This is an invitation. An invitation to invigorate the Edited

Guide.

What you're about to read is a plea rather than a call to arms. It's

based on a feeling of missed opportunity rather than one of concerted

anger. It's not an 'either/or' proposition. It's a 'why not this too?'

proposition.

The proposition is simple, as well. It's that the Edited Guide needs to

be more stimulating, varied and inclusive, that's all. Hardly needs

saying, does it? The trouble is, the community's stewardship of the Edited

Guide is enforcing the exact opposite on all three counts. It's also all

too easy for the Peer Review process to 'committee-write' a piece that

starts out with originality and flavour into something safe and samey,

all-be-it with added fact. There is a House Style in terms of

presentation, and that's fine, but does there need to be such conformity

in terms of style, content and language?

That's the question PROD is asking, anyway.

PROD stands for 'Peer Review, Only

Different'. We aren't proposing to change a single Guideline, only

to use them with a new discretion. We aren't advancing any radical agenda

for fiction or poetry, because those styles have their own place within

h2g2. We aren't seeking to chastise Scouts or experienced critics, because

everyone here cares deeply about our shared project, and nobody owns the

soap-box.

Some people want to write encyclopaedia-style articles. That's cool.
Some people prefer to write instruction manuals. That's cool too.
Some people want to write dramatic fact-based Entries. Some people want to

inject a little humour. Some people want to explore perceptions and

opinions rather than the events themselves. Some people want to leave a

few loose ends for the reader to tie up. Some people want to write outside

their experience, and to speculate a little. All cool.
(There are limits, of course. We're not trying to re-shape the Edited

Guide completely. But boundaries are always interesting places).
And of course some people want to try all these styles. They want to make

their next Entry fresh and completely different from their last one.

They're the coolest of all.

It's too easy to write (and pick) a lightweight Entry and it's not as

if we have to. There are a thousands of worthwhile subjects to wrestle

with first.

'Lightweight' in this sense means three things. It means shallow in

terms of content, flat in terms of style and trivial in terms of effort.

Evidence of any one of the three redeems writing, but a worthwhile Peer

Review will demand such evidence.

The best of hootoo is its creative writing. Much of it stands

comparison with just about anything you'll find anywhere. Whether in the

UnderGuide, the Edited Guide or the just-plain-Guide, the Entries that

reward reading are the products of original thinking and presentation.

There are gems in Personal Spaces, in Journals, in Convos, in collections

like the Post or AGG/GAG/CAC. You can find these gems everywhere that

Researchers drop their inhibitions and they'll always make your spirits

leap.

Let's cherish them. Let's acknowledge that writing of that kind is at

the heart of all this.

Stimulating. Varied. Inclusive...

When something is enjoyable to read, the virtue comes from within the

piece itself, not from its conformance to a specification. Checklists are

for work, not for recreation.

Surprise happens when something departs from the expected pattern.

Surprise is the precursor of delight.

Everyone can play and the role each one of us knows is ourself.

Whatever we make, we always make it best in our own style. Guidelines are

only guidelines. Our instincts and our experience are the beacons we steer

by.

None of us should ever read an Entry with the Guidelines at the front

of our mind. That's because we're reading another person's heartfelt

effort and it deserves to be received in the spirit they wrote it. Instead

of setting out to vet an Entry, we should just immerse ourselves, take as

long as we need, and enjoy it. Then and only then should we collect our

thoughts, say what we think, or better yet, say what we felt.

You can probably see where we're coming from now. To sum it up, here's

a model for what we mean.

h2g2 is more like a city than a library. We live in it, rather than

refer to it. If you think of all the written contributions here as

buildings rather than books, you'll find an analogy for the way that you

receive them.

Every building in a city is functional, but most were built for someone

else's purpose. Many are someone's home, for example, but they're not your

home and so the place where the resident is comfortable could be a place

that you find bland, or vulgar, or unwelcoming.

In every city, on the other hand, there are buildings that fill us with

joy. We discover new ones all the time, in a place as vast as this. We

remember the ones we love and look out for them whenever we're in the

neighbourhood.

And you know the best thing of all? Your cherished buildings and mine,

they're different.

So let's celebrate the whole City.

Persuaded? If so, please let us know by commenting below. This

matters.

Jodan
dancingbuddha
Lady Pennywhistle
Pinniped
LLLWaz

12.05.05 Front Page

Back Issue Page