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

http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/A581203

I haven't found anything on this particular sliver of information in the Guide, and felt arrogant enought to think I could write the first definitive entry. It occurs to me that, with more work, the subject could be expanded into a University Project - except I can't find where Theatre is in the University. Any thoughts? Any researchers interested in helping?

I haven't the foggiest re: American vs British spelling/vernacular/idiomatic speech/etc. Mistakes may have been made, but none with intent to insult. Hope it doesn't suck too bad.

Be kind, yet ruthless. I've haven't been here quite a week yet, and I've never written anything in any code before, except Igpay Atinlay. Thanks.

Hi 7Rob7,

Hmm...'Kind, but ruthless?' Are you from N'Yawk? If so, you can handle that. For now I'll keep the ruth, and be kind, too. You're new, you're obviously a good writer, and we want to make you happy, confident, and unafraid. Have some and , on the Eds, for posting your first article after a week.

This entry is both funny and interesting. There is a down side to the funny, though. On several occasions, your humour seems to take predence over the facts. The Guide is not very likely to go for that. You use hyperbole well, and write well, but they don't really want humour pieces in the Edited Guide (see Editors' Guidelines). This may be me, but I don't know if I'd say the 'pizza' device quite came off. You'll have to get other opinions.

I think, given the facility with which you write, you can be factual and funny at the same time. Certainly, the *facts* about theatre are pretty damn funny! (Former theatre nerd and still a drama queen talking, here.)

I would really have liked to *learn* more, personally. You clearly know the information, so what about really Explaining It All for Us? How *are* the laws of physics defied, so that a show that was playing at Carnegie Hall can suddenly be shown at Boettcher Auditorium (arena style) in Denver? You made me curious, so cough up the info! ( I *hope* you're from N'Yawk.) How do shows pack up, go on the road, and come out relatively unrumpled, unsmashed, and ready to set up? How long does it take? ... that stuff.

I think that would make a smashing entry, and you already have the groundwork very nicely in place.

Personally, and this is a peeve that others may not share, I found the article a little on the sexist side. All theatre designers are surely not 'guys', sexy or otherwise? Some of the implications of the humour were also not really what I *personally* consider appropriate. I could be wrong (but I wouldn't be saying this if I thought I were).

Some bits in the footnotes were a little too-too, and you have to be careful here because the BBC are *really strict* about generalisations based on gender, race, age, affectional preference, age, etc. You might want to reconsider some of the wording?

Mazel Tov on a nice start, keep up the good woik!

Arpeggio (British by birth, N'Yawka by upbringing, drama-queen by nature) for LeKZ

Oh, and 7rob7,

You might just want to look up this old, obnoxious smart-arse friend of mine, by the name of Barton (click Who's Online, find him - because he always is - go to his 'space' and say Hi in a new thread) who used to teach theatre at the uni level. He's wordier than I am, but he is *good* at this stuff.

Arpeggio, for LeKZ

Hmmm...'sexist'? I thought I'd been very, very careful to avoid any preference to gender in the piece - I fought with myself over including the mention of a Sound 'guy', but a friend had told me about the "Silence Guy" appellation and I couldn't pass it up. I've worked with equal numbers of [I've assumed] male, female and undecided people over the years, and always thought it pointless to favor one over the other. Even spent weeks trying to eliminate gender-specific pronouns in my grad thesis in 1976. [Before computers got down to the size of buses.] Also not sure what might be 'too-too' in the footnotes, but right now my brain is pretty toasty so I hope I can some more specific, pinpointy-type comments.

And yes, I did live in N'yawk '79-'85. Beaucoup Off-off and offer Broadway. Also done Chicago and San Francisco and have wound up back in the South where I come from.

We've only have had this iMac for a few months, so I still have a lot to learn - I've never chatted online and wouldn't have a clue how to go about it. But thanks for the info. Might give it a shot. Those emoticons [?] though, I don't know about those things...

7rob7,

You might even be older than Barton, and he's very! Not that I'm any myself.

There is no 'live chat' at h2g2. If you want to look someone up, or get someone's attention, you go to that person's home 'space' and add a thread. Barton's home 'space' is: http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/U160070.

The 'emoticons', called 'smileys' by everyone here, can be reached by clicking on any one of them. They range from the fun , to the useless , to the constantly necessary , to the 'why is this here?' I've been here 5 weeks, and I've found they are really very necessary. Misunderstandings arise. A wholly written medium is not always the best way to communicate.

