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

htpp://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/A578207
I seem to have got a bit 'bogged down' and stuck with this entry. Any comments and feedback are welcome.
Z

Yay, the 'h2g2 community' managed to let this one sink into the depths of the Workshop without being noticed

As to the entry itself, it's somewhat beyond my Sauerkrautish command of English, hence I find some difficulty in following your thoughts. Somehow it occurs to me that it's rather an essay than 'factual' writing, 'factual' as in the sense the Editors define it for Edited Guide entries. But then, that's just me

Thanks for responding to this entry, Bossel, which I recognise needs some attention and revising. However, I was hoping others might give me some tips about its flaws or even strengths, etc. Alas it's been totally quiet which I'm taking to mean - 'back to the drawing board, buddy.'
It's now a matter of finding a bit of time.
Cheers
Zaphod

You're drawing the wrong conclusions, I'm afraid. I've been busy doing a walk through the *whole* Writing Workshop this weekend (and, in passsing, have flagged 53 out of 166 postings as cases for the Flea Market).

My conclusion is: The Workshop doesn't work! Without trying to be bigheaded, no-one else but xyroth and Bossel appears to be scanning through the workshop. No 'community' in sight. I'm thinking of having the Workshop deleted as a whole, unless the Towers set up an advert banner like the one for Peer Review or something else happens.

During the last weeks, I've almost immediately sent any researcher with a new posting straight over to Peer Review. Nota bene: I never had to lie when commenting on their pieces. My impression is that whoever writes to the Workshop *has* read the Guidelines and took them to heart. Much in contrast to those who directly go to Peer Review and need to be told the basics.

Conclusion: DON'T wait for any more feedback here. Run, don't walk, to Peer Review!

Hey Zaphod,

Still thinking about this one?

It's a fair old size, but an interesting read, first time through. Initial thoughts? I felt that the opening para was a little off-putting. It looks as though you are launching into a diatribe against porn in society and I fear many non-partisan readers will not want to go on. Even if you do want to make a point, this seems unlikely to appeal to the idle reader.

Why not start with the definitions. Something general to start with followed by some etymological details. I looked up 'prurience' (I suspect many others might need to!) and noted the Latin origin given as the present participle of 'to itch'. Armed with this knowledge your many subsequent references to itching seemed entirely natural and effective. However, you don't give the Latin origin anywhere in the piece, or specify the significance of 'itching'.

I know that you state that it is difficult to define prurience but I would recommend having another go. The section headed 'Definitions of Prurience' seems more like 'Perceptions of Prurience' to me. I'm a fan of definitions, at least to give the reader a point of reference for what's to come.

Let me know what you think, or not...

Spiff

Thanks, Spiff. I will certainly give your useful comments some thought. You're probably right, the opening is a bit 'in yer face'. I also like definitions. I'll get back to you.
Zaphod

Can you help Bossel? I would like to take my entry out of the Writing Workshop now and place it in Peer Review. How do I go about it, assuming I have control over the process?
Thanks
Zaphod