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

Hi Paulie. Lil's most recent version is at A731477, and nobody can modify that version. What I'm doing is editing it to bring it in line with the Writing-Guidelines, to create a version that we can include in the Edited Guide - the sort of "official" version. I'm also adding some information that was requested in Peer Review. Lil's latest version, at A731477, will remain there, unedited, for as long as the BBC's database's are around.

I'm not "rewriting" her piece so much as making a few changes so that it meets the requirements for being in the Edited Guide. The copy that I've worked on (I haven't really worked on it yet) is at A819344, and it'll be changing there, as I work on it. There's some extra information that people wanted added, and unfortunately, Lil's no longer here to add it herself. I'm going to do my best to preserve her style and format, while adding some information, and polishing it up a bit. That version will have Lil and myself both listed as authors when it goes into the Edited Guide. I hope that what we end up with is something that Lil would be happy to see her name on - I'm trying to please everyone here, and that's not always easy.

Does that answer your questions?


GTBacchus

A noble, if not divine mission, indeed have you set for yourself, Mr. Bacchus. Though you claim the name of a god, I doubt you are one with all due respect naturally, nor do I believe you'll succeed in this mission. Given that, whom do you propose to please, or alternatively displease, the most?

Well, that's fair, Mr. Cortes. I also doubt that I'll ever please *everyone*, in anything. Your question is a good one, and it probably is related to why I've been a bit hesitant to just dive in and start making changes.

I think the best thing I can do is to use Lil's entry as a basis for an entry that fits the style of the Edited Guide, as I see it. I would prefer co-authoring with someone with whom I can communicate, but arrived too late for that, in this case. I can't become Lil, in order to write in her style, so I'll have to write in a style of my own that seems to match her intent.

I'm going to write the best entry I can. The result won't be entirely in Lil's voice, nor entirely in my own. I will submit it to Peer Review when I'm done, and anyone who wants can compare it to the original, and/or read it on its own merits, and is free to comment or criticize accordingly.

Does my answer please you, Mr. Cortes?

Your answer is speculative at this point, Mr. Bacchus. I shall reserve judgment until I've had the opportunity to read the edited piece. Thanks in advance for your efforts.

I have not read the backlog, but I am aware of the situation.

May I humbly suggest that we cut the crap? Since we are working to a time limit here, I would suggest that the original entry was published as it stands. Failing that, and I read it when Lilithcookie first wrote it, may I suggest that it is published with as FEW changes as possible, and as quickly as possible.

Lilithcookie is the important one here, and it behooves us to remember that fact.

So my vote is, cut the crap, and publish and be damned.

Ben

Here. A819344

Feedback, please, anyone? Specifically those who have commented lately?

I did nothing to Lil's piece but add commas where required and add one footnote telling people what 'Cancun' is, because someone asked.

I also capitalized the 'C' in 'Alpha Centauri'.

I wrote an intro with the stuff that Editors had specifically requested that I add. It should be abundantly clear that she didn't write that bit. I felt this was the best way to preserve her style and to please those who were asking for more.

Depending on what anyone says here in the next few hours, I'll probably submit to Peer Review later today. I don't know a way to expedite the process more than that. If someone would like to request that the usual week in PR be waived, then go to the <./>team</.> page, pick an Italic, go to their space, and ask them.

I sincerely hope that those who felt this wasn't previously ready for the Edited Guide will say it is now, and that those who are concerned about preserving the integrity of Lilithcookie's work will not be disappointed.


GTB

Actually, I've just dropped by Anna's space myself to ask her whether we can credit this with time already served in Peer Review (including being scouted), and possibly whether we can count what I've just done as Subbing. That would be the quickest route to publish, it seems.

GTB

Looks good - ready to go in my opinion - the original author's style is respected and the intro gives the reader the appropriate heads up.

One very small typo - "give it try" in the last para needs the "a" adding.

Sprout

Looks good to me. The only comment I would make, if Anna will graciously permit it, is that it might be better with the italics used for the introduction, which is a much shorter secsion, and normal letters used for the main body of the entry. The reason I suggest that is that italics are harder to read. The same effect might be achieved using block-quotes.

B

Sprout, thanks, I fixed that typo.

Ben, I would have done just that, about italics vs. normal text, but I was cueing off of something I subbed ages ago - A602876 - which was another one written in a researcher's personal 'voice'. The Italics put the whole thing into italics (huh...), kind of like it was one big Blockquote. Actual tags push the margins in, and decrease readability when applied to more than 1 or 2 paragraphs at a time, IMO.

Anyway, Anna will probably see your suggestion here, or else I'll pass it on. I'm waiting to hear back from her about this entry's fate.



GTB

Hi GT,

I commented a while ago on this thread, when Lil was still involved. Indeed, I must have been a 'no' vote, I think, at the time.

No doubt i covered myself with ample 'I like this but...' type stuff.

I just want to re-iterate my concerns about this going into the edited guide as a factual and informative entry on 'Dancing on Tables'

balanced, of course, has other connotations in this context, (weak ),
but it is a key factor in why I still don't think this is EG material.

Publish and be damned, by all means. In The Post, in Agg-Gag, or just for fun...

