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

Hope you are going to put your two penny's worth in about what you'd like to see from such an organisation. It seems to me as though we'd be in danger of sticking to what we've got because we're so used to it now and I know you have strong views about how the guide should have been done, and about the underguide.

Google groups?

http://groups.google.com/group/h2g2communityconsortium

Hi there, by the way.

Wo Sol

It's pleasing that you said it ('cos I still believe it), but don't you think that unity of purpose is the most important thing at the moment? I reckon I would only cloud the harmony by trying something like that now.

We learned long ago that my vision for h2g2 is unique. There are (were?) a few who come/came with me half-way, but the majority here seem to believe that thde EG as-is is the core project. They should give the lead for now.

Maybe you mean the nucleus of serious writers needs to be heard? I'm preparing something on those lines (other than the rapidly-contrived new PS) but quality takes time and refinement.

I'm still thinking about joining the group. I wouldn't want anyone trying to persuade me to help fund a new venture. There are causes more deserving of any money I can spare than that.

Good to talk anyway, my Ace

Pin

I just took a peek (didn't join though).

In a convo about the UnderGuide, Bel says:
"The Underguide on h2g2 is dead. It died a silent death when LLWaz
resigned from her post as one of the editors, and Pinniped just gave
up. If it were to be combined with the EG, he might be interested in
joining".

If you think it'll help, you can tell Bel and the others that she's exactly right. I never wanted the UnderGuide as a separate entity, and I worked at it (pretty hard for a few years) because I liked the people who cared about it, and as long as it had momentum it was better than nothing. I was never going to be it's last surviving miner though, not when it wasn't what I actually believed in.

Peer Review should be nothing more than a quality filter. The Edited Guide should be a repository of our best writing in all genres, simple as that. The thing we miss most in the EG, incidentally, has never been fiction or poetry IMO. It's well-written essays, ie really sharp opinion pieces. And therein lies another of the inherent BBC incompatibilities. Too many Slants down the years have basically been failed journos, and they couldn't abide happy amateurs writing better copy than they could, and doing it just for fun.

Well, I think the danger is that if oars are not stuck in now, then the opportunity might be lost, especially if what it actually comes down to is influencing the new owners, although there might be a need to get some commitment to format written into whatever constitution the h2g2c2 organisation would have to come up with as part of whatever registration process if it did manage to go it alone.

Thing is, if it were just a save the whale campaign focusing on practical stuff and fundraising and such, I'd agree, but people seem to be discussing it, and what worried me is the lack of anything really different to what we have now being mentioned. It's been too long time since the opportunity to do something different has been there, p'raps. Which is quite a shocking thing, it seems like only yesterday. I think we miht be in danger of missing an opportunity, at least to make sure that the format exactly remains 'to be discussed' rather than 'but why didn't you say?'

To be honest, I think if it's a Guide, then it needs to write about, well, stuff, rather than out and out stories. But I entirely agree that there are ways and ways to write about stuff and the whole objective and factual thing has got a bit old. Not that I would be for jettisoning, excluding, sidelining the true fiction, mind. I suppose it depends on the categories entries would be filed under, and what it's a guide to.

Even without that issue, you are right and it would be nice to have the serious writers on board in one way or another. They are soliciting committee members... http://groups.google.com/group/h2g2communityconsortium/browse_thread/thread/fdc67ce16829b667?hl=en

(go on go on go on go on go on. Go on. Go on. Go on go on go on go on. etc)

It costs me nothing to dip in. I can always leave it.

The problem is that those people care and they have a focus. They don't need idle distraction. They need concerted advocacy of alternatives even less.

They had the chance to go my way many times in the past, Sol, and they turned it down flat again and again. So I won't do it just because you want me to, even though your interest touches me.

Don't be insulted when I say this, OK? There is one person in this who would get a different reaction if she made the same request, because I know from past exchanges that she really understands this blue pill/red pill thing in just the terms I do.

That would be Ben. I'll ask her opinion if you like, but I bet she wouldn't want me to get involved at this stage.

Not offended at all. Particularly since I can't say I got very involved at the time. I always rather saw it as a lost cause breaking against the rocks of the BBC's ummm... lost the analogy there. But perhaps you are right and there wasn't enough community support.

