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

U218740 - The Real HitchHiker's Guide To The Galaxy

with things like the underguide and so forth coming up, i wasn't sure if that was exactly the thing i was after (although good), so i decided to start this up.

basically, i am asking you, the community, to write entries that are wacky and funny, that don't even have to be true or good, and simply submit them to the real guide, and they will become a part of it. a copy will be made, and will have spelling and grammar corrected, and it will be added to the system. please write however you want, as there are no special guidelines at all.

i also ask that you please advertise this, include it in your ACE messages, on your personal spaces, in journal entries or whatever you want to do, so that loads of people will know about it and will contribute.

it does have many objectives:

at 50 entries - i will ask the eds for a named entry.
at 75 entries - i will ask for advertisement on the front page, and a editor's selection for the week from the real guide, so that 1 entry each week will be in the spotlight, and this entry is unlikely to be a small simple one that will appear in the real guide, but a well written funny one, of which there are already a few.
at 150-200+ entries - request for a review forum feature where people can choose to submit entries, and where people an talk about entries before they are added to the system.

all entries submitted will be added. more then one entry on a subject is ok.

i'm not sure what else i can say, so all i ask is please support this, advertise it, and submit entries either here, or on the user page itself.

feel free to talk about it here and ask me any questions.

spook

there's also a Jokeathon for it at A963254. i always forget to mention something.

Spook, I think it is a shame that you are setting this up. I would prefer to see people writing entries which are wacky and funny and true for the Edited Guide. That's what this place is supposed to be about.

i'm actually wanting wacky, funny entries that are not true really. if they are true then that is fine as well, becuse tose ones are probably entries that did not contain enough infor to make it in the EG. all the entries I have so far have either been written funny and untrue for it, simple entries people would never even think of submiting to pr, and entries that didn't make it. i do of course push EG entries in the direction of pr.

spook

But people will get the impression that the edited guide is supposed to be dry and serious! It's not. It should be funny too! That way, more people may read it.

I have to admit that I'm not good at writing funny stuff, and only three or four of my edited guide entries could be considered funny, but I live in hope that some really funny writers will join us.

This isn't the time for this spook, we already have EG, AGG, GAG, CAC, The Post ...

This sounds just a little egocentric to me, spook.

Let the UG get going, build up some momentum and then look again at all of the above and see if doesn't meet your needs.

already did look at all of the above, and realised the wacky i was looking for wasn't there. and i think the real guide will do pretty well considering the response so far.

The Edited Guide is the Real Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.

To be honest if you write some funny fiction stuff you are at loss to know where to put it,sorry one is at loss.That should be made a lot clearer.

I agree. But I don't think it should go into a place called "The Real Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy". This goes against what Douglas Adams set this site and the Edited Guide up for, as the real guide.

Aren't you setting yourself up in direct competition to both The Post and the Underguide here Spook?

Oh, and I tend to agree with Gnomon, you can't really call it the 'real' hitchhikers guide to the galaxy when it's nothing to do with the person who wrote the books and set up the site...

I thought the whole thing was the 'real' guide and the EG just a part of it, a part which does tend more (though not exclusively)towards the straight, informative type of entry and leaves huge amounts of quality stuff floating around waiting to be discovered by luck or accident.
I think the response recieved so far (here and in AWW) shows that the more 'wacky' and non EG stuff is at least as popular and should have a more structured place within the guide, but too many places can lead to confusion and dilute the efforts of all involved.
That said, I think it's great that people can set this sort of thing up here and wish all the best to all who try


TSF

Hi all,

I spotted this page you set up, Spook, and wondered then why you felt that this was so different to what a whole group of researchers are trying to nurture in the various 'Underguide' threads.

When you say 'the whacky I'm looking for'; what do you mean? So far there has been very little in the way of deciding what is *not* suitable for the UG.

Any piece can go into the AWW, with the only guidelines being the house rules. The main problem is not where to put it, but how to create a dynamic atmosphere of the kind that makes PR so engaging.

I believe the best way to encourage creative writing of all kinds on h2g2 is to discuss other people's contributions. That's what makes PR compelling; you put up your writing for review.

And i agree with Gnomon that we don't want to squeeze fun entries *out* of the edited guide; there are many entertaining EG pieces that hit the front page with their humour intact, whilst remaining factual and informative. Long may it continue, .

