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

Entry: Darwin In The Dock? - The Scopes Trial. - A39090828
Author: Tamrhind - U956597

Written in response to request from Caffeinated Monkey (Guide Entries That Should Be Written) 2004.

I really like this entry, Tamrhind. It's a great topic for an entry, and you've written an excellent piece here. I've got lots of thoughts on how you might improve it. First, though, please know that I wouldn't go to the trouble of posting all this if I didn't think this entry has *enormous* potential. Second, please note that I'm attempting to be constructive, and every suggestion is just that - a suggestion, so I expect (nay, demand!) you to ignore the ones which you disagree with.



If you haven't already, could you proofread this and/or run it through a spell check? There are a few obvious errors here and there which I think you'd catch.



Should the title read "Darwin In The Dock*et*", rather than "Darwin In The *Dock*"?



"The specific law, promulgate by former farmer John Butler of the state legislature, found overwhelming favour in both houses and was duly signed into law (albeit reluctantly; he was heard to say "Probably the law will never be applied") by the Governor on March 21, 1925."

The second part of this sentence has a pretty weak construction. You're using the pronoun "He" before you mention the Governor, which can't help but confuse the reader. If I were writing it, I'd do something more like this-



"The specific law, promulgate by former farmer John Butler of the state legislature, found overwhelming favour in both houses and was reluctantly signed into law by Governor Peay on March 21, 1925. Afterwards, he was heard to say, 'Probably the law will never be applied.'"

(I'd also use the name of the Governor there, which is why I looked it up and stuck in there, sneaky-like )



"put up three-time presidential candidate William Bryan as special state prosecutor."

This is terribly pedantic, but could you include his full name, since he's most often referred to as "William Jennings Bryan"?



"who had worked under a Secretary of State Bryan."

Your use the indefinite "a" could be confusing, since you haven't mentioned yet that William Jennings Bryan had previously served as Secretary of State. So maybe something more along the lines of "who had worked with Bryan while he was Secretary of State"



"By the sixth day of the 'trial', the jury had been excluded from the presentations made by the defence. Raulston declared the counsels' views on the Bible which were irrelevant and impermissible."

You're putting the word "trial" in quotation marks, which is significant, but until this point in the entry you've only hinted that it was unfairly biased towards the prosecution. A good opportunity to better establish this would be when you first talk about Judge Raulston and how he denied some of Darrow's witnesses.

In the second sentence, do you mean that Raulston declared their views *to be* irrelevant and impermissible? I think something's missing from that sentence.



"The, having again had it expert witnesses forbidden, asked for the jury:"

Take a second look at this sentence. For one thing, I don't know what it means to "ask for the jury".



Incidentally, if you're going into Judicial history at the end, there are all sorts of cases about religion in schools and government. Lemon v Kurtzman comes to mind.



The dialogue and the pace of this entry are tremendous, but I feel like in making it more of a narrative, you miss out on the significance of the event. One option would be to have a "Conclusion" or "Significance" type section at the end, which could also give it a less abrupt ending. There are drawbacks to this, though. You could just expand upon the significance more in the introduction as well.

You're also confining your narrative, with few exceptions, to the courtroom. I recall reading about how bitterly divisive this was for Americans at the time. It's an awesome visual... people hunched over their radio sets, listening to the arguments of two great orators debating the nature of science and religion. The first courtroom circus was so very much unlike the Michael Jackson/OJ Simpson/Martha Stewart sort of deal today. It was highly intellectual, and yet Americans were very engaged. It's remarkable, really, that this was such an intense drama in America. And I believe that some people reacted angrily, and some reacted happily to the decision, but that isn't shown in your entry.



Once again, this is a fine effort. I look forward to seeing it in the Edited Guide. If you have any questions or need clarifications regarding your entry or the Edited Guide process, I'll be happy to help you in any way I can.

Please. Don't apologise for doing what I asked you to do by bringing my Entry to Peer Review!

I don't for one second believe PR was intended to be a forum where easily-bruised egos could hang out & massage each other.

OK, to your suggestions:

"Should the title read "Darwin In The Dock*et*"
I understand what you're getting at but I'm not entirely certain everyone would; having lived in Britain, for example, I don't remember "docket" ever having any extra-legal currency (although I know the term is widely used in the U.S.)

I agree with you "Governor" suggestion' emendation made.

Ditto, Bryan's name.

Ditto Sec. O State

I never planned to do any more than wiggle a toe in the water of legal history if & when required. Probably along with most non-lawyers, it confuses me and gives me migraines!

Nice entry - I agree with Jordan's comments.

I'm glad you mentioned Inherit The Wind - until now, that's all I knew about the Scopes trial. Spencer Tracy was brilliant in that movie, as ever.

Never seen it myself; did see him in a courtroom setting in "Judgment At Nuremberg".

