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

We'll all have to wait for the ANSWER then.

anyone?

I've never had that problem, Amy.
The entry you linked to has nothing to do with PROD, ANSWER (which is completely meaningless, by the way) or anything. It was written during the 'Improving Peer Review' discussions.

Perhaps you could not try to make me look foolish?

I don't need to do that.

And i'm puzzled ,possible since its almost 3am think that could have been this one http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/plain/A3795618 but strange things happen to my page every so often

That was uncalled for Amy.

"My head isn't in my backside, my head's in the stars."

Well, possibly. I've heard that lack of oxygen makes people see stars, and I'm sure that there's something going on with your head that you think you call the writers of over 7000 entries mediocre and not think you're being extremely rude. If it's not stuffed up your backside then I don't know what's happened to it.

It's pointless talking to any of you lot. You've come up with this great idea that Something Needs To Be Done, but all you've actually suggested is that everyone who has written for the Guide so far might as well not have bothered. I've seen nothing constructive discussed.

You have to learn to listen to other people, before you can hope that they will listen to you.

OK, given that Ben asked us to get specific, can anyone tell me what this means (from the PROD page):

>>
It's too easy to write (and pick) a lightweight Entry and it's not as if we have to. There are a thousands of worthwhile subjects to wrestle with first.

'Lightweight' in this sense means three things. It means shallow in terms of content, flat in terms of style and trivial in terms of effort. Evidence of any one of the three redeems writing, but a worthwhile Peer Review will demand such evidence.<<


Specifically, what does "it's not as if we have to" mean?

And, why does shallowness, flatness and trivialty redeem writing?




~~~


Mina, I appreciate your earlier comments. They made me feel much more comfortable about the entries I am working on given that I don't have any in the EG yet. Thanks for the reminder that this is about a functional guide, not about being the 'best' writers (whatever that means). It's helpful for me to relax a bit and not be so worried about producing the Best article on whatever subject.


PRODers, please bear this in mind - PR and the whole process of writing for the edited guide is challenging enough already.

Jodan, when you use language like mediocre and say that you want to improve the standard, then those of us reading existing entries are going to think we don't have a sh*t show of improving on a lot of that i.e. if you classify what is already in the guide as merely mediocre (or slightly above) when in fact it is actually appropriate to the kind of guide this is, how are you going to encourage new writers in who may now perceive the bar as too high? (see also my comments below about lines and fields).


btw, the Concise Oxford gives two definitions for mediocre:

1. of middling quality, neither good not bad

2. second-rate.

One thing that has interested me in the range of PROD conversations, including the one in PR, is that skill in writing doesn't necessarily translate into skill at communicating. Which is kind of odd really.

Also, I'm not sure I want to take advice about writing standards from someone who cannot see how the word 'mediocre' can easily be perceived as insulting, particularly in the current debate.

~~~

Oh, and just as an afterthought, returning to Ben's original post and the wave/particle thing. I think that seeing writing on a linear scale that goes "good/mediocre/crappy" actually inhibits creative and lateral understanding of the craft (a PROD irony).

Obviously there is some standard above which writers need to get to be in the EG (that's what the guidelines and the general House style are for). But above that I think it's much more useful to see the area as a field that contains a variety of directions in which writing can be done and *perceived*.

I think what often happens once we are on the field is that people's personal preferences come much more into play (as Azara and Ooj were discussing earlier). The problem is when people start attributing their preferences as some kind of fact or given about what 'good' writing is (of course this happens in all fields, not just writing).

*sigh*

It's a shame this has degenerated into yet another slanging match.

I asked for some definitions, but we still have the same words being slung around with no concrete examples of why they are being used.

>> "It can be great" for instance. That suggests that it isn't. I disagree. I think it's bloody marvellous, but *anything* can always be a little better. (Ookajapiv)

What does Jodan mean by "great"? What does Oojakapiv mean by "bloody marvellous"?

*sigh*





>> we're *not* trying to write the best most wonderful thing in the world, or produce something written by the best authors in the world - we're writing a Guide to Life, the Universe and Everything, written by the people experiencing it.

