Hey! It looks like you're new here. You might want to check out the introduction.
Wait, was that the red pill? I meant the blue pill. Damn color-blindness.
Anon Y Mous, how did you organize a writeoff? I don't see any menu options for doing that.
What do "Writing" and "Final" mean? What are people supposed to do during the "Final" period?
Yet again, I don't get the email notification until AFTER the writing is over.
Roger, I've asked over and over again for longer writing times, and I don't understand why you're still giving us just one day to write. It doesn't make any sense. Not everybody wants to do nothing but sloppy speedfics. And it isn't even possible to participate, since your software doesn't send out the email until hours after the contest has started! It should send it a week in advance to make it even possible for me to schedule an entire day just for writing. (Which I won't do anyway, since I'm not interested in speed-writing shitfics.)
Roger, I've asked over and over again for longer writing times, and I don't understand why you're still giving us just one day to write. It doesn't make any sense. Not everybody wants to do nothing but sloppy speedfics. And it isn't even possible to participate, since your software doesn't send out the email until hours after the contest has started! It should send it a week in advance to make it even possible for me to schedule an entire day just for writing. (Which I won't do anyway, since I'm not interested in speed-writing shitfics.)
Wait, does the timeline mean that writing is over? There was just one day for writing? WTF?
Roger, please change this. It's insulting to writers to allow 1 day to write a story and 5 days to draw a picture.
Roger, please change this. It's insulting to writers to allow 1 day to write a story and 5 days to draw a picture.
Could someone please explain in detail how fic2pic works?
I have no interest in fic2pic or pic2fic. Roger, why do we never have just plain writing events anymore? That's what the writeoff was about -- writing.
I have no interest in fic2pic or pic2fic. Roger, why do we never have just plain writing events anymore? That's what the writeoff was about -- writing.
"I thought about the big black ocean of the south pole, how looking over it would be like looking into outer space." -- That's breathtaking.
I love 95% of this story. There are some little speedbumps in the first half, mostly the result of beginning in media res and relying on the reader figure out what new references mean. This can go wrong for various reasons:
- throwing out too many different tidbits in the same paragraph, so that the reader runs into a new one before figuring out the previous one
- introducing mystery references in a context in which they're ambiguous
- saying something that's unexpected enough to make the reader think it's another in-media-res puzzle to work out, when it isn't
- relying on clues that aren't given until later in the story, so the reader has to keep a large inventory of loose ends. My blog post "Keeping all the puzzle pieces in play" is about not blowing the stack of the reader's short-term memory, which can only track about 4 things at a time, including everything from trivial but highlighted details to major plot questions. I think this story blows that stack, with questions the story raises that aren't really important to where it's going, like "Is the speaker a man? Where does he/she work? Is he/she flirting with her? Why does he serve customers but have a computer monitor? What is Joann's stature in town? What's a tech bar?"
For instance:
"Customers" triggers a search for what the speaker's job is. Because we're in a place of business (some restaurant), that raises itself as a candidate, and leads to reviewing the text to see if they might both be employees there, or the speaker might for some reason be eating with a customer. Then it leads to wondering about what kind of clients would ask about Joann and why. Is she famous in town?
Later, when I learn they work together, I was puzzled as to how he could get questions all the time asking about her, without her knowing, and had to reread part of the story to make sure I hadn't mis-read something.
"Stature" is such an odd word to use here that it sent me down a maze of possibilities for what it might mean. Are we in a scifi world where the town keeps track of some official measure of each person's stature? Is she unusually tall? Is she running for political office?
I still don't know where he? she? works. If I knew (as I learn later) that he works at a tech bar (whatever that is), it might be easy to infer that "the monitor" is a computer monitor, on which he could display a Wikipedia page. But I initially imagined "the monitor" as being one of the kinds of monitors people who work at a counter are likely to have: a security monitor, a monitor attached to a cash register, a video monitor of some other type. I was more puzzled by this line than I feel like I should have been, possibly because I was still trying to figure out where he worked, who Joann was, what was special about her, and why people wanted to know about her "stature".
