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

Wow - the things that go on while I'm sleeping!

Barton, thanks again for the time you spend on this. I'll probably just let things sit for a bit and see what happens. Speaking of which:

Lucinda (et al) - Glad you enjoyed it! I myself was just digging on the new front page entry on 'How To Write Bad Poetry' [humor supporting fact very, very swell]. Not sure about the title change - I'd like to give the potential readers a tad of warning that the article doesn't take itself too loftily. But it's still early in the process...

Thanks again, everyone.

-7rob7

IMHO it's a bit heavy on the sarcastic side, and perhaps trying too hard to be funny. Those long sentences don't make it easy for me as someone with English as the second language to get the idea.

Anyway, just my $0.02

Bossel! Thanks for looking at the thing - I'd almost forgotten about it.

Sorry if it seems sarcastic; that's one of the things some of us who are designers use to combat the lousy conditions and pay, and the irony of wanting so much to do our best work for people who have no idea what we do. I had tried to meld the personality of the article with the personality of the subject.

Some have said that the average reader would need to know more about being a theatre designer to appreciate the piece. Maybe I am too familiar with it and forget that.

The humor came very easily - I actually had to tone it down here and there. Nothing hard to it.

I had never contemplated the difficulty that ESL readers could have. My mistake, and I apologize for the thoughtlessness. Let me look at it again when I have some time.

Thanks again. (And I am still working off-and-on on the 'archy and mehitabel' piece, too.)

I like it. I recommend it.

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

This is a great entry, well researched and the author obviously knows their topic, but as it stands, it does go off on tangents and the central theme is lost, making the entry itself inaccesible. We could change the entry in house, but that would mean losing the author's original writing style - something we are loath to do. This is the reason why we've sent it to the Writing Workshop.

Thanks y'all!

??? What does this mean next??? (curious, that's all... Thanks.)

???

I don't know. I could only imagine that a scout has recommended it and one of the Italics expressed their thoughts by moving the thread. This has happened before, but that was at the time when Scouts' recommendations were made via the eGroup where everyone could see them. These days we've got buttons, and nobody but the Scout in question and the Italics gets to see what happens

There's a h2g2 page (only visible to Scouts, Italics, and Subs) which shows recommendations which have been made but not yet processed by the in-house team. Your entry doesn't show up there either. Anyway, it would be a good move for anybody involved to reveal their names and say a few words!

There is?
Where?

the link was posted in message 4811 on the eGroup

If the thread was moved to a place you don't want it. Go back to the place you want it and start a new thread. Re-submit this entry to Peer Review. It deserves it.

Thank you, il viaggiatore.

I'm still a little confused as to where I am right now. The "Writing Workshop" strikes me as a place for entries that need work from a 'writing' angle, and everyone who reads through this agrees that's it's well-written. (shucks, m'am)

>>>This is a great entry, well researched and the author obviously knows their topic, but as it stands, it does go off on tangents and the central theme is lost, making the entry itself inaccesible. We could change the entry in house, but that would mean losing the author's original writing style - something we are loath to do. This is the reason why we've sent it to the Writing Workshop.<<<

Maybe all I really need to do is change/expand the title. The 'central theme' (?) was simply an overview/introduction to the somewhat twisted world of Theatre Designers, and I can't see that I lost that. Maybe I just need to add a subtitle like: "A Simple Overview/Introduction to the Somewhat Twisted World of Theatre Designers".

Whadda ya think?

I think the fact that this was moved to the writing workshop is baffling to all the sensitive and astute reviewers who read it an liked it.
Lets do this:
Hello. Here I am, a regular writing workshop proofreader. I have stumbled across this well-written entry that, in my opinion, needs no further work and formally suggest the author submit it to peer review.

There you go.

Hi, I just did a search on the Scouts e-group for this and found nothing other than it included in lists of entries in Peer review. So how it got here is a slight mystery I can only assume exactly the same as Bossel. That is that a Scout reccomended the entry and it got vetoed by the editors Unfortunately whilst we get to pick the entries the final decision is up to them. There was most certatinly no move from any scout to have it moved here. The only other possibility is that the editors took a unilateral decision but I seriously doubt that as they've never done that before in my experience.
If it was recommended than it would be nice for that scout to reveal themselves and say so.

Having said all that I see no purpose in putting it straight back at Peer Review as it will simply be rejected again if no changes are made.

My twopenceworth is that whilst the entry is informative and amusing I did get kind of lost amongst the prose Which I suspect is what the editors meant in their note above. I've personally got no experience with theatre design at all and it's a bit hard to follow from a layman's point of view.
My suggestion would be to cut out some of - for want of a better word - the waffle (sorry couldn't think of anything more euphemistic).
I know this would lose a lot of the style of the article but it might make it more snappy and make it hit the mark.
It is surely destined for edited status with such changes. As it is a good subject and beneath the extended prose there is an excellent article in there.

Sorry I'm usually a bit nicer than that but in view of the situation I thought I'd be more frank than normal.

As ever, this is just my viewpoint - how you rewrite it is of course entirely up to you.

As an aside - it may well be worth putting it back for Peer review as article there tend to get more readers than those in the Workshop but I would at least make some small changes first.

