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

This Guide Entry called "Lewis Carroll - Logician, Nonsense Writer, Mathematician and Photographer" A4462670 was featured on the Front Page last week.

I read it and was amused to notice that the illustration of The Walrus and The Carpenter had been doctored to appear like George W Bush and his new U.N ambassador John Bolton, and said so in this forum. F2209192?thread=895421

However another researcher was not as amused. Dannyvice U1923801 - a relatively new researcher not familiar with the feedback system hence why I'm here - visted My Space asks why h2g2 uses a doctored image? Wouldn't it be better, he asks, if The Guide used an original illustration from "Through the Looking Glass" (copyright permitting) that was more appropriate to the Entry? The images of Bolton and Bush detract he feels from what is I judge overall to be a very sound Entry on an important literary figure.

As much as I found it personally amusing, I have an awful feeling he's right - I guess the real question is is the Edited Guide a place for such commentary when as Dannyvice said in his complaint to me:
"I hate to look at an entry on Lewis Carrol and see the faces of America's current wacko politicos"
F34527?thread=919373


Clive / Dannyvice

Traveller in Time seconding the impression about the image
"It would have been clever to hide a mathematical riddle in the image.
I noticed the political faces in there too. "

I'm sorry that Dannyvice didn't appreciate the graphic, but I have to defend the artist's decisions here. Firstly, it's not a doctored image but an original piece done in the style of the illustrations from the books. Secondly, the works of Carroll were highly satirical, which was something the artist chose to work on and as such we felt it was appropriate for the entry concerned.

We don't have permission to use the original artwork from the books and we generally only use graphics that come from the BBC picture library or are original pieces created by our artists, or myself. That's been the house style for illustrations on h2g2 for many years now.

Well they've got their answer now so lets see what they do with it.

Personally I laughed when I saw it. I wasn't aware of the satirical background to Carroll's work, my only concern was that we had a researcher who appeared to be having a genuinly disgruntled reaction to an in-house graphic which deserved to be addressed.

Thanks Jimster.

It could be that this particular graphic might have benefitted from more of an explanation. The problem is how far do we go to explain it without spoiling the subtlety of the artist's intention there.

Thanks for raising this though, Clive

Not a problem.

>>It could be that this particular graphic might have benefitted from more of an explanation. The problem is how far do we go to explain it without spoiling the subtlety of the artist's intention there.<<

A footnote perhaps or something in the ALT tag maybe? *shrugs helpfully*

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Walrus_and_Carpenter2.jpg

"This image has been released into the public domain by the copyright holder, its copyright has expired, or it is ineligible for copyright. This applies worldwide."

Oh well - there you go then.

Thanks Ottox.

Still...