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

I do not like this entry.

I would not like to see it in the Edited Guide.

Oh my.

Can I ask why?

Incidentally, would it help if I expanded the entry to include other animals eaten whilst they are still alive? Like Ikizukuri, Sannakji and the Ying Yang Fish?

It's gruesome, certainly, but I disagree that it shouldn't be in the Guide. After all, there are a lot of things already included that people may find distasteful and if we're supposed to be building the Ultimate Guide to Life, the Universe, and Everything we can't exclude stuff just because it's a bit squicky. I mean, it's not like the Entry advocates or applauds the practice.

The guide contains many entries on eating various animals including A378335 Gutting a fish, A748181 Gutting a rabbit as well as many articles on cannibalism. Where exactly is the line that an article on eating monkey's brains has crossed that these other articles have not?

Since the revelation that many food products contain pork and horse meat when labelled as something else, in the UK asking what people would and would not be prepared to eat has become a major talking point. This entry therefore has topical resonance. Obviously it goes without saying that none of the researchers who have commented on this article would consider this.

What I would say is that h2g2 does have responsibilities, and if we are to live up to Douglas Adams' ideals then we should embrace conservation and the ethical treatment of animals. For that reason I think it wise to avoid having a 'How to' section. 'How to' implies not only that we have done this, but also often enough to know the best way, as well as suggest that we are recommending that others also partake in what is, to be frank, a barbaric practice. Similarly, I think any attempt to glorify gore should be avoided. That said, if written sensitively and given an appropriate title, I think some of the information could be included in a 'How it was supposedly done' section, provided that this section be carefully written to emphasise that what is written is myth and not fact, is written in a critical fashion without any glorification of the practice and cannot in any way be interpreted as a recommendation.

The eating of monkeys brains is something which appears in fictitious film and television drama considered suitable for family viewing.

Yes, this is a controversial subject, far more so than 'is it morally acceptable to make pancakes using battery hen eggs?'. It is one which needs to be written with care and sensitivity, and thus it is important that we identify which sections perhaps need to be more carefully and sensitively phrased. But, like Mr Dreadful, I don't think we should blanket all attempts to write about eating monkeys. Instead we should ensure that the topic is discussed in a measured way, strongly emphasising how we disapprove of such practices.

<BB<

Welcome to h2g2 - the guide to life, the universe and everything we don't find distasteful or otherwise unpleasant.

Bringing the thread back to Peer Review Mr603, I personally have no problem with the subject.

However, I find that the entry itself is purely gossip and baseless semi-facts. I believe others in this thread that have picked up on parts that state gossip and rumour as fact. Before this entry could be considered I'd personally like to see a bit more background to it.

At the moment it just reads like trying to see how much shock factor we can get into an entry, and we've got that far better done in Animal Sex

With good background research into it, and less on trying to make people go urgh, this could be a good, informative piece.

There's one paragraph on the actual practice. The rest of the entry is about how this may be apocryphal and/ or illegal as well as less gruesome alternatives. There's a warning at the start that it's graphic. There's a reference to a dead tree source as well as an online source.

I disagree that the entry should moralise and tut-tut. It's an entry in a quirky encyclopaedia so should be informative and quirky. Unless the Hitchhikers Guide is to be the preserve of a narrow-minded western liberal viewpoint of course, looking down the collective nose at "inferior" cultures.

Quite simply, I heard about the eating of monkey brains years ago, pre-interweb. At that time it was a dish reported to have been served to the Queen. I would have found this kind of article useful and informative.

But there's not much in there of things like it being served to a Queen. And which Queen, when and why?

At the moment it really is just a bunch of "ooh, guess what..."

And we're not quirky. We're alternative

"Before this entry could be considered I'd personally like to see a bit more background to it."

I agree with that.

Well, it's certainly more constructive than "harrumph"

I read some years ago that the Ebola virus was believed to be contracted initially by the tribal custom of eating monkey brains. I am unable to find a definitive article, in a hurry, at the moment, but I certainly wouldn't dismiss it out of hand.

Perhaps someone else has the time to dig for more detail.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/20593634

Websailor

I have to admit I've read many articles saying that many things are down to things like eating brains (Mad Cow Disease anyone?) which over the years have mostly been proven wrong, with only a few proven right.

But something like that with the back up would certainly fill this into a more informative, rounded entry.

Found this but not sure which December the report is from:

http://www.timeenoughforlove.org/saved/MonkeyBrainsOffMenuCentralAfrica.htm

Websailor

There is something very odd about the dates on this thread.

Bring back Live Monkey Brains! Let no brain be left uneaten! Nom nom nom.

Okay. Second thoughts. I think my enthusiasm for this may have contributed towards to its yikesing the first time round. I don't want to make the same mistake again. This is an article with a lightly morbid subject matter, it's been given a dryly comic treatment. It's factual. It is also great fun. I can only defend this as a slightly sick person who is allowed by the laws of this country to indulge in slightly sick things. This article barely registers on the radar of sick.

I'm going to go the whole live monkey here.

To give some wider context on film and what we are allowed to SEE: In Britain we have a fairly lax censorial structure. Most cuts to films we get (on the grounds of 'horror' content and not, more disturbingly, political bases) are made as a matter of economy; to appease the greatest number of countries. We have about 5 banned films and same number of officially cut films and again the same number that have been refused certification (possibly on the grounds that bbfc certification costs £75 per minute). These include a scene of a child basically wilfully offering herself up for rape edited out of A Ma Souer (feminist French art-house). A very horrible torture-porn movie called The Bunny Games and the 'oeurve' of Nick Palumbo (gives himself a lot of different names) . We banned a similarly unpleasant Japanese offering called Grotesque. We don't have the uncut versions of A Serbian Film and Human Centipede 2. It's not however illegal to import these media for private viewing. That said there are instances in cinema, released uncut in the uk, of the vilest, unconscionable cruelty to animals. Particularly in the Italian Cannibal cycle. Cannibal Ferox shows real footage of a turtle having all it's limbs and then head lopped off with a machete and then holds the shot on it's dead and wildly flailing stumps. Uncut. UK release. That makes me cross.

This article is funny and doesn't actually hurt anyone or thing. Slightly sick things are okay and this only registers at about 1.2 on the sickness scale. Trust me.

There is a fantastic instance of Korean actor Choi Min-Sik eating a live squid in Old Boy. The crew found most live squid are fairly passive about being eaten alive. It took 20 or so takes till they found one that put up a fight. Choi Min-Sik is a vegetarian.

I think i probably did more harm than good again, but at least, like squid 20, I put up a fight.

I have had a quick look over the entry and also the comments so far. For what it is worth, here are my initial thoughts

There is a difference between writing an article and reading an article written by someone else.
The title stirred my interest, I wanted to know more about it in terms of whether there is any truth to the matter.
Reading the article I was a little unsettled. It seemed to be written in style likely to provoke shock.
The factual content seemed low and the article short. The centrepiece of the article seemed to be its "shock" content.
Hence I can understand several of the previously posted comments.

I would prefer that the article focuses on facts, brings into centrality the issue of whether it is true or myth, and tones right
down the shock factor.

>> .. the brain contains harmful proteins called prions .. <<

Like others, reading this bit, I thought to myself - that's just flat wrong or a gross oversimplification requiring context.

As Stone Aart put it, it's not the subject matter, but the article itself. There is no real factual content, it's purely there for shock factor.

As such, it's not a Guide entry.

Thinking about the practicalities as well as the psychological factors I think this will likely turn out to be myth. Sure people will eat dead products, but the issue here is on the "live" factor.

Thanks for your comments Stone Aart, much appreciated.