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

Only a couple of hours into your Peer Review experience, and you already created a schism!

A great piece of comic writing, but it would need to be a little more factual and informative to be ideal material for the Edited Guide. That's not to say that it couldn't be done - it's not far off. You might for example attempt to justify why men are as you describe.

I'm with Leo as it currently stands.

OKeey. What if someone tried explaining it real simple like?

To get into the Guide, something has to be mostly factual, and otherwise as good as factual. If it’s opinion or narrative, it goes into the UnderGuide. Simple as that. Now, you make some broad, sweeping statements in here that are, quite frankly, unfactual. But many many of the folks in this thread think it can be fixed up without ruining the character of your writing very much. *She* *points to Wilma* wants you to just put it in the UnderGuide. (Which means she doesn’t think it’s very factual at all...)

Sorry to spoil the party but I have vague recollections of either seeing or hearing someone very like this.

Can I just enquire of the author is this all original work.

I'm trying to rack my brain about which comic writer or comidienne it may have been who this sound like.

in regards to irreverence - do I need to tone it down? I'd rather not, but can understand why I might have to.

And as for the topic of gay men this is not one I feel sufficiently versed in to attempt to include. I was really just going for the stereotypical 'lad'

Maybe a comprehensive guide to lads is more in order, but I feel that would detract from the over all effect of the piece.

I can quite honestly say that it was all entirely original as far as I know.

I wrote it about 6 months ago and posted it on a message board I used to use quite a lot, but other than that I'm not aware of anything particularly similar.

Broad sweeping statements? Un-factual?

Surely you can't mean these things?

Men's brains are 2/3 larger? Larger, yes, but 2/3?

Irreverence isn't bad, as long as it doesn't cross the border into opinion. If you're willing to edit this for the Guide, I think many folks here will be equally willing to work through the entry and point out what needs to be wiggled within the guidelines.

Sure I'm willing to amend it if it's going to be suitable. I'm always open to suggestions.

The 2/3rds larger bit is actually a quote from Anchorman - one of the greatest comedy movies of the decade.

A20789391 - A Comprehensive Guide to Men


Get the size corrected and you're half there

Sorry B'Elana, I don't understand.

That's another thing, men are prone to exaggeration

Sorry, should have ben clearer: the brain size comparison.

In that somebody most have forwarded the original to me at some point.

Please could you give details? The BBC have strict rules on copyright - see <./>Writing-copyright</.>. This is actually very important.

Icy

Honestly - this is my own work. Whether it gets accepted or not isn't a particularly big deal to me so I'm not going to go passing other people's work as my own.

I can imagine that lot's of people will have had similar thoughts (which is partly why it's funny) so maybe there are similar articles/email forwards etc but I'm not aware of any.

I don't think anyone will doubt that it's your work - it's just whether you might have transferred copyright in posting it elsewhere. The BBC need to know this - see the link I posted earlier.

It was just an independant message board - on proboards. There are no copyright issues with it though.

I'll take a quick knock at it. I reccommend that others vote on what needs to be changed from among the things I point out.

>>Men are male members, almost always vaguely related to the human race.<<

- almost always? Maybe just leave it as "vaguely related".


>>They have no emotions<<

-See what I mentioned above. Perhaps rephrase that they don't seem to have? Or that they rarely have?



>>Men never use terms of endearment unless in trouble.<<

- I like that! You should really consider using examples.


>> They have a wonderful ability to find a monosyllabic word for almost every possible occasion. To their ‘mates’ (a group of men who hunt together) they appear jocular and use words like ‘kn*bhead’ and ‘c*cksucker’ as friendly salutations, to other men (sometimes referred to as ‘w*nkers’) these words can be used to equally sufficient effect as terms to express their hatred or resentment.<<

- demonstrating limited vocabulary, i assume. However, all those starred out words are not monosyllabic.



Education and Capacity for thought.

>>Men do not need education, instruction, guidance or help.<<
-ever. Especially driving directions.


>>Men understand everything and are very wary of anything they do not.
-Wary? Whattaya mean? It just isn't important if they don't get it right off. It's probably 'stupid'.

>>They are born with an understanding of flat pack furniture, VCRs and fire related items that mere mortals couldn’t even begin to approach.
-Who are mere mortals? Females?

>>Men’s brains are 2/3 bigger than women’s. It’s not their fault – that’s science.
- But it isn't, so maybe just stick to 'bigger'.

Ok - now we've got the ball rolling! I like some of those Leo. I'll take a look at how I can work them in (or work some bits out) and edit when I've managed to do that.

Pleasure. I'm sure others will have plenty to say as well.

*Puts on ACE's hat*


Icy,

I once asked this question for one of my newbies and Jimster (oh, I miss him!) said, as long as the writing belongs to the person submitting it, and there are subtle differences to mark the changes from one messageboard to another, it should be fine.


As our new friend is in PR, his work should be sufficiently altered to appease that situation.


lil ACE/Scout