I thougt it was pretty good over all but thought that
"Enforced teaching of Creationism, however,(in tandem with evolution) was allowed until Edwards v. Aguillard, when the justices said ,teaching a variety of scientific theories about the origins of humankind to school children might be validly done with the clear secular intent of enhancing the effectiveness of science instruction.'" was a little confusing and did notice some spelling errors. For example use cross not cros.

"Please. Don't apologise for doing what I asked you to do by bringing my Entry to Peer Review!"

Yeah. I usually preface comments to authors who I don't really know like that. Some people don't react well. I'd rather sound patronizing to a dozen than start a flame war in PR with one.

I just looked it up, and I found out that "dock" does have a legal/courtroom meaning I wasn't aware of. My apologies.

Judicial history is actually a favorite subject of mine. I try not to write about it much here, because there are things you just can't make people read, and that's one of them. I'd at least say that there are other cases which were to some extent affected by the Scopes Trial, even if it's just adding "The trial reverberated has reverberated around America's courtrooms for decades since." or something like that.

Are you considering adding anything about the significance throughout the nation?

I'm not at all au fait with the nuances of American history - it's a topic that barely got more than a glancing blow with the eyeballs in a decade of study - so, apart from what I've already written about (bog standard media circus drawing in the punters nationally, right-wing expansion in the states, the 'hangover' until Supreme Court quashings) I don't really know what else there was.

P.S. The word "dock" is used the world over in Brit-Eng-speaking countries - even down here in N.Z. - as in "Prisoner in the dock"

Hi Tamrhind,

You should probably mention that Scopes was never in danger of a prison term, and that the ACLU had also promised to pay any fine imposed upon him. (You should also probably check my facts on that!)

There are a few typos:

>ant-evolutionism

Guide writing style specifies single quote marks only, with book titles in italics.

>evolution adn Biblical accounts

>it duly did on July 2 Contravening practice - needs a full stop

>a fantastic cros between

>humors - British spelling please!

Otherwise, nice entry!

Gif

Couldn't find anything more germane to the case but that was the impression I on first got on studying- an American extravaganza, never really intended to do more than instill dollars and life in the Dayton C.B.D.

Thanks for pointing out the typos; having a real problem with them, these days. Not good for an ex-subeditor!

Bravo- an exceptionally good read. Previously I had only heard hollywoods version. This was even better.

This is a good one...

I had a chuckle over para 4 <... man has descended from a lower order of animals>. Surely there are more than a few who agree wholeheartedly with that bit!

para 7, <...actually teaching evolution and he was...> => "actual teaching of evolution" ?

para 8, => "asked HG Wells"...

*The Ringmasters*
- para 3: <...covered by an international array of journalists. These included H.L. Mencken, noted critic of American society and representative for The Baltimore Sun, who were also helping defray defence expenses.>
a touch disjointed? would it read more smoothly, eg
"covered by an international array of journalists who were also helping defray defence expenses. That array included H.L. Mencken, representative of The Baltimore Sun and noted critic of American society."

- para 4: labeling ... buffoon

*Face Off*
- last para: => "Further choleric exchanges were cut off by Raulston announcing, the next day, that it was entirely irrelevant."

*Closing Arguments*
- para 2: <... nolle prosequi [ie to be not willing to pursue].> add the meaning?

- last para: give the date.

*"Am I My Keeper's Brother"*
- para 4: => ... and finish with a full stop (a period would be allowed here, I think!).
- para 5: humours
and... <...towards the prosecution (Life saying of Bryan: "the Bible is infallibly inspired except where it differs with him on the question of wine, women, and wealth."), Dayton, ...> doesn't come over clearly. Also (life saying) though I don't recognise that.

Excellent stuff, keep going.

Hi Rod,

Your suggested correction to the Baltimore Sun bit alters the sense from 'The Baltimore Sun paid for part of the defence' to 'the newspapers in general paid for part of the defence'. I don't know which is more accurate, perhaps the author can advise!

'Life' should be in italics where it refers to Life magazine.



Gif

Giford: ah, I read it as the papers in general. Yep. "Author!" "Author!"

Life: I didn't make that connection, read it as a lifetime's saying .
OK, so " 'Life' magazine said, of Bryan..." - ?

"Your suggested correction to the Baltimore Sun bit alters the sense from 'The Baltimore Sun paid for part of the defence' to 'the newspapers in general paid for part of the defence'. I don't know which is more accurate, perhaps the author can advise!"

Giford had the idea I was trying to get across; I've changed it to (hopefully) clarify - let me know if I succeeded.

With Life magazine, I've put it in single quotes. Is that right or does the Guide only have that with books?

Are you planning on doing anything more here Tamrhind, or are you happy with it (PR posts considered)?

Author Tamrhind
Last posted: 9 Aug, 2008

Suggestions for this Entry?

Choices: Flea Market / Pickable - not too much for a dedicated sub-ed to do IMHO

GB
Scout

FM, although I don't think it's that far off

Email Sent

This has now been rescued from the Flea Market and put back into PR:

A41479653
F48874?thread=5929787