I do wonder of we are but rearranging deckchairs on the Titanic anyway, but there's nothing like a bit of drama to go out with.

Everything that Sol said and then some, Pin. (Boots is on the case, behind the scenes, by the way...)

My feeling is that they've become habituated to BBCitude. Stockholm Syndrome. For example they assume there'll be moderators, and so on.

I've not joined in the conversations about the guide itself because I was more concerned to get the momentum going and keep it going. But now that Z, Pastey and Whoami have set up an interim committee (which I have not joined) I'm pretty sure there's focus as well as enthusiasm, so momentum's not as necessary.

So I do think there's more than enough room for discussions that open up the vision-thing.

Ben

Ri-ight.

Well I judged you wrong, didn't I? Not for the first time, I guess.

Anyway, before I jump in, a simple recap of the things I'd be saying, all of them the same old things only expressed in this new context. I need to hear you agree that my advocacy of these specific ideas would be constructive, OK? (I'm not asking you to agree yourself, obviously).

- that writing is more important than anything else. Reading is second, and editing is a distant third. Censoring is nothing more than a necessary evil, if even that
- that there needs to be a single Edited Guide, consisting of writing of all genres. It would simply be our showcase, and a repository of our work giving guaranteed reading pleasure
- that the Edited Guide entry bar should be high. A new community has no need of delusions of inclusivity. We should demand and aspire to an elite standard
- there should be two Guidelines only: no plagiarism, and no deliberate causing of hurt

I'm also minded to think that the more people try to formalise this, the more their own creation will grow rules. Skunk sites don't fear libel suits. Sites with subscription accounts have to be more careful, for example.

And to be honest the one thing that really puts me off is this talk of putting money into it. All I can say now is that I've got self-publishing options a lot cheaper than some of the figure's being bandied, and I won't be taking those up either.

That'll do for now. I'll hold off having an opinion on parasitic subcommunities, or on self-pitying wimmen with tactical disabilities, at least until things look a bit more stable.

Pin

>> self-pitying wimmen with tactical disabilities



Sorry. Had to laugh.

Broadly, I agree with what you've just said there Pin. I'm going to get back with a considered answer this evening though. I need to not do anh h2g2 stuff today.

And when have you ever judged me right?

Ben

PS - Boots is doing deep cover work for us - did I mention already? I love that hound.

F19585?thread=8029882

btw give the hound a tummy from me.

(Actually, I don't know why she doesn't just come out, particularly now that Upstairs Downstairs is again)

Oh yeah, about that when-did-he-ever-judge-her-right assertion...

...How about this time, maybe? A2233649

(Whatever the future holds, it ought to hold more of that)

Indeed.

I downloaded most of that to a wordfile years ago, but I lost the wordfile.

I ought to download it again, but it's a bitch to save.

I don't think I've found the heart of this yet. The Google group seems a bit Ark-like, off on its own.

Everyone is pulling on ropes, or talking about pulling on ropes, but there isn't much of a central focus, is there?

And there's more talking than listening, as usual. I'm prone to that myself, and awareness of it is another one of the things that's holding me back.

I've tried a bit of scattergun debate. I'm still mostly getting the same old stupid "the Edited Guide must be factual" nonsense. If the majority think that, then I won't waste my time on a doomed project.

We need a critical mass of people who are actually capable of stimulating others. That's the only point here - to delight each other. We don't need parasites. We don't need self-pity or self-importance, and we shouldn't tolerate them either.

You remember Lion? Well, Li-on was the mocking name that my original mentor here gave me. It's nothing to do with animals really. It stands for "Literary Onanist", and the accusation was that I was too narcissistic and pretentious. Our current burden are more ordinary w-kers than that, but self-possession is still the issue.

How many really good people, based on the stimulation principle, do you think we have here? This isn't a weight of numbers thing (unless you reduce it to a subscription funding argument, but that's still just too dire for me to contemplate). It's a quality of outcome thing.

I've made a count of the Researchers who interest me - the ones where I've discovered that I actually care what they think. I'll tell you how many if you like, but I'd like to know your counts (Ben and Sol) first, because my views on all this (and AB's too, I bet) aren't likely to be typical.

Incididdly:

F1599167?thread=334552?thread=&post=106083510#p106083510