A useful definition, Mina, even though your emotion shows through. I am going to join kea in thanking you for posting it.





Azara's post 11 gives much more clarity of definition, and the core of what she says is worth quoting as an example of the kind of explanation of what people mean that I am looking for:

>> I think the basic clash is the age-old one between the classic and romantic temperaments. ... The qualities I admire in writing include clarity, precision, elegance, balance and incisiveness. To someone of a more romantic temperament, a piece which I consider excellent may come across as curt, cold, and, well...dull. The kind of 'challenging' or 'surprising' entry I like is one where the author gives a new understanding or a logical framework to something that previously confused me.

>> ... it seems that a romantic puts a very high value on feelings and imagery. What a romantic considers excellent may strike me as incoherent, weighed down with purple prose, and, well...dull. The 'challenge' or 'surprise' is likely to be in evoking strong feelings or leaving vivid impressions. I'm likely to find the emotion spurious and the connection between the impressions incoherent, so the challenge simply doesn't work."

Thanks, Azara, that helps.





Amy, can you stop sniping in this thread? Thanks.





Mina, I can see that you are hurt and offended, but you are still responding emotionally, and not helping me understand - as Azara has helped me understand - the real differences between everyone's points of view.

Since I started this thread, I am going to steer it, and my request is that we keep the insults and emotion out of it, and that we do not replace them with sarcasm, but with coherent thought.





Thanks to all for your contributions. I am very slightly clearer on why the debate is taking place.

Let me say here and now that I was not involved in the PROD discussions, and having been out of PR for about 18 months or so, I do not feel myself to be competent to hold a view or to comment.

Ben

I hope Jodan will reinstate the contents of A3783279 at some stage. The article seemed to me to be related to PROD but if I was mistaken then fine. In the article Jodan listed some suggestions for improvements to PR and was a good deal more informative than the PROD manifesto. It wasn't embarrassing or especially contentious as far as I could see and, despite my inability to turn down a tailor-made opportunity above, I don't think Jodan's ideas or Jodan himself are in any way foolish.

I also think it might be useful, in the interests of making information widely available, to be given access to the ANSWER now that we've been PRODded. I can't imagine why this part of the PROD campaign is being withheld.

kea & ben:

i'll try to answer your questions, but they're spread out over this thread, so please bear with me.

>> Specifically, what does "it's not as if we have to" mean?

you know, i'm confused about that one too. must have slipped under my nose.

>> And, why does shallowness, flatness and trivialty redeem writing?

put that down to bad grammar. evidence of any of *style, content, or effort* redeems writing was what was meant.

please remember that PROD is an opinion piece. perhaps we should have put in a little disclaimer in the beginning. at any rate, to give you a taste of what we mean, i certainly don't think that the EG is mediocre. matter of fact, i think it is rather good myself. i also happen to think that there's lots of stuff not in it that could be in it, and this is where me, jodan, pin, waz, and all the others agree. that's the common ground we're coming from.

>> Oh, and just as an afterthought, returning to Ben's original post and the wave/particle thing. I think that seeing writing on a linear scale that goes "good/mediocre/crappy" actually inhibits creative and lateral understanding of the craft (a PROD irony).<<

strange. we're not advocating a good/mediocre/crappy scale at all. we're just suggesting that PR takes a slightly more open minded look at the entries that come to it, because *it is our opinion* that there are entries & authors who either deserve to be in the EG, or are capable of producing EG worthy material but don't. we're just trying to be more constructive, not, as has been said of us, pointing fingers or laying blame.

amy:

>> I can't imagine why this part of the PROD campaign is being withheld.
<<

it isn't being withheld. we don't know the answers yet, and those were just some ideas we'd thought of initially. in fact, if you've really read the "PROD planning thread" (F76045?thread=623386), you might have found some other very concrete suggestions floating around. the point is that we're not in a position to prescribe solutions, and we'd rather that any 'suggestions' or changes come from everyone.

