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

Entry: 'Callan' - the TV Series - A4487457
Author: Jimster [h2g2] - U292

This has become one of my favourite TV shows, so I thought I'd write something on it for the Guide. This is the first full draft, so I know it might need reshuffling. I've also written it with mobile in mind, so there might be some repetition but I wanted to make sure the info was convered in each section so people didn't have to go scrolling around too much.

Review away

Fantastic entry. I was a small child when this was being shown, so I never really understood what this was about, but I do remember the two main characters well: Callan and Lonely.

I really can't fault this.

Great subject for an entry
I remember staying up to watch it each week

Hello Jimster (h2g2),
Thinking I know your status on our revered site, why should I be surprised that your Entry is so polished and utterly professional!
Being almost 66, I remember the original television series well, and my wife and I were keen followers of Callan's exploits.
This serves as a prime example of just how an Entry should be published on h2g2. You have researched it like a barrister studying his final brief just before entering court!
Heck, what a creep I must appear to be!

f.

Hey, we like creeps around here

Thanks all.

I first got into this show while researching a book, but I had so much material left over for that chapter that I thought I might as well plough it into here.

Waste not, want not.

Shame so many episodes are missing - every one of the black and white eps I've seen are superb.

Fabulous entry Jims I too remember watching Callan, but it wasn't the sort of thing my parents were interested in so I had to go to a friend's to see it every... Monday at 9pm? If there was ever a reason for me getting a multi-region DVD player, Callan is certainly a contender

We don't see you often enough in PR as an author Jims I reckon there should be a section of Challenge h2g2 just for old TV s like us to make suggestions for Jimster to write entries about. I'll kick it off with Danger Man and Budgie

So, let's get reviewing instead of brown-nosing the boss shall we?


"the safety of hundreds, maybe even millions"

It's quite a jump from hundreds to millions with the word 'even' between the two in that fashion. When two figures are used in that context I think it's more usual to either have them closer together (in terms of factors of 10), like 'tens, maybe even hundreds of thousands', or to have some sort of common link between the two numbers, like 'hundreds, maybe even hundreds of thousands', giving it a nice ring.


"but its focus was one man - a government assassin, a choice of career"

I reckon that should be a semi colon instead of a comma:
'but its focus was one man - a government assassin; a choice of career'


"His name is possibly David Callan - at least, that's what he's known as"
and (later)
"Callan might not even be his real name"

Why is the matter of his name in doubt? John Drake (Danger Man) also juggled identities, but he was definitely *John* Drake. Is there something specific that gives rise to the doubt concerning Callan's first name?


"what he's known as. And each week"

Either
'what he's known as, and each week'
Or
'what he's known as. Each week'


"early-to-mid thirties"

'early- to mid-thirties'


"the man inside the killer"

I've never heard it put that way before. I would have written 'the man behind the killer' because I think that whatever someone like Callan may be, he's a man first and a killer second - in other words, the killer is inside the man, not the other way round.


"He's of above average looks"

I was expecting the word 'height' there rather than 'looks'. It sounds a bit odd to say 'above average looks'.


"As a result of a previous job, Callan worked for some time away from the Section"

This seems a bit out of place - it doesn't refer to anything else that's come before and doesn't reference anything in the immediate vicinity. Since it's explained much further on in the paragraph about the first episode, I wonder if it's necessary here.


"makes to mistake"
'makes the mistake'


The section about Lonely starts off in past tense but suddenly jumps into present, and then stays there.


"he paid for his naivety with his life [in the episode 'Let's Kill Everybody']."

There are several other titles in square brackets too. Death of a Hunter is one of the very few, perhaps the only specific Callan episode I clearly remember


"and it son became obvious" - soon


The paragraph about Cross suddenly jumps into present tense.


"ideal for continuation as a TV series"
then
"to develop his characters for a TV series"

'for a TV series' in the latter of those two quotes is superfluous.


"Grade's ITC company were churning out" - was churning


"designed ot be" - to


"gun shop under then name" - the name


Am I right in remembering that much of Callan was shot on video rather than on film, giving it that particularly distinctive feel and sound that you get with VTR?

