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

Yeah. It's me who's the aggressive one, of course. Jodan is a total pussycat. In fact I'm a bit surprised just how relatively combative he's feeling just at the moment.

Anyway, sorry if I p*ssed you off. Condescension not intended. And I don't think we need an Edited Guide without rules, not this week anyhow

The Guidelines aren't the real problem. They cut enough slack. The most serious problem is the way they're interpreted, and the attitude of a small but significant minority of Researchers, who can be nasty pieces of work.

Takes one to know one, I guess.

We probably differ about how to deal with those sorts, and I'm in a minority of one from past experience. Trouble is, the line between diplomacy and appeasement is quite narrow too.

Yeah, I understand what you mean now, Pin. If I read it with a different tone in mind, I see that the ire wasn't directed specifically at me

I think it's been an interesting side-effect of my group that quite a few 'lapsed' writers have been encouraged back. I know of a couple who are working on Entries at the moment. See, I think that it wouldn't work if it just got those already active in PR to do more; we'd just get more of the same. Quite a few people have been tempted back, seeing writing as a key part of h2g2 again, and most have said that they have been intimidated by PR or haven't been sure what 'voice' to take. Of course, the 'voice' that is suitable for the EG is your own; anything else is against its whole ethos. So if these disaffected people get back in there, write and comment, gain confidence, then you're going to get a whole new range of diverse voices and healthy discussion, and get the passionate people to outweigh the pedants. This is why I think it's crucial to follow up on this wave of enthusiasm by taking an interest in their Entries; you're not going to get that as long as they think PR is for other people. Its theirs as much as it is mine and yours; they just don't realise it yet. And without the likes of us encouraging them, they never will.

Steady on, Rich. You're turning into a sheep

The big frustration for me is that I'm toxic these days. I'm wary of lending my support to causes, because it seems enough in itself to encourage the opposition of the harpies.

There are a couple of Entries in PR right now that will set precedents if they go through, so I guess you might be right about gentle pressure. Still, what could be gentler than PROD? Sweet reason was a failing strategy last time.

All that's changed since then is the acceleration of decline (and, perhaps critically, the disappearance of Charlotte<fingerscrossedsmiley&gt. Even if your whole reasonable thesis is to prevail, it must nonetheless hinge on the wider community's acceptance that selfish and entrenched minority views are harming h2g2. The best possible outcome will therefore still hurt some of the low-numbers deeply, and their considerable capacity for self-pity will ensure that the end is ugly. Don't let's kid ourselves that everyone will come around and make upin a warm fuzzy glow. There are going to be losers and histrionics however this plays out.

Yeah, the attitude in interpreting the guidelines is crucial. That's one of my biggest goals - to change minds and attitudes. When they ask me what I'm after, I have a bit of trouble, because I really want to say 'I'm trying to make you see something that I see, I'm trying to change minds!' but I think that I would get in trouble for brainwashing then

"Jodan is a total pussycat. In fact I'm a bit surprised just how relatively combative he's feeling just at the moment."

Really? I thought I was being uncharacteristically gentle throughout this entire process. It's required restraint in places.

Turning into a sheep? Well, perhaps. I think I've been fairly consistent in my views, but perhaps I have mellowed a little in time. I've always had an open mind, though - I've never seen anyone who wants to work for the Guide rather than themselves as 'toxic', and I've always seen you guys in that vein.

I've just submitted A29473473 to PR. It's nothing revolutionary and you probably think me a little daft for mentioning it, but it was great to write something fun on the spur of the moment and find that words sort of flowed. There's even a bit of a made up story at the start and the end, because it was a much friendlier way of going into and out of the Entry than the rather lumpy bit I started off with. I feel quite pleased with it, because it's light and bright and - thinking about your 'Soul of the Guide', J - the sort of Entry I expected to read when I got here.

Perhaps more seriously, I was thinking about A27975153 as well. The background really is that since I've joined, I've always done a considerable amount of research for h2g2 Entries while on holiday - my partner gets a little infuriated by me picking up pointless bits and bobs to help with writing when I get home - and I do like that style. I know it looks fairly standard, but I do put a lot of work into those Entries, even the local ones. I'm a failed travel writer in spirit It's a *little* worrying that part of me is wondering how that Entry would sound as a narrative. I wonder how it would sound to describe the end of the Moors as Boabdil might've seen it, for example. Most of the Alhambra's history is fairly vague and there wouldn't be enough solid characters to write the whole Entry from that viewpoint, but I've thought about it. I'm not going to do anything just for the sake of it, but I might see if I can find more appropriate subject matter for something similar.