My first guess was that "friend" was in quotes because the friend was actually the narrator himself (herself?), and Joann was really saying "you need to stop flirting with me." I re-read several paragraphs trying to find a way to make that work.
Wait, they're eating lunch together. That must mean he works at the restaurant. That makes me go back and re-read the story again to see what I missed. But surely he couldn't show a customer a Wikipedia page at a restaurant. So now I'm puzzled over whether "friend" means him or someone else, whether he works at the restaurant, and whether "spin the monitor around" does in fact refer to a cash register monitor, so there's something I'm misunderstanding about Wikipedia, Joan's stature, etc. There are so many unresolved and inter-dependent references at this point that I've forgotten half of them and the whole story is in a state of indeterminacy. I no longer know what I'm reading or what all the possible interpretations are.
This really confused me. Is Mr. Watts an ornithologist now because the narrator has been editing Wikipedia articles about ornithology in Mr. Watts' name? (Probably yes.) If so, why, since that wasn't the point of the task? If the references may as well be real, does that mean they're not real? Is the narrator just making stuff up to gain Wikipedia cred? (Probably not.)
Whoa, now she's flirting back. Why? What does this mean? Where is the speaker going to take this? I was still trying to figure this out when the story ran out.
So, they must be on a videophone, right? But he answered the phone by picking it up, and you can't answer a call on any device that makes videophone calls by picking it up. What's going on? Is this science fiction?
That's all a swarm of little, niggling, easy-to-fix problems that are individually trivial, but which ganged up on me all at once because each in media res mystery depends on me solving most of the others.
There's an entirely different, much bigger problem at the end: Is it an ending?
I think what you've got contains the "essence" of the ending--the narrator's ambiguous feelings about this strange and compelling project, and Mr. Watts' desire to cheat death just a little. But the story doesn't bring it into focus, and I have no idea what the last 2 lines mean:
More importantly, this story is too much like real life. Too many loose ends; too little focus. You can't stick the landing at the end when you've left unresolved questions which the reader cares about more than he cares about your ending. This story drew me in using the relationship between mystery-narrator and Joan as its hook. The ending throws all that away. Why did the story jerk me around like that? I don't care about you seeing him in a still moment, or not throwing anything onto him, whatever that means. I want to know about Joan and the narrator! I want to know if and when Mr. Watts died, whether he ever found out that the Wikipedia page went live, what his reaction was, and whether it was enough in the end. What I don't care about is what the narrator feels at the end, because the story made me care about all those other things instead.
I love 95% of this story. There are some little speedbumps in the first half, mostly the result of beginning in media res and relying on the reader figure out what new references mean. This can go wrong for various reasons:
- throwing out too many different tidbits in the same paragraph, so that the reader runs into a new one before figuring out the previous one
- introducing mystery references in a context in which they're ambiguous
- saying something that's unexpected enough to make the reader think it's another in-media-res puzzle to work out, when it isn't
- relying on clues that aren't given until later in the story, so the reader has to keep a large inventory of loose ends. My blog post "Keeping all the puzzle pieces in play" is about not blowing the stack of the reader's short-term memory, which can only track about 4 things at a time, including everything from trivial but highlighted details to major plot questions. I think this story blows that stack, with questions the story raises that aren't really important to where it's going, like "Is the speaker a man? Where does he/she work? Is he/she flirting with her? Why does he serve customers but have a computer monitor? What is Joann's stature in town? What's a tech bar?"
For instance:
“I should say,” I went on, “that it would be very convenient for customers. What if they want to know more about you? I get clients all the time who come in and ask, ‘Who is that Joann, that marvelous woman?’”
"Customers" triggers a search for what the speaker's job is. Because we're in a place of business (some restaurant), that raises itself as a candidate, and leads to reviewing the text to see if they might both be employees there, or the speaker might for some reason be eating with a customer. Then it leads to wondering about what kind of clients would ask about Joann and why. Is she famous in town?
Later, when I learn they work together, I was puzzled as to how he could get questions all the time asking about her, without her knowing, and had to reread part of the story to make sure I hadn't mis-read something.