That's what I needed there - with a subject like this, you always need someone with a bit of distance to point to the bits whwere it's too fan-focused.

Like the point about noting the use of videotape; I've added something to the production section on that.

There's a line in one of the books that hints his name wasn't Callan when he was in the army, while an episode called 'The Worst Soldier I Ever Saw' shows us an ex-Army officer who Callan served with but who doesn't remember his name - something Callan exploits to enable him to work as a butler in the officer's house. He tends to stick to using the name 'Tucker', but it's strongly hinted that even 'Callan' might be an assumed name.

The bit about 'the man inside the killer' was actually suggesting that he *is* the killer first and the man second. Certainly that's how the various Hunters see him, and there are episodes where he takes great pains not to let Lonely see 'the man' for fear he'll lose respect / fear for the killer. But it's confusing so I changed it.

I thought that I'd best explain what the bits in square brackets are, but assumed I wouldn't need to keep repeating it. As it's such a long essay, what do you think?

I've seen all of the extant black and white episodes and all of series three but I do wish someone would bring the lot out on DVD. It's now my fave series from the 1960s (well, not counting Doctor Who of course).

Callan's name -

Man/killer -

Square brackets - I remarked on that because it looked as if it was something left over from editing when I saw the first instance of it in the entry, but then I kept coming across them. As far as house style regarding titles is concened, are individual episodes of a series like songs from an album - you italicise the title of the album/series, but not individual songs/episodes from it? And why square brackets rather than regular ones?

So when are you going to get cracking on that entry about Budgie, Jims?

'Ey Budgie, if I catch you wi' yer fingers in the till I'll chop 'em off at the armpits

'Fraid I wouldn't be much use on Budgie - never watched it. Only thing I could offer is info on the two theme tunes (the first was a piece of library music, the second, called 'Nobody's Fool', was specially written by Ray Davies and performed by Cold Turkey.

I could change the square brackets to curvy ones. No real emotional attachment to them. And yes, episode titles are treated the same as individual songs on an album.

- just realised I've not actually given the name of the theme tune...

I'm not too fussed about the brackets, just wondered why they were used instead of round ones

Well Oojakapiv,
We 'lazy' researchers find reviewing large tracts extremely boring. We like to think we've 'got a life' as the youth of today say in vague insult.
We leave it to you enthusiastic researchers who love to point out other's mistakes!
Personally, I 'review' my own Entries several times before posting them for 'formal' review on the site. My joy is presenting my own work in as near perfect a form as I can! Of course none of us are perfect per se!
Most of my material has only had to be revised in terms of GuideML, because I didn't know how to use it as a newby, or in terms of paragraphing and use of italics. Spelling and grammar have hardly ever needed to be corrected.
I cannot understand, personally, what others get out of posting Entries that do not show them in their best light; especially when they are so obviously highly capable and intelligent coves.
Of course, we have some great spoof and comedic writers like michaelDetroit, true professional writers who keep us all sane with their great yarns!
The joke may just be on you. Perhaps they know who will 'jump to their aid' when they knowingly post incomplete material!

'Brown Nose' front ears, man!

Not sure if there's a history behind that posting, frontiersman, but it does come across as if you've perhaps missed the purpose of this forum.

Every submission here has seven days, minimum, before it can be picked. Some Researchers, myself included, like to use that time to ensure the work gets its second proof. Simultaneously, I carry on working on my entries once they hit Peer Review, picking up on typos as well as responding to comments here, because I've done the vast bulk of work but know it needs a little more polishing. Even though most of my entries tend to be ready by the time the eighth day comes around, I don't expect them to be picked straight away either.

Despite being a published author with over a decade of professional work behind me, I'd never assume anything I'd written was perfect, even after publication; I'd be embarrassed someone might mistake such a thought for arrogance. Although I would hope that submitting my own work to the same review processes as newbies might encourage them and recognise that there's no shame around here in being willing to expose your mistakes to your peers. Oojakapiv and other volunteers are a vital part of that process, and I for one am glad we have other Researchers who are happy to help others.