~ db

I did read the PROD thread ('Inspire me, Sealboy' if that is the one we are talking about) for the first time yesterday.

The one part that had me hissing and spitting was when a real analytical tool was proposed and demonstrated and it was slapped down in the favour of purple prose and emotion. I find analysis useful - I would, it is what I am paid to do - and I find purple prose confusing.

db - I am going to suggest that you copy your analysis post/s here, so we can take another look at them, play with the tool, and see whether or not it gets us anywhere useful.

Ben

Ben:

I can see where you're coming from. I've pretty much taken up analysis people and objects and their interactions for a living, so I know how effective a tool it can be. However, I'm also aware that it doesn't always make sense to every one, which is why I let it go.

I don't really know whether my post was really all that demonstrative. Besides, it was done with some basic assumptions (we would like to see different things in the EG, we think that PR can be a little more constructive etc) - given those, and keeping them in mind, if you still think that posting an analytic method here when the basic questions haven't been resolved would be useful, I'll gladly copy it here.

~ db

Well, I'm up for it. I find working though examples easier than hypothesising. We may even be able to drum out some first principles if we don't go too fast.

Ben

OK.

DISCLAIMER: this is an example. it is neither complete, nor accurate. It is just a way of thinking about situations, asking questions, and evaluating answers. It is most certainly not an analysis of the current situation.

---------------------------------



looks we need some good ol' design analysis techniques. We have here a problem, with many facets, and many potential solutions. We also have some criteria which tell us whether what we're doing is valuable/useful/desirable or not.

A Questions, Options, Criteria style analysis is extremely well suited to this, methinks.

Here's how it works. We identify, from the broad problem, specific questions that need to be answered. We also decide on certain criteria we need to keep in mind (criteria being things we want). We then throw up options (answers) for each question, and identify, for a given option, which criteria support it, and which criteria argue against it. Consider:

Question: What shall we do with AWW entries that directly suggest EG entries?
Option 1: Keep them as they are, and convince PR people to accept them
-- Criteria for: Changing boundaries, Changing PR
-- Criteria against: Changing writing styles, Encouraging multiple perspectives
Option 2: illustrate to the writer why something like this would be wonderful for EG, if written appropriately, help them write it, and inculcate an attitude of always thinking carefully about where they want an entry to be
-- Criteria for: changing writing styles, encouraging multiple perspectives, sustainable effort
-- Criteria against: speed of resolution

where the criteria mean:

star Changing boundaries: changing definitions of what good entries are
star Changing PR: changing how PR works, so that they are better at getting EG entries out of non-suitable ones
star Changing writing styles: changing how people write so they can write for both UG & EG if needed
star Encouraging multiple perspectives: showing how there can be many points of view, and aspects to the same "fact"
star Sustainable effort: an initiative that can be sustained through many little contributions over a long period of time, as opposed to something that needs a few core people to work
star Speed of resolution: the time required to change an entry to suitable forms, or to change the general attitude in pockets of writing/evaluation

each question will throw up some others that examine specific bits of the options. sort of like asking a question, and looking at all the questions it gives rise to it. so, in this instance, one possible question can be:

Question: how can we help people convert entries from the AWW style to EG-compatible style?
Option 1:...
-- Crit for:...
-- Crit against:...
...

this leads to more and more concrete solutions, with reasons at each step why that solution should or shouldn't be considered.

phew. i know that sounds like a bit much (it's just an example, i'm not even sure i've got the criteria right), but it's now much clearer than doing this through a crit/discussion, isn't it? well, at least it helps me think about it...


--------------------------------

the entire post is at F76045?thread=623386&skip=80&show=20#p6991310 - please consider this in context. i intend this to be an illustration only.

~ db

db.

Thoughts, anyone?

Ben

For those looking for specificity, please take a gander at F74130?thread=641979

~ db

I'm afraid that what comes over to me from the 'Inspire me sealboy' thread & this PROD page, is a clique that thinks they're right, that their opinion is better than other people's.

Sorry, that post's a bit out of sync.

teasswill: would you care to elaborate on why its out of sync?