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

Hi MrD

Mind if I try the main point from the John Hand thread one-on-one?

First, though, I really don't mean to p*ss you (or anyone) off, honest. (I didn't even mean to single you out as the one who'd not read the Entry. I was thinking of Mina there, but she's long gone).

Since you stuck up for the not-reading, though, I'd be grateful if you could explain more. I seem to have somehow got different priorities from the majority of the Scouts. I can't understand where the others are coming from.

If you asked me what a Scout's main job was, I'd say it was to help people write good Entries. I'd also say what it isn't, IMO. It isn't to prepare Entries for the Edited Guide. The fact that we showcase worthy Entries on the Front Page is a nice touch, but that's all it is. We aren't actually building anything, except a kind of Roll of Honour. There isn't an encyclopaedia here.

Because I come from that standpoint, I read Entries for enjoyment. It's then (and only then) that I think about the kind of comment I could make in whatever Forum (or none) the Entry happens to be in.

You seem particularly passionate about another standpoint. You embrace an idea that I've always assumed to be a corruption of the original Scout goals, to make compliance with the Guidelines the first prerequisite of any Entry.

How can Guideline compliance be more important than the experience of writing and reading? As I said, there isn't anything to build here. There's only us lot, trying to stimulate and challenge one another, and have fun. The significant thing that develops is our individual powers, not the EG.

Once again - I'm not trying to be clever, or to slight you in any way. I honestly don't understand. I think you might be someone who'll take the trouble to explain the motivation I'm missing.

Pin

To be honest I think I came across as a bit *too* rigid in that thread, but the "I want to do it my way and sod everyone else" attitude of some of your posts got me really worked up (especially the apartheid comment which was a hugely inappropriate choice of words).

I don't think the Guidelines are the be all and end all, nor do I think that a Scout's job is simply to enforce them, although this is sometimes necessary (especially when there's green ink involved!). Compliance with the Guidelines is not the first prerequisite of any Entry, but it *is* one of the prerequisites of getting said Entry into the Edited Guide. This is not me deciding this, it's just the way it is.

The thing is that John Hand doesn't *technically* breach the Guidelines, but unfortunately, especially given some of the things you said in the Review Forum, it seems that all you've done is exploit some loophole to further some agenda of your own. In future if you feel like rocking the boat I suggest you approach the Editors *before* doing something which you know damn well people will naysay.

While I was on tea break I had a couple of good ideas...

1) Do two Entries. One which tells the tale of John Hand as presented already which links back to an Entry which does the facts... one goes to AWW and t'other goes to PR.

2) Combine the hard facts with the fiction. Do what is essentially a pure factual entry, but with fictional stuff in block quotes to give it a human touch.

Yeah, I know I didn't come across too well back there either. I sometimes get mad when dead-hand Low Numbers blank me. There's too much effort in these things to put up with their peremptory dismissal as some kind of personal agenda.

The first idea (two Entries, a straight for the EG and a romance for AWW) I've tried - Babbacombe Lee. If you're interested, the two Entries are at A3000952 and A2902600. Jimster wouldn't cross-link from the EG one, though - not even when the other was UG-picked, making it non-editable. I think that was a really bad decision. IMO, the separation of the EG and the UG defiles h2g2 and constrains our community's development, which is why I used the word you objected to before.

The second idea is nearly there already - John Hand himself is italicised and distinct, but Hand Jnr isn't. That's another restriction of EG-convention, the shortage of allowable fonts/faces to do different voices. Another of my EG-Entries (A1286228) was originally written in three voices distinguished that way, but was doctored in sub-editing.

Thanks for the suggestions, though. I guess I'll keep trying different permutations.

See you around
Pin

Not using different fonts and suchlike to distinguish different voices isn't just an EG restriction... it's common in most forms of writing.
Italics, in my experience, only tend to be used for internal monologue or when the character is a ghost.