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

I believe my article is pretty much ready to go, but I'd really like others to look over it and give me any comments/corrections/otherwise.

I've tried to make it 'tame' for the Guide and hope I've succeeded. Then again, maybe folks can look at with an eye to that angle too?

Thanks.

This is a well written and informative entry! There's only one thing to correct (see the Writing Guidelines, [checking... err, sorry, it's in the other file: http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/SubEditors-Style ]: The Guide wants entries to be written in 3rd person if ever possible. Most of the time this is easily accomplished, eg:

> '... I'm afraid you're going'
--> then you might going to be

> 'I've seen many answers ...'
--> There are many answers
(ie: just drop it)

> 'My answer is that '
--> /One/ answer is that... (or: This researcher's answer is...)

> 'Though I've already said it, I want to ..
--> Though it has already been said, it should be emphasised ...

Ok, think you'll get the idea. If all else fails, you can still use 'this researcher has/thinks/does..', but the PTB really frown upon an 'I' or 'we'!

--------

As to the contents (I'm not going to start a discussion here...)
You seem to be presuming that the D/s roles are taken voluntarily, and to be interchangeable upon signalling and discussion. I know of some married couples where these roles developed over time, and the /s part doesn't have a chance to turn around the tables.

So perhaps you include some words about that, or use the intro section to tell readers that you, err, the entry, won't be talking about this constellation.

---

Good Work! (Dominator speaking DO Take It to PeerReview. Now!

Thanks for your comments. I'll look at changing to 3rd person as soon as I get enough free moments to get my brain into gear on it

Hmm. I think, however, given your last point, I may need to change it. I'm not presuming this is taken voluntarily, I'm assuming it. I tried to make it clear this is a lifestyle choice by repeating the point about all of this being consensual. I'll look at that and try to reword it.

Thank you again.

Hey, Old Wolf, good Entry Other than the 3rd person thing - which a good sub (SubEd this time ) would be able to sort - there are a couple of things that are mentioned, but not explained. A bit more on the TPE would be useful. Maybe an example contract would be good, too, but it is up to you . However, I agree this should be in Peer Review Until later....
BCNU - Crescent

Ah, good point. I'll add something extra on the TPE too. Thank you.

http://www.h2g2.com/A236495

A quick aside first: In Peer review Ashley has posted an entry entitled "A dominatrix and her dog", which touches on this sort of thing to some extent. I mention this because you are likely to give a considerably better review of it than I possibly could - it looks decent stuff to me, but I'm not experienced enough to judge. If you do want to have a look and give Ashley the benefits of your opinion, check this link: http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/F48874?thread=106935 - I'm sure he'd greatly appreciate it. -- But you don't want to hear about Ashley, so I'll shut u about him now, eh? ;-) General comment - I think you handle all this well - you certainly have no worries about not being tame enough - Indeed, I don't think the Guide is hugely focused on 'tameness' - being sexually explicit is a no-no, sure, because there may be children reading - but you're FAR away from *that* concern. Right at the top you emphasise the voluntary nature of D/s... the quote that I see a lot of is "You can't give power unless you have it to start with". I'm not entirely sure why I felt like saying that - but it's a neat quote... ;-) I think the second footnote ought to be in the text - describing TPE as a pinnacle is.... controversial at the least - the opposite viewpoint shouldn't be relegated to a footnote, I think. The first one is fine, though. Caps... yes, in D/s literature you do the capitalisation thing - but the guide isn't part of that literature, so I'm not sure what should be done. It's also slightly intimidating to those who are less familiar with such things... On a related note, I'd try and reduce the number of techinical jargon you use - defining all those terms up front is probably unnecessary, and will serve only to confuse, I feel. > "submissives aren't always X" This subheader, whether you mean it or not, kind of implies that submissives *are* mostly X, which I'm not convinced is what you're trying to say...? And finally... you might want to link to an external source or two - some FAQ, or some place where people discuss the thing - just so people have a hint on where to go to find out more. This entry is far better than many that are in Peer Review rather than the workshop - keep up the good work! :-D

Thanks. I already had a look at that link, and had a nice laugh. I tried formlulating a lot of replies but most of them ended up rather...sarcastic towards the Dominatrix in question. So I'm opinionated

I rather like your quote. I'm trying to work out how to put it in the article. If you don't mind.

I agree with the rest of your points. When I have a bit of time (and my brain is actually in the 'ON' position), I'll make some changes.

Thank you for the compliment. Now I have to get through this doorway with an inflated ego

Anyone who calls themselves the avatar of female supremacy (), and means it, deserves to be made fun of - and frequently...

/Anyone/ who says they're part of /any/ supremacy deserves to be laughed at

(angry voice) WILL YOU BE BRAVE??? Aren't you going to submit....



... this one to the Peer Review???

(angry voice) WILL YOU BE OBEDIENT??? Aren't you going to submit....



... this one to the Peer Review???

*just bursts out laughing*

*Old Wolf just bursts out laughing*

Editorial Note: This conversation has been moved from 'The h2g2 Writing Workshop' to 'Dominance and submission'.

This entry has already been edited via Peer Review!