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

Quite a lot of the guide entries I've recently enjoyed most are written in a more narrative style, adding small details which bring the entries to live, even if there may not be a hard fact supporting those details to be found.

I'm not much of a narrator, and this is reflected in the guide entries I wrote. I am convinced that there are a lot of people who could have written them better than I could. It's not just a matter of correct facts, but of style, too. Now I know there are subjects which don't lend themselves to a narrative style, but there are enough that do.

So after I had watched the Stretcher for a while, I thought I'd try something new, experiment with different styles (not for guide entries - yet), and hopefully learn something and be a better writer for it.

However, when I see what's going on in parts of hootoo, I wonder whether it's worth the time I spend. Yes, we're all entitled to our own opinion, no problem. It's even good that we all differ, because this often leads to a healthy debate, with a better entry as a result.

'Healthy' being the keyword here. Some of what I've seen over the weeks is far from 'healthy', leading nowhere, especially not where it is meant to lead.

So yes, I will go on trying to improve my writing, but I'm currently not sure I'll bother to write for the Edited Guide.

Rant away - I was thinking something similar myself today (I suspect we were reading the same thread...)

And the problem is fairly fundamental: h2g2 has never quite defined what it is.

Hi Bel for instance...It is hard to judge with some example(s). It is a shame you are unhappy... What can we do about this

Thank you, Bea. I wondered whether it was just me.

Don't worry, Bob. I just had to get this off my chest.

Here you need this more than me B

Someone (Azara, I think, though I could be wrong) once framed this question as a fundamentally different outlook between those who flavour the 'classical' approach, and those who go in for the 'romantic' approach. The first being less emotional, more 'just the facts', and a bit less flowery in presentation. It's always stuck in my mind since I read it, and I think there's something to it.

I don't think the two schools will ever be reconciled - what some of us hold up as an example of an excellent Entry, others will think it's just what should be avoided.

*Favour*. Those who *favour*.

KB, I probably wouldn't like any 'flowery' language as you call it in the scientific entries, I'm not sure it would fit there. But there are lots of entries with 'dry' topics which are broken up and made readable by those 'little' sentences which aren't relevant to the topic in question - and I for one like that.

I like 'flavouring the classical approach'. A good suggestion.

As usual, I believe one should be factual - that is, not lie.

Fiction is for lying. (I do this a lot.)

There is a difference between factual and, er, boring and bossy.

I think even in scientific Entries, if it's done well it's excellent. It can make it interesting to more people and explain it better, too. There'll always be those who'd prefer it was toned down, though.

I agree, it's like I said: there are quite a few who manage to introduce some 'Beiwerk' (what's that in English, sort of 'decoration'?), making them interesting for laymen and manage to explain them better, too.

Let them read W*k*.

My opinion:
It is important that the facts are right. That is one thing one could ciritze (plus spelling, grammar and the lot). As for style: that is left to each ones liking and nothing to be really critised (even though one might say that one doesn't like it really....)

Anyway, most important about critic and telling ones opinion is to do it in a polite way. Noone needs to like everything, but everyone can be polite (I for my part don't like people who say: I am only telling my opinion, if people like it or not, and take that as an excuse for being inpolite).

Dry lists of facts are boring.

Just *making up* things that would make it more interesting isn't the answer

It's not? Bugger. You've just torpedoed the profession of journalism.

Well, I haven't seen any 'made up' things, just plausible additions.

'Merely corroborative detail, intended to give artistic verisimilitude to an otherwise bald and unconvincing narrative.'

- WS Gilbert, 'The Mikado'

Wow, that's good, if a bit too complicated to be used as a quote in your average conversation.

I think we can see the problem in QI.

Some people have good threads going, while others lack the knack for writing them.

Being interesting there means not revealing the interesting bit to start with.

It's the difference between asking

"In which country did women only gain the right to vote in 1985?"

and having people guess countries and asking

"In 1985, which major change was made to the Swiss constitution despite a 40% vote against it?"

and having them speculate on interesting changes that could've been made.


If it's a boring subject, don't write about it. Otherwise, research good factoids, present them well, and don't do it the disservice of inventing new bits.