Sadly, we've had a couple of drop-outs this week. Merry Anne has decided to call it a day, and Frenchbean's illness has meant she hasn't been able to get a piece to us in time for publication of this issue. I'm very sorry to see you both go; I've always enjoyed Frenchbean's writing and she's one of my favourite Post regulars, and Merry Anne's contributions have both been of a good standard and made for interesting reading. I hope you'll both at least follow future columns, and I'd be delighted if you'd join in now and then in the future.

This has left us in a bit of a quandary regarding evictions, because this week was intended to be the last challenge before the first round of culling. At short notice, we have decided to count your scores and votes from this week, along with the next two challenges – in other words, you'll have one more challenge after this one before we kick anyone out. We know some of you are pining for a break from this, and we will give you a rest in the lead up to the first 'eviction issue'. We'll give you more details in the next issue.

One honourable mention for you this week, as History as a Form of Knowledge was submitted to Peer Review by Solnushka and Zvozda – I hope I've spelled that right! It's a great piece, and we wish you all the best with it as it moves through PR and (hopefully) towards the Edited Guide. Thank you so much for joining in the challenge.

Here are the pieces submitted, then, and the judges' thoughts.

Galaxy Babe

Not far from perfect, this. Well done Alex.

9/10

Pinniped

This is the work of an accomplished storyteller, and the piece hooks the reader very effectively through the early depiction of poisoned children. That second paragraph is shocking and yet understated. From a strong base, the flow from historical context to modern legislation is smooth and well structured.

This Entry could have been dry and boring. Good writing makes it compelling instead. A nice example of how a well-chosen angle can elevate the Edited Guide style.

8/10

Skankyrich

Like, totally radical, man.

Sorry, where was I? This is an excellent piece; comprehensively researched and written in an interesting and engaging way. The 'A Long Trip' section in particular is superb. In terms of this competition, though, this is a short step rather than a stretch; we already know you write this kind of stuff exceptionally well, and I want to see you do something different. There's time for that, of course, and if you can maintain this standard you'll be thereabouts at the end.

7/10

Galaxy Babe

Succinct yet sublime, perfect balance on a difficult topic. Well researched and well presented.

9/10

Pinniped

This Entry fills a significant hole in the Guide. It handles a difficult subject dispassionately, and is clearly the work of a caring person. It will actively help some readers and inform many more.

None of the above is relevant to the Stretcher, though. In fact, this Entry isn't quite what the specific challenge meant, in my interpretation at least. It scores highly in spite of that because of the standard of writing and structure, and the obvious diligence.

8/10

Skankyrich

My first thought was also that this wasn't quite what we meant. I'm not going to hold that against you, though – not at this stage, anyway...

This is a much, much better piece than the last one, and I hope you're pleased with the result. It's very comprehensive, and not just in one sense. You've covered everything from genetics through social attitudes to the day-to-day reality of having a Down's child. One of the best this week.

8/10

Galaxy Babe

This was a true delight; informative, entertaining and it made me laugh. Everything I'd want the Infinite Improbability Drive to throw up (sorry).

8/10

Pinniped

It was a pleasure to read this one. A fine Entry and a true stretch. The quotes are well-chosen (almost too well chosen – have you been researching my favourites?) and there are plenty of iconic references, always an effective ploy in humorous writing because it lets the reader in on the joke.

The depth of research is obvious, and the structure has really been honed here. Note how the piece covers a lot of ground, and yet changes subject seamlessly. The result epitomises h2g2's Edited Guide style at its best, and "a tureen of glistening molluscs" is the neatest single phrase I've read all week.

9/10

Skankyrich

I sense you're warming to this, Danny, and that has to be a worry for the other contestants. This is remarkable; it's exactly the sort of entry that it's easy to write really badly, but you've filled it with wit and presented it in a wonderfully conversational style, and it's eminently quotable itself. Great work, and only just my second favourite of the week.

8/10

Galaxy Babe

I wondered what all the fuss was about. No, I didn't. I groan when pantomimes are advertised, but I understand that they have some appeal...I just don't get them. That said, this is well written and informative. Yes, it is.

6/10

Pinniped

A clever subject choice, but a bit too near the author's home territory to attract stretchmarks. As an Edited Guide offering, it has all the right elements and there is assurance about the writing. Informative without being too surprising, and good-natured without exactly being humorous.

One of several contestants who've made the same kind of solid start to the Stretcher, working quite hard, but sticking to safe subjects. You ain't seen nothing yet.

7/10

Skankyrich

The temptation with a piece with a fairly narrow remit is generally to either make it too short, or make it just the right length by filling it out with lots of padding. You're skilfully avoid both those traps, and the result bounds around like a happy puppy exploring its home for the first time. So far, so good, and I'm sure there's more to come from you.

