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

Hi all

I've brought the conversation over from F12238019?thread=6210904&skip=20#pi30 et al, so we can keep the Submissions thread clear of discussion.

This is something I considered at the start, and I can assure you I've been monitoring it carefully. Bear in mind that the deadline for submissions is Thursday, but we can start our judging as soon as the piece is 'declared' on the submissions thread. I've been reviewing pieces as soon as I've been able to after they've gone in; in some cases minutes after they've gone into the relevant forum. My reviews at the moment aren't in a form I'd publish, of course, but the key points are there. In every case so far, the review I've written still stands as I first sketched it out.

The qualities I'm looking for in a piece aren't the same as those that come up in PR or AWW, and I'm confident that I speak for the others in this as well. You can't 'review in' style, wit, interpretation, elan or 'stretch'. Qualities like this are there from the start. In fact, some would argue that a piece's presence in PR tends to iron out some of those qualities. And if you submit your piece for review very early on, isn't there a chance you could give someone else inspiration? Either way, I can assure you that,if I were to start afresh now, my reviews would be exactly the same.

Consider which is most likely to produce your best piece of work: one day of writing and six of reviewing, or six days of careful consideration, reflection and revision and just a day in the review forum. Decide for yourselves which would bear your mark the more; which is more likely to be personal, individual and unique, and which is more likely to be merely technically correct. There's nothing wrong with writing and submitting a piece quickly, of course - in fact, if people submit early it gives us more time to collaborate on the reviews, and so I certainly wouldn't discourage it - but I don't feel that it gives any advantage to the writer.

However, in case I'm wrong, I am watching pieces develop very carefully. If we start to see evidence that reviewing is skewing our judging, we will review the process. You'll just have to trust our integrity here.


Additionally, I don't think we have a viable alternative to PR and AWW. Due to the timescales involved, we wouldn't be able to run them in , and the Post Team wouldn't be able to cope with an extra 14 pieces in every issue anyway. The Stretchers themselves are very busy people, and I don't see any of us being keen to run the competition through The Stretcher's email account. If we told everyone not to unveil their pieces until the Thursday, that would only leave three days for the three of us to collaborate on our Post article, which is unreasonable. So that only really leaves us with the option of people putting them on their Personal Spaces, in which case they are onsite and can be read and commented on anyway.

We're all seeing the benefits of the boom in submissions to PR and AWW, and in that respect the system works perfectly. There is much more to this than a simple writing competition.

Hope this clarifies the Head Judge's position, and thanks to McKay for asking the question

Ms GB

Well I've found myself boldly going where I'd not been before, and ventruing into AWW, so that was worth while in itself!

Just to agree with Len (for once), I think the co-operative aspect of this is a positively good thing.
We all improve each other, and we improve the Guide. And as Rich suggests, the qualities that make the difference in writing are innate.
The UG's Subed-equivalents are called Polishers, of course. That sums up the ethic. Even editing, appropriately done, does no more than accentuate the gem that's there already.
The early spirit of the Stretcher, meanwhile, is uplifting and inspirational. Really well done to all concerned.

I agree with your comments Rich. I've not followed The Stretcher closely so wasn't aware of the judging criteria.

PR (in particular) will see suggestions for additions or re-shaping of submissions, and if clarity was a judgement criteria it could have been relevent.

At no time did I intend to suggest the competion was anything but on the level.

'At no time did I intend to suggest the competion was anything but on the level.'

Sorry, McKay - I didn't mean to imply that you had. I just tend to go on a bit, that's all

and all round?

Virtual ones are all I'm having this month, so yes please, a would be divine!