If someone wanted to know about your stature in town
"Stature" is such an odd word to use here that it sent me down a maze of possibilities for what it might mean. Are we in a scifi world where the town keeps track of some official measure of each person's stature? Is she unusually tall? Is she running for political office?
I could simply spin the monitor around and save myself the trouble
I still don't know where he? she? works. If I knew (as I learn later) that he works at a tech bar (whatever that is), it might be easy to infer that "the monitor" is a computer monitor, on which he could display a Wikipedia page. But I initially imagined "the monitor" as being one of the kinds of monitors people who work at a counter are likely to have: a security monitor, a monitor attached to a cash register, a video monitor of some other type. I was more puzzled by this line than I feel like I should have been, possibly because I was still trying to figure out where he worked, who Joann was, what was special about her, and why people wanted to know about her "stature".
Your ‘friend’ needs to know when to stop.
My first guess was that "friend" was in quotes because the friend was actually the narrator himself (herself?), and Joann was really saying "you need to stop flirting with me." I re-read several paragraphs trying to find a way to make that work.
Coming in here, bugging you to do his projects.
Wait, they're eating lunch together. That must mean he works at the restaurant. That makes me go back and re-read the story again to see what I missed. But surely he couldn't show a customer a Wikipedia page at a restaurant. So now I'm puzzled over whether "friend" means him or someone else, whether he works at the restaurant, and whether "spin the monitor around" does in fact refer to a cash register monitor, so there's something I'm misunderstanding about Wikipedia, Joan's stature, etc. There are so many unresolved and inter-dependent references at this point that I've forgotten half of them and the whole story is in a state of indeterminacy. I no longer know what I'm reading or what all the possible interpretations are.
You like archaeology, right? Well now, you’re an archaeologist. And an ornithologist. And a biographer of Henry Fielding. It’s really interesting stuff. And they’re real references, they may as well be, right?
This really confused me. Is Mr. Watts an ornithologist now because the narrator has been editing Wikipedia articles about ornithology in Mr. Watts' name? (Probably yes.) If so, why, since that wasn't the point of the task? If the references may as well be real, does that mean they're not real? Is the narrator just making stuff up to gain Wikipedia cred? (Probably not.)
She burst into a laugh put her hand on my bicep.
Whoa, now she's flirting back. Why? What does this mean? Where is the speaker going to take this? I was still trying to figure this out when the story ran out.
He picked up the phone with, “Mhm.” When he recognized me he saluted me and said, “I’m not going to come in today.
So, they must be on a videophone, right? But he answered the phone by picking it up, and you can't answer a call on any device that makes videophone calls by picking it up. What's going on? Is this science fiction?
That's all a swarm of little, niggling, easy-to-fix problems that are individually trivial, but which ganged up on me all at once because each in media res mystery depends on me solving most of the others.
There's an entirely different, much bigger problem at the end: Is it an ending?
I think what you've got contains the "essence" of the ending--the narrator's ambiguous feelings about this strange and compelling project, and Mr. Watts' desire to cheat death just a little. But the story doesn't bring it into focus, and I have no idea what the last 2 lines mean:
I see him in a still moment, without throwing anything onto him. It’s hard to be serious about these things sometimes.
More importantly, this story is too much like real life. Too many loose ends; too little focus. You can't stick the landing at the end when you've left unresolved questions which the reader cares about more than he cares about your ending. This story drew me in using the relationship between mystery-narrator and Joan as its hook. The ending throws all that away. Why did the story jerk me around like that? I don't care about you seeing him in a still moment, or not throwing anything onto him, whatever that means. I want to know about Joan and the narrator! I want to know if and when Mr. Watts died, whether he ever found out that the Wikipedia page went live, what his reaction was, and whether it was enough in the end. What I don't care about is what the narrator feels at the end, because the story made me care about all those other things instead.
I thought "15 Mar" meant submissions were due at the end of March 15, but submissions are already closed. Damn.
Is there any way of finding out who's participating? Or of contacting RogerDodger, who hasn't answered email or PMs in months?
>>georg Does writeoff.me send people notifications when someone replies to a comment they made 2 years ago?