... but not really in the ever more encyclopoedic EG, for my money.

I don't think of myself as a serial party-pooper, (who does? ), but Shirley this ain't what the EG is all about. It just isn't the definitive guide to table-dancing. If there were already a completely straight article on the subject in there, and this were a personal view that went along-side it, so to speak, then i think it would have more value. Then it would give some perspective to the subject.

But as *the* definitive entry on table-dancing... I'm sorry but it doesn't do it for me.

Which is not to say that I don't *like* it. As i said a while back when this thread first came to town; I *do* like it. I just don't think it is what the EG is all about.

At the end of the day, I think that's really what the debate was about in the first place; can the EG accept pieces written in a personal style, and if so, could this personal piece be adapted without losing all its value (which comes from the personal style in which it is written).

Well, my answer to that question (well... it is just *one* qu, really), is no.

I don't see that your intro really changes all that much in EG terms. It just seems like a disclaimer.

Having said all that, I'm not all that sure of myself. After all, I do realise I amn't the editor, here. Perhaps the EG should welcome the style and let the far-from-definitive content go.

Just out of interest, this (A72424) was an early edited entry. Sorry if you've already linked to it; I didn't spot it.

cya
spiff

bizarrely (sp?) An h2g2 search for 'lap-dancing' throws up the edited entry on 'Opera'!!!!!!

It is mentioned in the 2nd or so para, as a possible setting for 'modern' type opera productions.

Thanks for the link, Spiff, I've added that. Whatever else happens, it belongs there.

In the entry's defense (and I didn't think I'd be saying that, because I really agreed with you earlier), the entry isn't titled "Table Dancing"; I've changed the title to "How to Be a Table-Dancer". On that topic, it's much more definitive than it would be if it were about the activity in general. A "How To" entry wouldn't and shouldn't cover the history of table-dancing, the cultural significance, the moral implications, customer etiquette... it assumes that you already want to be a table-dancer, and it gives you practical advice.

What in particular are you thinking it lacks in balance, Spiff? I ask that with the caveat that I don't think I can really add much without indulging in rewrites that would damage the integrity of the style that people like so much!

I'm not certain why this entry's fans are so keen that it go into the Edited Guide. Why should *that* be the correct vehicle for it? Do people believe that this entry, with or without my intro/disclaimer, fits the EG's current style and tone, or do they think that the EG *should* include more pieces like this, while acknowledging that it currently doesn't?

Did that make sense?

makes sense alright.

pretty much the straight question that was wriggling around in my post earlier, trying to get out.

balance: I don't really mean to say that *this* piece needs balancing up. Like you and others, I like it as is. The imbalance would come from this being the only entry in the EG on table-dancing...

If there were a 'straight' entry on the subject, or anything in the EG to act as a 'straight' reference, then this might fit better into the big EG picture, imo.

all the best with this, you don't seem too sure what you want to do with it,
spiff

I suspect that all styles go through some revision from time to time. Perhaps, the dispute over this entry proposal suggests that there may be a need for an overall style revision at H2G2.

If the currently accepted style alone keeps a piece of such obvious talent from being admitted to the Guide, the Guide loses, in my humble opinion. That doesn't gainsay the notion that there are other venues for publishing this sort of piece. The question remains, should they get the opportunity to publish simply because this venue is unable to sufficiently accommodate diversity of expression?

This argues not so much for diversity of content, which the Guide can rightly claim it already possesses, mind you, but for diversity of expression, which I suspect may be just as important for a venture ostensibly dealing with everything in the known universe.

The Guide *has* *published* this piece, in its section that publishes many varieties of expression. <./>ThePost</.> - check it out, weekly I'm told.

The question now is whether the Guide should publish this piece *again*, unchanged, in its section that shoots for some consistency of style. Doesn't always achieve it, but it *is* a goal of the Edited Guide.

Pedro, what you're saying strikes me as something like arguing that a newspaper should run a particularly well-written op-ed piece in the Front Page news section, just because it's very well-written. Or maybe that any venue for publication should never solicit particular *types* of submissions, but should publish anything good that comes along. Am I misunderstanding something here?



"...diversity of expression. . . may be just as important for a venture ostensibly dealing with everything in the known universe."

Could you give some reasons to convince me of that, Pedro? This question is not in any way rhetorical or facetious, and I genuinely hope that you answer it.


GTB

I read newspapers all the time that publish material from other publications verbatim, perhaps not on the front page, but certainly in a conspicuous location. The fact that these articles are "not written here" doesn't seem to bother these the editors as much as it bothers you evidently.

Of course, that would open a whole new can of worms regarding copyright issues. The Guide is perhaps presuming this can be avoided in some manner by insisting on publication guidelines that are more stringent that any I've seen in contemporary publications.

One would think the Guide would find it profitable to showcase the personalities of the authors as well as the articles. It isn't unprecedented to do so. In fact many publications benefit by allowing authors to show some personality in their work. Whether it makes the works controversial or not, it sells papers. I realize you're probably not interested in selling papers but you should be. The internet is not a BBC monopoly after all.

Interesting.

It seems time has run out, in any case...

yes