If you want me to, I can get specific about the 'too-too'. I guess I thought there was too much implied masculinity, and a tad too much humour about getting laid. That's not to say that theatre people *don't* spend their time doing that, but that isn't really the point of your article, is it? I'm hypersensitive, so wait and see what other people say.

I'm really not sure where you were going with the 'pizza' device. I think it could add a fun dimension to a more serious article, but IMO you'd have to flesh it out some (not literally I'm a vegetarian) to make it work.

Suggestion: Depending on what style of criticism you prefer, you might want to say: 'I learn best from brief, one-item comments', or 'don't bother me with specifics, just tell me how the gestalt of the article is working', or- as in my case -'give me long, detailed, nit-picky criticism, because that is the way I learn best'. It could save you from getting under-feedback (common), or TMI, (Barton and I are guilty of this).

Since I am a recent newcomer, and they have a 'different' gestalt here at h2g2, I know you can just ease on in. You'll do great. When articles get accepted, they go to a sub-editor, part of whose job is to render them in British English. Don't sweat that.

Arpeggio, for LeKZ

No, no - this is good. I've turned disrespecting my own work into a major lifestyle choice, and, additionally, should know better than to try this during a Mercury Retrograde. I let my enthusiasm for showing off rush me a bit.

After a rousing six hours of sleep - move than normal - I did a bit of editing before checking back here. I pointed out that the term 'Indian' is inncorrect; I tried to soften [?] the dig about costume designers being fat former actors [probably not done - the in-joke intention may be too hard to translate]; cut the footnote about casting directors entirely [I'd put it is in the first place for my wife, who's not had high opinions of them in the past]; and I equivocated more about the Sound Guy being a guy - not being sure if the Guide was prepared for my using 'ze' and 'hir' and such [which I prefer], I was clumsy in doing it the old way. So, is there an entry on gender-neutral pronouns in English already, or do I have to unpack my Kate Bornstein books and look them up for us?

The pizza thing just grew. The original reference was the first one, and I had made some reference about getting anchovies on your pizza by mistake the equivalent of choosing theatre as a career. [I've been vegetarian since the 80's] Then it popped back up after I put in the quote from "Gypsy" - I like bookending things - so I threw in one somewhere in the middle so the readers wouldn't forget about it before the stunning conclusion.

People in this business never have time for sex. At least with me. I was trying to use those slippery literary devices referred to in a technical sort of a way as "OverDoingIt", "Irony" and "Smartassedness". I'll see what the general consenus turns out to be. Perhaps the running gag is tripping over its shoelaces...

I'll look into the smiley thing later when I have more time. As someone who tends to communicate with pictures anyway, it may be yet another way for me to spend time here when I should be doing something else.

I can take pretty much any sort of constructive [note qualifier] criticism, but obviously it helps to heap lavish praise on first. Or last. Or all the way through, I'm not fussy.

Yeah, some people may think I'm old, but I'm not B enough nor do I F enough to be a BOF. So there.

Oops - gotta go feed the cats. Check in later. Thanks.

Hi 7rob7, I posted a detailed note about some specifics, including specific things I *really* like, at http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/F70950?thread=123307. In discussion threads 'ze', or 's/he', and 'hir' are used by many people. In entries, I tend to use 's/he' and 'him or her'. The way that is edited will vary... tremendously. Personally, and this is a matter of taste, I *like* your break-neck run-on sentence style. It has a theatre-ish 'feel', so I think it is fun and . Not everyone, particularly people with no theatre experience, is likely to feel the same way. And for non-fiction writing, it is not *quite* ideal? Other people, comments? This comes down to the funny over factual issue, and you have to decide whether you want to tone down the funny, and by how much, based on the input of other people. I really like this article, not exactly as it stands, so much as where I see you can go with what you have, plus what you know. Keep working on it, and it will have its own spotlight in the Edited Guide. (NOTE: you can keep an 'alternate version', that is exactly as funny and apocryphal as you like, in the Unedited Guide. The Eds do say 'don't try too hard to be funny', and 'be factual', but that is for the Edited Guide. Don't revise your humour out of your own copy, because the original really was very funny. Keep it as your own version, would be my suggestion.) Nice work. I'm going to back off here and let other people have a chance to get a word in edgeways... I'll come back in a few days. Have fun ! Arpeggio, for LeKZ

As far as University projects go, "Theater" would go under the Faculty of Arts, and they would probably start a new Department of Performing Arts or somesuch to stash it in. They're forever starting new departments to fit someone's project.