6/10

Galaxy Babe

This was seriously impressive, very apropos. Stickler for tradition vs mountain out of a molehill – I was one of the (tentatively-estimated 'billion') shocked home-viewing TV audience who gasped at the faux pas  – not the fault of the new PotUS who was merely repeating the error of Chief Justice Roberts. The reactions of the reviewers in PR were interesting as well, some hadn't a clue what all the fuss was about, so this ticked all the boxes for me.

8/10

Pinniped

A stylish and thoughtful delivery and a well-chosen, topical subject. The trick of presenting ideas in a shortening cascade of sentences is very neat, and gives the piece its musing quality. I was reminded of Alistair Cooke.

The challenge invited an observation of hysteria, so adopting such a measured style is a surprise. Was the challenge dodged, then? Maybe, but marking down would have been churlish. A skilful writer has come back from Week 1 slights with a classy Entry that will grace the EG.

8/10

Skankyrich

Very clever, and I particularly liked the rather sniffy, dismissive tone you adopted at times. The last line was a fantastic way to end it. You done a good job of pricking the balloon, but I'm not quite sure the reaction to the 'gaffe' was 'emotionally' overblown. Even so, it's a well-crafted piece, and a very entertaining read.

7/10

Galaxy Babe

Everything I feel about Valentine's Day in a nutshell (because I'm single, I suppose), plus the history behind the 'sentiment', makes me want to weep for bygone days but then I remember the Internet and rejoice that I'm living now. Is there a compromise? I hereby announce that the Internet is my Valentine, MWAH.

8/10

Pinniped

Doesn't do much for me, I'm afraid. A Valentine Entry should have love in it, or at least passion of some kind. Instead, this is well enough constructed, workmanlike and hard to criticise in Edited Guide terms, just like a thousand other Entries that don't really reward the reader either.

Waz at her best is like a hootoo Ally McBeal. She variously does highly strung, wry, bookish and crusading, and she does them with charm. Trouble is, she doesn't really do any of them here.

6/10

Skankyrich

Title of the week by a long chalk. I like the way you pick apart each aspect of Valentine's Day stitch by stitch. All the facts are there, but it's rare that you imbue the piece with any kind of passion, and I expected you to be able to tell the historival anecdotes with a little more flair. Again, this is pretty good, but you haven't really expressed yourself in this competition yet.

6/10

Galaxy Babe

As a non-apologetic verging-on-the-violent anti-smoking ex-smoker, this was something I hoped would be covered in the challenge this time. I couldn't have written this – it would have ended up a huge rant which wouldn't have survived one day in PR. Ban all cigarettes now. Too strong? Then make the cigarette/cigar/tobacco manufacturers pay a huge slice of their profits to the NHS. Oh dear. I'll go put the kettle on shall I?

9/10

Pinniped

Another good subject found to fit the challenge, even if the claim of a 'massive uproar' when the ban took effect doesn't match my recollection. The mixing of researched history with familiar modern-day behaviour is effective, and some trademark punning comes through. I'm still not convinced of stretching, but at least the pony has been goaded into a trot.

7/10

Skankyrich

The two best things about this Entry are the quotes and the headers. Ok, I exaggerate, but not by much. You do come to life on occasion – there's a twinkle in your eye when you talk about the e-cigarette and the anecdotes that smoking apparently helped to promote recovery in some cases. Overall, it's fairly average, and it's frustrating to read knowing you can write much, much better than this. Slightly better than the last effort, but we're still waiting for you to turn up to this competition. Come on, Matt; we're running out of time for you to show us what you can do.

5/10

Galaxy Babe

I was hoping for an Entry on swearing in general, rather than restricting it to h2g2. Hot topic, opportunity missed.

4/10

Pinniped

The subject choice is astute, and the work is solid, but I think a little more pith might have been in order. The opportunity for relentless, tongue-in-cheek ridicule of the Towers was too good to miss IMO, but instead the piece hovers between worthy diplomacy and low-key resentfulness. The occasional transgressions are petty ones (the papal dig, for instance).

As a piece of writing, its proficient and well constructed, with research evident. A good, footsure middle-of-the-pack effort then, but still some way short of a stretch.

7/10

Skankyrich

A very good piece, and one that we should perhaps see more of. I think it's healthy to have pieces about h2g2 itself in the Edited Guide, particularly if they give a fairly balanced view of contentious topics (although I did enjoy the moments of quietly bubbling anger that punctuate this piece). You lost me a little at the end with the Atheophobia discussion – in my view that was a little out of place in this piece – but all in all it's a solid piece. Looking good.

6/10

Galaxy Babe

Topical, debatable, informative without falling into the trap of being preachy. Kids could read this and make up their own minds. A supreme stretch, this is a vast improvement on week one, my award for "most improved" this week goes to minichessemouse. Gold Star Awarded!

