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

Entry: The View Askewniverse Films by Kevin Smith - A87948445
Author: Bluebottle - U43530

I'll be honest and say that I am very much leaning towards splitting this entry up and that in its present form it could be considered to be too long, however I thought I'd see what other people think first.

<BB<

I'll be honest and say I would agree with your inclination - I see this Entry is currently more than 10,000 words long. While it might not be as long as the longest Entry in the Edited Guide, in this day and age it will be better for readers if it is split into at least four pieces that would each take less than 10 minutes to read on average

I agree. The content is very much broken up into sections, so it wouldn't hurt it to be divided into separate entries.

I think you should have an overview entry and then an entry for each film, unless the films can be logically divided into super-groups.

Question: is there a Lord of the Rings reference in each film?

Should this entry be written in British English?

There are a few things in it which I think are in American English: hockey, suspenders etc.

Only the one 'Lord of the Rings' reference, I'm afraid.

Suspenders = things worn predominantly by women on legs used to hold up stockings

I have admittedly used 'hockey' rather than 'street and/or ice hockey' as Smith seems to refer to both. I must admit I don't know whether there are any actual differences between ice or street hockey rather than ice skates or roller blades, but yes it is a different game to hockey. I have added a to that affect.

<BB<

I wasn't sure about the suspenders because Americans use the word to mean what I'd call 'braces' - elastic straps that go over the shoulders and hold up a pair of trousers.

You might like to add a footnote to the footnote on Papal Infallibility.

Technically the Catholic Church holds that the Pope is infallible only when speaking 'ex cathedra', that is, with the full authority of office. One of the Popes stated that he had no intention of ever speaking 'ex cathedra'.

Thanks - I've added that now.

<BB<

A film doesn't fail the Bechdel Test if all conversations between women mention a man. It fails if all conversations are on the subject of men.

If there is a conversation between two women characters about a subject other than men, then the film passes, even if the conversation mentions a man.

Let me know when you decide whether to split this up or not. Then I can start Peer Reviewing it.

The Bechdel Test website http://bechdeltest.com/ gives

1. It has to have at least two [named] women in it
2. Who talk to each other
3. About something besides a man

so it seems a bit subtle to argue that mentioning a man is not talking about men for the Test...

I like how <BB< has set out the definition that is used in each Entry where the test is applied, so that is clear

If the two women are talking about climbing a mountain and they mention that Sir Edmund Hillary climbed the mountain, then that is about a mountain, not a man.

As the consensus is that this entry is too long in its current form, I think splitting the entry would be a very good idea.

Unfortunately according to my rules to limit the number of my entries in Peer Review, if an Active entry is split into two or more entries, then as it had already been in Peer Review all its constituent parts return to Peer Review, with one entry Active and the others Inactive. In this case that would mean one Active entry and seven Inactive entries arriving in a Big Bang, which if truth be told is quite a lot. However if I try to trickle the entries in one-by-one in a Phased approach it could conceivably take years for them to filter through the Peer Review system, by which time I'd've forgotten all about whichever film I'd written about, so there's no ideal answer either way.

If I add the entries in a Big Bang that'll mean I'm up to 25 entries in Peer Review, and be unable to write any other entry for h2g2 for the rest of the year.

<BB<

But mentioning a man who climbed Everest is still putting the women in the position of talking about a man? I would wonder why the mountain couldn't be talked about by the women without mentioning the men... Anyway, that's by the by...

How about a University Project-style approach, <BB<? You could put all the Entries into the Edited Guide Workshop for Gnomon to review, and then put the page of links into Peer Review, and then all the Entries would be kept together?

All the entries are already in the Writing-Workshop and the links to the entries are:
A87965815 - The View Askewniverse Films by Kevin Smith  
A87965824 - 'Clerks' - the Film  
A87965833 - 'Mallrats' - the Film  
A87965842 - 'Chasing Amy' - the Film  
A87965851 - 'Dogma' - the Film  
A87965860 - 'Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back' - the Film  
A87965879 - 'Clerks II' - the Film  
A87965888 - 'Jay and Silent Bob Reboot' - the Film  

<BB<

I thought we went down the University project route already? How is this any different, other than it seems like we're now asking Gnomon to do the work of a subeditor without getting a subeditor's credit.

I still think it is perfectly reasonable to mention Sir Edmund Hillary (or Sir Edmund Mountainary, as I think of him) when discussing Everest in the context of climbing up it, though if you were talking about 'what mountain inspired an animated film and has a double-glazing company named after it?' he wouldn't come up. Just like if you were talking about X-rays in detail it'd be perfectly normal for Marie Curie's name to come up, but if you were just having a snapshot of your teeth at the dentist she probably wouldn't.

<BB<

I don't mind doing the work without getting the sub-editor's credit - I already have more than 400 of those.

My point about Sir Edmund Hillary is that two women could have a conversation about a woman friend of theirs climbing Mount Everest. The subject of the conversation is their female friend.

If in passing they happen to mention Sir Edmund Hillary, that doesn't cause the film to fail the Bechdel Test - the conversation is not "about a man".

Hmm, yes now I can vaguely see that a film could get away with something along the lines of, 'she climbed a mountain - which mountain? - it was the mountain famously climbed by Sir Edmund Mountainary, do you know the one? - Oh, yes - Everest.', but 'dubious pass' would be the words I would use

And strictly speaking in relatiion to the University Project as well, you're taking the role of the University Project Sub-editor here, Bluebottle, as you have control of your Entries. Gnomon is very kindly reviewing the project as thoroughly as a Sub-editor

Thank you Gnomon - it is much appreciated You and <BB< are doing sterling work together, and I'm so grateful

I created a Project Page thingy here, by the way: A87974220

<BB<