If you want to turn this into a university project, go to this page and follow the directions to apply:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/University-Recruit


Mikey

Thanks. I do think this could be a valid University project encompassing both the history of stagecraft and technical production as well as the history of design and presentation styles. And a more detailed overview of the various design disciplines in maybe a bit more sober manner. [Yeah, right.] And so on. Let's see how this current process goes before I bite off more than I can chew. Something I'm totally unfamiliar with. Thanks again.

The great thing about doing a university project is that you don't have to do it all by yourself -- you can get lots of other researchers to help you. I know there are many people on h2g2 who are into stagecraft/production/technical theater kinds of things, ranging from eager beaver high schoolers to old hats.

One good person to try getting in touch with would be a researcher who goes by "sea". Her homespace is at:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/U139689

She's going to be a college freshman in technical theater in the fall, and has been very active on h2g2.


Mikey

It's a small galaxy, after all. I actually broached the subject to 'soeasilyamused' before I posted anything: her excellent and enthusiastic entry kept popping up whenever I did a search for 'technical theatre' during my preliminary research. [Well? It says to check for previous and similar entries...] I emailed her about my proposal, and she was kind enough to give me a list of other techies she knows here in the h2g2 corral. I have recently posted a message on her 'home page' [?] here, inviting her to have a little look-see at my piece, but no response so far. And I thought it polite to get a bit more feedback from her before dunning anyone else for their time and research.

My sister is named Mouse. Are you a long-lost stupifyingly-wealthy unknown family member who is about to die and frantically looking for someone to leave all your money to? Please advise.

Thanks again for the interest and advice.

-7rob7

Hi, 7rob7!

I've read your entry a couple of times now, and thought about it.

I think it is extremely amusing and very well-written, and provides a fascinating insider's view of theatre design. I found it well worth reading again, and will watch out for anything else you write.

However, I don't think the entry as it stands belongs in the Edited Guide at all. There are large sections which only work if the reader already knows something about the topic. Readers looking for a basic introduction may end up confused, or kicking themselves when they realise that they took ironic comments seriously. (I think this can be particularly annoying for readers who are not native speakers of English!)

This is not a problem which could be fixed by a little tinkering, so I'm not going to suggest any changes. I think you should keep this as it stands, as an entry in the Unedited Guide, and produce some simpler and more straightforward entries to explain the basics.

Why not put a nice bold link to this entry on your home space? Once you get a reputation as h2g2's resident expert on theatre design, people will find it easily, and appreciate it as it deserves.
Azara

Azara -

Hi, and thanks for the time and thought you've invested in my little first attempt. My own sister hasn't even finished reading it yet...

As I hope I've implied, this beginning piece is sort of to introduce myself to the h2g2 community, but mainly to get a sense of what's looked for in an "offical" entry, as well as determine the extent of interest in the subject. I also like to fool around with the rules of grammer and punny spellings, and need to know how far I can stretch my neck out before it either breaks or snaps back and hits me in the eye like my mother always warned me it would if I didn't stop that right now and come back in the house.

So if this needs to stay unedited [Like I could stop. Ha!], then that's fine. It is very much a portrait of the way I look at things, and so retaining the style is pretty important to me. I have found when I teach that a little humor helps them remember bizarre things like Greek stage machines, but too much of a good thing and your waistline starts to look like mine. [Where does this stuff come from? Who am I channeling and why? sigh...] And I am planning to write up an outline covering the subject in broader, drier detail to submit as a University Project, so the deathless Entry-In-Perpetuity status is certainly still a possibility. Will need to find researchers first, though, as I understand it so far, and figure out a good six weeks of my life to devote to it.

Speaking of which: if you're still looking for researchers for your Opera Project, I'd be glad to help. I've pretty much covered every possible position in a theatrical production over the decades - including sitting in a ticket booth for hours in a skid-rowy part of town [Drunks are not big theatre-goers, I can tell you] - and don't want to be thought of as only a designer. Let me know if I could do anything.

