whole point of the experiment was to gauge the reactions of some one other than myself. The experiment was never intended for serious statistical analysis. On the other hand, had my test group been 30 or more people I could have interpreted my findings any way I liked.

Of course there are grey areas. Isn’t that what makes this such an interesting subject?

Where do I suggest that Physical Lust is not a viable emotion to explore? What the article argues is that Erotica can explore ALL emotions. This includes Physical Lust, whereas pornography focus entirely on and never transcends the physical.

As for the Picasso painting in question, the nature of the image means it is open to interpretation. Sure, it depicts a woman pleasuring herself but it also tells us something of what she is thinking. It leaves room for thought and doesn't simply act to titillate or maybe it does. This in no way conflicts with my definitions of Pornography and Eroticism.

I know this post isn't aimed at me but i'm finding most of this thread a little confusing.

When i wrote this piece as a reply to another post, it wasn't meant to be anything more than my own opinion. When someone suggested i submit it to the guide, i was flattered by their interest. Time permitting, I edited it the best i could and thanks to ZSF, here it is.

At no point did i wish my opinions to be vindicated or endorsed by anyone at h2g2. I merely wanted to express an opinion based on my own ideas and research. I don't really understand why that is such a problem. After several hours of reading, i'm yet to find a guide entry that doesn't contain an opinion. Is it possible to write anything other than a technical manual that doesn't?

Could you direct me to the points in the entry where i infer it to be 'Factual'?

Forgive me for appearing bewildered by all this but I woke up in such a good mood this morning and now i just feel sorry for myself.

JJ

Hi JJ,

I wouldn't worry. The piece is now Edited and that should be an end of it.

here's what the Writing-Guidelines say about what an entry should be:

# Write about reality
# Be original
# Fill in the gaps
# Plan your entry
# Write about what you're interested in
# Research your entry thoroughly
# Be instructive, informative and factual
# Write in your own style
# Try to make your entry balanced
# Don't try too hard to be funny
# Write Entries of appropriate length
# Avoid writing in the first person
# Try to use good spelling and grammar
# Do not copy from other sources

As you'll see, it does include factual. Mind you, sometimes there's a fine line between what is fact and what is opinion and in some cases, it has to be opinion by its very nature. Anyway, it's edited noe - end of story!