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

Entry: Exercise Videos: Buns of... buns - A45575319
Author: FordsTowel - U227087

Rescued from the Flea Market (formerly 'Exercise Videos: Buns of Flab'.

A399585 Exercise Videos: Buns of Flab

It seemed to be largely well received in Peer Review, but the researcher had elvised.

Hi FordsTowel
You still need to add U145366 Spiffy as author, thanks

GB

Hiya, GB!

Absolutely, and thanks for the reminder!

(I'm just hoping that I did it right?!?!

Anyone fighting the flab here, or have we lost interest?

This hasn't created a lot of controversy, that's for sure.

I thought that, once it reached the last page in PR, it would pick up a scout. Looks like it's going to take a bit longer, now!

I think there are a couple of things about this entry that might deter a Scout from picking it.

They may consider that the article isn't humourous enough to compensate for the fact that it's a very one-sided opinion piece. (That's my view, so no need to take it too seriously )

I couldn't find the original PR thread, so I have no idea what others have suggested. Here are my thoughts:

The title: I know what buns are, but buns of buns?

Typos etc:

= text-emblazoned

= exciting

= (insert the tape)?

The word 'exciting/excitingly' appears five times within the first three paragraphs.

= (While once prized, it has apparently gone out of vogue.)? (The word 'wilst' has been excommunicated.)

= (tanned)?

43-word sentence needs rephrasing.

= so fake - the

= demonstrate

0 (they shout.)?

= and friendly - just

= easy answer - a quick


Good luck with the entry.

Thanks, RE!

You could be right about it not being picked up. If they ask me to remove it from PR, I'd be only too happy to comply.

I had just been browsing the Flea Market, and thought that there may be some interest in a revamped version.

The original title seemed to be a play on the video Buns of Steel. For most of us, there are at least two definitions for buns, both of them are often doughy.

My title suggested that, if you're using an exercise video, your buns have probably been enhanced (at least in part) by eating buns. I thought it a marginal improvement on Buns of Flab.

I look forward to going through your comments and making the changes, but I thought I should comment here first.

= text-emblazoned
Good, thanks, I'll change that!

= exciting
I was using the adverb form to mirror the use of the root word earlier in the sentence. But you are correct about it being poor grammar. I thought it sounded a bit DNA-ish. Please let me know if it's got to go.

= (insert the tape)?
I substituted media because tapes are becoming less common. I wanted to leave room for CDs, DVDs, etc. What do you think?

The word 'exciting/excitingly' appears five times within the first three paragraphs.
Again, repetition to create a humorous tone; a bit DNA-ish a la the original H2G2 airplay.

= (While once prized, it has apparently gone out of vogue.)? (The word 'wilst' has been excommunicated.)
Happy to change this, too!

= (tanned)?
I was going for the adjective tan, the colour, rather than tanned the past tense of the verb to tan. If it's not clear, I'll have to reword it. Let me know!

43-word sentence needs rephrasing.
I love ridiculously long and complex sentences (one of the reasons that DNA is so close to my heart), but you're right again. I'll fix it.

= so fake - the
Gotcha! Thanks!

= demonstrate
Boy, I must've been getting tired.

0 (they shout.)?
I was thinking of the media, being the actual thing doing the shouting; but I guess I should reattribute it to the original shouter.

= and friendly - just
Gotcha! Thanks!

= easy answer - a quick
Gee, this must be something to do with GL, and not reviewing the results!

Hey! Thanks again! And, please get back to me on my questions when you get the chance

Hi, Fords!

I think it would be wise to wait for someone - with rather more PR/h2g2 experience than I have - to suggest what, if anything, needs to be done to make this entry pickworthy.

The Guide could certainly use an entry on exercise machines, but the h2g2 writing guidelines do call for balance...

"Exercise Videos: Buns of... buns" sugest "Exercise Videos: Burns off buns"

It's good, but there's a bit to go just yet! All that excitingly in the first para could definitley be neater...

Any way it could be put into sections? And maybe explore the phenomenon of "sleb" excercise videos (Jade Goody, her off of Corrie), and flavour of the month style of exercising (salsa and tango after Strictly, boxercise) as well as those famous for being excercise gurus in their own right (Mr Motivator, the Green Goddess)

Peak sales in January, I believe, to co-incide with New Years resolutions, but these things are the staple of car boot sales a year later.

I've just noticed that there is a update to the 'What do the Scouts do?' Help Page, in PR. It includes the following:



Seems like a good idea...

I think I'll comment on that at the other thread, RE

A little advice about this entry from an experienced Scout would be appreciated. I doubt that Fords would want to do much more on the entry, only to be told that a complete rewrite is required to make it suitable for the Edited Guide.

