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

Hi Vegiman!

Thought I’d drop by after your very kind visit to my page - I finished up putting in all the links etc. you suggested…

As for the critique, well, let’s give this a go. I am being unusually detailed here because I want everything I say to be understood. I’ll work paragraph by paragraph so that what I say will (hopefully) not be confusing, and so that the other comments I have to make about the structure of the article will make sense. It’s a good article about a useful subject, and it has the potential to be vastly funny, in an understated sort of way. Please don’t take this criticism too much to heart, either: I’m hardly a professional, after all…

Paragraph #1: I think a better expression than "a masterful display of culinary delights" could have been chosen. Picnics aren’t "culinary" for a start. The fact that they take place outside a kitchen is one of the things which make them what they are: they’re rustic! In addition, the phrase sounds cliched, even if it’s not. I’d suggest a more obvious phrase, like "a spectacular display of really good food" or something along those lines - although this criticism is probably more a product of how I’m feeling at the moment than anything else.

Paragraph #2: I think the word you’re looking for here is "idyllic" - "idealistic" (which is what I suspect you were trying to say) refers to "ideals" (which are concrete goals) rather than "dreams" which are "idylls". Scrap the CAPITALS as well.

Paragraph #3: you need to insert a few constructions here. The construction "which is" should go after the comma in the sentence beginning "Perhaps land on your brow,…". You could probably insert "they will" between "Perhaps" and "land" too. After the comma, you could also "the" after "fresh with" and insert "from" instead of "of" in "of fear of what they may do." These stylistic amendments will help the reader determine what you are actually talking about, thus making you article easier to read, and also more meaningful and therefore more funny! The whole second sentence from this paragraph would look like this with these amendments: "Perhaps land on your brow, which is fresh with perspiration from fear of what they may do."

Paragraph #4: needs rewriting as Paragraph #3. "I believe," should become "I believe that" with no comma. "…which buzz round and round your head" should be parenthesized - either in brackets ("()") or in parenthetical hyphens. These amendments would allow the sentence to flow better, and make it easier to read. The last point to make about this paragraph is that spy satellites don’t follow targets: they merely observe them at fixed points in fixed orbits. You need another analogy (probably something to do with a hunting animal) to be pedantic, although I tend to doubt that other people would even notice this point.

Paragraph #5 - make the questions part of the prose of the rest of the article, rather than stand out points on their own. You need to add - or turn these questions into - some sort of closing comment, to make the article flow to a natural conclusion. The other nice part about this is that it gives you another chance to be funny! One last thing: I would suggest that you don’t ask personal questions like "Can anyone out there give me an answer?", which require direct communication with the writer, rather than illustrating any of the writer’s points, as the (possibly) rhetorical questions before this one.

In terms of the whole look and feel of the article, I think that the "Facts" points at the end here should be incorporated into the prose (it is, after all, an article about gnats), or else made into genuine footnotes (as with the "midges" bit): it just looks more professional that way. A few of the paragraphs could also be combined quite successfully. I would suggest that Paragraphs #1 and #2, and #3 and #4 could be combined into two separate paragraphs, with no necessary rewriting and no loss of meaning in the article. This would make an article at most 3 paragraphs long: short, succinct, meaningful and much easier and quicker to read.

Anyway, that’s about all I can think of to say - enjoy the rewrite!

Well Hypo - It has completely changed and I expect quite a few grammar mistakes.

Let me know what you think and if it is Guide entry material.

Thanks veg

It has completely changed, hasn't it?

I like it considerably more, now, and the detail of the humour and the grammar are both improved! The mistakes I could see on a brief perusal were frequently not grammatic errors, but spelling mistakes, although I can see one grammatic error as well! I think it is 'Guide material (although I haven't checked whether there is any extant entry on the same subject) but would probably be more likely to be accepted with a few amendments.

The biggest of these concerns your use of the first person "I" in a lot of the piece. Where you write things like "I don't know" it's probably better to write something general like "it is a matter of conjecture". The general avoidance of the first person is in line with the desire to make the 'Guide a functioning reference work, but the use of the second person ("you") is not so difficult, because it suggests a certain personability which standard reference works (which the 'Guide could never be!) do not have. The difficulty with fixing this concern is that it might require a rewrite of some scope - you may be able to rely on a sub-editor to do it, however, although then it's much more dependent on the subby's indulgence to be accepted!

Other issues are also there to be commented on. In the third paragraph where you write "There is a problem with this is -", I think you need to finish with: "with this [which] is [this]:" (although you can probably get away without the "[this]". This is an error of omission, I think. The grammatic error is where you write "Some chemists have devised a fly repellent which may be available in sprays...[etc.]". There is a subject singular-plural conflict between the singular "fly repellent" and the plural "sprays" etc. You can probably get around this by pluralising that to "repellents". You should correct the spelling error ("spay") a bit further down too.

The information value of the piece is fabulous (and excellently and stylishly improved, I might add!), and it is very funny.

I hope that this helps!

I should probably get back to some prescribed editing...

Regards,

H.

Thanks Hypofriend

I will get to work on the adjustments -

BTW - where is the page which shows the order in which submissions are considered?

Thanks again
veg

Hey H

Your help has been invaluable and hopefully the article is now ready for consumption.

I have always had a problem with the singular and plural and quite often miss it when proof reading - thanks for spotting this one.

You are not the first to point out it was written in second person style and therefore I have re-writen it omitting this.

As I have taken the advice of yourself and others in the Fun Run I will allocate blame in the form of referenced reseachers - I hope others follow my lead, because it has got to be the best thing I have written on a subject I previously had no knowledge. It couldn't have been so without you.

Yeh I actually did the research bit.

Thanks H - I appreciate you taking the time to help.

veg

Hi Vegiamigo!

No problem re the looking and tasting - always good to get a feel for what the better writers are up to! I would have had a look in any case, because this article is an interesting one.

I like the idea of "allocating blame", too - I still haven't done this for several of the articles that others have helped me with, and I should get a chance to get around to it soon.

I haven't taken the time to investigate the article queue yet. I will try and get on to this when I return from my brothers' weddings, after the weekend.

Regards,

H.

Don't get drunk and look out for gnats.
thanks vegi

Sorry Veg - I got drunk enough that the gnats weren't bothering me at all!

The weddings were very successful. Now to see about the marriages!