8/10

Pinniped

A definite improvement, with a well-founded and very topical subject that answers the challenge theme. There's probably a little too much opinion here for the EG, though that doesn't worry me in itself. Less satisfactory is the apparent reliance on public comment (from the BBC's website?) rather than constructing a case based on personal perception. There are also structural weaknesses, including the rather arbitrary sectioning and the sawn-off ending, where a summation might have been considered.

6/10

Skankyrich

This certainly is an improvement, and well done for getting your thoughts together in time for the deadline. You're clearly learning an awful lot from this competition, and I have a huge amount of respect for you for what you're doing. You're stretching yourself a lot more than some of the other contestants! That said, you can improve this piece a lot by discussing the issues in a bit more detail, and perhaps explaining why teenagers are advised not to drink. As it is, it's a little quote-heavy, but this will be a good EG piece in time.

5/10

Galaxy Babe

In an ideal world we'd all be riding bikes but how would I transport my mother to her hospital appointment, in the trailer of a three-wheeler? On a tandem? As a car driver, nothing riles me more than other road-users' rudeness. Lack of common courtesy that used to abound when I was learning to drive a few years ago when I was 17. (cough) This includes being cut up and sitting patiently at traffic lights whilst a cyclist mounts the pavement and scoots through the red light on the pavement, narrowly missing a mother pushing a pram. OK enough about the bikes and cyclists. I'm sure there are more safe cyclists than potential kamikaze-enthusiasts, we just don't hear about them.

8/10

Pinniped

A fairly good Entry, intelligent and well-structured. One weakness is a tenuous subject link to the challenge theme, but the main failing (in purely EG terms) is that there are few surprises for the reader. All the expected elements are here, evidence of research, a refined structure and clear and considered writing. I just have to confess that I found it all a bit boring, which is disappointing coming from a sparky writer with a naturally tangential style.

6/10

Skankyrich

I was rather amused to find that the chap you quote near the top shares my surname. I've never seen that name attached to anyone remotely famous before.

This seems to have been a bit of a stretch for you, and if this is your first PR piece it does you much credit. It's well-researched and covers the ground, but I think you've made the mistake of trying to write with a kind of PR style in mind. Don't stop writing with flair just because you're writing for the EG! Even so, this shows promise, and it's undeniable that you've left your comfort zone.

6/10

Galaxy Babe

Psycorp may have enjoyed writing this but I groaned when I read the title, I thought it was a wind-up. This would have gone down well 10 years ago, but today I live by the adage 'ignore the troll' and if we all did that, they'd go away and get a life. This was just fanning the flames when I'd rather starve the nuisances of oxygen. I'm awarding two points for your non-pandering to the Judges and declaring your intention to have fun, which is what this is all about.

2/10

Pinniped

Slick writing, with the right brand of brash cynicism for the subject. The subject is a fairly obvious one, though, and the content doesn't stand up to close analysis. Such a short piece shouldn't read like it's padded. The middle section (or more properly the absence of it) is a cop-out that tries the reader.

We know further that this was a Day One post, and may surmise that the piece involved little or no research. For me, that all adds up to coasting. The writing quality is all that keeps it afloat, since there's little to be learned and only shallow amusement in this trivial effort.

6/10

Skankyrich

There is absolutely no substance to this piece whatsoever. It's shallow, devoid of content and puerile.

At least, that's how it seems at first glance. Of course, Psycorp hasn't really written this as a 'How To' guide to trolling; he's experimented with a bit of parody (satire is probably a little too strong a term) and, while the result is a little unrefined, the effort is there. No, it's not the most cultured or careful piece of the week, but it's more than primitive. I appreciate the effort and, with due respect to them both, I think my fellow judges should lighten up a bit.

7/10

Galaxy Babe

Something I didn't expect, astute observations here and an argument guaranteed to run and run.

7/10

Pinniped

The title of this piece maybe reveals its significant weakness. It's a misleading introduction to an Entry that's ultimately more about societal obsession with cleanliness. The real problem, though, is that the writer never quite decided what she was writing about. Several related but different targets come into her sights, but she doesn't shoot any of them. That said, the writing is fine and the read is worthwhile. It isn't going to change the world, though, and by TB's high standards this has to be counted an off-week.

7/10

Skankyrich

Perhaps the most interesting aspect of this week's challenge is the way some of our more creative writers have flicked their style switches off when faced with a PR-specific challenge. Tibley's piece last week would, in many people's eyes, have been a fitting piece for the Edited Guide, but being made to write for that forum seems to have constrained our contestants' styles. This is no exception. It's better than the norm and is an interesting read, but I'm not entirely sure that I'd immediately think of it as one of yours if it were submitted anonymously.