What the UG consensus has made clearer than ever (for it follows in the long line of schemes to embrace non-EG writing, with The Post as perhaps it's finest and certainly most enduring champion) is that there are many aspiring writers who don't find their niche in PR.

I'd say that rather like The Post, a scheme like this only has value if there is a readership, as well as authorship and editing. There have been many writers who have contributed to the AWW, got little response for sometimes very interesting and/or entertaining entries, and promptly given up on the whole thing and done an Elvis. (but hey, dontcha just love that expression! )

The AWW was set up for just this purpose, for authors to submit and discussions to burgeon. But it has not so far flourished. The traffic is just not there.

If anything, the Underguide project is an attempt to emulate PR, but embracing everything of quality that for whatever reason is unsuitable for the EG.

hmm

apologies, i got my rambling hat on there...

Anyway, far be it from me, Spook, to try to stop you from creating your own thing in your own way.

But consider this a sincere invitation to bring your energy, talent and ambition to a group of people who may not share your *exact* aims, but will be willing to listen, discuss and try to work together.

I say this because i think we will be most likely to succeed in producing something enduring if we get a group of like-minded volunteers together, and I'm sure you would bring a great deal to it.

Quite up to you, of course, and indeed, if you want to do both... why not,

cya
spiff

SF.. I agree totally, too many places can confuse people... I'd have thought your best bet spook would be to see how the underguide turns out (at least that has the attention of the staff and looks as if it might progress somewhere), then if you're not happy with what they produce, try starting your own scheme. If you start up a scheme on your own you might find yourself doing a lot of work for nothing if the UG ends up being accepted into the "establishment".

Oh, and, apologies Lady Low,

You too are cordially invited,

err... does that mean i have to find a link?

The simplest thing to do is just to get over to Writing-Alternative and dive in!

But you already did that, didn't you? Didn't Starsky and Hutch wend it's way AWW-wards?



And had you noticed, Spook, that there's *Nothing* good on the Front Page today,

Hi spook, we can only support one 'underguide' at a time, and we've gone for the one that has a great deal of Researcher support, so named entries and Front Page links are out of the question for now for this - particularly with this name. Why don't you get involved in the one that all the other interested Researchers are working towards?

I must support spook here (why do I always seem to be the only one...). I have to say that you might as well test something out before it will work, I can see the RHHGTTG becoming quite popular in the community, and it gives at least a platform to build on. I must be honest here and am looking to enjoy myself on here (weird eh?), and I am already enjoying writing articles for this (as have a number of people). To address Gnoman, I don't think the edited guide will ever be funny realistically. These are mean't to be serious entries, and from personal experience of trying to get comedy in to the edited guide, it doesn't work. My Everton Football Club entry is likely to be my last edited guide entry.

Before you rip the RHHGTTG apart I suggest you give it a try.

Vercingetorix

Can I suggest a slightly less controversial title?

How about The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy - Off World Edition...ie not the earth edition

or have I got the complete wrong end of the stick...I got the impression you wanted guide entries similar to those used in the actual books...a little wacky a little daft and often based on fictional places/ideas/creatures

comments to reply to, comments to reply to, almost all negative, all horribly critical and unfair, boy do i have a job on my hand. better get out he old editorial book and answer a few of the many comments.

1. ok, i think at least one person if not more has mentioned the name real guide. this does not go against douglas adams, and this is why:

in his books, he talks about the actual hitchhiker's guide. in the 5th book, he mentions how it originally was, way more relaxed, lack of all those sub editings down etc. well, from this sprouted the idea.

let's look at the different guide sections on h2g2:

the guide - everything on h2g2 basically.

the edited guide - those entries that are good enough and contain enough information to become part of a factual encyclopedia of information

the underguide - those entries that do not meet the criteria of the edited guide, but are good enough to have been chosen for the underguide

the real guide - name real coming from the fictional version mentioned in the h2g2 edited entry on the subject at A5815, and is basially the place for anything, especially wacky and weird entries. this would contain those entries that have not been accepted in the underguide, and it may contain some that could make it into the underguide. the real guide is simple an acess point for a wacky guide, and if entries in there do later become underguide or edited, then links would be provided from thereal guide entry to those versions, creating a close linkage beween them.

i hope that explains the name thing. someone mentioned in another thread why ahe the word real in it, and it is simple to make that distinction between the guides on h2g2.

