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

I've just read it through again and I'm still awake . I didn't spot any errors.

Good, good.

I think FM's just jealous because he didn't think of it first.

B

Hardly. I'm just bored with it all.

Well, go and and write something new, vibrant and exciting then.

B

I was taking issue with your rather smug assertion that 'they make better reading than most'. Doesn't say much for the rest of the EG then, does it? Enties in that must be even *more* formulaic and unimaginative than those written to this rather boring format.

B: don't you think that Guide Entries are intended to be read and to appeal to the widest possible readership? And that if we all adopted the 'if you don't find it interesting, don't read it' approach then the readers themselves might start to decamp en masse? I'm just trying to encourage innovation rather than Writing By Numbers.

Simulpost, which causes me to read 'Well, go and and write something new, vibrant and exciting then' and reply 'pots and bloody kettles'.

Read this thread and then you can see my objections spelled out in full: F52677?thread=621025. And read A3477927,
A3320939, A3100203, A2671733, A2116766, A2028854, A1091341... I think they're pretty eclectic.

Master B, I hope you don't mind if I hijack this thread for a bit since the main business has largely been finished with.

FM asks: "don't you think that Guide Entries are intended to be read and to appeal to the widest possible readership?"

Yes, of course the Entries are designed to be read. I can't imagine anyone would argue with that. But the second part of the question is open to debate. I write articles that I hope are *accessible* to as many readers as possible but that's not the same as being *appealing* to them. The EG is not a popularity contest. There is room for articles with wide appeal and room for Entries with a niche readership.

I have no idea whether the audience for my entries on ants is ten or ten thousand and I certainly have no idea what percentage of the audience found them appealing. As long as the articles makes sense to everyone who comes along, that's all that matters. But since there were a few positive comments, and some ant-related websites now link to my h2g2 articles, it seems as if some people also found my writing useful and, perhaps, interesting and that's a delightful bonus.

Mass appeal is not, as far as I know, a criterion for entry into the EG and nor should it be in my opinion.

I now return you to your normal programming .

I think you're being a little uncharitable there FMP:

a) I don't see how I can be making a 'smug assertation' when I've never had an entry like this on the front page (apart from Billy Joel, which was a big community effort that I oversaw and pulled together).

b) As I have said, I started this entry last year after enjoying reading some of DD's similar deconstructions. They made excellent reading to me (and clearly to at least 3 other people, judging by this backlog). Imitation, flattery and soforth.

c) I think DD's post to your Cwm Rhondda entry was a little misjudged, on reflection - if he wanted to write the entry, he should have got on and done it, rather than harping about yours. I don't agree with your response, but we already know that.

d) I am not calling your writing skills into question. I have enjoyed reading many of your Entries and contributing in PR Like DD, if you have better things to do. But, like DD, if you can make a better job of writing for the Guide, why aren't you doing it rather than complaining about the way other people do it?

B

a) That was a simulpost, and

b) Your comment on Mina's thread was completely unjustified and pretty childish. You should be ashamed of yourself.

B

Who me? What did I say?

Not you. Felonius Monk.

B

Oh right.

Well, not right really. I don't remember the bit about accusing people of being childish and ashamed of themselves being recommended in Tact and Diplomacy 101. Could you have put that differently?

I should've done, I suppose, but I was a bit teed off with his incessant complaints.

B

I understand. There's a lot of pushing at the boundaries of the EG qualifying criteria going on at the moment. It would be wonderful if we could all stick to reasoned debate.

So s at dawn then?

Do remember that the causal reader of the EG will not have read everything in it. In fact most people who read these articles will find them amusing, and won't have read many like this before. Someone browsing all of the articles of this nature in the EG will just read the ones for songs that they know, not all of them.

The Edited Guide is like a magazine in a lot of ways, but most readers of a magazine will read all of it every month, whereas most readers of the guide won't read all of it.

I happen to like them, I often hear songs like this and wonder 'I wonder who X is'.

We're hardly overwhealmed with song analysis's are we? There's perhaps one or two a month, at the very most?

That's 1.6 - 3% of the total output of the Guide in a month?

I personally think that there's room for them?

I reckon your figures are way over the top there Z - we don't even get one or two a month normally, but I think the problem that both I and FM have is that whereas DD used to be the only Researcher who wrote entries like this, two new authors have appeared recently doing the same thing and there's a concern that this kind of entry might become a blueprint for others to grab and run with.

My own feelings aren't quite so extreme as FM's, and I must admit that there a number of Tom Waits songs that could stand up to an analytical style entry and which would make excellent entries - Jitterbug Boy for instance. As much as I'd love to write one for that song, I don't think I will.

Maybe we should deal with them then?

I know orgingal ideas are the best, but if something works why not run with it for a while.

If I was surfing the net and came across a large collection of articles analysing various pop songs in detail I'd probably spend ages reading them then spend a while telling all my friends.

It's something that's unique to h2g2, - I don't see it being done elsewhere else on internet-land or even in the print media, and could be a good selling point for the guide. It's looking at something everyday in an unusal way.

They're not easy entries to write, and I reckon they take quite a lot of research, I can't see it being the sort of entry that newbies write - Master B said this one took him 8 months to write.

I think that this is quite an acceptable entry.

In terms of its place in the genre of song lyric dconstruction, I think that it's quite weak. But that is because of where the deconstruction is going to take you. Most of the individuals named work, or worked in tlevision with a large minority of them being weathermen. Now weathermen to me is not a particularly interesting subject, so the whole entry has limited appeal.

None of this is your fault B. It's down to the poor song writing abilities of the Tribe of Toffs. They weren't a patch on Ian Dury and his Rhythm Stick - an entry that I think is brilliant btw.

For once, I find myself in complete agreement with you, Desk. Although I'm happy to admit this isn't stunning, I've brought it up to more-or-less Guideworthy. And I thought the Ian Dury entry was likewise brilliant.

And it didn't take me 8 months. It took me three days, with a 237-day coffee break.

B