6/10

Galaxy Babe

Ah, football. The nation's chosen sport, those who love it versus those who don't care or hate it. Beckham? Controversial pick there, Trout. I have no wish to perpetuate Planet Beckham, and am looking forward to his retirement into relative obscurity. If you'd gone for Maradona's 'hand of God' (which still rankles) I'd have stretched to an eight. As it is, I still love the passion in this piece which is enjoyable to all – England footie fans and those other people.

7/10

Pinniped

A high class Entry, sardonic but in places deadly serious. I find it hard to be subjective, because I'm a sucker for thoughtful writing about football. This really lives up. Imagine this as broadsheet sports-pages retrospective and you will accept its journalistic quality. Sports writing at its best oozes love of the sport, of course, and that's abundant too.

The subject and style match to the challenge is very accurate, and the opening paragraphs are a consummate set-up. It won't work for a universal audience, but those who shared it will relive that summer through Trout's evocation of its peripheral events.

8/10

Skankyrich

'Emotionally overblown'? You bet. When they're hanging effigies of a man who kicked another man in a contest over an inflated bit oF leather, you know they've takemn things too far. This did everything I was looking for from the challenge, and it's well-structured, beautifully written, and is punctuated by some delicious quotes. Just squeaks past Danny B and Beatrice for my favourite of the week. Fine work.

8/10

Please vote. I know you get asked to vote all the flippin' time these days, but it does make a huge difference. The judges have a 50% weighting in the rankings, and the public the other 50%. This means that if we only get one voter, their vote will be equal to all the judges' scores put together, so the more votes we get, the more democratic the table becomes.

Here are the rankings so far. Bear in mind that next issue, your score from the first challenge will be removed from the chart, so whether you did well or badly last week will become irrelevant from the next issue. If you improve or decline, this will be reflected in the table.

1. You may vote once, and once only. Please email your votes to The Stretchers. If you can't use this direct link, hovering your mouse over the link should reveal our email address. If you cannot get the link to work, simply post below and we'll try to help you. You must quote your username and h2g2 Researcher number (U-number) with your vote; votes without these will be rejected without query.

2. Votes received after the deadline or cast onsite will not be counted.

3. If you're taking part, do not ask other people to vote for you. This is not a popularity contest, and we hope that everyone will vote for the piece they genuinely feel is best each issue. We reserve the right to discount votes if we feel that contestants are canvassing, votes are being traded or unusual voting patterns are developing.

4. Contestants are perfectly entitled to vote for their own pieces if they feel their writing is the best submitted; however, please note that we will be on the look-out for dodgy voting patterns, and that includes contestants who consistently vote for themselves.

5. Votes will be tallied using a formula that normalises the votes cast and scores given, then returns a number between 0 and 2. We will publish the rankings, but not the actual scores as they are rather undramatic, relative rather than absolute, and fairly meaningless to look at. In the event of a tie, whichever piece is scored highest by Skankyrich is ranked highest. If there is still a tie, Skankyrich will decide who is placed higher.

As some of you have guessed, this week's challenge is a poetic AWW challenge, and it must be in the Alternative Writing Workshop by midnight UK time on 12th February.

To tie in with Valentine's Day, we'd like you to come up with a love poem. You can write it in any style you like; however, we have picked individual themes for each of you by picking out the adjectives you used before the first three nouns in your 'emotionally overblown' piece last time. If you used more than one adjective before any noun, we've picked the one we liked the most. You may pick which of the three you'd like to use, but the one you pick must be the theme of your poem. So if your words were lovely, green and bulbous, you'd have to write either a 'lovely Valentine', a 'green Valentine', or a 'bulbous Valentine' (quiet at the back). The most obvious word at your disposal may not be the best; in this case, a clever bulbous poem may impress the judges more than a straightforward lovely one. Feel free to experiment, get some reviews, and submit the one you feel is best.

Incidentally, it's no good pointing out that we've used your fourth adjective instead of your third, or that so and so isn't really an adjective in the context it's been used, or anything else similarly dull. These are your words, and you're stuck with them!

If you're not taking part in The Stretcher competition but would like to join in, take a look at the last piece you wrote and pick one of the first three adjectives you used.

Your words are:

• Alex Ashman: Mind-altering, endless, legal.
• Beatrice: Genetic, chromosomal, strong.
• Danny B: Beautiful, raging, slimy.
• David B: Quiet, stiff, baying.
• dmitrigheogheni: Inaugural, hardly, new.
• LLWaz: Shocking, gushing, cloying.
• Matt (The Hoopy): Public, on-the-spot, massive.
• minichessemouse: Small, major, sensible.
• MinorVogonPoet: Huge, rising, better.
• Psycorp603: Unwashed, online, inflammatory.
• Tibley Bobley: Clean, energetically, purulent.
• Trout Montague: Biennial, Platini-esque, excruciating.

Good luck!

The Stretcher Archive

Galaxy Babe, Pinniped and Skankyrich

05.02.09 Front Page

Back Issue Page