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

With all due respect Cym Rhonnda is a well written entry but does not list contempory people or places. A song such a Hit me with your Rhythm Stick or John Keetley is a weasther man does need an explanation of the people mentioned. For example as I endeavour to dissect Monty Python's 'Philosopher's Song' I will give an overview of a broad school of Philosophy, but I'm also trying to dig up a quote from each of them on drink and drinking as a result if the context in this song. Serious and fun elements combined.

Yes I know I unleashed a monster and when I see a pale immitation in peer review of the writting workshop I ask for more info or provide more myself.

I'm not questioning the merit of the intent behind the original entry. I can see that it is a perfectly valid technique for analysing a song, and that the first or second time it makes a good basis for an entry.

I simply think that this idea has run its course. Once the novelty of the approach has worn off, one is left with an essentially reductionist analysis of a dreary little piece of cultural ephemera. The songs that *now* get analysed (John Kettley, South African) are simply dreck. Yet no-one ever makes this point.

I think I really began to take exception to this 'crank the handle' approach to entry writing when sprout submitted the Spitting Image song entry. Pin, in his typically smug attitude, commented that 'intelligent criticism of this entry is impossible, although some may try'

Well, here goes, and I extrapolate this criticism to subsequent entries in the same line:
* The song itself is dreck
* The analysis is trite and facile
* It belies a profound lack of imagination to go on writing the same kind of entry over and over again
* It seems to be primarily trying to satisfy the need to belong to some kind of clique
* In the case of the SI/SA song, the crassly stereotypical view of South Africans is no longer relevant, and I personally would be much more interested to read a different kind of entry on the country and people. This isn't to deny that bad things happened, just that I think they've cleaned up their own mess admirably and we don't need entries that rub their noses in it over and over again.

I personally haven't written 100 entries, solo or collaborative or even in total, and I doubt very much I will. I have nevertheless written on philosophy, chemistry, physics, art, electronics, evolutionary biology, songs (also with misheard lyrics), astronomy, road-safety, tropical diseases, recipes, you name it. I tend to go more for quality than quantity, and I write more for the joy of being thought stimulating and interesting. My last three EG entries in a row got Editor's Pick, so I suppose that must mean something. Despite my domestic issues I'm trying to write an entry about where I come from, the Gower Peninsula, as I also think that Pennsylvania has had its fair share of coverage.

So, to sum up, I think that if we are not careful hootoo will become a kind of literary ghetto, where by-the-numbers entries are written just for the sake of being written. People like Pin champion the 'writing experience'. That's only half the picture: it's about the audience as well. Lose sight of that, and the result is all too predictable.

As requested, FM

To repeat some ideas from the PR thread, and add a couple more:

The issue isn't what percentage of the EG is made up by song-deconstruction entries- for obvious reasons it's not going to be that high. For starters, the majority of entries were written prior to the format being introduced. The issue is how many *new* entries are being done like this. As you yourself siad DD, there's another 3 in production already.

While there's a pressure to meet a certain number of entries a month, the 'just good enough' ethic will have free reign. The
number of new entries a week is already reduced though, so I don't see how it can be combated. Unless of course we get enough people writing really good entries, so the mediocre ones languish at the bottom of PR.

There's plenty of other ways of looking at contemporary songs. I didn't take each line apart when I did Flowers of Manchester, which lists people (and indeed how they became ex-people). Grant Cym Rhonda couldn't really have bene rendered in the deconstruction style, but Flowers of Manchester could've been, and I think it would've been a much duller entry for it.

2 of those 3 are by me and one has taken over a year of research. So mine will most definitely not be lacking in quality.

I have actually forgot one more in production, one of mine believe it or not.

Whoops I was meant to open this thread on FM's pages.

You have done- he's changed his name.