But thanks for responding, anyway.

On my first reading, I was wondering if it was going to be all introduction without getting to the subject after the stage directions.

1) Could I suggest merging the first three paragraphs into one? It would read more strongly if the scene-setting (which is what the first three paragraphs are) led straight into the question at the start of the fourth paragraph. Read it over again and see what you think.

2) The more I look at the later half of the entry - from "The theory behind exercise videos is typical of modern culture" on down - the more it stops looking like it's about "Exercise Videos", but using them as an example of modern culture's search for a cure-all which takes no work. If that's true, then "Buns of...buns" may have a meaning integral to the metaphor, but I'd still change the title. It just looks a bit uninteresting, which isn't what you're aiming for.

FT I think there is potential here for a really good entry, but at present it is struggling to break out. You have been hide-bound by sticking too closely to the original, which after all got into FM because it failed to pass muster at PR the first time around.

If it were me, I'd rewrite this from scratch, maintaining the wit of the original without copying it verbatim. That won't be as tough as it sounds as the ideas are already there. They just need expressing anew in your own words.

I have a number of times written things myself (both for h2g2 and professionally in RL), not been happy with the result, and fiddled about with it before eventually starting again. The new version usually flows far better because all the ideas are in place, just waiting for a good structure. It is one of the (initially) more difficult lessons to be learned about writing.

Don't take this as negative criticism because it isn't, just advice

My apologies for not attending more to the entry, just yet.

I do intend to work it over with the above comments and suggestions in mind.

[When will then be now?...]
[... Soon!]

I'm back AND, as always, Thanks All!

Random thoughts, tarting from the top... by posting:

1) The entry seemed to be going fairly well in PR, until the researcher disappeared; so my preference is to change it as little as possible.

2) Otherwise, I'd feel obligated to drop the Spiffy as an author.

6) I certainly wouldn't want to be working on a one-sided piece. That's not the hootoo way. Thanks for pointing out the pitfall! (And, for the corrections!)

9) I'm reluctant to change more than one word of the original title, so I'm going to try sticking with buns of buns. I like the use of the double meanings for buns.

10) I got the sense that Spiffy had been tickled by the hyperbole of the marketing of the videos. The use of repetition, for humour's sake, is so DNA that I'd like to keep it.
However, I like the sections concept and I'll try to incorporate it!

14) 1) Did some merging and rewriting. Thanks for that suggestion!
2) Point well taken, so I've included some additional balance and history.

***********************************

Well, not a complete re-write; but, it's definitely a rework!

Not only a healthy rework, but now with footnotes too!

I believe this is done. Are there any further concerns, comments, suggestions, thoughts?

Yes, unfortunately.

The title doesn't work for me. I just don't get it. And together with the statement "The use of repetition, for humour's sake, is so DNA that I'd like to keep it.", I think it falls into the "trying too hard to be funny" category, and does it at the cost of actually being informative. Devices like inserting "(pardon the pun)" serve as crutches to point out that there is a pun there, and if you need to point it out for someone to get it, you might as well leave it out.

>> the art of Rubin's time

Who's Rubin? Do you mean Peter Paul Rubens, the 17th-Century Flemish painter?

>> The history of exercise may go back to the cave man days. Perhaps some of the scenes depicted on cave walls were as much to teach exercise as well as hunting techniques and recording conquests. Scrolls and books did what they could, but live exercise ruled for thousands of years.

Is there any evidence of this, or is it mere conjecture? Because if it's the latter, it's not working as humour *or* as a fact

>> Exercise videos have been available in a variety of media, from CED2, Video tape (VHS and Beta), LaserDisk, CD, DVD, etc.

This is a sentence fragment. Either change the "from" to "including", or add a "to" somewhere...

As for the final point - you list all the negatives and simply assume that these videos don't work. Where are the positives? They show people some good exercises to do (even if those exercises require steady work rather than being a miracle cure) and help them monitor the length of the workout. Whether they're more effective than an exercise regimen devised and monitored yourself is a different question - but the motivation problem is not the videos' fault!

All in all, I'm afraid it currently reads more like an opinion column of the ha-ha-am-I-right type than an informative article, and I think it's the forced-funny style that does it. (A point that were raised in the original thread, and that was back in 2000... F74125?thread=67154)

The problem, I believe, is that you're trying to write in the voice of the first author to work on this, which isn't *your* style - and which wasn't that funny to begin with. Maybe re-writing it to be more in your own voice and with less forced jokes (not fewer jokes - jokes that are less forced) will help it. Nobody says you have to keep the style of the original!