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

http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/A545032

This is an entry on a puzzle that seems to have cropped up on Answerpoint, a discussion site I regularly visit. I wrote this allow me to respond to the people who ask about the puzzle, by giving a link, rather than having to explain fully each time.

Well, it's well-written and everything. Just not quite interesting enough to grab me and make me think, "Oooh! Ooooh! I need to make this one of my next picks for the Edited Guide."

Do you know who originated the puzzle?


Mikey

I don't know who started it, unfortunately. It just seems to have cropped up. I might try and find out.

There is another entry dealing with the same thing here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/A568910 It has a writing workshop thread here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/F57153?thread=118061 myre - haegry

And Topher TheRead has told you where it started in a conversation attached to your entry, entitled "The Gry Hoax" - so now you can find out easily!

From the text of the entry, I'm guessing that the author would dispute that Topher is correct regarding the origin of the puzzle, because the radio station Topher cites used the "mutated" version of the puzzle. However, it would certainly be a good idea if the author would go respond him/herself to Topher's comments.


Mikey

I think the source given may actually be the original source, or it may be another mutated form of the original. It is impossible to say which version came first.

I had not heard of the possible source at the time of writing the article. However, it appears that the mutated form of the puzzle that I refer to is mutated from the 'original' one I present.

However, it may be that the original is in fact a mutated form of Topher's aparent original. My money is on my original being the genuine original, but without a source I cannot be sure.

It is very hard to determine which form of the puzzle came first. I will have a look at the other thread.

Hello. Good as this article is I personally find it hard to justify devoting an entire guide entry to just one type of word puzzle
Sorry maybe that's just me, what do others think

I don't see that. We devoted an entire entry to a single sub-subsection of the 1968 Theft Act, for example. Similarly for single cafes in obscure villages in the South of Scotland. We have fairly fine-grained stuff, where people are sufficiently interested in a topic.

I agree, though there is a need perhaps for the article to expand a little; maybe to include other similar word puzzles which are self-referencing - thinking particularly of Douglas Hofstader's essays (qv) and esp. "has eighteen letters does".

I think I would rather keep this about one puzzle, rather than branch out. I am not particular determined for this to be edited, but I think it is better on its own, as it does not fit into a category very well. It is not strictly speaking self- referencial, as one section of a sentence refers to another part, whereas I consider self--reference to be where something refers back to itself

e.g This sentence is written in English.

Also, the possible self-referencial nature of the puzzle is not the main interest but the ambiguity, that leads to this being a puzzle. I do not know of any other related puzzles. I feel this puzzle belongs on its own.

Topher appears to be AWOL, and the Workshop thread mentioned above will be in the Flea Market as soon as the Towers get around to it. How about taking over and combining the pieces? Should be worth it

I'm not sure that it is possible to combine both entries very well, as they approach the subject from completely different angles. Topher's article seems to come from the perspective that the riddle has no proper solution, and that other version, including presumedly mine, are variation on the original designed to give an answer to a problem designed not to have one.

Mine however, takes it that one version is the original, and the unaswerable versions are mutants of this original, that arrose as the riddle got distorted into what people thought the riddle meant, not what it originally said.

One way of doing this might be to include my explanation, only as one possible solution, but change Topher's article so as not to judge whether this is the correct one. However, it would distort Topher's entry quite a bit, and mine too.

If someone else can find a way out of this problem, then I would be happy to have my entry used, but I'm not sure that I want the job.

Editorial Note: This conversation has been moved from 'Peer Review' to 'The Writing Workshop'.

This, er... 'puzzle' needs a little something, we think, in order for the entry to qualify as an Edited Guide Entry. It's not bad, but really... it's hardly a puzzle, is it? Or maybe it is? What do you think? Perhaps a couple more examples of 'puzzles' that are doing the rounds (much like urban myths) would beef this entry up a bit ('urban puzzles'). Credit to the author, though - it's well written and the author's work most certainly belongs in the Edited Guide. But this particular entry need something else, that's all: maybe an explanation of the fact that the GRY puzzle only works orally; that zen koans and Egyptian riddles have teased us and bent our brains for millennia? What do you reckon?

Let's see what happens...

I am going to remove this thread from WW, as I am not currently thinking of doing anything more with this entry. If I think of something else to add, I might re-submit this here, or at peer review.