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

Thanks LLWaz.
Thanks to you and many others involved in the struggle,
h2g2 has evolved into a much more fiction-friendly site
with The Post and the new Front Page Showcase giving
both space and acknowledgment to creative writers.



To the current issue concerning illustrations:
Traditional editorial policy in newspapers and magazines
allows publishers and editors to re-write headlines and/or
titles over all articles and essays by their writers.

And book publishers assign artists and designers to do
covers for books over which the authors have no control.
Often these are very arbitrary and misleading and not at
all what the writer might have wanted.

I have had the experience of being very frustrated and
embarrassed by newspaper and magazine editors who
gave their own summation or interpretation of my writing
and happily pasted it above my works with no consultation.

Somehow, perhaps by default, these traditional controls
now apply to pics or illustrations chosen by editors and
webmasters.

Obviously this issue is of great concern for all visual artists,
not just anhaga and Effers who have spoken out so far.

So the question here is whether editorial 'tradition' should
carry any weight in cyberspace. Or should each contributor
have some, if not the final, say in what images and titles
are applied to their contributions?


~jwf~

"So the question here is whether editorial 'tradition' should
carry any weight in cyberspace."

It's not about tradition, it's about coherency and house style.

Titles!

That's another one that has made me at times here.

A number of titles which I've given to entries have been turned into pale boringness for the Edited version.

"it's about coherency and house style."







spelling?

Exactly. And when the other illustrations are clear and neat, crinkly and stained 20-year-old sketches just simply may not cut the mustard.

Why not redo the sketches? Or flatten them, re-scan them and then use Photoshop or GIMP to tidy them up a bit?

There's quirky and there's Quirky and we need to attract as wide a Researcher base as possible, not just frustrated artists.

sometimes crinkly and stained might be appropriate to the text (as I think it would have been to the entry in question). Oh, look. Here's one that's cracked and speckled: A1035127


(was the "frustrated" a reference to the fact that the artist in question was frustrated by the response from the community artists or was it a disparaging remark about an individual? It came across to me as quite rude.)

You're a natural sub-editor Anhaga

I agree to the point on the titles. I've had mine tweaked, changed and totally rewritten. I agree that it's frustrating and irritating.

But it's necessary to keep everything consistent. We're a guide - that means it should be easy to find things here.

Agree with keeping things consistent but changing Pour Encourager Les Autres to The Ramifications of the Execution of Admiral Byng in 1757 was a bit ... bleh.

"Oh, look. Here's one that's cracked and speckled: A1035127"

I'm not sure that's such a good example as that was cracked and speckled using imaging software...


"(was the "frustrated" a reference to the fact that the artist in question was frustrated by the response from the community artists or was it a disparaging remark about an individual? It came across to me as quite rude. )"

It was a general comment about how we'd badly narrow our potential userbase if we decided that quirky and artistic were more important than house style and consistency. It was not intended to be rude.

My "spelling" comment was directed at the new lack of consistency in spelling standards for the Guide, BTW.

So, if Effers illustrations were wrinkled and stained by photoshop rather than by history it would be a good thing? Like this: A3021634

I realize that we're discussing something unseen, but I really don't see that the illustrations over the years have shown *any* consistency in style, quality, artistry, appropriateness as illustrations, or anything else except perhaps pixel count (and I'm not sure about that one).

http://h2g2.com/dna/h2g2/A87721932

I prefer this image

http://www.livescience.com/13040-10-disgusting-parasites-zombie-ants-toxoplasma.html

To be fair that does say 'copyright' underneath it...

"So, if Effers illustrations were wrinkled and stained by photoshop rather than by history it would be a good thing? Like this: A3021634"

No. Because using a stained pirate map for an article on maps isn't the same as using a crinkled scientific drawing for a biology piece.

One looks like an appropriate "period-style" illustration, one could come across as us not having the wherewithall to find a non-creased picture.

Which, admittedly, we don't. I guess that sort of undermines my whole point.

if only I had the time to ask for for permissions, I surely would have...

so sorely tempted

"My "spelling" comment was directed at the new lack of consistency in spelling standards for the Guide, BTW."

I was wondering about that... as the bit you quoted was all spelled correctly!

"So, if Effers illustrations were wrinkled and stained by photoshop rather than by history it would be a good thing? Like this: A3021634

I realize that we're discussing something unseen, but I really don't see that the illustrations over the years have shown *any* consistency in style, quality, artistry, appropriateness as illustrations, or anything else except perhaps pixel count (and I'm not sure about that one)."

A treasure map is going to be crinked and stained, that's what people expect from treasure maps. It's not what people expect from sketches that were done to accompany a scientific paper... and yes, we are discussing something unseen, but I'd like to think that the Artists would have had a really good reason for rejecting the illustrations.

using a stained pirate map for an article on maps isn't the same as using a crinkled scientific drawing for a biology piece."


As I remember it, Effers piece was not simply a biology piece. It was a reminiscence as well.

Whatever.

I must repeat, however, that I am at a loss to find any sort of consistency in the illustrations for Edited Entries. What is the link between this quite lovely, tiny, subdued bit of computer art A993297 and this big crayon drawing A87721932 ?

You're right there anhaga. I'll give you that.

We have standards and guidelines about what we let into the Guide - whether it be the Edited Guide, the Underguide, or the accompanying illustrations.

The drawings submitted unfortunately failed to meet those guidelines. I'm not going to discuss why here, because that's purely between Effers and ourselves. But if they had been up to scratch, we would naturally have accepted them. It's no a personal campaign against her as an author or an artist in any way.

I agree that author input for illustrations accompanying entries is important. Some of the stock photographs chosen by the BBC Editors seemed to have little or no relevance to the entries they were illustrating. Though I do remember them replacing a few illustrations that the authors didn't deem acceptable.

But that's all changed behind the scenes now - we have Peer Review for the Artists, where pictures are checked not just for artistic merit, but for factual accuracy and image quality.

"It's no a personal campaign against her as an author or an artist in any way."


Did anyone suggest it was?

"pictures are checked not just for artistic merit . . ."


A87721932 ?