Journal Entries
Stretching
Posted Jan 24, 2009
Now that it's started, I think this might be the right place for some personal feelings about The Stretcher.
Credit to Rich for the impetus and the balance. It isn't the way I'd have thought of doing it, and I guess GB would say the same. It's a good and equitable way though.
That said, Rich is wrong when he pictures himself as the fulcrum of a see-saw, with his fellow judges at opposite ends. Writing isn't one dimensional, for a start. And people are rarely poles of a spectrum because heads aren't fixed that way, not even mine.
Being a Stretcher judge is a privilege, and all privileges come with responsibilities attached. Subjectivity is no good here, and partiality even less so. I decided to score with a system, and I'll explain it soon. I don't think I'll be giving away clues by doing so, because individual winners aren't the point of The Stretcher. If there is to be a winning outcome, it will be a full set of competitors, (plus everyone who dips in as reader, supporter or occasional contributor) all knowing they're better for it, all learning something and all feeling fulfilled.
One round in, and the standard is fantastic. The level of interest too, is higher than wildest expectations. I'm a little bit circumspect about riling dmitri (mainly because he didn't get what I meant), but he's got the temperament and he's certainly got the writing ability to punch me back. I'm a little more worried about us collectively crushing mini. Please stay with it mini, because the critics are learning too.
The cliché about everyone being a winner already is true though, and the trick is to have everyone believe it. Entering this was a brave thing to do. A commitment to stretch, moreover, really means a promise to raise your own bar, and to try things that make you feel uncomfortable. The limits and the achievements are personal and the competition is relative. For the majority of people in this thing, there’s one genre or other that's going to be an out-of-comfort-zone stretch. Then again, there are a few who write adequately (or indeed better than that) in pretty well any style, and do it without having to try too hard. It's the judges' job to sting those people should they be tempted to coast.
More important, every single participant has provided great Entries to h2g2 already. I've picked out one by each entrant as their personal benchmark. So I'm looking at fourteen pieces, each in its own way as good as anything you'll read in the Guide. When this is over, and if anyone's interested, I'll consider telling you which of your past achievements I started out measuring you against. (Merry Anne is probably bemused by this. She's measured against who I think she might be, and if she's somebody else who struggles to live up, then serves her right for being anonymous).
'Started out' measuring, because the Stretcher fully realised will replace every one of those fourteen brilliant Entries with a better one, and in some cases it'll do it several times over. The first set of offerings have seen a couple of benchmarks matched, though none are yet decisively bettered. A couple of efforts fall well short too, it has to be said.
That's the mark that The Stretcher sets for everyone then: to achieve new standards better than your own past ones, and to keep doing it across a broad front of different writing challenges.
Simple, innit? Well maybe not. I was chuffed when Rich asked me to judge, but I’ve realised I’m a bit relieved too, now that I’ve had time to think about it. I'm not as brave as you lot. I'm not at all sure I'd have dared put myself where the Fourteen have.
Respect. And to every one of you I really mean that. You're the Best of Hootoo, and the Best of Hootoo is pretty damn good.
Discuss this Journal entry [12]
Latest reply: Jan 24, 2009
Not for the Better
Posted Oct 20, 2008
I only got yikesed a couple of times in my first six years here. I didn't even get yikesed when I called FM an irredeemable cretin. In fact I called a lot of people a lot of unpleasant things, and all of them satisfied themselves with cutting retorts. I'm not proud of my early excesses, and only mention them to contrast the current climate. I've been yikesed four times this year, and I don't really know why.
I guess people are getting more sensitive. A lot more sensitive.
The latest instance seems to me to be particularly unfair. I'd appeal, only I think I've wound the Eds up enough recently, and I'd rather save my powder for causes that matter. Instead, I'm going to use my Journal to ask a question.
I've never yikesed anything, and I never would. I simply disagree with the principle of one person vetoing words that another person wanted shared.
I'm willing to bet that nobody I care about on this site has ever yikesed anything either. Tell me if I'm wrong, and tell me your reasons too. Till then, I'll go with the hunch that my friends don't do it.
The people who yikes me seem to resent mockery. If they're truly hurt by gentle wind-ups, then I fear for them out there among genuine bullies in RL. But enough of them: here's the question. I'm wondering whether a "Never Yikesed and Never Will" badge would carry any value in the community. I really would like to see the practice reined in, to be used only in cases of grave offence, and with an expectation of restoration unless there's an objective consensus arguing otherwise.
What we have at the moment diminishes us. Censorship helps nobody to write better, and only serves subjective notions of reading better. Anybody who's ever pressed the yikes button and felt good about it is a person we don't need in h2g2, IMO.
Discuss this Journal entry [47]
Latest reply: Oct 20, 2008
Slagging Off the Landlord
Posted Oct 11, 2008
I feel the need to start a thread recording my thoughts about the decline of the BBC's journalistic standards.
I listened to John Humphrys interviewing the Chancellor on Today this week. It was an execrable performance, utterly misjudged. It was founded on absurd premises, demanding "guarantees" of financial security left, right and centre. It was irresponsible. It was practically treasonable.
