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

>>The UG is NOT creative fiction. It is for opinion pieces, personal accounts, analysis, memoires, humour, poetry, and - once in a while - fiction.<<

Which begs the question as to the distinction between UG and <./>ThePost</.>

shazz

Hell, I've occasionally used 'fiction' as a description when I was tired of 'experimental' and 'creative' (which are neither really accurate either). I'm not really sure why you say that fiction is accepted once in a while... it's accepted whenever a good piece of fiction is submitted.
Some of the better pieces in the UG are fictional. Russalka (spelling? ) for one.

AA - we have the fun librarian though

Actually - to make the conversation even more confusing - what *is* the difference between the <./>UnderGuide</.> and <./>ThePost</.> ?

>> things that would go nicely in the fiction area of libraries - you don't find opinion pieces, personal accounts, analysis, memoires, humour, poetry in the reference section.

But you don't find them in the fiction area of libraries either Alex.

You find them in the political science section, or the sociology section, or the gender studies section, the oral history section, or the autobiography section, or the travel section, or the poetry section. I would estimate that only one piece in eight or ten of those that we run are fiction.

For example, we have a piece coming up soon which is the first-person account of a transsexual's decision to change from being a woman to being a man and how this affected his relationships, and as a companion piece there is an intensely personal first-person essay on gender in society and the pros and cons of phalloplasty from his lover.

Now I dare you to categorise those as fiction! Gender studies, auto-biography, sociology, but not fiction.

As I said, its clear that the UnderGuide has some PR to do to get the message across that there are more than two sections in libraries.

Ben

The difference is pretty cloudy, but these are the main differences as I see them:

1) Entries in the UG are linked to directly from the front page on the day on which they are published. Entries in the Post are linked to via the Post.

2) The Post will publish topical pieces and pieces designed to provoke discussion like PROD and my own summary of the debates on H2G2's place in Internetland. Thte UnderGuide won't.

3) Entries in the UG are classified within the main site categorisation system, and can be reached by Google. So far as I am aware, entries in the Post aren't and can't.

4) Entries in the UnderGuide are not illustrated. Some entries in the Post are.

5) The UnderGuide does not run series. The Post does.

6) Entries in the UnderGuide have gone through a peer review (small p, small r) in the AWW. Entries in the Post do not have any formal review, workshop or revision process.

7) UnderGuide entries are picked by two Miners, QAed by one of the UG Editors, and approved by the Italics. Researchers can approach Shazz direct proposing an article for the Post and Shazz is, so far as I am aware, the only arbiter of what goes in the Post.

8) But there is a major overlap between the UG and the Post, and some entries are run in both. When that happens, we try to make sure that there is a separation in time.

Ben

"But there is a major overlap between the UG and the Post, and some entries are run in both. When that happens, we try to make sure that there is a separation in time."

That's true. When GTBacchus and I were editors, we decided to invite Shazz onto the UG offsite forum. She often reminds us when entries are in the Post. Then, we hold them back for as long as we can so that entries are spaced out in exposure.

I don't think there's a conflict with the UG and Post. There *is* an overlap, but we don't compete for entries. If an entry is submitted to Shazz, it's on her turf (for lack of a better word) and if it's in the AWW, it's UG-able. If it's submitted to both, well, it could go in both

Okay. I've been kinda busy at work these last two days and I expect to be for the next few, so the backlogue here has piled up on me a bit and I've tried to follow it as best I couod. I hope that what I'm about to post is in keeping with the way the way the conversation has gone up to this point.

There has been at least one occasion where an entry has been put into PR which at first sight seemed to be unsuitable but which - at my insistence I might add - has been found to be EG-worthy and has eventually gotten in. I wish the hell I could remember what it was I thought the Pan Galactic Gargle Blaster entry A799419 might have been it, but checking back on the PR thread (one of the shortest ever) it wasn't F94501?thread=196654

This one however F1978180?thread=555834 is still in PR, and I still think it has potential. And it's definitely not your average EG entry.

Creative? Yes. Original? Probably not - I'm sure this has been thought of in the past, but certainly original to h2g2.

Unfortunately, since Paully accidentally took it out of PR it now has two PR threads.