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

(Entry ID# A3805814) [ I remembered]

I liked the way you formatted it LBclaire, makes easy reading, mixing the personal parts in with the factual parts, worked well IMO

Have a great holiday Ron, please let us know when you've made some changes on your Entry, or if you need any assistance.

Emmily

I really liked the orginal version. I think that this is a valuable entry and I do hope it soon gets in the Edited Guide. Í have to say that I think that the suggested revision works really well!

Hi Lbclaire,

Ah! I see what you mean. Yes, you are right in confirming the initial feeding to be an intravenously regulated drip through a cannula into the arm; also that the central line is a similar drip method, but in the latter case a tube is passed right the way down the vein into the heart chamber, in a 'regulated gravity flow' drip directly into the heart. I am not familiar with the pump method into the abdomen, but I am sure it is used in some cases.
I was awake when they inserted the central line, and had to lie still and hold my breath whilst they passed a metal 'leader' down the vena carver to aid the insertion of the tube. It was painless, but a little unnerving!
Your revised version is a good approach. But if that is accepted, I don't see the need for the Italicised passages to distinguish the
personal experience sections from the general procedures and facts.
I shall have to think about these points at length before making any final decisions.
I'll speak to you on my return from holidays.
Thanks for your help and advice.

Ron

f.

Hi Z Sex SExpert,

Surely, from your nickname, this is 'off subject' for you!!
(He! he!)

But thank you for your kind remarks about my Entry! (And here, let me stress, I'm not back on your subject!!)

You say that you 'really like' both my original verion and that of Lbclaire, so you've confused me a little. Why not come down 'off the fence' and tell us both which version you actually prefer!

Neither of us bite...I don't think... although...I can't speak for Lbc, come to think of it!

f.

Nah, I don't bite...often...

Thanks for your nods of approval, Emmily and Z . I presume the medical stuff is OK if you've read it through, Z?

Re. versions, Ron, there's no doubt that your original version was interesting and had great potential to be a valuable addition to the Guide. However, there are some House Rules which need to be followed in order to keep all the Entries to an even standard - take a look at A266131
(English Usage in the Edited Guide). One of the House Rules is to keep the entry in third-person, as far as possible.

An effective way to make your entry informative and in the third-person, while still retaining the elements of personal experience which make this entry different and more interesting than an entry that just details the procedure, is to split it up into third-person 'factual' text and blockquoted, italicised first-person 'experience' text. Take a look at a previous entry done in this way, A863345, which Oojakapiv suggested at the beginning of this conversation.

Hope the reasons for the reformat are clearer now. It's not about removing your experience, it's about making it more accessible to readers. Have a think about what you want to do and let us know when you're back.

Lbclaire

As for which one I prefer, I'd go for LBCs, because the order is more chronological, and it seems to flow better.

Feeding?

Well there are two types of artificial feeding, entral - where a tube goes into the gut, and paraentral where the nutriants are go directly into the blood, usually through a central line. I'm ashamed to say that I don't know which sort of feeding is used after a gastrectomy.

I will look it up when I get home tonight am at the GFs at the moment and she doesn't have any medical textbooks.

Hello Lbclaire,

Sorry for the 2 week delay in this reply...been on holiday!

Well, yes, I know about the guidelines.

This thread is now very long, but if you were to look back you would see that my first version was in the first person. I was then corrected (as a newby) and amended the entire entry to the third person convention. Then it was pointed out to me that I could indeed post parts of my personal experiences in the first person. I was further advised to put even more of it into the first person, but in Italics.
So now I have your advice to re-read the rules that say the third person should be the format.
On top of that it has been pointed out to me that at least two similar 'medical' personal experience based Entries written in the first person have actually been accepted into the Edited Guide.
So I feel as though I'm being chased around in ever decreasing circles until I disappear into my own rissole! (Sorry for that bad joke Lbc)
I feel as though I'm being passed around as a multilayered paper parcel in the old parlour game; and, dare I say it, my (admittedly rather gloomy) Entry is felt by the majority of reviewers as unsuitable for selection, and that I may get 'fed-up' and 'jump ship', to leave all my labours to some other fortunate Peer Review researcher to inherit!

This is not to 'get at' you personally; it appears to be part of the 'hidden culture' of Peer Review in general!

In summary, I think I'll stay with my own version and 'test' the system!!

Thank you for your most valuable advice and assistance. Please don't take any of this as a personal issue.

Ron

Hello Z: Sex SExpert,

Sorry for the delay in response to your input. I've been on holiday for 2 weeks.

Thank you for your contribution to the review of this Entry.

You say you don't know which sort of feeding is used after a gastrectomy.
But unless you don't believe me, the fully conscious patient, who had the central line inserted whilst awake so that I could cooperate with the registrar surgeon who inserted it, you should now know!
The foot of the bed was raised to allow blood-flow to the upper body and head. The pillow was removed from under my head. The registrar made his incision after carefully and skillfully judging where the vena carva ran at the upper-right chest area. A staff nurse handed him his long metal 'leader' which, after telling me to hold my breath for a short while, he inserted down the vein, and judged by a mark on the leader when it had reached the heart chamber, after which he inserted the rubber tube and connected the feeder bag hanging from a mobile stand. I was initially fed intravenously until my veins collapsed.

I don't think I was especially unique in being fed this way, as a number of fellow patients were fed by the same technique.

Might I refer my honourable (medical) friend to the answer I gave to Lbclaire some moments ago! (To coin a phrase.) You will see why I'm becoming a little disillusioned with the way I'm getting conflicting advice and having to alter the Entry's style in ping-pong fashion!

frontiersman.

Sorry you feel you've been messed about Ron, I can see your point, and would probably feel much the same in similar circumstances.

