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

At first I didn't notice it, because I haven't been a member of H2G2 that long, but over the past several weeks I have been baffled at the lack of creativity, humour, and eloquence in the Official Guide Entries. I had already read the guidelines for submitting an entry, written one, and submitted it when I began to notice this style trend. I thought, "Well, if that's the best writing people are sending in, my essay is sure to be accepted as an 'approved' entry." Then came the blow: my essay was rejected on the grounds that it was "not completely factual," although the editor said he liked it very much and he didn't have any other criticisms to offer.

AH-HAH! SO that explains the dry, encyclopedia-like quality of the other entries. Although I had read the part in the guidelines that said your entry should be "essentially factual," I interpreted that to mean they did not accept "fiction." My essay was not fictional, every part of it was an actual occurance, and it described something that is a part of our world (leaf-blowers) like a guide entry should. The rejection was not a result of my failure to fulfill the requirements laid out in the guidelines. My essay was rejected because it didn't have the style that the editors were looking for.

The editors have every right to style their website in whatever way they wish. If I had sent in an entry merely telling the reader that leaf-blowers exist, what they are and how they are used - with no embellishments - it probably would have been accepted. Instead, I told of my own encounter with a leafblower (entirely factual) and that just isn't what they want in their Guide. Unfortunately, as a fan of Douglas Adams and a member of H2G2, humourous creativity and a personal take on things is what I want to read.

I don't need H2G2 to tell me that there is this animal called a hedgehog and what it eats. If I need factual info on hedgehogs, I will look it up on a hedgehog informational site, not the Douglas Adams' Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy site! As it is, I have no reason to check out the latest "approved" entries accept to confirm that I find them incredibly boring and pointless.

A prime example of the lack of interesting tidbits to be found in the "approved" entry section is the article on "Worry," entry #A291737. It reads like the fulfillment of a fifth-grade essay writing assignment.

Come on, people! There are lots of really well-written, entertaining, and factual articles all over H2G2. Why not use those to represent this fine website? H2G2 has the potential of being one of the best writing sites on the web. Leave the encyclopedia business to Encyclopedia Britannica.

I've noticed, too, that the humor isn't as plentiful as in a Douglas Adams book -- but there are definitely entries out there which manage to be humorous AND factual. Check out the official San Francisco entry. Although I would criticize this one as being a little TOO frivolous (especially since I live nearby), there is definitely humor which passed the editors intact. Humor seems to fit in best if it's used as commentary on the meat of the subject, as opposed to BEING the subject.

Anyway, that's how it looks to me, and that's how I'll be trying to sculpt my entries, since I want my jokes to survive. Good luck in future submissions.