I read all the way thru and was not bored once. That's a rare accomplishment for a children's story. I read quite a few children's picture books in the course of trying to write one myself, and the vast majority of them are depressingly dull, even with brightly colored pictures, and I think would have been dull to me as a 4-year old. There are quite a few clever lines and callbacks in this short story.
I read all the way thru and was not bored once. That's a rare accomplishment for a children's story. I read quite a few children's picture books in the course of trying to write one myself, and the vast majority of them are depressingly dull, even with brightly colored pictures, and I think would have been dull to me as a 4-year old. There are quite a few clever lines and callbacks in this short story.
>>Admiral_Biscuit This is a great story, biscuit, and I agree with everything >>TitaniumDragon and >>Cold in Gardez said.
Post by
Bad Horse
, deleted
>>Trick_Question
How would you change it?
>>georg AAAAH! AAAARGH! MY BRAAAIIN!
Sorry, did you say something?
You crapped on a gem. I'm very disappointed.
How would you change it?
>>georg AAAAH! AAAARGH! MY BRAAAIIN!
Sorry, did you say something?
>>FanOfMostEverything I didn't check the mythos carefully. I looked at a couple of Wiki pages, grabbed some names, and said, "Eh, nobody but FOME will know the difference."
>>Astrarian
That was the big question about this piece: whether that transition would work. Some people said it did; more said it didn't. I don't know whether the claim that you can't do a transition like that is good advice, or dogma on a par with saying that a story must be a single action in a single place on a single day, as the neo-classicists did.
Readers, how do you know whether you're reacting to the story not working right, or to the story not matching your theories about how a story is supposed to work?
>>Not_A_Hat
You're correct. My abominations are OOC.
>>Astrarian
It does feel to me like the tone changes from comedic to serious in a bit of a jarring manner, though.
That was the big question about this piece: whether that transition would work. Some people said it did; more said it didn't. I don't know whether the claim that you can't do a transition like that is good advice, or dogma on a par with saying that a story must be a single action in a single place on a single day, as the neo-classicists did.
Readers, how do you know whether you're reacting to the story not working right, or to the story not matching your theories about how a story is supposed to work?
>>Not_A_Hat
Oh, and although I haven't read much Lovecraft, I was under the impression that the Lovecraftian abominations aren't really out to defile things. Aren't they mostly just inscrutable and dangerous to be around or something?
You're correct. My abominations are OOC.
>>Not_A_Hat
I was thinking it = love poetry, but I see I never said that. :| So I edited my comment.
More the latter. The history of criticism is full of people saying "You're all wrong, and now I shall tell you what a proper poem / story is!" There are certain story types and poem types that have appealed to certain personality types across history, so giving my own opinion on what is proper poetry would be like telling people who are't like me that they have the wrong personality type.
(That would be true, of course, but rude.)
What do you mean by the word 'it' in this context? Did poetry better? Did criticism better?
I was thinking it = love poetry, but I see I never said that. :| So I edited my comment.
I'm also curious about your indecision here. Are you unwilling to give a personal answer because you haven't formed one, or because you don't believe personal answers are worth giving in this context?
More the latter. The history of criticism is full of people saying "You're all wrong, and now I shall tell you what a proper poem / story is!" There are certain story types and poem types that have appealed to certain personality types across history, so giving my own opinion on what is proper poetry would be like telling people who are't like me that they have the wrong personality type.
(That would be true, of course, but rude.)
Great story. Agree with >>Morning Sun that Celestia shouldn't actually be the fall gal, although IMHO Celestia was joking. Both seem in-character to me. The writing is great. Celestia's final line is funny and practical, and also undercuts everything Twilight said by suggesting she's just going thru a phase (those unsettled aught years).
... but how did you know about my enthusiasm for bicycles?
... but how did you know about my enthusiasm for bicycles?
>>Not_A_Hat First, horizon and Baal Bunny know more about poetry than I do.
Second,
I wrote about the different standards for stories & poetry in "Completeness in stories, poems, & songs".
Is evoking a single emotion enough for a poem? Yes, if it really evokes it, rather than just invoking it. I don't base this on argument, but on noting what people like and what I like in poems and songs.
