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

Entry: Authority in the Catholic Church - A937154
Author: MIke OShea - U216090

A personal view - by a practising layman - of the nature and possible abuse of authority in the Catholic Church.

This is an interesting entry, but there is an important point you must address: It is in 1st person. This is a problem, i don't advise you change it to 3rd person, as it would lose the personal aspect. I suggest you change the title to: "A personal experience of Authority in the Catholic Church". Good luck with the entry.

Tango

Thanks for the tip. I have slightly altered the essay title in order to comply with the rule about a 'third person' approach. In my view the most effective writing is always personal, whether it's 1st or 3rd. I hope most will agree. Cheers

I think that will be exceptable.

Tango

Tango! Tango! Tango! - 'exceptable'? - From a Guru/Guide???

For a start, what's a guide? You mean scout? And then, what's wrong with the word exceptable?

Tango

Well this does seem to be 'a personal reflection', as you call it, which is not really what the Edited Guide is for. Opinion pieces are most welcome but for various reasons don't form part of the Edited Guide.

The other problem is that this is very substantially copied from your web site. The Edited Guide is really for fresh, original, factual writing by Researchers. So it's absolutely no reflection on the quality of your work here, but it might be felt that the Edited Guide is not the place for it. Different sites are suitable for different kinds of writing.

I believe you wouldn't be keen to do a substantial rewrite, but I do feel that's what it might need.

This is, however, just my opinion on the situation - I speak with no authority here, but felt it would be kinder to mention such possible problems sooner rather than later.

Bels

Personal experiences are sometimes excepted into the EG. If the website is his, and he owns all the copyright for what's on it, it shouldn't matter, should it?

Tango

say Tango, I think our friend is hoping you really meant 'acc-eptable'...

Well i didn't, i meant exceptable, because allowing a personal experience into the EG is an exception to the rule.

Tango

I'd be a little worried accepting this into the Guide as it is. Firstly, the title is not representative of the subject matter (or the subject matter strays too far from the title, I can't decide which).

Secondly, a lot of the first-person references are unnecessary for an Edited Guide entry ('I quote...' 'I must record that...' 'I merely point out...' which does suggest that the author has not read the <./>writing-guidelines</.>. This could be approached by removing the personal angle throughout and just describing what happened. If these events happened to one family, it's unlikely that they were in isolation - many families will have experienced similar upset and interference, and this could describe it from a perspective of one family's experiences illustrating the experiencs of many at that time.

I think this entry has an important story to tell, one which is factual and historically relevant. But it's also a little... undisciplined, or at the very least (understandably) the emotional responses of its author are very evident in areas where arguably a more neutral, less melodramatic authorial voice might suit it better. Often in instances such as this, it works better if it's approached from the point of view of it happening to someone else.

Alternatively, if Mike wants to preserve some of the personal observations, it'd fit the House Style a bit better if these sections were placed between <BLOCKQUOTE<... tags.

These are just a few suggestions, and I hope this isn't demotivating for you, Mike. You're free to keep the entry as it is and submit it to another Forum - the Alternative Writing Workshop, or The Post, perhaps - and of course, as it is, it's already part of the wider, unedited Guide. But, personally, I'd love to see this worked on to get it into the Edited Guide.

If you have any questions, I'm sure other Researchers could suggest ways to make it a little more 'Edited Guide' friendly.

All the best,

Jimster

Firstly - Thank you all for your observations. I can see where you are coming from - even if I cannot see exactly where I am going to.

I'll come back to this in a monent when I have dealt with Tango!
______________________________________________________________________
Dear Tango,
there is no such word as 'exceptable', and while I think that the English language is a wonderful, developing method of communication, expanding in all directions and capable of incorporating many new expressions, it is likely to be many years before your new word becomes accepted or acceptable (or excepted or exceptable). So, e'nuff of the sly little winks. Put up your hands and admit a defect in your ongoing education. 'Exceptable' to you?
______________________________________________________________________

Back to the main points, or some of them.

There is no doubt that my piece is opinionated and argumentative - in the very best sense of these words. It's opinions are mine, and though transformation into 3rd Person reported speech this might be hidden, giving a gloss of objectivity, I do not believe the process would enhance the piece in any way.
The situation regarding authority in the church is actually exposed through the arguments and opinions. They are a guide to and a real expression of thought about an important aspect of human life - vital to Catholics and of interest to people who are aware of the Catholic phenomenon.

Founded upon a personal experience, the piece deals with vital factors in a lively personal way.
Must the Guide be totally impersonal? If this is the case it will tend to lack life and vitality, be full of abstract, impersonal information, tending towards blandness.
I would not wish it so.
Real stories from real people are so much more interesting and informative, provided they really are interesting, factual and informative, or, put it another way:
- factual information must be presented in an interesting, informative and attractive manner.

I have used the true story of my grandmother to reflect upon a matter of real concern to thinking people. It is, I would contend, a valuable guide to thinking - the most important human activity - about this or any other subject.

______________

Oh, and Bels: What is your thinking regarding Winston Churchill's writings dealing with the Boer war? Are they 'fresh, original & factual' or do they lack these qualities because they were published around 1898?

I'm sorry, I don't see where Churchill comes into this and I'm not sure what your point is here. Could you spell it out for me?