I see you've also been thinking about the bird entry that was in PR briefly. I hope he takes you up on the offer.

Y'know, when I wrote the Ashtabula entry, it was the first time I had really gotten quite that deeply into such a specific event. I've written entries about battles and wars, disease and massacre, but it's kind of strange. When I got into a slightly more narrative format for Ashtabula, I learned not just about the events of the disaster, but about the nature of disaster itself. I've always sort of accepted it as a maxim that you don't really know something until you're able to successfully explain it to someone else. If I had been researching a conventional entry on the disaster, I would have read the same sources probably, but since I wouldn't have been attempting to explain the personal, narrative aspect much if at all, I wouldn't have spent much time thinking about that end of things.

I don't know if that made sense... I think the Ashtabula entry is a bit rough around the edges in places and is not quite as effective at conveying the story as an entry by a more polished writer (such as Pin) would be... but it's really encouraged me to continue experimenting with that style. This is all a long way of saying, you definitely should take the time to experiment with something narrative in the future. Not necessarily the Alhambra, if that doesn't work for you. You'll know it when you find it, I imagine.

Jordan

PS- Congrats on getting on the road to becoming a scout again. Lots of new scouts all the sudden. It's great.

Ah! Now we're getting onto the real stuff.

You're both talking about the fundamental proposition of the Guide now. It's a combination of two things that have to feed off each other for the whole thing to work. One is the fulfilment of the writer, and the other is the stimulation of the reader.

The writer's fulfilment is different for everyone, and that's virtuous too because it promotes variety. Some people will tend to themes and others to styles. Some will pursue refinement and improvement and some will value change and flux. Every way is right, provided that the urge is fuelled.

And the reader's stimulation is different too, in very much the same ways. Some want light and effervescent pieces, others want work with shades and deeper meaning. Some want answers and others want to be set questions. Some want to be enthused and others want to be soothed. Any of these needs might change from one day to the next.

Scrabble is . Well, no, it isn't, but it's a fine example of an Entry-type that succeeds and is very hootoo-distinctive. Ashtabula is well by me, though I was beginning to suspect mine was a minority view. The pieces are radically different, most strikingly in that one is gentle and tangential and the other is powerful and comes straight at you.

There is a similarity, though. Neither is fundamentally a factual piece. Rich's doesn't really tell you how to find that elusive letter-combination and Jodan's wouldn't help a board of enquiry. Both have lots of fact and the full measure of sincerity, but they aren't ABOUT the facts they contain. They aren't actually worth reading for factual reference, but they work at the level of feelings about things. They are about people.

Now, if you'll permit me a sweeping generalisation: we are a community of two kinds. Some of us are quite socially-articulate in a nerdy sort of way. We're talented and assured. We write and review with confidence, and (I'm going to have to use the e-word) elan. Others are awkward, repressed, underachieving in spite of intelligence, crushed in varying degrees by RL and out to redeem themselves (consciously or otherwise) through the one chance of influence and unearned respect that h2g2 confers. Their writing is dead and their crit deader. They cling to the letter of the Guidelines, because they can never receive the real spirit of h2g2.

Note the "we" and "they". This is of course a horribly oversimplified view of it all, cynically put, but I'm convinced nonetheless that this is the core issue. This is what we're striving to overcome.

The key piece is neither of yours. There's an Entry in PR right now that really is a mould-breaker, I think. It's just brilliant in two ways, both as a piece of writing and as a change-agent. The time for lauding the writer will come, if it clears the PR hurdle. I'm hoping, just hoping...

With apologies for barging in, but it's sort of related. I don't know you well enough for this Skankyrich, but who cares,
for Niagara Birds.

I've only skimmed this thread and you've enough to deal with those two so I just want to say it was my fault no UGers were around to meet the entry - langsandy surprised me being that quick off the mark. By the time I saw it there were three PR comments, and neither Pin nor Trin got the email I sent the UGeds group in time. From memory, the entry was withdrawn before h5ringer's post. Which was why I asked langsandy to go back and check the thread.

I considered doing as I did with Ten SA Trees, and decided against. I found it difficult changing someone else's writing with that much more EG-norm entry. And with someone I knew better. This, where I truly wouldn't want to change anything would have been much harder.

Oh ... I've edited out some comments on the actual reviews because I wouldn't want a discussion on that centred on this entry... but I've just got to say one general point. It is general. I've been getting out of the AWW into PR a bit this last couple of weeks.