Darling handled the nonsense pretty well, really, but an opportunity for some redress in a serious situation was wasted through the self-importance of a disgraceful old fart who IMHO should be put out to grass immediately.
And then there is Peston. The BBC hired a histrionic idiot on the assumption that it would inject a little theatre into a thoroughly bland subject. Unfortunately economics suddenly got "interesting" (in the Chinese proverb sense) without any help from the contemptible Robert. As a result, the BBC is inflicting actual bodily harm on the economy now, through giving him airtime. How deeply ironic, with Evan Davies on the staff, and through him real journalistic talent and expertise in the field. I guess we need Evan to fill the hole vacated by the Welsh mound of ordure, however.
We don't even need to mention Gilligan, cat-naming and all the other crap. You only have to listen to a news broadcast, on either radio or TV, to cringe at the "I've learned that...", "I was told...", me-me-me brand of hackery. This is editorial incompetence, of course. People in senior positions must feel that being the news rather than reporting the news is appropriate. That's a wholly inappropriate mindset for any journalist, let alone one funded by the tax-payer. There's really no conclusion possible other than that a once-excellent news broadcaster is nowadays shit-stacked from top to bottom.
That'll do for now. I intend to use this thread to note the latest dire troughs of broadcast journalism as they arise. Other contributions in a similar vein welcome. Who knows, the landlord might actually read them and try harder. I'm not holding my breath, mind.
Discuss this Journal entry [2]
Latest reply: Oct 11, 2008
The Supreme Council of the British Oak
Posted Oct 5, 2008
The Council was convened yesterday evening, to discuss arrangements for the forthcoming revolution. Unfortunately the debate became somewhat bogged down over the vexed issue of putting bags over the heads of executed prisoners.
Decko considered the provision of a bag to be a compassionate gesture, intended to relieve the distress of the victim by preventing them from watching the generally stressful proceedings.
Ziv thought that the bag was essential for hygiene, since without it blood and cranial tissue would be liberally sprayed over a wide area.
Dave attempted to lighten the mood, pointing out that a sustainable policy of mass-slaying would require the bags to be re-usable. This opinion was not well received, and he was obliged to get the drinks in.
Mickey didn't say much on this occasion, being apparently preoccupied with making a list of suitable candidates for head-bagging.
Before adjourning, the Council engaged in a short debate to establish who would sh*g Sarah Palin. Ziv and Mickey wouldn't, while Decko claims to have done so already. Dave still quite fancies Obama.
Discuss this Journal entry [50]
Latest reply: Oct 5, 2008
Sleepwalking into Oblivion
Posted Sep 27, 2008
The Foulest Gift that the British ever gave to the world was deference. If something offends you, concerns you, infuriates or terrifies you, then keep it to yourself. Bottle it up; there's a good chap.
A bit like British-invented sport, the colonials now practise this far better than ever we did.
I listened to Obama and McCain's first "debate". Depending on which of these guys takes charge, a different strategy for staving off global economic collapse will be attempted. Different people will thrive, and different people will sink into despair. Different people will die, indeed. Millions of people in each case.
Rather important stuff, then.
And yet the pair of themy didn't even come out of their corners. They sort of half-got-going on just how nasty far-away places like Russia and Iran can be, but they were still oh-so-careful not to have excessively forthright opinions in case some elector somewhere takes offence, and they were icily nice to each other because being rude is political death in a straight-laced, emotionally-frigid America.
The world was spared this a little over a century earlier because of the absence of telecommunications in late 1900s Europe. Even with latitude for pragmatism in the politics of those days, though, we managed to subside into 50 years of depression and war.
First-past-the-post electoral democracy has a major weakness in its marginal win-lose aspect. As a result, it's inadequate, disastrous even, in times where decisive action is needed. There should have been passion and anger in that debate, and instead there was cowardice on both sides.
America has a peculiar combination of social attributes. It has moral indignance taken to the point of mission and yet it has freedom-notions that simultaneously dispense the right of individual permissiveness. I used to admire this dichotomy. I thought it was high-minded to be sure of your own responsibilities while conferring the right of choice to your peers. Now I think that the real system is a travesty of that idea, and that American conservatives are selfish and domineering while their liberals are feckless and anarchic. The social code as a whole is just a symptom of extraordinary gullibility. The Gotham thing.
We live in bizarre times of anti-banking, where financiers turn into the corrupt antithesis of their sole legitimate function. They're deadlier than any Al Qaeda. If the Twin Towers still stood, their offices would be emptying rapidly today. After the panic comes stagnation. America is withdrawing into its shell, even as the world it built caves in around it.
Markets are founded in confidence, pure and simple. Maybe the United States is the richest nation, because it's also the most trusting? But that's too precarious for these times, and yet there is no expectation and no thirst for leadership either, after enduring so long under the governance of hapless imbeciles.
I think we need to change the Front Page, guys. Do Panic. It would actually be good for us, in times like these.
Discuss this Journal entry [1]
Latest reply: Sep 27, 2008
Pinniped
Researcher U183682
Write an Entry
"The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is a wholly remarkable book. It has been compiled and recompiled many times and under many different editorships. It contains contributions from countless numbers of travellers and researchers."