Is evoking a single emotion superior to the contrasting emotions an arc of some sort can evoke? I don't think that has an answer. I can compare 2 instances, e.g., one story to one poem. I can't compare stories to poems in general because I can't (ever) sample the space of possible poems or possible stories in a sufficiently unbiased manner to do a statistical comparison. The terms "poem" and "story" aren't defined solidly enough to do so.
Another part of the issue is that I don't want to answer the question "What is it, in your opinion, that poetry should have in order to qualify as 'good'?" I would rather compare the consensuses of societies. My previous comment noted that, in the opinions of people of the 18th & 19th centuries, love poetry doesn't need to have an interesting story to be good. I think they preferred it to be completely conventional and predictable. I, personally, don't like that poetry, but I can't point to any extensive love poetry tradition that I think did it better.
The New Critics, circa 1930-1950, and particularly Cleanth Brooks, built a system for evaluating poetry. Use the term "New Critics" with a mental asterisk, because they weren't as unified as people say they were, and they didn't say most of the things people now say they did. But I can at least say that Cleanth Brooks thought the essential ingredient of poetry was tension between two contradictory beliefs or conclusions, and that poetry was the appropriate form for such subjects because it can conclude without resolving the tension, instead leaving the reader feeling convinced of both points of view simultaneously. Given this theory, the metaphysical poets and Robert Frost should perhaps be called the greatest poets.
The weakness of the New Critics was that they looked for tension in logical terms, and ignored whether the poem could move someone emotionally or not. So, for instance, Brooks loved Milton's L'Allegro and Il Penseroso because they have a dual logical structure, and overlooked how dreadfully stale, pretentious, and boring they are.
I can't give any specific answer other than that if you mark poetry down for not having things you're used to having in stories, also mark it up for having things you don't usually get in stories.
Second,
What is it, in your opinion, that poetry should have in order to qualify as 'good'? Is evoking a single emotion enough? Is evoking a single emotion superior to the contrasting emotions an arc of some sort can evoke? I tend to dismiss stories without arc as 'one-note' and 'flat'. But is this the superior choice for a poem, or simply not a consideration?
I wrote about the different standards for stories & poetry in "Completeness in stories, poems, & songs".
Is evoking a single emotion enough for a poem? Yes, if it really evokes it, rather than just invoking it. I don't base this on argument, but on noting what people like and what I like in poems and songs.
Is evoking a single emotion superior to the contrasting emotions an arc of some sort can evoke? I don't think that has an answer. I can compare 2 instances, e.g., one story to one poem. I can't compare stories to poems in general because I can't (ever) sample the space of possible poems or possible stories in a sufficiently unbiased manner to do a statistical comparison. The terms "poem" and "story" aren't defined solidly enough to do so.
Another part of the issue is that I don't want to answer the question "What is it, in your opinion, that poetry should have in order to qualify as 'good'?" I would rather compare the consensuses of societies. My previous comment noted that, in the opinions of people of the 18th & 19th centuries, love poetry doesn't need to have an interesting story to be good. I think they preferred it to be completely conventional and predictable. I, personally, don't like that poetry, but I can't point to any extensive love poetry tradition that I think did it better.
The New Critics, circa 1930-1950, and particularly Cleanth Brooks, built a system for evaluating poetry. Use the term "New Critics" with a mental asterisk, because they weren't as unified as people say they were, and they didn't say most of the things people now say they did. But I can at least say that Cleanth Brooks thought the essential ingredient of poetry was tension between two contradictory beliefs or conclusions, and that poetry was the appropriate form for such subjects because it can conclude without resolving the tension, instead leaving the reader feeling convinced of both points of view simultaneously. Given this theory, the metaphysical poets and Robert Frost should perhaps be called the greatest poets.
The weakness of the New Critics was that they looked for tension in logical terms, and ignored whether the poem could move someone emotionally or not. So, for instance, Brooks loved Milton's L'Allegro and Il Penseroso because they have a dual logical structure, and overlooked how dreadfully stale, pretentious, and boring they are.
I can't give any specific answer other than that if you mark poetry down for not having things you're used to having in stories, also mark it up for having things you don't usually get in stories.
Paging WIP