-7rob7

7rob7-

I think when it comes to the Edited Guide, the answer to the question "How far can I stick my neck out?" is "Not very far at all." It can be quite an eye-opener to see the kinds of words and terms and references that different posters to Peer Review will ask to have explained. Reading the threads here made me realise how often a writer starts with a whole set of basic assumptions that the readers may not share.

Part of the interest in your entry is in the number of glancing references to other topics, but giving a detailed explanation of all of them would deaden the whole effect, or bury the entry in footnotes. That's why I feel the only why to keep your present style in this entry is to keep it Unedited. However, that's just one individual opinion, and other researchers may not agree. The opinions of one or two Scouts would be useful here, since they're the ones who actually pick the entries.

Thanks for your interest in my Opera Houses project! I'll post a separate message at your space about that, since this thread is supposed to be reserved for discussion of your entry, and off-topic straying might (in theory, at any rate) get it sent to the dreaded Sin Bin.
Azara

Hello 7rob7! And welcome to h2g2!

I am the notorious Barton that Arpeggio has been thrusting at you.

Just so you have a little background, I, too, have worked nearly every possible theatre (I'm American, but I spell 'theatre' that way to distinguish the art form from the building. The British are just as confused by this as the Americans.) discipline since a bit before 1966 in amateur and professional houses all over the Midwest. I'm horrendously over educated on the subject and fancy myself an aesthetician and dramaturg though I'd rather be acting or directing. Currently, I have restricted myself to a few weekends every summer at the Bristol Renaissance Faire (and visits to a few other faires) for reasons of health.

Now, to your article: You've done a very courageous thing in attempting to describe the duties, lifestyles, and history of various generic theatre designers in one article and you've made a very nice job of it. However, (There's always a 'however' in these threads) you have made a mistake that most of us seem to make on our first attempts here.

Please forgive me if I seem to put words in your mouth, you seem to be trying to cover your embarrassment at stating what seems obvious and dry to you with (some very nicely done) humorous comments in order to entertain while you are informing. Please believe me when I say, that I appreciate the humor and that I also try to be humorous whenever I write or teach. As you say above, it does make the pill of information go down ever so much easier. But, in this case, I think that your humor is obscuring what you are trying to present.


If you and the rest of h2g2 will forgive me making an observation, the edited guide aims to provide information in a pleasant and human fashion. The thing is that the information is the primary focus and the pleasant and human follow afterward.

Please don't misunderstand, I have seen articles that were so filled with information and little else that I have begged the authors to add in some humanity. Some of those articles were selected for the guide without significant modification and some were not. I have also seen articles that were jam packed with humor and humanity where the information served as little more than an outline for jokes and where I have begged for more data, yet some of those articles were selected for the guide also with little change and others were not.

I think you are right that h2g2 needs a University project on theatre and that the subject can easily stand that sort of approach. (If you choose to take that road, please include me in your plans.) By the same token, this article could well serve as the introduction to the section of such a project on design if it were modified in a more factual direction.

My problem with what you have written, taking it as an entry for the editied guide, is that I would like to see the design areas stand out more factually from the life styles of the designers. Now, again, I ask that you not misunderstand, I love this article as it is, but I believe it belongs in the unedited guide in its current form.

There is no shame to this. Searches will still return your article. It just won't say 'edited' after the mention and the article will never be mentioned on the Front Page.

(Which is a shame, for not only your article but for many other wonderful articles in the unedited guide. Some day, some one of us will devote hirself to presenting a page about great unedited articles -- updated daily -- which will become a regular stopping place for us all.)

So, what *I* see in this article, which may well not be what *you* intend, is a brief survey of the designers' arts connected with stage presentation, presented in the wry fashion which you do well and which we all appreciate, but which article has as its first intention, to inform and as it's second, to entertain.

Of course, you may have had that as your goal all along, in which case, I, speaking of it as a design and myself as a dramaturg, will say, 'A little less glitz and frou-frou and more structuralism might make this more accessible to the audience.'

I won't go into details of how some given sentence or paragraph could be worded differently, because it's the style, I think, that doesn't work, not the execution. If you like, I could take a paragraph and rework it a bit to show you how I envision it could work, but there are so many different opinions running around Peer Review that I hesitate to say more till others have been heard from.

So, you will understand where I am coming from, I view the edited guide as the sort of reference one might go to to get the information as well as the understanding of human nature; something on the order of: 'people who mix these two chemicals will get a lovely color, marvelous odor, and ground hugging smoke, but the whole thing will blow up in 15 minutes. So, either don't do it or stand well back.'