If the first, essential, test of a piece is it _must_ grab, keep and enthuse in some way, a reader, then to anyone unfamiliar with PR a review impling it hasn't been read, or only part read, or skim read or says nothing about content or gives no indication of a reaction, says 'fail'. Unless EG status is all the writer of it wants, I see no getting away from that.

Actually, I'm not sure that's limited to just those unfamiliar with PR. In fact ... I'll say it's not.

Sorry, I'll be off. Just thanks, Skankyrich. I'm just too close to this and don't carry any weight in PR, to have done it myself.

PS Pin left out an important third group of reviewers. The ones learning. I count myself as one.

PR commenting goes in interesting cycles - you see a strong voice step out and take a particular line, then you see a whole set of new reviewers following that line.


PPS I think Niagara Birds might be my indicator species.

Really going now.
Waz

Stick around, Waz - you're very welcome

You'll have to excuse me, though, chaps - I'm in the middle of a weekend, so I'm relying to personal posts as and when I can

I'm still looking for that Entry Pin mentioned...

What entry, Jules?

I haven't done a Vice's Advice column in in a while... maybe next week. Folks will start forgetting I'm second in line to the throne

'There's an Entry in PR right now that really is a mould-breaker, I think. It's just brilliant in two ways, both as a piece of writing and as a change-agent. The time for lauding the writer will come, if it clears the PR hurdle. I'm hoping, just hoping...'

This one.

I liked the old title

I've got my latest uni project with the Sub at the moment, and I'm quite excited about seeing it finished. Here it is as it stands: A27731720

The reason I'm excited about it that I tried to write it in a different way; nothing radical, but I wanted to make it part-travelogue and part-campfire story, fresh and vibrant. I think I've pretty much got it as I wanted it. A - possibly *the* - big reason for that is Leo's input. from the start, she's critiqued me quite heavily, and taken a lot of time to pull it apart and encourage me to put it back together in a more interesting way. It's taken a long time, but I've learned a lot from writing it, and I'm much happier with it as it is now than I was with the first drafts.

I don't think that happens often enough. I think the focus of PR is to get Entries 'into shape' for the Front Page, and I find that dissatisfying. I want to keep challenging myself and make my writing as good as it can possibly be, so that my Entries are interesting to research and read. I'm not up there with you guys, but I'm working on what I do to push back what I do. Sometimes it's the style I'm writing in, sometimes it's the challenge of writing about a subject I know little about. I think PR does a good job in the latter case, because there's always someone who knows enough to fill the gaps in one's knowledge, but in terms of how I approach a subject or how I write reviewers don't tend to give much advice.

And I think that's understandable; there are only so many reviewers, and I wouldn't expect to take all of everyone's time when, as far as getting Entries into the EG goes, the job is done. Without being presumptive about my writing, there are people there who need more detailed commenting.

As I hinted on the Researchers' Group earlier, I think I'd write more - and enjoy it more - if we had a group whose main purpose was to improve people as writers. There may be one out there already, but if there is I haven't found it.

I see a place where any contributors focus purely on writing. It doesn't matter if the ultimate destination for the piece is the EG, UG, Post or just floating around in the unedited guide. People read and help the writer to improve it. When the writer is happy, they can do what they like with it. There's no member list, either; as it has been noted above, personalities presume agendas, and the loose group has no agenda. Anyone can hop in and contribute, or just lurk, or ask for advice themselves. There is a presumption and tacit acceptance that no writer is perfect, and that everyone is capable of improvement. It's a vibrant place for debate and discussion, where there is no perceived elitism, where advice is freely given and received, where ideas are shared.

Could it happen?

Yeah. I've recently had a similar experience, with Pin here. I'm writing an entry on a particular moment in the Civil War, a famous charge, and I asked him to take a look at it. He provided some very valuable critique, so much so that I've spent the last week or two rebuilding it from the ground up. I believe there's one paragraph left from the original. It's been a good experience, even though I may never finish it.

I think your vision could be realized. It could happen. I think that there would have to be some very basic rules - not to take things personally, to direct criticism at the work and never at the author. I don't think participation would be very high at first, and so (while there may be no perceived elitism in the group itself) the participants would probably be seen as elitist by rank-and-file Peers. But that's inevitable.

What's funny is that your second-to-last paragraph describes what a Peer Review *should* be, but perhaps never can be. It's a great vision though. Inspiring, even. In PR, this sort of critique of an entry's substance, rather than its errors, is not widely expected. I don't know why exactly. Maybe we feel it's impolite to do so unless specifically prompted by the author. In the AWW, which I still lurk around occasionally, there's no such hesitation. Having a group with a different focus from PR could be valuable. A sort of Peer Review, Only Different

In fact, I would bet that if such an idea is announced, someone would ask, "Isn't that what the EGWW/PR/AWW is for?" But thinking about it, I'm almost certain that an actual writing workshop would have to be researcher-led in order to succeed. Because we can decide our own priorities, and guidelines.