Lacking in information or not, that doesn't change the fact that the format is now rather unoriginal. If you want to write
about the song, fine. There's probably much more interesting things that could be said about it than a line by line review. When was it written, by whom, for what purpose, what inspired it. If you want to write about the people, then they probably all deserve an entry on their own, not just a section each in a entry about a song which is quite funny, but hardly a masterpiece.

It's a case of 'oh God, another song entry' rather than 'Gosh, an entry on Kant, I bet that's interesting'.

I always do all off the above.

To be blunt: don't you think you're flogging a dead horse? Do you *really* imagine that people want to read more of this kind of entry? Or do you think that they've had their fill?

I'll give a few examples of the sort of entries that *I* think others will want to read, as opposed to those that cover material that everyone else forgot about for good reasons: A950203, A1304858, A1304939, A3031949. I also think that if one is going to do a entry or entries on a subject then they should imagine that they have been asked to justify the idea of a Radio 4 programme on the subject. Will it be best as a news item, a one-off, or a series? Convince me how you think you could justify a Radio 4 series in this format and with this theme, and I might stop my tirade.

Just out of interest I've written a lot of entries that are pretty much the same format. Does that mean I'm tired and writing tedious entries?

I can't see a way of coming up with a brand new format for each entry I write. I'm not that creative.

I was really happy when I found one of this type of entry on another website about a track I really like and didn't know what the hell it was about (http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2003/8/7/12518/77483 if anyone cares). So while some people think it's a bit dull after the first one, there might be one person out there searching for just this bit of info about a song.

Isn't there room for everyone and every style - no matter how many times it's repeated as long as there are other entries written in other ways still coming up?

No it doesn't because in your case the subject matter is relevant, topical and informative. I *like* to read about history, wildlife gardening (and especially high heels ) and suspect I'm not the only one. I don't care about the format mainly because the entries are well-written and interesting and I come away having learned something, but also for another reason: in these the format serves the subject matter. In the entries which I rail about, the subject matter is there to serve the format. I think that the authors of these are indulging themselves. It all comes across as being some sort of cliquey game, like playing Mornington Crescent in front of someone who's never heard ISIHAC. It's also boring and unimaginative. I suppose that's why I find it so irksome.

I hoe you don't mind my sticking my in

No, not at all, please do.

With all this personal abuse on me and my style of writing I will be reconsidering my contribution and participation in H2G2 after the general election.

Too busy to care or get involved in this right now.

DD

I suggest you think very hard about what you've said there. I have indulged in *NO* ad-hominem attacks upon you: if I had been motivated purely by personal spite surely I would (a) needed a good reason and (b) done it a long time ago. I have merely criticised this particular style of entry, mainly because I feel it is lazy. This is however not just my opinion, as has been made plain in this thread. You are now playing the old debating trick of enlarging my target to make my attack look ridiculous and spiteful.

I don't like this increasing over-emphasis on one style of entry, that's all. If you cannot help but identify your contribution to this community with this particular kind of entry then I suggest you try harder to think of something different to write about.

Finally, I would like to remind you that *you* brought the argument here to my PS, remember?

I brought it here as in a peer review thread was the wrong palce to discusss this.

You are just one researcher and seem to be taking it upon yourself to alter the writing guidelines for th guide. On some of these entries I have had suggestions from the powers that be regarding the stylistic content of the entry therefore it has been looked at in a way to fit into hootoo, the producers of the guide are not the producers of Radio 4 therefore I nor any other researcher have to justify myself to that level.

I have also written researched biographical A2430091, Places of Interest A1081216, historical A1082521, Social A595505 as well as fun entries A835391. These are just random samples look at them you will see I am not a one track pony when it come to writting style. Also please look at A781887 and tell me whether I rely on quantity or quality? An accusation you seemed to level at me, a personal attack if ever I saw one.

I'm getting enough personal attacks in my other line of live at the moment not to get them here where I was hoping to spend a few precious hours relaxing.

BTW as a side point I have contributed to Radio 4 and my local BBC station so I do know the difference in requirements.

