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

http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/A192944

This is my own article about what makes cartoons tick, and why they're not governed by Real Physics. I think it should be in the Guide so that aliens have half a chance of understanding how Tom and Jerry are still alive after the first 30 seconds of any given episode.

Plus I tried to submit it over a year ago and absolutely nothing happened. I think it must have fallen down the back of the couch. Hoping for better results this time...

Spiny

On the category walking off cliffs without falling
I remember a bugs bunny cartoon where a young Elmer Fudd
walks off a cliff and when bugs points out the fact
He says "oh we haven't studied about gravity yet" and wanks back
out of danger. so you have to add the law that the character
must be informed as to his danger.

Thanks for the input, Shagbark. Loved the typo too (I assume you mean "walks back...")

Fair point you make, but I would contend that the heading for that section covers it: "You do not fall down until you realise you ae unsupported". You can either realise this for yourself, or have someone else tell you, but the effect is the same.

But of course, all of these Laws are just putty in Bugs Bunny's hands, because he is the King of Cartoon World.

Thanks for the input, Shagbark. Loved the typo too (I assume you mean "walks back...")

Fair point you make, but I would contend that the heading for that section covers it: "You do not fall down until you realise you are unsupported". You can either realise this for yourself, or have someone else tell you, but the effect is the same.

But of course, all of these Laws are just putty in Bugs Bunny's hands, because he is the King of Cartoon World.

Oops

a very good entry and informative!!!

Hi SPINY,
I remember joining in a conversation on this article waaaaaay back in the old pre-alabaster days. Shocked that its still not edited - you have my support!

Orcus

Thanks both.

Well, Orcus, after the deafening indifference last time, I thought perhaps it wasn't what was being looked for, so I let it lie. I think though that it just disappeared into electronic limbo land rather than being badly received.

Perhaps I'll get into writing some more if it gets accepted - I confess I'm usually only here for the forums these days.

Spiny.

A couple of things. The 6th item -- painting an object makes it real -- needs to be further developed. It is possible for cartoonA to paint a tunnel and run through it, but it is not always possible for cartoonB to follow; they will be confronted with a solid wall with paint on it.

Need to include the portable hole -- cartoon reality is based on perception as well as realisation.

Invisibly carrying objects of any size is really to do with the size of the container being larger on the inside than the outside. Woody Woodpecker's pants were of course made from an old TARDIS.

The phenomenon of the frame. The physical world does not exist beyond the boundaries of the frame, and while certain physical laws apply (such as those relating to the throwing of cream pies) it is usually true that a cartoon within the frame cannot act on a cartoon outwith the frame and vice versa.

-- David, in the desert, on a sloth with no aim

This is a great entry - I'd love to see it included in the guide

Ummm, sorry SPINY but it appears it was rejected before because they found the material elsewhere on the internet.
The writing guidelines require an article to be original work I'm afraid.
Maybe if you rewrote it?

Okay, thanks Orcus.

Well, that's interesting. Either I've been plagiarised, or there's a like-minded individual out there who's come up with the same idea, because I can assure you that as far as I'm concerned, these are my own words. Whatever else I may lack, it's not the ability to write, so I would have no need nor desire to pass someone else's work off as my own.

I suppose it's quite common for two people to come up with the same idea at the same time, and that's fair game. If someone's nicked it, however, there's not much I can do about it, unless it can be shown that the nicked article post-dates mine. At least then people would know I'm not a copyright thief, which is not an allegation I care for.

I do think, however, that if the article was rejected when I first submitted it for this reason that a note to tell me so wouldn't have gone amiss. As I said, I thought it had never reached the Editors, or that the queue was so immense it would take months for them to reach it. Just to bin it without telling the author why, and in the process to assume he's the thief when he may have been unaware of the duplication doesn't seem to be in the spirit of this site. Hardly inspires one to write further material.

Incidentally, Orcus, can you find out where the article I'm supposed to have plagiarised can be found, please?

Hi SPINY,

Unfortunately this entry cannot appear in the Guide because very similar content seems to be replicated elsewhere on the Net many times. As I said elsewhere, the bottom line with us at h2g2/BBC is that we need to know who the original author is in order that the author gives us permission to publish, that s/he waives the moral rights to his/her work. This we don't have in the case of your entry, and thus we can't publish it. I'm sorry. Even if you have made an attempt to re-word it, it remains far to similar to countless other pages on the Net bearing the same title, 'The Laws of Cartoon Physics', and as such it is not an original work. Unfortunately, this is the nature of much of the information we find on the net, and as such, this thread will now be sent to the Sinbin.

All the best,

Sam.

...and thanks for the encouragement, Mr Porteous and Cafram.

Hi SPINY,

We simulposted! I'm reading your post now. I'll get back to you. And no one is accusing you of plagiarising!

S

Hi again SPINY - I've copied the articles referred to in the scout forum into a temporary guide entry for your perusal... http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/A590898

I don't make any accusations I have never seen this stuff before - this is jsut for your own info and possibly you may want to use this to argue your case further. I think its still an excellent topic for a guide entry

Orcus

Thanks, Sam, I accept that explanation. It's just what happens when you pick a popular subject to write about. Although we do have a Guide Entry on Harry Potter, and I'm sure there's a whole lot out there on the web about *him*...

Orcus, sorry - I wasn't saying *you* were accusing me of plagiarism, just that the system seemed to be. Thanks for those links - I'll go check 'em out now.

Oh no sorry to you - a misunderstanding I was just trying to be supportive and worded it wrongly

Pals then?

Sam, I looked at a bunch of web links that Orcus posted, and far from the same type of article being repeated many times, it turns out to be exactly the same article posted in many places. Anyway, there is a great similarity between mine and it, just proving that great minds think alike! So if that similarity's enough to bump my article, so be it.

Of course, using the Harry Potter argument advanced above, I could always claim that h2g2 needs its very own explanation of cartoon behaviour. Perhaps a change to my article's title would do it?

Enough already. I'm not fighting any more after this.

OK, it's Sam here, and I'm about to do a U-turn.


After having watched this thread develop today, and after having talked to the author and members of the h2g2 team, I've decided to go against my original post and let this entry stand on the condition that we state at the bottom of it the following:

'This is a collection of some of the more interesting laws of cartoon physics floating round the Internet, but there are many more floating round the Internet. If you have any suggestions for further laws, please add them to the Conversation Forum below.'


As Mark Moxon said to me, and so too Scouts and other members of the team, the entry seems more like the re-hashing of an old joke that's been doing the rounds on the net, rather than an instance of plagiarism.

The reason that I've changed my mind is that the other 'Cartoon Theories of Physics' URLs that were found all relate, more or less, to the same text and subsequent re-readings of SPINY's entry have persuaded me/us that, though obviously similar to the Net URLs, it has been sufficiently re-written in order for us to publish, on the condition that we include the addendum mentioned above.

What actually appears to have happened is that SPINY just had the misfortune to think of something that someone else had too.

I'm very sorry to all for the confusion I may have caused on this one, especially to the author, but this whole area of publishing stuff that appears elsewhere in the public domain is very 'grey' and certainly complicated, and to be honest with you, I myself am not at all certain about many of the finer aspects of this kind of copyright issue.

So, let's publish it, with the addendum above, and see what happens.

Thank you so much for your patience and once again, apologies to all concerned for the confusion.

Sam.