And of course, I think you're just the man to start such a group.

Substantial agreement with both your posts.

It could happen, though coaching writers doesn't work terribly well on line in my experience. I belong to loose groups, meeting in pubs and public libraries (rooms off, where they let you shout). They're not elitist, but you can somehow work face-to-face with the less gifted. Here and in other internet fora I've tried, it only really works with those who need tweaks rather than wholesale reconstruction. Who wants to write an essay to improve a few lines of doggerel?

I think I'm an elitist anyhow. I tend to have to be excited by the possibilities of a piece before I can give much.

The key, you know, is variety. There's no right style, only a wrong style. The wrong style is the style of the last thing you wrote. That's one of the reasons why the EG is almost calculated to put off the strongest writers. They should give you a gold badge for your first Edited Entry, change it to silver if you do it again, reduce it to bronze if you still haven't got the message by a third and take even that away from persistent offenders.

There are loads of people here who'd never get this idea. The number of high-class writers on the site is under twenty, I'd say. The number who might step up is probably no more than the same again. If we do start, the sceptics and gainsayers will be less of a problem than the would-be participants who don't really cut it.

Crit is crit after all. I've done the UG QA job since Ben went to lunch. Believe me, even some of the really good writers here can't take it when you point out how their efforts are imperfect.

'Peer Review, Only Different', eh? I like the sound of that...



Oops, there I go again. Where was I?

I think it would be important to have a focus that is clearly different from the other fora. That's why I'd be keen to make it 'non-partisan'; not worrying about whether the results went to any part of the Guide in particular, but just encouraging writers. I wouldn't want to get into 'well, you could make it suitable for PR by doing this...'. Writing Guidelines would be for other people to worry about. I think if it embraced every type of writing - EG-type Entries, poetry, narratives, you name it - it would be useful, and you'd get a range of perspectives. It could be a lot of fun. But I think it would have to be very pure and have a simple aim, to improve writing, for it to add something to the site rather than just duplicating something that already exists elsewhere.

I think you've hit on one of my worries there, that I'd set something up and there'd just be a couple of us sat around in smoking jackets looking pompous. Would people use it? Would people direct others to it? I look at my Friends List and I see about half a dozen names that I think would want to be involved. That's a start. But it would be good to have a couple of ideas together in advance, something that people could get their teeth into straight away, to show how it might work.

And I think I can counter the 'isn't that what x is for?' We have discussion groups for PR and for Sub-editors where people can debate how various parts of the site work. We can talk about how articles are submitted and reviewed and edited, but we don't really have anywhere where we can talk about the actual writing. That's a bit of a hole in a site for would-be writers, isn't it?

The EGWW is seen as being for, and is used primarily by, new Researchers and people who aren't quite sure if what they've written is PRable. That's totally different. That's writing for an end rather than for the writing's sake. The only forum that we have that could feasibly do the job never will, because its end purpose isn't to make people better writers. It's to prep articles for PR, and it doesn't do a very good job of that.

It's late, Pin, and I've just caught your post. What I would say, though, is that those twenty people would make a damn vibrant group. Their output would be inspiring, and if they were all writing regularly - sorry, there I go again - the FP would be essential reading every day.

If you have any suggestions for a name for this, by the way (something like the Writers' Lounge would've been nice, but it's gone) let me know. With the Post summer break, I have August almost free...

It's been a while, but suddenly I'm excited about the site again

A name? How about The Stretcher?

Y'know, if even a quarter of those 20 were involved in some way with a writing group, (as well as some of the non-20 like myself who are just there to learn) then who's to say we won't retain or attract other, good writers?

Would people use it? Probably. That's not my main concern. My worry is that even if people used it early on, that it would fizzle out over time. It always seems to happen. Whatever we can do to make it rewarding to participate, rather than a chore, will be very worthwhile.

Your explanation as to why it's different from the existing forums holds up. Which is why I think you should be the face of it. I know my reply would almost certainly be, "It's different because it's different, and if you don't like it feel free to bore yourself to death in PR."

One question. What's the overall goal? Are we looking to improve ourselves, or the content of h2g2? Is our goal to make the FP essential reading every day, or to hone our own skills?

The Stretcher is pretty good. I was going to suggest Talespin.

Does it need an overall goal? Won't everyone's be different in this group? This is just One Floor Below Enlightenment, remember.

Now there's a pretentious title.