Let's see what non-theatre people think about it.

One more teensy thing that may not matter at all later, the Cothornous more resembled a 'platform' shoe, I think, which style I understand is enjoying renewed popularity today.

Arpeggio,

The secret to taking a set on the road is to put the hinges in the right places and to attach the handles in the least convenient locations. Other than that, you either rent the proper sized truck no matter what the cost or figure out how to fold the set to fit into the space the management was grudgingly willing to pop for.


Barton

Barton~

Hmm... you get a truck it *fits* in? That would make sense. That's probably why I've never actually seen it happen, huh?

7rob7~
What Barton and Azara (and I) said, again. This is too good to blow on rewording. So start over and write with an audience of computer nerds, MBAs, med-students, palaeontologists, and Junior Vice-Presidents of Insurance Companies in mind.

As a non-science-and-math person/s, I haunt the math-and-science articles, knocking them for assuming I know what 'client' means in their language. You need some critiques from people who do aeronautics, or career military, but Azara, Barton, and I have basically all said what looks to me like the Same Thing.



Never take it for granted that anyone knows anything. You think in theatre-speke, which is as much its own language as the stuff scientists speak to one another. You can't be informative that way.

But I love the article .

What they said.

I left a long informative thing on your page, answering numerous who/what/how questions, that the Guide have help pages for, but that I collected and sorted based on my personal, *interesting* debut here.

Hope it's useful.

Arpeggio, hoping Barton follows through on that 'Great Unedited Entries' idea... , for LeKZ

Hi folks -

Ok, I reread most of the comments and can only bow to your superior knowledge of what an Edited Entry is and isn't. No one else has offered detailed responses, but I don't intend to pull it from Peer Review [can you even do that?] unless asked. As I said, this is a pretty good example of how my irreverent way of approaching everything usually comes out, and I feel it would be dishonest to subvert that merely for the sake of 'getting published'. In this instance only and regarding this material only, mind you - each situation is different and there are no absolutes. Part of my intention was attempting to illustrate the seeming day-to-day absurdites of this life in an 'absurdist' fashion - reinforcing the content with the context. You are probably right in that the result is better appreciated by those with hands-on experience in the field, and rather opaque to those without a clue. And I can appreciate the necessity of the 'official' Guide to cover its as... er, all the bases.

This will stand as is I think. I did forward the link to a number of my professional associates seeking comment, and I may or may not post/incorporate any of their pertinent responses.

It seems an ideal time to help with Azara's 'Opera' project in order to get a better sense of the 'preferred' style, as well as develop the outline for my less-breezy coverage of the tech theatre material for a University project. I've also already started making mental notes for an entry on Scene Paint - really hilarious stuff about paint chemistry, color theory and industrial safety requirements. And I do have other interests/passions: no one-trick-pony here, boy-oh-boy.

Thanks again, and let's see what else may pop up in here.

-7rob7

That's a perfectly valid position to take. And the opinions that really matter are those of the scouts who actually make the picks, in any case.



Incidentally, the most typical way of withdrawing your article from consideration is to state in the thread that that is what you want to do. At some point, a scout or two will then have the discussion thread moved to the 'Sin Bin' and that will be that. Nothing will happen to your article. It will still be available. You, however, can force the issue in one other way. You could delete your article, which removes it from viewing, though you can reinstate it at any time. Nothing is ever really thrown away on h2g2 unless it violates the house rules, in which case, it diappears into an area that only the paid staff (know as the 'italics' since that is how their names appear on screen -- in bold italic letters) can get to and, for all I know, that may just be a bit bucket under the server somewhere.

Let me say one more time, I really like what you have written.

Barton

Incidentally, one or two weeks is not an unusual time factor before decisions are made in Peer Review.

Barton

*Lucinda puts on her Scout hat*

I think this is a great entry! Wonderful! Sure, it doesn't cover the basics of theatre, but it links to the edited entry on theatre, which does! It's got some great use of humour and sarcasm - but it still remains factual, informative, and highly useful. Next time someone says to me "I'm a Scenic Designed", then I'll know what they mean!

One teensy change I'd suggest is to make the title just "Theatre Designers" - and use a subtitle to make your joke about pizza, eg:

**Theatre Designers**
"Do you want little dead fish on that pizza?"

*What Theatre Designers Are*

{etc}