Fine, but if someone confronts me on my own front door with views with which I strongly disagree (as I had last night from the local Tory candidate) then they can expect to be sent away with a flea in their ear. I am *not* taking it upon myself to alter the writing guidelines. I have Scouted many entries in the past, and I'm getting a bit bloody sick of having to read and comment politely upon the kind of entry that started all this off. What's more, I don't think that the 'if you don't like it, don't comment upon it' kind of response is valid here. I direct you to A3822086 where a debate has been going on for a while, and where the following problems were discussed:

"Blues Shark sums them up concisely:
Here's a few things I *know* have put people off in the past. I offer no opinion as to whether they are right or wrong, just that I have heard them said;

* Difficulty of use. The exact quote - 'How the f**k do you find anything on there?'.
* Cliques. And massively judgmental cliques at that.
* A community that seems almost entirely self-contained and concerned only with itself.
* SSO1. What a monumental pain in the a**e that is.
* For my own part, I think the community is overly aggressive, judgmental and entirely too fond of it's cleverness."

To me, the entire song-analysis genre epitomises the second, third and fifth issue in the list. And these trends appear to be exacerbating the issues that BS complained about, not rectifying them.

Regarding the quality versus quantity argument, I can't help but compare your (justifiable) pride in having over 100 entries (and going for the 200) with your recent observation that you had THREE of the song-analysis kind in pre-production right now! Note that I am commenting upon recent trends in PR, not your entire past oeuvre. What exactly am I and other supposed to conclude from this? Are not supposed to come to *any* conclusions? And from the observation that others now seem to have concluded that this is an easy route into the EG? It's putting me off *reading* the f***ing EG, never mind writing for it! So what does that imply for any newcomers?

The more I think about this, the more I come to the conclusion that we are coming, both collectively and individually, to a fork in the road. We can choose to write entries that act merely as shibboleths, to show that we are members of a select clique, or we can actually embrace DNA's original vision and seek to provide an all-inclusive resource that stimulates writing and reading about Life, the Universe and Everything. I know which way I'd prefer to go, with or with hootoo as a whole.

I don't particularly want you to stop writing for the EG. I have no personal axe to grind. My problem is with the writing, not the author. I suggest an accomodation. I'll *let you have* the idea for *my* next entry, which would require no expertise other than an interest in very recent British history and some background research to make it into a compelling read. If you don't want to write it by yourself then we can do it together. Now, how does that sound?

I do not see the genre as an easy route into the guide in fact I find this kind of entry one of the hardest to research as some of the throwaway lines by writters are teh hardest things to dig up. I do not see myself as either

part of a Cliques. Nor am I massively judgmental as I offer constructive criticism in peer review on a number of entries as well time permitting.

Nor am I almost entirely self-contained and concerned only with the community or myself.

Nor do I think the community is overly aggressive, judgmental and entirely too fond of it's cleverness. Peer review is a critique process it has to be critical at times. If I have appeared to be recently put it down to stress and 18 hour days.

I admit that some of my earleir entries are overdue updates this is another thing that is in my in box. As some of these entreis would not survive teh rigours of todays peer review. This I intend to start after May 5.

Personally I agree that entries should provide an all-inclusive resource that stimulates writing and reading about Life, the Universe and Everything. And that should allow room for different styles and stylistic devices, should it not?

'I'll *let you have* the idea for *my* next entry.' I take up the challenge both ways. Can we get back to this after May 5.

It depends upon what you are proposing I write about. If you are proposing that I write about what I've just been complaining about, or something that I am likely to disgaree with on principle then I don't think that it would be a very good idea.

OK how about you write about the IRA hunger stikers Bobby Sands et al.

I will write about Monty Python's philosophers song under tight guidelines you have already started to lay down. Not in the dissectional way.

No, that's not what I meant. I am happy to write about Bobby Sands, but I don't think the Guide needs any more song entries for a while, regardless of format. I was going to suggest you might write about Bentley and Craig, which is what I was going to write about.