I think part of the problem is there are so few personal account Entries in the EG, so when a good one such as yours comes along, there is some confusion as to the layout of it. There appears to be a lot of trial and error in these type of Entries, which can be rather frustrating for the authors.

I have not read your Entry before posting this, but from what I remember is was OK the last time I read it.

Emmily

I had to fight to keep my first person perspective in my Commonwealth Games volunteering entry (feel free to have a read for an example, it's on my space) but it definitely worked, and some entries just need a first person perspective. Write it how *you* want, and in the end it's better to have a non-edited entry that you're happy with, rather than an edited one you don't like. But I think this one will end up edited anyway

Hi Ron,

Hope you had a good holiday.

The bottom line is that it's your entry. You know how I (and others who've commented on here) feel it would come across best - as a third-person entry for the 'factual' stuff, with first-person bits in blockquotes - but if you want to stick with the first-person all the way through, it's up to you, of course. My aim is to make raw material into something more readable - to help the entry get picked and to save the sub-editor from having to do too much work when it is assigned to them. That's my job in real life too, so it's what I automatically try to help with for any entries I get involved in in PR.

Anyway, I don't think there's anything more I can offer, so good luck with it from now on.

Lbclaire

Hello Lbclaire,

I feel wretched that I may have offended you with my general remarks and observations on the 'system' and culture of Peer Review.
That was most assuredly not my aim or intention, as I attempted to point out.
I really do value your recent interest and advice on this piece.
When it comes to the crunch I really don't know what to decide. To my mind, the fact of this being a highly personal account of a serious matter is + or - 90% of its worth.
What I should like to ask the Editors is: Why the seeming obsession with 3rd person Entry? There seems no rhyme or real reason for this rather artificial rule. It seems like rules for rules sake in this particular type of Entry.
I am sure that you are highly regarded on h2g2 for your advice and input.
Please accept my apologies if I have in any way offended you, or any of my other reviewers with my candid views and analyses.

Ron

Hi Cyzaki,

Ah! A fellow sufferer of 'The System!'

I shall indeed take a look at your Commonwealth Games volunteering Entry after I have written this response.

Then, you will know just how my mind turns on this particular question.

It's rather a frustrating up hill struggle to convince the 'powers that be' that they seem rather inflexible in their thinking. Not all Entries are the same rigid form in nature. Some require a more open approach because of their 'message' and value as a personal account. I think it's about time they held a meeting to discuss some modifying changes to the Rules!
We can only but hope that they will listen to reason. But I personally don't think we shall get anywhere fast!
Thanks for your interesting comments.

Ron

Emmily, Oh! Emmily,

Thank you for your empathetic response and kind words to my latest comments about 'the system' and how I have now come to perceive its 'inner workings' in relation to this Entry.
This is not a condemnation of individual responses within the constraints of the system, but my 'take' on what I see as a weakness and constriction of unnecessary rules. Not all rules, for I am no anarchist (more of a monarchist). But some self regarding institutions go over the top with their sense of power and authority. 'Rules is Rules' but why stifle the pen to unnecessary lengths in the name of style, for goodness sake!
I am now at the stage where I'll need to look again at my Entry to see just how much of it is in the 1st person, and what I can do to make it 'more acceptable' to our discerning Editors! Heaven knows what runs through their minds, or what agenda they pursue in their decision making mode.
The point is, if this Entry ever does get considered, all my alterations and labours may be swept away for someone else's Edited version before entering the Edited Guide (pigs might also fly, I'm led to believe!)

With my kind regards,
Ron

Ron

Don't worry about it Ron, I'm not offended . I just felt that I'd given my opinion, suggested alternatives and have now reached the limit of how much I can contribute to this. I will just say though, that the third-person rule helps to keep the more factual Edited entries to a high standard by keeping clear of too much personal opinion which might put readers off. Personal documents, as you have seen, can be different, but I still hold that formatting your document so that it has both first and third-person does not lose any of the impact of a completely first-person narrative - it just makes it easier to read.

Lbclaire

PS I don't know about 'highly regarded' - I'm sure most people don't know I exist!

In general, the 'no first person' rule is a very good thing - we don't want lots of 'I think...' in an entry about trees, or London, or mobile phones... However, in an entry which is all about what it feels like to do something, or go through something, then I think first person is very necessary, so long as it's done well.

Yes Lbclaire,

I happen to agree with you, and the Editorial system, that the: 'I think that this should be 'X'' variety of Entry is far too subjective and personal.
Thank you for your response and understanding of what I am trying to say and to achieve, in my ham-fisted way.
I do need to look at my Entry again and try to read it in an objective and distanced frame of mind, (always a difficult thing to achieve in so personal an account).
I will need to make a decision soon as to how to proceed. In the immediate future though, We're off away to Cambridge for another 10 days before I can give it my full attention.
Kind regards,

Ron

Hi Cyzaki,

Sorry, I seem to have got my wires crossed here!

I agree with your view, just also expressed to Lbclaire.

Yes, the Entry should always be well presented when written as a personal account of anything. The 'this should not happen' kind of Entry would just turn Peer Review into an argumentative forum.
But your Entry and mine do not express personal opinions about our respective experiences; they just state the facts and the knowledge gained by us both in a purely objective manner.

f.

Your Guide Entry has just been picked from Peer Review by one of our Scouts, and is now heading off into the Editorial Process, which ends with publication in the Edited Guide. We've therefore moved this Review Conversation out of Peer Review and to the entry itself.

If you'd like to know what happens now, check out the page on 'What Happens after your Entry has been Recommended?' at EditedGuide-Process. We hope this explains everything.

Thanks for contributing to the Edited Guide!