There is plenty of excellent writing that would not be considered suitable for the Edited Guide. As far as I understand, the Edited Guide is for writing that is considered to comply with certain guidelines. Whether the writing is by Churchill or Chaucer or Charlie is not the issue. And whether it is accepted for the Edited Guide is ultimately an editorial decision.

Bels

By the way. When I click on 'Guide Entry List' I see 'Remove' opposite my little offering.
Is this an invitation restricted to me, or open to the internet population?

It's restricted to you.

It can be a bit misleading to newcomers. It doesn't remove the entry at all - that stays exactly where it is. It doesn't remove this conversation either, it just transfers the conversation from being attached to an entry called 'Peer Review' to being attached to an entry called 'Authority in the Catholic Church'.

Ah, I see - a kind of 'half-destruct' button. I will not be using it.
Quite content to leave this duty to the Editors.

Regarding Churchill, Bels, my point is that his writings about the Boer war are as 'fresh, original & factual' as they were when written more than a hundred years ago, around 1898, just as the qualities of my piece, whatever they are, have not changed since I wrote it in 1998. Time does not destroy qualities that are originally present.

Perhaps you mean that all Guide entries must be 'new', in the sense that they must be specifically written for the Guide, not published elsewhere. If this is the position of your editorial team the fact that I published this item to my personal website four years ago means that it should be automatically excluded. This would apply to any article - to, say, a description of the physical phenomenon of the Giant's Causeway in County Antrim had I included it in my website.

I knew exceptable wasn't a word the whole time, it was just a mistake (speeling has never been my strong point ), i just didn't want to admit i had made a mistake.

Tango

May I make a point or two to Jimster?
Hi Jimster.
You say
'I'd be a little worried accepting this into the Guide as it is. Firstly, the title is not representative of the subject matter (or the subject matter strays too far from the title, I can't decide which).'

I would maintain that my article deals with the subject in a rounded, total way - initially illustrating a simple, typical problem with such authority, then pointing to changing concepts, misunderstandings and abuse of authority throughout history, attempting to clarify the nature of ecclesiastical authority and where it claims to come from, as well as highlighting the behaviour and attitudes of both those who wield the authority and those who voluntarily subject themselves to it.
It also indicates a permanent solution to authoritarian problems that continually arise - the development of an essential humanity.

You then say, Jimster, that 'a lot of the first-person references are unnecessary for an Edited Guide entry' and that 'This could be approached by removing the personal angle throughout and just describing what happened.'
I have described what happened to my family as a practical example of the kind of thing that has occurred. It's typical, real and indisputable. It describes in a personal way what took place and gives me the opportunity at the close of the article to sum up how the situation may be rectified by using an imagined comment by my grandmother, referring back to her situation.

In other words: I believe my article has a captivating beginning, a rounded, discursive middle, and a thumping great end that points back to the beginning and everything described in between. What more does one want? Leave out the personal aspect? I think not. It makes the thing relevant and practical, and, hopefully, interesting.

You kindly say that you 'think this entry has an important story to tell, one which is factual and historically relevant.' and then that it is 'also a little... undisciplined, or at the very least (understandably) the emotional responses of its author are very evident in areas where arguably a more neutral, less melodramatic authorial voice might suit it better.'
Well, it's a point of view - about which I differ. I believe that my approach is disciplined and precise, evoking understandable emotions, IN THE READER, when confronted with abuses of authority that include abominable treatment of people such as Gallileo and Joan of Arc, as well as my grandmother. These are real, dramatic episodes. Being burnt at the stake could not be described as 'melodramatic'.

I attempt to deal in this article with a phenomenon of misunderstanding that exists in the human psyche, affecting billions of people, Catholic and otherwise. It is not a Guide to the Glens of Antrim, or the Parthenon. It's much more important - and should be included in the BBC Guide because of its importance, despite defects that may be perceived.

Thanks for your attention. Good luck to all, whatever is decided.
Mike O'Shea

Bravo Tango! Good man.

Hi Mike, and thanks for the response.

As you probably know, everything that is written on here automaticaly becomes part of the wider Guide, but to become part of the Edited Guide all entries have to conform to the Writing Guidelines to some extent. What this means in this instance is that we tend to approach entries written in the first person a little differently.

The way the process goes is, if your entry is accepted into the Edited Guide, a copy of your entry is made, and sent to a sub-editor. Any changes that might be made prior to publication on our Front Page will be made to the copy, meaning your original remains 'unmolested'.

Any of the suggestions I've made here are offered as a way for you to have greater control over the end product. You're free to remove this from Peer Review if you don't want a version to be published that might have changes made to it by someone else, but if it is to be accepted, it would almost certainly have a few of the first-person references removed (as outlined above, the 'I quote's and the 'I must record's), and the rest placed inside ... tags to make it all clearer that this is a personal opinion.

I also used the word 'undisciplined' simply because I'm really not sure where the entry is going for a lot of the time. It starts off as an anecdotal story of a family splintered by the church, but slowly turns into a criticism of the Catholic church from a very personal, opinionated perspective. It's a little worrying when the word 'I' appears more than the word 'Church' in an entry such as this...

Believe me, if Winston Churchill submited an entry written in the first person, he'd be encouraged to do the same, and it wouldn't make it any less exciting and unconventional than the other 5,000 Edited Entries in the Guide, of which we're very proud.