2. in reply to post 11 by whisky:

>"Aren't you setting yourself up in direct competition to both The Post and the Underguide here Spook?"

on the contrary, i am planning on working this with those two groups. the post gets a great influx of entries, and both the post and the underguide can use this to check ot some of the fictional pieces being submitted. remember the eal guide is for entry type entries, not stories, poems, pesonal experiences, sports reviews, or any of the other things both the underguide and post do cover. however, that is not to say that ssome of these things won't make it into the real guide, it simply means that the ones of them that make it to the real guide will probably be those that don't make it to the post or underguide, whether it be because of size or quality.

3. reply to post 12 by The Snockerty Friddle:

thanks for the encouragement. i hope you write a wacky entry and submit it. the more the betetr!

4. reply to post 13 by Spiff:

to much to grab certain elements, but let me just mention i was involved with the unerguie from the start, and will probably end up being heavily involved with it, although probably just as a scout, so you don't need to invite me to be involved with it mate.

the real guide is different because it does not demand quality, or a number of people to select the quality, it allows a focal point for researcher's to write wacky stuff like everyone enjoys doing, and provides them a place to put it. if the underguie people are smart, which i think there are, unless someone cares to argue that, then they will use the real guide to find new fiction, or if the unerguide don't want to, perhaps the CAC, as the real guide gives people the chance to have their entry become a part of something without the risk of rejection.

5. reply to post 14 by Whisky again:

>"I'd have thought your best bet spook would be to see how the underguide turns out (at least that has the attention of the staff and looks as if it might progress somewhere), then if you're not happy with what they produce, try starting your own scheme. If you start up a scheme on your own you might find yourself doing a lot of work for nothing if the UG ends up being accepted into the "establishment"."

i'm not looking to challenge the UG, and i totally hope it succeeds. the real guide is a place for people to build a guide that is like the one featured in Douglas Adams books - funny, wacky, and full of inaccuracies no-one cares about. i hope this gets accepted into the establishment, but in a different way - a way of encouraging researcher's to write fiction without the risk of rejection. from there, the underguide and post and CAC come in and grab the best. it is working with them, not against them.

6. reply to post 16 by Mina:

>"Hi spook, we can only support one 'underguide' at a time, and we've gone for the one that has a great deal of Researcher support, so named entries and Front Page links are out of the question for now for this - particularly with this name. Why don't you get involved in the one that all the other interested Researchers are working towards?"

firstly, this is not an underguide, and is therefore not competing against the underguide.

secondly, how do you judge 'great deal of support'? yes it has some support, but does it have a steady flow of entries yet? until then you cannot judge support. in less then 4 days, the real guide has already got over 10 entries, and people are saying thy will write more, and are advertising it on entries, perosnal spaces and journals. if that is not 'great eal of support', then what is?

thirdly - 'named entries and front pages links are out of the question' - why? i would like entries linked from the post, although i would happily agree that it would be more important for the underguide to have entries on the front page, however, the CAC have a named entry, so i don't see why there should be a problem with that, or a simple link from the front page to a place where you can write fiction without a fear of rejection. it would be wrong to only support one group with support, and not support another, and it shows bias and favouritism.

fourthly - 'Why don't you get involved in the one that all the other interested Researchers are working towards?' - i already am as i mentioned earlier in this extremely long post, and this would be something that would benefit all the other groups, and it would therefore be unfair to not show anykind of support to this one while you do with others.

7. reply to Spiff in post 15:

>"And had you noticed, Spook, that there's *Nothing* good on the Front Page today"

sure did. and like i said before, there's nothing to it!


, i think that's about it. very long post i know, so i hope you all got through it. and please again i ask for support, advertisement, entries, whatever. and i would alse again like to stress the point that this is not competition to the underguide or the post or the CAC. in fact, the underguide clashes more with the post then this does with anything. this 'real guide' is here to work with those groups, and it is something that will encourage writing due to it's nature, and there will therefore be more entries and things in 'the guide', for both 'the post' and 'the underguide' and the 'CAC' to use. isn't that better then favouritism?

spook - is now warn out after a very long post

Wow I gotta say U have done your work! U seem to have thought it out. So far it does not seem to conflict with others.

*thinking I could be easily swayed today*