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

Entry: The 'New Yorker' - 1925-1951 Ross's little magazine - A13455371
Author: Leo - U519437


The problem with this entry is that it's... long. I crammed it full of anecdotes in the hope of making it interesting, and facts because there is literally no other source online (and possibly anywhere) that combines all the information in one place.

So what this really needs, I guess, is someone to read it through and tell me which anecdotes are unfunny or irrelevant, and which facts can be removed without causing the end of the world as we know it.

Thanks, to whoever takes the time to do that.

I'll give it a go

Thanks!

Now I just gave it a skim, I see there are a few things that might be unclear or require elaboration (nooo). Let me know if anything shrieks for it.

I'm going to come back and give this some more serious treatment shortly, Leo, because it deserves it - wonderful stuff.

But I disagree about the length - I've just read it through in one go and didn't find it 'flagged' at any point. Bit of polish, bit of shuffling, one or two of the anecdotes could be more fully explained in fact, but I didn't find it over-long at all.

>>I crammed it full of anecdotes in the hope of making it interesting<<

Well ... quite And it is. I've got an Entry waiting to be Subbed that's twice the length of this (you must have had them that long too). So, I'd look to refine and clarify rather than trim.

I liked it a lot, basically!

Thanks. It does need a severe polish. I definitely appreciate your input.

Subbing? Did you mention subbing?

Only one comment so far, Leo - no mention of the famous cartoonist Charles Addams?

A713891

Someone wrote in to him that his cartoons have been nauseating her for 8 years. I didn't specify most of the writers and artists.

I was going to save that for the third of the series where I'll summarise the grand everything of magazine and do a lot of name dropping. But I'm not sure if I should do that or divvy them up.

If it's not specific to this entry, you could include it (and other entries) in a reference section at the end of the entry (inside the and tags). That way, the references appear in the right-hand margin without disturbing the flow of the entry.

Great to hear you're planning a follow-up too. This is brilliant!

Then it'll appear as a link only, and I can mention him in further detail later on... that works.

It's more than just a follow up. A13468197 I probably bit off more than I can chew but dangit, I find this interesting.

For a second I thought this was in PR, but of course it's the Edited Guide Workshop.

Great to see this is going to be a project!

Here we go then, Leo - I enjoyed this even more on closer inspection and I still don't think it's far off ready (I've not noted any typos etc. because I was sure you'd be ironing those out yourself)> I think I found a couple of trimmable bits, but only minor trims in fact.

>> It was difficult to believe<< Difficult for them to believe? Also, the quote just before that: is this going to have a bibiography or somesuch? Just wasn't clear where that came from (and – I speak from experience – there's every possibility you'll go back through this the next time and think, "Oh, no, where was that from?" ). Pretty much everywhere else, it's clear the words are Ross's or Thurber's or etc.

>> A single poem was once printed in two separate issues<< Two halves of the same poem, or the one poem twice? (If you are looking for cuts, I wondered if you needed all three examples in that para – that's the best of the three).

>>Century of the Comma Man<< Header rather than subheader? The previous section on 'The Genius' could perhaps use just a bit more focussing (I was going to suggest putting the list of deeply quirky writers as an actual list, but I don't know that would work in fact) and that would demarcate it more clearly anyway. That section made me chuckle too

>> a fear of the clinical<< - 'clinical'?

>>( The water cooler . . . this house!')<< Now that could be trimmed, I think – don't know you need the whole bit at the end with the little girl tripping and so on. Just stop at 'absence'? If you really want to keep it, it might work better as a footnote.

>>(He was back within two years, and found his office exactly how he’d left it. Masterful, elegant writers were attracted to the New Yorker and once caught, found it difficult to leave.)<< - Oo, take that out of parentheses: it's a good bit!

Hersey’s 'Hiroshima' – I'd forgotten that was originally in the New Yorker: grim indeed (I mean, ground-breakingly grim, in fact, which you could stress there)

I'll run it through a spellcheck again, but if you happen to catch an American spelling, feel free to point it out; those give me the biggest headache. Don't got out of your way, though.

The line has been attributed. It used to belong to a blockqute, but I cut most of it out, and the biblio-stuff went with it. I just thought it was a wonderful way of describing it. You know those lines you just can't bear to kill?

I put in three errors in the disorganisation paragraph because it usually takes three points to make a line, if you know what I mean. I could chop out two, but there wouldn't be much of a paragraph left. I don't think I'll do any cutting there. I rewrote it as
>>A single poem was once re-printed in two separate issues;<<
Better?

>>Century of the Comma Man<< Header rather than subheader?
Done.

>>I was going to suggest putting the list of deeply quirky writers as an actual list, but I don't know that would work in fact<<
- thought of that myself, but discarded the idea.

I actually had a lot of trouble with that entire section, and since you mentioned its sort of off-focus, I'd welcome further input. The paragraph about the artistic temperament was going to go elsewhere - it interrupts horribly - but it fit there and it didn't fit elsewhere. And didn't fit as a footnote either. I could chop out St Claire if he's too lengthy. Do you think the other bits can be rearranged around that section to better advantage?

>>>> a fear of the clinical<< - 'clinical'?
- Yeah. That's a word both Thurber and Gill use, though Thurber is very delicate and Gill is downright crude. I changed it to 'explicit' but didn't want to use 'sexual' because I have 'I will, by God, keep sex out...' in the following parentheses. Any better words?

>>Now that could be trimmed, I think – don't know you need the whole bit at the end with the little girl tripping and so on. Just stop at 'absence'? If you really want to keep it, it might work better as a footnote.<<
- Cut. That was a baby that needed killing too. I liked his diatribe. It's quintissential Ross - he's the kind of guy that makes for good storytelling.

>>groundbreaking<<
-New Yorker also printed 'The Secret Life of Walter Mitty' and 'The Lottery' (by Thurber and Shirley Jackson respectively). I hope to have a better list of famous firsts by the time I get to the third entry.

That's all? Sure? I might get a swelled head.

I don't know much about this, but is it true that the New Yorker is famous sort of for it's cartoons? I didn't see any mention of this in the entry, but I didn't read it really closely.

good point. When I was little and I saw the mag at my grandmother's, that was the only part I looked at. Not like any of them are funny.

Will fix.

I am proud to say that I've moved the list of madmen to another section on office culture, but resisted the urge to burgeon the paragraph with a few more. I also added two brief but basic paragraphs to the section, thus bringing the word count up by around a 175.

I will work in a sketch of the magazine later on which will include further details on the cartoons.

Not really too long, I don't think - the material is all interesting and I've certainly seen longer entries on h2g2.

I beg to differ about the cartoons, though.

I look forward to succeeding entries about the magazine - certainly one of my favourite American publications!

is this what you are looking for? New Yorker

Yep! That's the magazine!

perhaps you could link to it.

Oh! Of course. Now I feel like an idjit.