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

Have I been out-parodied by one of the judges? "Write about something that gets people all riled up" they said, "something that will elicit an "emotionally overblown" response.

So I do, and I try and be a bit light-hearted and clever. Rich thinks it's alright but I hit just wide of the mark, Pin says it's well written but lacks real depth. Fine, that's advice that I can work with. Then I get the masterpiece of parody;

"He's written about something that gets me all riled up" GB says, "and my whole critique comes across as an overblown emotional response to the fact that I hate trolling."

I'd be disappointed with a 2/10, but it's obvious that GB's witty rejoinder is a lesson to me on how to write a parody.

i am surprised how well i have done this week, especially as i spent most of it thinking that i couldnt complete the challenge. The fact that my entry was written on the day that the government advice came to the media attention might have something to do with my overuse of BB quotes. But i think the scores are fair. Now to think of a way to write a valentine with my words. . .

mini

Yes I felt that was harsh, Psycorp, and I really liked your satirical entry. I felt you'd "got" the point of the task, which was something I know I really struggled with.

I don't think it was harsh - GB's a judge, an EG stalwart and a bloody good writer. She is more than entitled to her opinion. No, the reason I'm a bit miffed is that there's no explanation other than "I don't like trolling." Well that's as well as maybe, but how does that influence the score? How does my submission fall down as a piece of writing?

Pin hit the nail on the head. I was overconfident and coasted, missing out the middle of an entry for a laugh failed miserably and I called it wrong by not expanding on it. I've learned something from Pin's review.

The numbers don't mean anything - there's always next week and I a poor score gives you a gee up. But not getting any advice beyond "pick better topics"? That doesn't sit well with me at all.

I think the problem centred on whether it was topical enough: "This would have gone down well 10 years ago" was one of GB's comments.

I'd have agreed with that Alex. Except 10 years ago was 1999 - a year after Trout's brilliant Beckham at France '98 entry.

Post one: <>

For what it's worth, I did not say that, you read my words and you thought that's what I said. What my review actually says is:

<>

ergo, I don't get "riled up" (emotionally overblown) by trolls. I don't hate trolls, I deal with them when I encounter them by refusing to rise to the bait, that means "indifference beats the devil".


I thought about responding to the queries of contestants to my reviews for two days, slept on it, asked advice offline from trusted friends. I came to the conclusion you deserve a response, even though you signed up for this competition knowing full well you were going to be judged. I am not sure I could have gone through this, as a contestant, and I still think you're all brave (except for Merry Anne, who chose to hide) but I like to think I would have accepted the Judges' remarks and chalked it up to experience.

I didn't challenge the marks GB, I challenged the fact that as there was no constructive criticism of the writing of the piece (in a writing contest) it came across as emotion-led.

I know you didn't do that, that's why I chose to blow off steam in a slightly more tongue-in-cheek manner. Of course I'm not delighted with the mark, but as I've mentioned to a few people, you're a judge. You've got the right to rate and slate entries in this, and award them whatever marks you see fit. More than that, you're on the panel because you're one of the best writers around here - which makes it all the more grating that I can't take one tiny sliver of advice into my next entry other than "tread on safer ground".

We've obviously completely mis-pitched at each other this week, but there's no point butting heads about it. I've had my petulant rant, you've corrected my misunderstandings so let's draw a line under it and see what happens in a fortnight.

There are three judges, as you know. The lads will tell you how to write, if that's what you need to hear, though I happen to think you are already a marvellous writer, your first submission blew me away. I am very proud of that because shell was *my* choice of word.

If you want advice I'll say to you and everyone, write from your heart, say what you feel while using your brain to keep you on track. No-one taught me to write and I am not a teacher, I am still your peer. I have to disagree with your assumption: <> because Skankyrich chose me for other reasons; I don't believe there's a list of "best writers" I can only think of "favourite entries" because we are all capable of an off day.

Draw a line under it? With pleasure, I'll even accept a if you don't think it'd be unprofessional

There's already suspicions that I'm cosying up with Rich, I don't want tongues to start wagging.

OK I'll just blow you a then