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

You missed it by one post, Alex



For ease of getting to the entry:

Entry: The Battle of Orgreave - Monday 18 June, 1984 - A9361334
Author: Pinniped - U183682

It was for the previous page

> I've come to see now that section headers would make this easier to
> interpret, so I'll work on some and add them.

Will this happen any time soonish? Or is this one mostly just dead in the water?

Pin works on an independent time scale that bears no relation to the rest of the Universe. My personal opinion is that years of living in Scunthorpe (a horror as yet unbeknownst to ye on the western side of the Atlantic) is largely responsible.

I'd leave it be for now.

B

Definitely not dead in the water as far as I'm concerned.

I think it should have conventional, ie descriptive section headers for the general context sections (those in plain face) and just the hour of the day as a section header in the action commentary sections (in italics).

I'll get round to it in the next couple of days. I've some UG stuff I should sort first.

Wo B

I've met two mill engineers, one based in New York state and the other in Alabama, who are Scunny lads and who started out in the SPM and the MSM respectively.

Could be more for all I know. So it's not quite unknown.

"I've come to see now that section headers would make this easier to interpret, so I'll work on some and add them."

*cough*

He's right, y'know. I did say that.

ASARE, OK?

Pin

"ASARE"?

As Soon As Remotely Excusable

(I've got a draft. I just don't like it much. Still working)

Post #55 : <>

Maybe it's time to see if it's happened?

Headers added. Other than that, a minor switch of paragraph order at the beginning is the only change.

I really don't want to make any major changes.

I took the 'Not for Review' off again. Your call, guys.

Pin

Reads fine to me. Thanks for not altering too much.

We have some new blood in the Editorial department, so I'd say give it a go.

for adding the headers - it makes it easier to read and review, and any criticism should come with specifics as to which bit has offended.

I just had another crack at recommending this, Pin. I gave what I considered were very strong reasons, but it was rejected 'without touching the sides'. Sorry.

The rejection e-mail says:

"This is because the changes made to it since it was last recommended have been relatively minor. As explained previously, its format and style mean it is not suitable for the Edited Guide."

As Alex said earlier, I hope we can get something more specific. I like the style - it draws you in to the story on a completely different level.

Icy

Format and style, huh?

Thanks for the punt anyhow, Icy.

I guess there are two things that might not be acceptable here, the political sentiment and the general structure of the thing. The one of those that means less to me is definitely the politics.

Say we try losing the contentious last two paragraphs and the reference to mercenaries (both specifically criticised in the backthread) and try it one last time? Would doing that spoil it, do you reckon?

I can't really understand that the problem might be the style.

In latter days, Jimster did say no dramatised narration, a sort of 'if it reads like fiction, people will think it's fiction' argument. But he only started saying that after at least three of my Entries had gone through to the EG in spite of having similar characteristics (Batavia, Blake and Winstanley). I'd say all three of them are a lot more theatrical than Orgreave.

If Orgreave minus politics is unacceptable, then, it would suggest that we've become more restrictive in terms of EG latitude. Maybe that's important? Maybe we should test it?

Or should I just pull this now, and put it in AWW instead?

I suspect Jimster's comments about fiction may be the key to it, inconsistent though it is, as you point out. My Rick Rescorla piece read like fiction, and that had no problems.


If they are worried about the opinions (and I can't see why, to be honest), then they could always distance themselves from it somewhat with an additional disclaimer at the head of the article.

I'd rather the Eds responded to this, to save you wasting your time.

Icy

Firstly, the political sentiment and the bits that might cause outrage need to be carefully balanced and factually based, if not dropped altogether. Then you can look at the structure. As far as I can tell the overall layout is ok as it is simply chronological, so I would suggest that it is simply the flow of the narrated bits not fitting in with the factual nature of the Entry. It would probably help to refer to each italicised section from the non-italicised text, ie introduce each quote, and to explain who it is that you are quoting. Putting the narrated bits as proper quoted text will mean there should be less need for a footnote stating that the events were real. Oh, and put the narrated bits in as blockquotes - that's the correct way to quote people.

Hope this helps - you shouldn't have to change too much

Alex

But they're not quotes, Alex.

The italicised parts are descriptions of the day itself and the rest is wider factual context.

This kind of treatment has been acceptable before, eg A2116694. Why no longer?

Ah. I think I get it now.