Hope that helped

Orcus

(BTW -cheers Bossel - don't know howI missed that)

Hi everyone,

Just to clear up any confusion about the last message, here's what's happened to this entry:

* It was in Peer Review, and had been Recommended by a Scout.

* The entry was read through by the in-house editors - as happens to all Recommended entries - and there were seen to be some stylistic problems that prevented it from being accepted as an Edited Guide Entry as it stands.

* The entry was therefore moved out from Peer Review to the Writing Workshop.

The reasons for the rejection are pretty much as Orcus has pointed out above. Although it's certainly a fine piece of writing, the style is rather too discursive for the Guide, which is aiming for a slightly more focused treatment of the material. The constant digressions into other areas certainly make it an interesting read, but too hard for the casual reader to extract the relevant information. The tone of the writing also seems a little negative and opinionated, making it harder to enjoy the topic.

As was originally pointed out, we wouldn't like to have to change any of the writing ourselves - some people quite understandably enjoyed reading it, but it just doesn't quite fit with the 'mood' and style that we're cultivating for the Edited Guide. It will, of course, remain as an entry on h2g2 for as long as you wish, and will appear in any search for the topic - in that respect, it's just as valuable to everyone as any other entry, edited or not.

We hope this clears any confusion.

Hmmm... Ok. Here's this, then.

1. I understand how it got here.
2. I don't need to know which Scout recommended it, except to say "Thank you."
3. I can understand the response to the 'tone', I think, thought I was shooting for 'sardonic' rather than 'negative'. And I was trying to set up a bigger 'payoff' in the "Why" section by emphasizing the inherent frustrations of making a 'business' out of an 'art'. I can certainly look at that aspect again.
4. But I still don't understand the 'digressions' reference. I reread the thing a few days ago (and thought of a few fairly minor tweaks to incorporate) and still consider that it moves in a pretty straightforward progression: intro/thesis; historical background; generalization of the processes and the spaces (venues); detailed synopsis of each of the different designers, including their differences and similarites; the reason "why" such a head-banging career would be so rewarding and addictive; and a conclusion. I can't find the tangents.

I've been designing sets, lights and/or costumes for over thirty years, and so I *am* probably blind to the bits that might confuse someone less familiar. If anyone would want to point them out, I'd certainly appreciate it. I won't necessarily change anything, but I'll be glad of the opportunity to know what might be changed.

Thanks again.

Hello 7rob7,

Thanks for your points, below are a few examples of where the text digresses. It is not a comment on the work, in fact the digressions are witty and several times made us laugh, but they do distract from what you are saying. There is a clear progression in the structure of the entry, but within that structure, there are tangents. For example:


"It is sometimes also not uncommon to get little dead fish on one&#8217;s pizza." - this appears several times in the text. It's significance is unclear and throws the reader off course and distracts from what you are trying to express.

"Theatre design was originally invented on a Thursday by a sadly-anonymous prehistoric showoff who stood up in front of the tribe to pray for supper, much like karaoke today." - This is funny, but untrue and it further distracts the reader from the rest of the paragraph.

"Speaking of Mystery Plays" - The footnotes associated with this and other phrases, digress into witty retorts rather than explain what these phrases mean.


"Luckily, it is common knowledge that most set designers like their knickers as tight as possible and encourage through frequent inspection that their assistants do likewise." - This is another example of a funny aside that isn't true and further distracts the reader from what is potentially a great entry.

We're not saying that we want to see a dry entry, far from it. You have a unique insight into a world that is alien to most of us, but it would be great to make it accessible, too. For entries in a similar vein see:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/A516520 'Technical Theatre of the High School Variety'

http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/A249239 'Theatre Lighting Technicians'

Cheers for now

(Sigh. Now here's a situation where I -- as someone who abhors formality (surprised?) -- would much prefer talking to a name rather than a faceless collective. But I think I understand a chunk of the decision (I posted my opinion in the 'Lifetime Suspension' thread) and so will content myself with the anonymous assistance.)

This is a little more clear, but obviously will take a bit of very precise pruning to make any significant changes. (I've never been overly fond of my Inquisition bit myself...)

The 'little dead fish' (3 references) is, however, a very carefully-constructed bookend device and something I am loathe to eliminate. And, for the record, *I* am a designer, and I *do* like my knickers tight. That particular 'aside' was building on the 'shrunken clothes' device used to illustrate how underpaid designers consistently are. (I have a copy of an excellent article written by a Broadway designer breaking down the income vs. the expenses on a typical show, and minimum wage starts to look very, very lucrative.)

I had studied both of these linked entries several times before writing my own. This is specifically why I didn't go off onto a spiel about Tech Rehearsals or Technicians. I'll link to these next revision.

So. I should have time in a couple of weeks (max.) to do a rewrite. Got another largish project going on right now, but I've set my "archy and mehitabel" entry aside for the time being and so this moves up into the priority slot.

Do I put the "Hey! Check it out!!" note here first, or smugly resubmit it to Peer Review? Just not sure who's looking where, is all.

Thanks for your help.

-7rob7

BTW, here's one of my mantras for you:

'Ideas are easy; editing is hard.'

Resubmit it.