I've not seen much of michaelDetroit's work, but then he seems to confine himself to fiction, which is outside of the interests of the Edited Guide and therefore our remit. Sure he's good though.

Yours,

Jims

Good one Jimster .

Couple of small points:

"While he recovered, he worked as a book-keeper, but the routine monotony and the nitpicking of his boss nade him realise he just wasn't suited to the strictly nine-to-five life"

'nade' should be 'made'.

"But he showed respect for Callan and they became unlikely allies after Callan became his protector. On their release from prison, the two remained close in unlikely allies. "

That sentence sort of loses it a bit at the end. The repeating of 'unlikely allies' reads weird, and "the two remained close in unlikely allies" doesn't make sense. How about something like

"On their release from prison, the two remained close if unusual collaborators."


At the top of the ep guide you've got:

"Note: Episodes marked with * are believed to be missing from the archives"

Which isn't strictly true. Those episodes *are* missing from the archives. Whether they turn up later is another matter, but they are currently missing.

How about

"Note: Episodes marked with * are missing from the archives, and no prints are known to exist"

No Jims, no real 'historical' complaints or clashes between Oojakapiv and myself!
Sorry to have used your thread to respond to Oojakapiv's (hopefully jocular) use of the phrase 'brown-nosing' in connection with a couple of your earlier reviewers (including your's truly).
There is no personal criticism of either you or your Entry intended in my reply; just my own view and approach to how I like to submit my work.
I feel sure that as a published author, you must make every effort to send your synopses and first manuscripts to your publisher(s) in the best presentation possible. Otherwise you could risk getting a rejection slip. It has happened to many a famous author!
I have just expressed my own thoughts in as light a way as possible about what I see on Peer Review.
But let me say that I have not misunderstood the ideas and aims of Peer Review. I just think that people can be 'professional' in their attitude towards reviewing without sniping at other's lighter approach to the process, and without sarcasm or personal comments bordering on insults.
This last remark is not aimed at you, let me stress!

Ron

frontiersman

All fair points there, Kerr. That reference to the archives was a bit woolly

Glad to be of service.

You'll notice, frontiersman, that I did my own little bit of brown-nosing too.

Nuff said.

Yes Oojakapiv, I diddley indeedy take note!
No diddly office hintended!

Ron

f.

Extremely geeky connection: It has been suggested (in this month's DWM, in fact) that Lonely was the inspiration for the character of Bostock in Revelation of the Daleks. With particular reference to the smelly factor.

I suspect then that Ooja's use of the phrase 'brown nosing' might have been read as directed towards your feedback then, but I have to admit I didn't read it that way, and as one of our longest-standing contributors I'm sure that wasn't how it was intended. There's a tradition around here of making sure we Editors don't feel we're getting an easy ride - as Ooja's posting suggested, we don't get the time to contribute directly to Peer Review very often, so while he might 'brown nose' me a little he'll also make sure that I pick up as many errors as he can find.



Aside:
I have to confess, I've been very lucky with commissions in real life. The last three books have come from approaches made to me by the publishers, so I didn't have the fear of being rejected. Just to make sure I keep my feet on the ground though, the one immediately before that was one I had to pitch, and it still hasn't made its advance back yet

Round here though, we have a very informal approach to things. Peer Review's here precisely to catch spelling mistakes and sentences that get a bit lost, and I try to be as constructively critical as I'd hope someone else would be to my work. But then, not everyone's writing to the same level of experience as I am, and we also try to encourage people for whom writing might not come naturally, but who still have a good idea or have collated some interesting research. That's why we have a group of Scouts and Sub-editors who help out other Researchers.

Even if something slips through the net (and it often does - I'm a lousy typist), we can make corrections within seconds, and we make regular checks on our <./>Feedback-Editorial</.> page to catch any pointers we've received. A typo in printing is forever, but online it's easily fixed. Not that we shouldn't try to ensure there are no typos at all.

I'm just relieved there were so few pick-ups though. Writing this as a new-found fan, I was worried there'd be a few more sections that would only make sense if you'd seen the episodes as recently as I have.

Jims
(half-way through the Callan film and looking forward to getting home to see the ending)