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

Entry: "Wretched, bloody and usurping Boar" : Richard III, rogue royal? - A29233433
Author: Tamrhind - U956597

An 'alternative' entry on Richard III.

I was going to suggest Peer Review for this, but I see that it's already been done.

Fascinating guy, Richard III. Great play. Bad history, great play.

Wonder if you'd be interested in maybe taking another stab at Richard, say, as an imaginative exercise? Writing the story from *his* point of view, perhaps?

'Here I sit on Bosworth Field, wishing I had a horse...it all started when...'

Just a thought. (Attempting to get 'Now is the winter of our discontent' out of my head now.)

'Here I sit on Bosworth Field, wishing I had a horse...it all started when...' Poor Richard, sitting in the mud there.


Tamrhind, I think they were a bit quick ushering you out of Peer Review. You said you thought you had a different slant - having read both, I'm guessing the difference you mean is that you look at who else might have killed the princes?

If so, that could easily be an Edited Guide entry in it's own right. You'd just need to focus on that and cut out some of the duplicated background.

If you want something alternative on the other hand, well there are no restrictions here - go for it!

Commenting on what you have already - it's very readable, I like the style, I wanted more detail. Like just what was the dramatic falling out between Richard and Buckingham. And how did Howard come to Duke of Norfolk.

Anyway, thanks for posting, and tell us what kind of piece you really want to write.
Waz

That's 'And how did Howard come to _be_ Duke of Norfolk.', not was he on his belly, his knees or his feet.

Nobody was quick at 'ushering this out of Peer Review'. The only thing I did, was to point out that we already have a guide entry about the man, and that's my duty as a <./>scout</.>. When asked what other forum might be fit, I suggested the AWW. If you don't like that, I'll not do so in the future.

It's not for me to say what should or shouldn't be in the AWW - it's free to be used by anyone. Tamrhind's certainly welcome here, and I enjoyed reading his entry.

On the too quick thing - we'll need to disagree. This article's on a different tack to the existing one, I thought PR reviewers could've explored options a bit further.

We're currently about a handful of active scouts, and PR is very busy. A quick skimming of the extant entry didn't seem to show such a huge difference as to warrant a second entry on the same topic.
However, you're free to join the scouts and do it all better.

A review thread's not the place for this... start a thread on Sho's PR page if you wish, I'll read it there, but I'll only post here again on the entry itself.

You're right, and I've said all there is to say anyway.

Interesting, even intriguing.

All these people related to each other and claiming titles is a bit confusing. It would merit the addition of a few details to distinguish the characters from each other.

Yes. I'm a medievalist, and I can't tell the players without a scorecard, either.

First, foremost & primary: I had no absolutely NO intention of coming here after a multitude of months and stirring up a hornet's nest amongst friends! Kindly cease & desist.

Second, I naturally, have no problems in 'modifying' my work for two forums (fora?) so I will quite happily agree to LLWaz's suggestion and and forward two similar - not, I hasten to add, identical - entries for the EG & AWW respectively.

Third, to a minorVogonpoet, even as a self-professed Eng. lit. scholar, Bardophile and B.A., I couldn't agree more; that was, I think, the main reason I insisted on including their titles of nobility- so I wouldn't confuse myself!

I've returned this entry to PR as I agree that it differs markedly in focus from the existing EG entry on Rich. However, a brilliant idea, using this as "what if..."springboard - I'll definitely work on it.